SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " expert " 3,935 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Health experts keep Summerfest attendees healthy
On top of staying hydrated and wearing sunscreen, Aurora Health Care encourages wearing comfortable shoes and clothing.
Taylor Launches New Bachelor's Degree in AI and Machine Learning
Taylor University is launching a Bachelor of Science in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, building on four decades of AI expertise.
Strength Training Could Be One of the Best Things You Do for Your Brain
A growing body of research suggests strength training can help preserve cognition and improve brain health as you age. Experts explain the best way to work strength training into your routine.
Small Creatures, Big Mission: NMHM Bugapalooza 2026 Connects Science and Military Readiness
Mosquitoes, ticks, flies, and pollinators drew a crowd at the National Museum of Health and Medicine's Bugapalooza on June 13. Nearly 400 visitors attended the annual event to explore the world of insects through hands-on activities, exhibits, and conversations with military and civilian experts.
I obsess over PCs for a living. Here are the 28 best Prime Day laptop and computer deals
Prime Day is officially into Day 4, and our computing expert found some great deals on laptops and computers you can get right now.
AI Assistant Tool QED Scores bioRxiv Preprint Quality
QED, an AI assistant tool, evaluates the originality and validity of bioRxiv preprints, assigning them QED Scores. Researchers report that its rankings often align with expert opinion.
Men’s Health Month reminds community members to catch up on overdue wellness visits
June is Men’s Health Month and experts are urging men not to ignore crucial preventative care.
Making Our Own Luck
We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.
Earthquakes Have Often Shaken Latin American Politics
How governments respond to natural disasters can shape their political trajectories, an expert writes.
What to know about early warnings for earthquakes
Many countries have systems to alert people seconds before shaking begins in an earthquake. Experts say even a slight warning provides critical time for protection.
Health systems must shift AI use from automation to transformation
While healthcare investments in AI are two to three times that of other industries, most providers focus AI's power on tackling administrative tasks. But AI's true value is in transforming care, explain experts at the HIMSS AI in Healthcare Forum.
How should European scientists respond to the US AI kill switch?
Earlier in June, Europe’s worst fears of technological dependence were confirmed when the White House ordered the AI firm Anthropic to stop non-US citizens using its leading models. This kill-switch moment crystalised anxieties in Brussels that the continent, lagging the US on the creation of leading-edge AI models, is now a technological of vassal of Washington. The shock has specific implications for European scientists and universities. Some governments are now worried that with AI being integrated into labs, Donald Trump now has his finger hovering over an off switch for European science. “Having restrictions on this tool, it can have an impact on our own research,” said France’s research minister, Philippe Baptiste, at the VivaTech conference in Paris on June 18.Baptiste, himself a former academic, said that colleagues in mathematics had recently warned him they were now cut off from leading-edge US models, risking their work. “This model is not available anymore now because of the US restriction, and for the first time this had an impact on mathematics,” a field where large language models (LLMs) are making a significant contribution, said Baptiste. So, should European scientists avoid relying on US models in the future? Or would this be a self-harming overreaction? And how is AI being used in science, anyway? What happened?On June 12, it emerged that Washington, citing cybersecurity concerns, had ordered Anthropic to stop non-US citizens using two models: Claude Mythos 5, and Claude Fable 5, a version of Mythos but with guardrails to prevent abuse. Anthropic said Washington’s concerns were overblown. But forced to follow the order, yet with no way to check who was using the models, the company suddenly shut down access for everyone, US citizens included. There’s still no agreement on how to restore broad access. But last week, Bloomberg reported that select US companies, and the US government, still had access to Mythos despite the ban, but the EU’s cybersecurity agency Enisa had been shut out. Class division of researchersIn the longer term, access outside the US should be restored, said Marcel Salathé, co-director of the AI centre at the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne (EPFL), because a permanent restriction would be financially ruinous to US AI firms. “Even Trump will eventually budge to economic pressure,” he said.However, US AI firms might end up operating rather like banks, doing due diligence on users of their leading-edge AI models, he went on.European scientists are unlikely to fall foul of such checks, he said. But having a Chinese postgraduate in their lab, or doing a type of research the US disapproved of, could potentially result in access being denied. “It will create a sort of class division of researchers,” he said. More than frontier modelsHowever, successfully deploying AI in science is about far more than just having access to leading LLMs such as Mythos.Instead, many science-specific tools, most famously Alphafold, which predicts protein folding structures, require “far less” computing power to train than frontier models, well within the capabilities of European supercomputers, according to a recent analysis by the Arq Foundation, a Brussel-based AI think tank. Instead, tools such as Alphafold are possible because certain fields, like protein folding, weather prediction or astronomy, have large, clean, standardised datasets that can be used to train predictive models. Rather than compute, “data is the central constraint for AI for science,” the report says. For example, a less powerful physics model trained on CERN’s data “will be more valuable than the best model without certain data,” said Bengüsu Özcan, author of the report. European advantage?Europe could therefore steal a march by using its scientific data and infrastructure to create models US digital giants cannot. “They might actually match or go even beyond what these big [US] companies are doing,” said Özcan.Indeed, some European start-ups hope to create automated testing labs to create the kind of standardised data that could speed up the discovery of new materials. Materials scientists say there’s currently too little data to train models. AI scientistsHowever, even if the bottleneck for AI in science is often data, rather than compute, being at the mercy of the US for LLM access could still become a problem for European scientists. A new class of “AI scientists” based on leading LLMs is also emerging, Özcan’s report says.Unlike domain-specific tools like Alphafold, these try to automate day-to-day scientific work, by providing an overarching tool that coordinates specific models to synthesise existing literature, generate hypotheses or run analysis of data. The problem for Europe, however, is that these tools are sometimes based on US leading models. Google Deepmind’s AI Co-Scientist, for example, is built on Google’s Gemini LLM. Systematic failureThese scientific automation tools are still in their early stages, and still exhibit “systematic failures on scientific tasks,” Özcan’s report says. One of the problems is that the messy, day-to-day process of scientific discovery is largely not documented, meaning LLMs don’t have a good source of data to learn how scientists actually work. Meanwhile, some tasks, such as literature synthesis, don’t typically require access to leading edge models.However, the performance of AI scientific assistants could improve as companies such as Google pour resources into developing them. Rely on US“Unfortunately, for scientific assistants, there is not much we can do right now except rely on US frontier AI,” said Antoine Bosselut, a natural language processing expert based at EPFL. Chinese-built open models, which can run on local computers, lessening the risk of a shutdown, are touted as one alternative to US dependence. There’s also Mistral, once seen as Europe’s main AI hope, but the Paris-based company has seen its recent models fall behind in performance. But the Chinese alternatives are generally not as capable as US frontier AI models, said Bosselut, unless paired with fiddly, custom tools that allows them to act as independent agents. “Most scientists do not have the time,” he said. Don’t jump ship yetAlthough the kill switch moment is seen a warning shot for European scientists, it doesn’t mean labs should abandon US AI tools immediately. “I do not think the right response is simply to abandon US-based models and systems under the banner of sovereignty or independence,” said Mattias Björnmalm, secretary general of the Cesaer university association. “That would be an overreaction.”Related articlesEuropean sovereignty in AI requires ‘ugly trade-offs,’ say experts Robotic lab start-up makes case for €500M EU-funded materials testing facilityAI in science: is it useful? Instead, European researchers need to ask themselves whether they’re becoming dependent on technology that could be turned off in Washington, said Özcan. “They might not see this today, but they should really start asking this question,” she said. European researchers need a plan B, said Salathé. “I would recommend to every researcher, very proactively explore alternatives.”Own toolsIn addition, Björnmalm and others want European research institutions to develop their own scientific AI tools.Instead of signing AI deals with US digital giants, European universities should be using this money to create their own models, which may end up being superior for research, said Sabine Leonelli, an expert on the use of AI in science at the Technical University of Munich. “Universities in Europe seem to be happy to sign commercial contracts with US companies on the assumption [their AI tools] are better,” she said. But US frontier LLMs are typically opaque, and have been developed without independent scientific input, she said. “This is not good enough for science.”Last year, Swiss researchers released Apertus, an LLM designed to be completely transparent, from its development methods to its training data. The idea is that this makes scientific tools built on top of the model far more reproducible than with closed, commercial alternatives.“Europe needs more of this: serious capacity-building that gives researchers, universities and companies credible options,” said Björnmalm.
The Heart-Healthy Way to Lift Weights, Explained by a Doctor
In TODAY.com’s Expert Tip of the Day, a sports medicine doctor reveals whether it’s better to use heavier weights with fewer reps or lighter weights with more reps for a healthy heart.
Prime Day 2026 LIVE: our home cinema experts' picks of the best OLED TV, Dolby Atmos soundbar, projector deals and more
We’re recommending the top savings, on and off Amazon, in real time
Meta's Zuckerberg enters the prediction market arena
Mark Zuckerberg is launching his next major project: a betting platform modeled after Polymarket. The prospects for success are good, alarming experts.
“Cats go wild for this mysterious sound”—why experts say it works every time - Futura-Sciences
The Secret Behind the Slow Blink Cats are famous for their independent streak, but behind that mysterious gaze is a much more complex reality. Our feline friends are constantly seeking ways to communicate with us, but we humans aren’t always the best at picking up their signals. Scientific research has...
The Trump administration has attacked science 574 times. Track each instance with this online tool
The Union of Concerned Scientists is aiming to visualize the scale of the president's anti-science actions, from censorship to the sidelining of experts.
How Colombia’s traditional midwives serve as lifelines to rural communities
Parts of Colombia are isolated, with no hospitals nearby. Experts say midwives can help bridge the healthcare gap.
Microsoft's claims over its quantum chip questioned in Nature article
The tech giant has consistently stood by its Majorana chip research despite scepticism from some experts in the field.
As Ebola cases surge above 1,000, experts say outbreak could be worst ever
Insufficient contact-tracing and the refusal of many residents to avoid contact with the bodies of loved ones killed by the Ebola virus are accelerating the epidemic.
Record profits, terrible service: something’s got to give for US consumers
Experts say consolidation and market power have left consumers paying more for less
The Wearable Data Your Doctor Actually Wants
Wearables can offer rough information about a person’s health, experts say, but only some metrics are medically useful.
The $50B rural health transformation fund is pushing many hospitals to shrink
To avoid losing funding, many states are pursuing proven cost-saving models, such as downsizing inpatient care, rather than novel, untested approaches, some experts say.
I’ve tracked Prime Day for 11 years. These 17 laptop and computer deals are actually worth it
Prime Day is officially here, and our computing expert found some great deals on laptops and computers you can get right now.
The science of justice
The newly established Center for Forensic Sciences in Georgia Southern University’s College of Science and Mathematics will make the university’s experts available to an expanded range of law enforcement agencies across the Southeast.
Top 35 Best Prime Day Gaming Deals That Our Shopping Experts Have Hand-Picked, Including Switch 2 and PS5 Games
There's a surprisingly healthy amount of video game deals up for grabs in the 2026 Prime Day sales, including some killer discounts for PS5, Switch, and even Xbox owners. (I promise I haven't forgotten you.)
Aspen Ideas: Health features four days of ‘big ideas’
Aspen Ideas: Health opened June 22 with remarks from experts, including two-minute big-idea summaries from seven health industry professionals. Since artificial intelligence is such an all-encompassing and rapidly expanding force, at least half of the big ideas revolved around AI.
Josh McBride
Amazon Prime Day is underway, and entertainment and lifestyle expert Josh McBride shared some standout deals to help shoppers save big.
More psychiatric beds alone won’t fix San Antonio’s mental health challenges, experts say
San Antonio’s mental health challenges are bigger than needing more inpatient psychiatric capacity, according to experts.
Appendix B: Classifying European political parties
Classifying parties as populist Although experts generally agree that populist political leaders or parties display high levels of anti-elitism, definitions of populism vary. We use three measures to classify parties as populist: anti-elite ratings from the 2024 Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES), the 2023 Populism and Political Parties Expert Survey (POPPA) and the 2023 PopuList. […]
Renowned Life Science Leader Dr. Gino Martini Joins KIFFIK Biomedical as Chief Scientific Officer
Dr. Martini brings extensive industry, government, and academic expertise to KIFFIK Biomedical, strengthening translational science capabilities as the company advances its K-EXP™ platform and expands access to interstitial fluid (ISF)
No. 1 Mistake People Make When Buying Walking Shoes That Harms Foot Health
In TODAY.com’s Expert Tip of the Day, a physical therapist reveals a common mistake people make when choosing walking shoes and how to fix it for better foot health.
I’m a Deals Expert, and These Are the Only Nintendo Switch 2 Discounts That Are Actually Worth Your Money During Amazon’s Massive Prime Day Sale
Our resident shopping experts have curated the 30 absolute best Nintendo Switch 2 console bundles, games, and accessory deals for Prime Day 2026.
I’ve tracked Prime Day for 11 years. These 7 laptop and computer deals are actually worth it
Prime Day is officially here, and our computing expert found some great deals on laptops and computers you can get right now.
Experts on history, politics reflect on U.S. 250th birthday milestone
As our nation’s celebration of its 250th birthday approaches, experts in history and political science at Virginia Tech can provide perspectives on how far the United States of America has advanced since its founding and the issues that will influence where it goes next.
A look at the science that's been lost on long COVID
Since President Trump took office, hundreds of experts advising on science and research issues have been dismissed. One committee was on long COVID, an issue that doctors are desperate for help with.
Scientists stumped by bird that “shouldn’t exist”—rare discovery shocks experts - Futura-Sciences
A Bird That Defies the Rulebook In a typically peaceful backyard in Texas, birdwatchers were caught off guard when an unfamiliar bird swooped onto the scene. It baffled observers: clearly neither a typical blue jay nor a full-fledged green jay. What was it? The answer would turn out to be...
The Best Mini PCs, According To PC Experts And Our Tech Editor
Mini PCs provide a powerful performance in a compact package. Here are our top picks for the best mini PCs, after deep research and speaking with computer experts.
'A smartphone-like user experience' – The Hammerhead Karoo has just hit its best price of the year in this Amazon Prime Day deal
At full price, the Karoo 3 impressed our expert tester with its brilliant touchscreen that made it our top choice for cycling navigation
Prime Day 2026 LIVE: all the top TV, soundbar and projector deals handpicked by our home cinema experts
Our experts are updating this page in real-time with all the best (and worst) Prime Day AV deals
Mobile health tops early RHTP funding trends
State rural health transformation programs aim to overcome high startup costs and allow rural providers to deliver complex care locally with remote ultrasound, RPM and other mobile health technologies, says one industry expert.
Commentary: Chicago budget includes abstract goals that don’t come with built-in accountability
City government's identity is getting lost in a growing list of expenses without a clear definition of success, writes a municipal finance expert.
Why Dan Levy wanted to do something very different from 'Schitt's Creek' for his next show
Dan Levy is all about grounding his latest TV comedy, 'Big Mistakes,' in reality, consulting with an expert in 'mafia-related stuff' for its storyline.
GTA 6 'Vampire' Ferris Wheel Sparks Tech Expert Investigation
When Rockstar announced GTA 6 pre-orders would kick off on June 25, it did so with a short, looping video posted to the official website that offered a fresh look at Vice City. It’s meant to be viewed as you scroll down, a cool piece of GTA 6 media that sets the tone for your experience on the website. But this is GTA 6, and so everything is analyzed to within an inch of its life.
FIU experts are available to speak on artificial intelligence and emerging technology
As AI continues to reshape industries and spark critical conversations around innovation, access, and technology, FIU researchers are available to offer expert insight.
5 Foods That Contain Both Protein and Fiber
It’s challenging to find the two nutrients in a single food, experts say. These categories offer a nice mix.
America’s data center backlash is bipartisan — can it stay that way?
As opposition mounts, some experts wonder how long AI infrastructure can steer clear of the partisanship that defines U.S. politics.
Former high-level health officials think out loud about HHS, FDA
More than 15 years after the National Academy of Medicine summoned a blue-ribbon panel to “reimagine” the Department of Health and Human Services for the 21st century, the cabinet-level operation has yet to make good on the experts’ overarching directive.
Zeiss Medical Technology Collaborates With Envision Health Technologies to Advance Glaucoma Care Using VR-Based Testing
JENA, Germany—Zeiss Medical Technology, a leader in medical optics and digital healthcare solutions, has announced a strategic collaboration with Envision Health Technologies, a digital eye health company founded by glaucoma surgeon Lama A. Al-Aswad, MD, MPH, CEO, to help advance glaucoma care through gamified virtual reality (VR) technology. The companies said this collaboration aims to firmly strengthen scientific and clinical credibility in VR-based visual function testing, supported by Zeiss’ long history of innovation in perimetry, and will bring together clinical expertise and software innovation to help advance clinically relevant, patient-centered technologies for modern glaucoma care.
Father’s Day brings attention to men’s health, self-care
As families celebrate fathers and father figures this weekend, experts say many men are still not prioritizing their own health.
Quality experts spark change for a ‘Day of Quality’
The healthcare industry is struggling, from shortages to high demands and burnout. However, one organization is paying it forward; helping community groups help the community.
We spent months finding the 4 best TVs that make streaming and gaming look great
Our tech experts spent weeks testing TVs to help you find the one you should buy next, and these are their four favorites.
Americans are paying thousands to flee states over politics — but experts say using specialized agencies is not worth it
Looking for help moving to another state for political reasons? There’s a real estate agency for that.
We Asked a Health Expert Why Vitamin D Deficiency Is So Common in Women
Research show s that women are more likely than men to have low vitamin D levels.
The Prime Day TV deals worth waiting for
Prime Day TV deals start June 23. Our TV expert explains which OLED, QLED, and budget models are worth watching and what shoppers should avoid.
Dad jokes may be good for your brain in one surprising way, experts say
Dad jokes can lower cortisol by over 36% and boost dopamine, serotonin, and endorphins, offering real stress relief through simple puns and wordplay.
Sports culture expert discuss impact of Knicks win for city identity
Watch the full interview here.
Free 8-month small business coaching program to expand to Tennessee for entrepreneurs
Tennessee small business owners can now join the waitlist for a free 8-month coaching program offering one-on-one financial mentorship and expert guidance. Applications open late July/early August.
‘It’s not science, it’s coercion’: health experts decry RFK Jr order on hantavirus quarantine
Kennedy overrides CDC order saying an American who came into contact with hantavirus can self-quarantine
‘It’s not science, it’s coercion’: health experts decry RFK Jr order on hantavirus quarantine
Kennedy overrides CDC order saying an American who came into contact with hantavirus can self-quarantine
Western Pa. families declining vitamin K shots, other preventive care for newborns
A recent study in a prominent medical journal indicates that many more families are declining vitamin K shots, which prevent bleeding complications in newborns. The JAMA researchers reported that rates of refusing the preventive health measure went from 2.9% to 5.2% in eight years. A local expert says his health
Ozempic changed obesity treatment, but experts say the real revolution is next
The obesity treatment landscape is changing fast, with GLP-1 drugs opening the door to more effective care than ever before. Experts now envision a future where medications, minimally invasive procedures, surgery, and precision medicine work together to deliver better long-term results.
Philadelphia-area STI disparities still fueled by stigma and misinformation, health care leaders say
At a Philadelphia panel on HIV and health equity, experts pointed to gaps in education, funding and access to care.
Baptist-Cigna deadline nears: Insurance expert shares 3 steps patients should take now
With days remaining before Baptist Health hospitals and employed providers are scheduled to leave Cigna’s network, patients across Northeast Florida are scrambling to understand their options and determine whether they can keep their doctors.
GTA 6 and the Mystery of the Missing Ferris Wheel Reflection
Our experts chime in on the latest Grand Theft Auto trailer.
Registration open for 2026 HousingIowa Conference in Des Moines
Registration is now open for the 2026 HousingIowa Conference, hosted by the Iowa Finance Authority and scheduled for Sept. 9-10 in Des Moines. The conference expects to bring together nearly 1,000 professionals from housing, development, lending, government and community sectors. The event will feature national speakers, policy experts, and industry leaders addressing key issues in…
2026 NBA Draft Roundtable: Who goes No. 1 overall? Experts favor AJ Dybantsa over Darryn Peterson
Our experts weigh in on the No. 1 overall pick, the Cameron Boozer or Caleb Wilson debate and which late-round sleeper has a chance to be an NBA All-Star
Herring Gut Coastal Science Center welcomes two new members to Advisory Council
PORT CLYDE — Two distinguished leaders in environmental science and communications have been appointed to Herring Gut Coastal Science Center's Advisory Council: Claire Parsons and Melissa Waterman. The Advisory Council provides strategic guidance and expertise to support Herring Gut's mission of educating students and communities about the connections between Maine's waters, environment, and economy.
‘If there’s no fertility, there are no farms’: Why big food is exploring regenerative agriculture
Food and drink companies are getting involved in regenerative agriculture, which aims to improve soil and cut carbon emissions. But not all experts are convinced of the benefits
New First-of-Its-Kind Flu Vaccine Approved by FDA Expert Panel
This could prevent thousands of hospitalizations.
Ask the expert: Michigan’s 16-year constitutional convention ballot vote
MSU Professor Quinn Yeargain explains how every 16 years, Michigan's constitution requires that voters decide if the state should hold a constitutional convention.
Public health professor completes third Fulbright Scholarship
When Dr. Helda Pinzon-Perez traveled to Uruguay and Paraguay this past semester, she brought more than her expertise in health education – she brought a commitment to expanding research, creating meaningful contributions and fostering collaboration between the two South American countries and the Central Valley. “I am just a venue to facilitate these wonderful opportunities […]
These families have been in business for 100 years—they say the American Dream isn't what it used to be
For the first time in generations, a wide array of U.S. entrepreneurs are struggling to do better than their parents, small-business owners and experts say.
You're probably using too many skin care products. Here are the 3 essentials
We asked half a dozen skin care experts: Which products do you really need to keep your skin healthy and attractive? Here's what they said.
Mount Sinai to Lead Aspen Discussions on Youth Mental Health, and Healthspan Science and Practice
Will explore innovative approaches to mental health and new frontiers in healthspan, longevity science, and personalized care during Aspen Ideas: Health and the Aspen Ideas Festival.New York, NY and Aspen, CO, June 18, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Mount Sinai Health System experts will lead discussions on innovative community-based approaches to youth mental health and emerging scientific advances that are transforming how we understand healthy aging and healthspan at the 2026 Aspen Ideas: Health an
Monitoring water sources to protect herd health
K-State Beef Cattle Institute experts discuss neurological issues in cattle which may occur from lack of water or poor water quality.
Quartz countertops are driving a public health crisis in the US – 2 occupational health experts explain the surge of lung transplants and lawsuits
Workers are facing a preventable and incurable lung disease from a material being used to renovate kitchens in millions of American homes.
Defense Health Agency Outlines Joint Force Blood Therapy Strategy at National Forum
Medical logistics and prolonged field care in austere environments present significant challenges for the military health system. To address potential Large-Scale Combat Operations in remote locations across the globe, Defense Health Agency experts presented a strategy update for novel blood replacement therapies during the Strategic National Forum on Blood and Biotherapies, June 12, 2026, in Bethesda, Maryland.
4 Morning Habits A Cardiologist Avoids To Protect His Heart Health
In TODAY.com’s Expert Tip of the Day, a cardiologist reveals how morning habits can impact heart health and the best way to start the day.
Ask the expert: Indigenous science fiction explained
MSU expert Blaire Morseau explains how Indigenous science fiction and speculative storytelling reflect culture, history and imagined futures.
“How You Like Me Now?” Hurricanes Still Without a Superstar
One of the biggest criticisms in years past by the hockey experts around the league was that the Carolina Hurricanes did not have a superstar to take them to the next level. They did not have that all-time reliable player they could count on to score a goal when they absolutely needed it. The Canes […]
Why Is Sexual Health Still Overlooked in Chronic Pain Care?
Experts urge clinicians to address intimacy and sexual well-being routinely, noting that chronic pain often affects relationships, self-esteem, and quality of life.
A Bone Health Expert Shares Their Most Important Tip
Maintaining strong bones as you age requires more than your daily dose of calcium.
RFK Jr. presents $700 million in mental health funding, but experts say grants aren’t new
RFK Jr. presents funding intended to address mental illness and addiction, particularly among homeless people.
Discovery Supercomputer’s first applications selected for Day-One Science
Scientific computing experts at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have selected the first nine research projects that will run on Discovery, the nation’s next flagship supercomputer, slated for deployment in 2028. The projects will be developed through the Discovery Center for Accelerated Application Readiness program at ORNL’s Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. The program is designed to ensure that a suite of leading-edge scientific applications is optimized and ready to deliver results as soon as Discovery becomes operational.
Discovery Supercomputer’s First Applications Selected for Day-One Science
Scientific computing experts at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) have selected the first nine research projects that will run on Discovery, the nation’s next flagship supercomputer, slated for deployment in 2028.The projects will be developed through the Discovery Center for Accelerated Application Readiness (CAAR) program at ORNL’s Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF).
IT Experts: Brandy Semore, Pinnacle Business Systems
Brandy Semore serves as Vice President of Professional Services at Pinnacle Business Systems, where she leads engineering and project management teams delivering technology solutions across multiple industries.
Experts on history, politics reflect on U.S. 250th birthday milestone
As our nation’s celebration of its 250th birthday approaches, experts in history and political science at Virginia Tech can provide perspectives on how far the United States of America has advanced since its founding and the issues that will influence where it goes next.
New Plan Scales Back C.D.C.’s Work on Diseases Abroad
The State Department is taking over much of the control of global health initiatives, for which critics say the department does not have the expertise.
A deadly fungus that can infect cats and people is spreading
It’s just a matter of time before Sporothrix brasiliensis reaches the U.S. a CDC expert says.
Elon Musk’s Next Move May Be a Mega-Merger of SpaceX and Tesla
Some shareholders might object, but there is little they could do, legal experts say.
Introducing LifeSciBench
Introducing LifeSciBench, an expert-authored, expert-reviewed benchmark for evaluating how AI systems handle real-world life science research tasks and decisions.
A New Science Diplomacy in Latin America Embeds Knowledge in Public Institutions
Latin America is pioneering a conception of science diplomacy as the political craft of embedding expertise into public institutions.
How Trump sidelined national security experts ahead of his war with Iran
Worried about a president who seemed to be flying by the seat of his pants as he waged war, Congress stepped in to establish a council of experts to advise the president, gathering information from across the government to consider the consequences and effects of military action.
Latvia pilots citizen engagement in research grant evaluations
Latvia has introduced an element of citizen engagement to the evaluation of nationally funded research grants. The aim is to both create more connections between science and society, and to improve the quality of its evaluations. The move comes as research funders across Europe are experimenting with ways to improve evaluation processes in the face of a sharpened focus on science’s impact on society. Evaluators of grant applications submitted to Latvia’s Fundamental and Applied Research Programme (FLPP), the country’s main research funder, will this year have the option of consulting citizen feedback on challenges the public thinks science should focus on to inform their decisions. “In recent years, both public discussions and policy-level debates in Latvia have highlighted the importance of demonstrating how publicly funded research contributes to society, the economy and the resolution of real-world challenges,” said a source at the Latvian Council of Science (LCS), which manages the FLPP. “At the same time, research institutions themselves expressed interest in improving the project evaluation framework while continuing to ensure that funding is awarded to the highest-quality projects,” the source added. The citizen input comes from a survey that was conducted between 25 February and 16 March 2025, to which 1,737 people responded. It gathered information on what the public views as problem areas for Latvia, and the role of science and technology in providing solutions to these problems. A summary of these responses has been included as an annex to the FLPP 2026 call for proposals that evaluators can refer to, purely in an advisory manner, when judging proposals. Results from the survey show that the main problem areas identified by the public were in healthcare and public health, followed by the development of new treatment methods and medicines, and then digital technology, data security and cyber security. At the bottom of the list was research aimed at acquiring new knowledge about the universe, matter and the laws of nature. Further analysis looked at the public view of the possible role of science in solving these problems. The survey charted 4,167 individual responses based on open-ended questions that were derived from the participants’ answers. The analysis again found that medical and health sciences topped the scoring, with 788 responses referring to the field. Humanities and the arts were bottom of the list, with 625. Digging further into the details, the survey suggests citizens are aware of and concerned about a number of research areas. This includes technologies and innovation to improve the environment or reduce pollution, the development of modern military technologies and cybersecurity tools, and the development and application of artificial intelligence, among others. “We hope this initiative will help strengthen public trust in science and create a more meaningful dialogue between researchers and society,” the LCS source said, adding that it offers benefits to researchers, evaluators and to the general public. More space for citizen engagement in evaluationsThere is a gradual but increasing use of citizen engagement in research evaluation processes around Europe, especially in healthcare, but it remains relatively rare, said Henry Sauermann, a professor at the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin and an expert in citizen science.“Given that we are at a point where citizen involvement is extremely limited, there is presumably space for more, but it's not that we should do it just because we want to do it,” he told Science|Business. He said some research lends itself better to having citizen input, and this usually tends to be on the applied end of the science spectrum where the public can offer useful feedback based on their experiences. He added that advising scientists on certain topics to study is also a useful approach, in the way that Latvia is doing. “The public does fund a lot of science, there's a lot of tax money going into this. We of course do want to preserve academic freedom, but it's also not unreasonable to incorporate more feedback or input from citizens where possible,” he said. Related articlesCitizen science: where, when, and how to let the public contribute to researchHow can Europe cope with a flood of AI-assisted research grant proposals?Data Corner: Horizon Europe’s AI, digital and data call success rate is 5.2%There are several ways of involving citizens in science funding. The most minimal way is having a few representatives on a panel, such as members of a patient group or union. The most direct way is crowdsourcing funding for specific projects. There is an increasing number of online platforms that allow the public to chip in to support scientific proposals.Sauermann studied this in a recent paper and found that it can have its uses, but it still is not clear if there are benefits to it. There are various assumptions linked to citizen engagement, for example that it increases public trust in science, or that it provides a representative view of what the public thinks about science. These are not necessarily true, Sauermann found. People who participate in engagement activities tend to already be very trusting of science, and, on the whole, it is generally the well-off and well educated who contribute, giving a narrow view of public opinion. On whether citizen input can help manage the increasing number of proposals that are being submitted due to assistance from AI, Sauermann is more sceptical. “The obvious answer to the flood of AI-written proposals is AI-driven evaluation,” he said, adding that it doesn’t mean citizen engagement shouldn’t be a part of evaluations in a well thought-out manner. Southern Denmark’s successful approachOne successful example of citizen engagement in science evaluations was implemented in southern Denmark. Between 2019 and 2025, citizens in the region were invited to vote to fund one of five pre-selected projects in the field of healthcare. The project, called A Healthier Southern Denmark, was a collaboration between regional authorities, the University of Southern Denmark, and two media partners. Over the seven years, there were 75,000 votes and significant public engagement online and on social media. “It was a bit of a wild project, we’d never done something like that before and we were a bit nervous about what would be said in the media about it. But actually, people were very positive,” said Anne Kathrine Overgaard, one of the main organisers of the project from the University of Southern Denmark. The university and its researchers have learned a lot from the experience, particularly about engaging with society and shaping their research to match real-world needs. This is important with Europe’s increasing focus on competitiveness and bringing innovations to market faster, Overgaard said. She hopes to see more citizen engagement in evaluation processes and in science more broadly. “For many years, citizen engagement has been a bit of an add-on to proposals, just to check a box. But I think things are changing,” she said. It’s less about citizens just gathering data and more “about the dialogue between the public and the scientists,” she said. The initiative ended last year as the team wanted to regroup to find fresh momentum. The development of AI and AI-written proposals has made Overgaard reflect on how the project could be reworked to help evaluators. She hopes to bring it back in the future. “It could be a good idea to try this initiative again in a slightly re-worked format,” she said.
Aspirus Health Welcomes Certified Nurse Midwife Tylynn Morrison-Vidar to Rhinelander Clinic
RHINELANDER, Wis. – Aspirus Health is pleased to welcome Tylynn (Ty) Morrison-Vidar, CNM, a Certified Nurse Midwife, to the care team at Aspirus Rhinelander Clinic – N. Shore Drive, located at 2251 N Shore Drive. Morrison-Vidar brings a strong background in women’s health, beginning her career as a Labor and Delivery nurse from 2018 to 2025. She further expanded her clinical expertise while serving as a student midwife from August 2024 through January 2025. In addition to her clinical work, she has cont...
RFK Jr. overrules experts to keep hantavirus cruise ship passenger in quarantine
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has refused to release a cruise ship passenger exposed to hantavirus from a quarantine facility in Nebraska
RFK Jr. overrules experts to keep hantavirus cruise ship passenger in quarantine
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has refused to release a cruise ship passenger exposed to hantavirus from a quarantine facility in Nebraska.
Merchants of Doubt and the attacks on Extreme Event Attribution science
Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law. Subscribe For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%. One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages. Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work. This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt. The new Merchants of Doubt We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science. This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process. The key quote is: About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare. This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”. This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position: But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument. We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side. Share The new new Merchants of Doubt The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process. Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.” To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report. When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see. A note to the press: Fix your frame To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it. You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use. They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC? That frame is a trap. Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate? Ultimately, you instead need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal. If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe other stuff The Staying Curious Substack has an interesting post about the different flavors of climate sensitivity. This is crucial information if you want to understand how scientists think about how much warming the Earth will experience. I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ❤️ below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.
RFK Jr. orders passenger from hantavirus-stricken cruise to remain in quarantine in Nebraska, despite CDC recommendation
A woman who was exposed to hantavirus on the MV Hondius cruise has been ordered by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to stay in federal quarantine, despite being cleared to return home to Florida by a federal health expert.