SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " experiment " 100 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
What Kills Schrödinger’s Cat? Scientists Just Ruled Out a 60-Year-Old Theory
Gravity has been proposed as a reason quantum superpositions become difficult to observe in everyday objects. A new experiment challenges one longstanding model of this process. A detector buried deep beneath an Italian mountain has challenged a decades-old theory about why quantum behavior disappears from the world we experience. After 62 days of measurements, researchers
Hudson River Park to Present Fall Science and Family Events
Hudson River Park will offer science, sustainability and family-friendly programming through the fall, including aquarium tours, hands-on experiments and…
Small businesses are having their AI moment — and it’s exposing a services gap
Small businesses are moving from AI experimentation to structured adoption, making training, governance and workflow design more important than another AI license.
NASA’s SpaceX CRS-35 Mission to Launch Health Research
NASA experiments focused on human and plant health and drug-resistant organisms will travel to the International Space Station aboard SpaceX’s 35th. This research supports astronaut health during long-duration missions through four investigations from the agency’s Biological and Physical Sciences division.
The uranium cubes that exposed Nazi Germany’s nuclear failure
Scientists investigating Nazi Germany's secret nuclear program have uncovered evidence that its final experimental reactor was nowhere near as close to working as previously claimed. Analysis of surviving uranium cubes and wartime documents reveals that Germany lacked the enormous quantities of uranium and heavy water needed to make its reactor operational.
More than 1,000 students explore STEM careers through hands-on experiments at Science Museum
More than 1,000 seventh graders are testing robotics, electricity and virtual reality at Science Museum Oklahoma's Innovation Week.
Good science requires much more than evidence
Empiricists believe that scientific theories are true only if they make correct empirical predictions: if we can't verify these predictions, then there is no reason to expect that they tell us anything about reality. However, Professor of Philosophy at King's College David Kyle Johnson argues that this is mistaken. In response to Bas van Fraassen, who has written on this subject for the IAI, he argues that we have many reasons for believing a theory to be true, such as it being parsimonious and having large scope — qualities which have been used throughout the history of science as criteria for judging theories. In 2024, Princeton philosopher Bas van Fraassen wrote a short article for IAI News entitled “Science Does not Describe Reality: The Limits and Benefits of Explanation.” At the time, I was working on two projects (a science book and a Great Course) that, when completed, would (among other things) defend science’s ability to describe reality. I wanted to write a response to van Fraassen, but the projects demanded too much of my attention. But now that those projects are complete, I am in a position to explain the objections to van Fraassen’s thesis. Summarizing van Fraassen’s argumentIn a nutshell, his argument is this: What scientists do is make predictions based on theories and then invite others to test to see whether those predictions are borne out. “If theory T is right, result R should happen in experimental condition C.” Many think that running an experiment that shows that R happens in condition C is proof that theory T is true (and should be believed). But, van Fraassen argues, that R happened in condition C is only a reason to think that R happens in condition C. That’s the only observable, or empirical, result we can actually see, so that is all that we are really justified in believing. (The underlying theory that made that prediction still may or may not be true.) That is why he calls those who accept his position “empiricists.”Before I explain what is wrong with this position, let me explain what it gets right. What van Fraassen Gets RightFirst, a theory correctly predicting the results of an experiment is not, strictly speaking, “proof” that the theory is correct. The basic line of reasoning is this:If the theory T is true, result R should happen. Result R did happen. Thus, theory T is true.In other words:“If T then R. R. Thus, T.”This is a deductively invalid, fallacious mode of reasoning, called “affirming the consequent.” Those premises do not guarantee that the conclusion follows. “If I am in Pennsylvania, then I am in the USA. I am in the USA. Thus, I am in Pennsylvania.” Clearly that argument doesn’t guarantee its conclusion; neither does the above argument.However, science is not a deductive method of reasoning; it is an inductive one. And inductive arguments merely try to raise the probability of their conclusion, not “prove” them for certain. Thus, the fact that an experimental result doesn’t prove a theory is true is irrelevant; it’s not supposed to. That is not what scientific reasoning is about.___If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational.___Second, it’s also true that a single experimental result doesn’t provide enough justification to believe that a theory is true. Scientists do not come to a consensus about whether a theory is true by looking at a single experiment; they look at all the evidence to determine where the preponderance of evidence points. The mere fact that I am in the USA raises the probability that I am in Pennsylvania, but not nearly enough to conclude that I am in Pennsylvania. However, if I am also regularly encountering people wearing Eagles and Phillies hats and seeing advertisements for Founding Father tours, I probably am. In the same way, a theory successfully predicting the outcome of one experiment is not enough to conclude that it is true; but if a theory makes a wide variety of predictions that are all vindicated by multiple experiments, performed by many different groups and people, all actively trying to prove the theory false (which is what good scientific experiments are designed to do)—that is a good reason to conclude that the theory is true. In other words, if you repeatedly try to prove something false but can’t, that is a very good indication that it isn’t. The problem of underdeterminationIn reply, those whom van Fraassen calls “empiricists” often point to the “problem of underdetermination.” For any given theory that makes successful predictions about what happens in experimental conditions, there are countless other possible theories that make exactly the same predictions—and since they do, the experimental evidence in question is just as much reason to accept any of those theories as it is to accept our original one. Thus, the argument goes, we have no way of knowing whether our original theory is true, or one of the other “predictively equivalent” theories is true. SUGGESTED VIEWING How Occam's Razor changed the world With Johnjoe McFadden As an example of underdetermination, philosophers often offer this example. The evidence of fossils seems to provide reason to conclude that the universe is quite old; ancient fossils are what the “ancient universe” hypothesis predicts. But it’s also possible that God created an ancient-looking universe 200 years ago, complete with a “fake” fossil record for us to find, to make it look old. The existence of fossils is what that theory predicts too. So, the argument goes, the fossil record can’t be used as evidence that the universe is ancient; the fossil record supports the “200-year-old ancient-looking universe” theory just as much. The problem of underdetermination points out that, for any theory with supporting evidence, we could invent another completely different theory that predicts exactly the same evidence, and thus undermine that evidence’s ability to support the original theory.But this “argument from underdetermination” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific reasoning is and how it works. To explain, let me use another rather strange (but very real and commonly discussed) philosophical thought experiment called “The Grue Problem.” The “Grue” ProblemSuppose I want to know what color emeralds are, so I observe a few, see that they all appear green, and form the theory that “all emeralds are green.” I thus predict that the next 100 emeralds I find will also appear to be green. And let’s say that happens, and so I thus conclude that my theory that all emeralds are green is true. Now, one might rightly point out that I don’t know for sure that all emeralds are green—I have not seen them all. Maybe some I haven’t found yet are blue. Fair enough. After all, we used to think that all swans were white, until we found some black ones. But let’s say that I go on a quest and collect every emerald in the universe—and, for the sake of the argument, let’s say I can do this, and can even know that I have every one of them. So, I collect them all, look at them all, and verify that they all appear green. Can’t I now rightly conclude that all emeralds are green?Inspired by the problem of underdetermination, a friend might argue that I cannot.Sure, they all appear green now—but there could be another kind of color called “grue.” Something is grue if it is green up to a certain point in time, but then spontaneously turns blue. And there could be an infinite number of “shades” of grue. Something that is one shade of grue will turn blue at noon today, but something that is another shade of grue will turn blue at noon tomorrow, etc. So yes, the emeralds appear green now; and since they haven’t turned blue yet, they are not some “past” shade of grue. But they might be some “future” shade of grue (e.g., they may turn blue at noon tomorrow). And since all future shades of grue are consistent with “being green up to this point in time,” the evidence you have is completely consistent with the notion that all emeralds are some future shade of grue, rather than green. Indeed, that they would appear green until now is what the “some future shade of grue” hypothesis predicts. So, we have just as much reason to conclude that all emeralds are some shade of grue as we do to conclude that they are green.You’re probably thinking “It’s not equally possible that the emeralds are grue; they are obviously green.” You are right! But explaining why your instinctive reaction to my friend’s argument is correct will help inform why van Fraassen’s “empiricist” is wrong and science actually does describe reality.The main mistake my friend makes is in thinking that the “empirical evidence” (of all the emeralds appearing green) is (or even should be) all I am using to draw the conclusion that all emeralds are green. It is not. I am also considering known facts about how colors typically work; things don’t usually change color, and when they do, they don’t do so suddenly, without cause, and all at once. So, even though the simple evidence of the emeralds all appearing green up to this point is consistent with them being some future shade of grue—that is even what the grue hypothesis “predicts”—it is still exceedingly unlikely that they are. The hypothesis that they are green is much more likely. Understanding science refutes the problem of underdetermination The misunderstanding about science that the “empiricist” pointing to “the problem of underdetermination” makes is similar to the one that my friend made. Science is not just about considering experimental evidence; in fact, it’s not even just about considering empirical evidence. As Ernan McMullin and many other philosophers of science have pointed out, the inference that makes science is “inference to the best explanation” (sometimes called “abduction” or “retroduction” by McMullin). While, depending on the circumstances, scientists use many different kinds of reasoning, science as a whole is, simply put, the process of considering multiple competing explanations and comparing them to certain criteria—explanatory criteria (the kinds of things explanations must be and do, by definition, to be a good explanation)—to see which explanation is the best.And these criteria do not deal only with empirical results. Yes, successful predictions raise the probability of a hypothesis, but it’s also the case that the more new assumptions a theory makes, the less likely it is to be true; every new assumption presents an opportunity for the theory to be false. (The fewer assumptions a theory makes, the simpler or “more parsimonious” it is said to be.) Likewise, the more existing evidence a theory contradicts, the less likely it is, because in order for a theory to be true, every piece of evidence it contradicts has to be somehow faulty. (The fewer established theories a new theory contradicts, the more “conservative” it is said to be.) And, obviously, the more something explains, the better explanation it is. (This is called having “scope.”) If a theory raises unanswerable questions, it’s not expanding our understanding, and thus is not wide-scoping. Scientists consider all these things when deciding which theory to accept, because the theory that adheres best to these explanatory criteria is most likely to be true.___the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth.___The reason the grue hypothesis is no good is because it invents an entirely new kind of color—not just a new shade, but an entirely different category of color (a different way colors work)—and thus is not parsimonious. It raises unanswerable questions about how and why emeralds would just spontaneously change from green to blue (and thus does not have wide scope). And it contradicts what is already well established about how color works (and thus is unconservative).The theories that the problem of underdetermination points to do the same thing. Yes, the theory that God created an “ancient-looking universe” (complete with an ancient-looking fossil record) two hundred years ago is also consistent with the empirical evidence (of a fossil record) that presently exists; but that theory is monumentally unparsimonious (it requires many extra assumptions about infinite entities) and not wide-scoping (it raises unanswerable questions about why God would do such a thing). So, I can rationally conclude that it is false.Indeed, the history of science includes many examples of theories that were rejected because they lacked parsimony and/or scope, even before their falsity (and the truth of their competing theory) was confirmed by observation. As I point out in my book, geocentrism was rejected by the scientific community because it lacked parsimony, almost 200 years before the observation of parallax confirmed that the Earth moves around the sun. And the continuum theory of matter was completely rejected by 1860, because it couldn’t explain chemical reactions or organize matter into a periodic table, even though the experiments that eventually confirmed atomic theory weren’t even proposed until the 1870s. Solving the best of a bad lot problemIn response, the “empiricists” are likely to object, this time pointing to the “best of a bad lot” problem. “We have no reason to conclude that an explanation that has been shown to be better than others is true because we have no guarantee that the true theory was among those that we were considering.” If you have a “lot” (a collection) of poor explanations, even the best one is not true.The responses to this problem, however, are numerous. Peter Lipton argues that the set of hypotheses that scientists consider are not just randomly selected and thus unlikely to contain a theory that is true; they use existing knowledge to home in on what is most likely to be true. A doctor trying to explain abdominal pain is not going to bother wondering whether demons are causing it; they are going to stick with things like appendicitis and kidney stones, because they are most likely. Further, despite its name, inference to the best explanation is not just the process of comparing hypotheses and accepting the best one; we also want one that is a good explanation in its own right. If it’s not, we are going to keep looking until we find an explanation that is. And while that process does not guarantee that we will come across the exact truth, it’s very likely that the theory that emerges as the best will be at least approximately true, and thus we will be justified in believing it. And lastly, as I point out in my book, although many theories not based in scientific evidence (like geocentrism and continuum theory) have been completely overturned, science almost always progresses by the refinement of scientifically established theories—not their replacement. (Although our sun is not the center of the universe, heliocentrism was our first step in understanding the Earth’s true place in the universe.) So even if a theory we accept today may not be completely right, accepting it is a step on the journey toward the complete truth. The example of atomic theoryNow, it’s worth pointing out that most empiricists are not skeptical of all scientific theories; they are only skeptical of the ones that hypothesize the existence of “unobservables.” It’s not like they think that round Earth, heliocentrism, and germ theory are just useful (but untrue) “instruments” for making predictions about how to most efficiently navigate the seas, predict planetary motion, and treat diseases. They admit that the Earth actually is round, that the planets revolve around the sun, and that germs exist and cause disease. These facts and entities can be observed; the theories that suggest they exist are true. It’s only when theories start hypothesizing the existence of unobservables—like electrons, or quantum fields—that can’t be observed directly, that we should start doubting the theories’ truth. And to be fair to van Fraassen, in this published work, he doesn’t really say that we should doubt the truth of such theories. Only that scientific reasoning does not rationally force us to accept them as true. Skepticism, or agnosticism, he argues, is warranted. SUGGESTED READING Science is based in metaphor By Andrew Reynolds But the history of atomic theory throws a monkey wrench into that argument. Atoms used to be unobservable; again, scientists first accepted the theory that they exist because it had such grandiose explanatory power. But then atoms were seen with electron microscopes. They thus moved into the category of the observable. But this didn’t substantially change anything about what scientists were justified in believing; it certainly didn’t change any “atomic skeptics’” minds. It just confirmed what everyone already knew! If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational. The fact that the thing itself is not technically observable does not make doubting its existence rational.What’s more, the atoms were seen with an electron microscope. But electrons are themselves unobservable. How can an electron microscope reveal an atom if electrons are not real? This leads us to what is famously known as Hilary Putnam’s “miracle argument.” It’s (not) a miraclePhilosopher Hilary Putnam’s miracle argument is somewhat famous. Basically, he argued that a scientific theory being able to repeatedly make successful predictions—even about unobservables—without being at least approximately true would require a “miracle.” In other words, it would be such an improbable occurrence that it could not rationally be believed—the better explanation for why scientific theories about unobservables make the right predictions is because the unobservable entities and structures they hypothesize exist.Van Fraassen has addressed this argument. Indeed, in his original article, where he references Alison Gopnik’s point about orgasms not being “necessary for procreation” even though the desire for orgasm “drives the creation of progeny,” he is pointing to his own argument about how organisms are not naturally selected by evolution to get true beliefs; to the extent that belief-forming processes are selected for, the ones that are selected are the ones that are useful for survival—not the ones that produce true beliefs. In the same way, van Fraassen argues, scientific theories are accepted, not because they are true, but because they aren’t falsified; they make successful predictions; that’s what makes them “stick around.” So, the fact that they make successful predictions (and thus became accepted) is not a reason to think they are true.This argument is similar to C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason,” which he used to argue against evolution: “The truth of evolution undercuts our ability to know that it is true.” Lewis’ argument famously failed; Elizabeth Anscombe, by Lewis’s own admission, demolished Lewis in a debate on the topic, and I have explained elsewhere why modified versions of the argument fail as well. In short, it’s because it fails to recognize that a belief-forming process can make an organism more likely to survive because it reliably produces true beliefs. It is therefore not the case that beliefs generated by naturally selected belief-forming processes are automatically false or unjustified.In the same way, the reason a theory “sticks around” could be because it’s not falsified, because it “makes correct predictions.” But the reason it makes correct predictions is most likely because it is true. (In pointing this out, I am echoing the arguments of Musgrave, Lipton, Psillos, and Kitcher, who refuted van Fraassen’s argument and analogy long before his 2024 article.) It would be a huge coincidence that it could do so without being true. And that is the point of Putnam’s miracle argument. Thus, contrary to van Fraassen’s suggestion, the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth. ConclusionLet me close by saying something about the fact that empiricists don’t doubt the truth of all scientific theories, just the ones that hypothesize unobservables. In today’s society, this theory is dangerous to espouse publicly. The nuance between being skeptical about all of science, and just the highly technical theories about unobservables, is guaranteed to be lost to the average reader. And there is so much unjustified skepticism and doubt about the findings of science and experts that a headline like “Science Does Not Describe Reality” could easily fuel the anti-science movement, worsen climate change denial and cause the next pandemic.This is why I believe it was important to still respond to van Fraassen’s article, a full two years after he wrote it. Not only, as I have argued, does it represent a philosophically inaccurate view of how scientific reasoning works and what scientific reasoning can do, but it is a dangerous view to boot. It should thus be rejected.
A forgotten 30-year forest experiment just delivered a huge surprise
A 30-year forestry experiment in Australia found that heavily thinned mountain ash forests grew unusually large trees while recovering enough carbon to match or exceed untouched areas. The results suggest carefully managed thinning could support timber production, wildlife habitat, and carbon storage at the same time.
NASA’s SpaceX resupply mission delivers science experiments and solar arrays to space station
NASA’s latest resupply mission has successfully launched towards the ISS, carrying thousands of pounds of supplies, scientific equipment and new technology
Ethan Hawke names surprising thriller co-starring ex Uma Thurman as his breakout: ‘Changed my life’
If you ask Ethan Hawke, it wasn’t ‘Dead Poets Society’ or ‘Reality Bites’ that gave him his big break — it was this under-seen, experimental thriller from a master of indie cinema that made him a star.
Only one browser has this really helpful search tool
This is great for experimentation with a different search site, keeping a particular search out of your history at your usual site, or giving yourself a break from AI-first answers.
Physicists froze a 'necklace' of atoms — and witnessed a quantum phenomenon predicted 100 years ago
Atoms confined to a single line can bind into clusters called Bethe strings. A new experiment points to a mix of many such clusters, though the evidence is still indirect.
Week 4 Early Game Open Thread
Welcome to Week 4! We experimented with some SB Nation feed posts for gameday discussion and while that is interesting on prime time games, I think for the early game thread before the Denver Broncos play should just be a regular post. So we’re bringing that back! The games start early with one in London […]
Scientists Have Developed a Breakthrough Energy Source to Fuel the First Humans on Mars
A NASA-backed experiment shows how engineered microbes can convert discarded water bottles into edible protein.
A company says its polls were fake. Here’s what happened
A national polling organization revealed on Tuesday that the vast majority of its data had been fabricated, saying it was an “experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities" of the modern political polling industry.
NASA’s SunRISE Mission Targets No Earlier Than Mid-2027 Launch
NASA’s SunRISE (Sun Radio Interferometer Space Experiment) mission will launch no earlier than mid-2027. The heliophysics mission will hitch a ride on a
NASA’s SpaceX CRS-35 Mission to Launch Health Research
NASA experiments focused on human and plant health and drug-resistant organisms will travel to the International Space Station aboard SpaceX’s 35th. This research supports astronaut health during long-duration missions through four investigations from the agency’s Biological and Physical Sciences division.
U. of C.’s South Side Science Fest showcases the wow that exists in the field
Nearly 4,600 people visited this year’s University of Chicago South Side Science Festival, which offered hands-on science demonstrations and experiments.
This new qubit could be 100 times less error-prone in superfluid quantum computer breakthrough
A proposed qubit made with superfluid helium could cut quantum computing error rates by around 100 times by shielding quantum information from common forms of electromagnetic noise. If experiments confirm the predictions, the technology could eventually work alongside today’s superconducting qubits or serve as a new kind of quantum memory.
Renue by Science Launches Research Community to Bring Real-World Health Experiences Into Scientific Research
/PRNewswire/ -- People try supplements, track their sleep and experiment with wellness routines, but it is hard to know whether the changes they notice are...
Hundreds of Families Turn Out for Celebrate Science Indiana Festival
The October 10th event allowed children and parents the opportunity to conduct science experiments, learn about robotics, and more. The 15th annual Celebrate Science Indiana Festival brought together ...
The Baffling Gender Politics of Netflix’s New Stanford Prison Experiment
Netflix's reality-TV restaging of the notoriously unethical study incorporates women—but doesn't know what to do with them.
A major insurer on how it may replicate Medicare's chronic-care experiment
In this edition of STAT Health Tech: A California insurer on how it may replicate Medicare's tech-enabled chronic-care experiment.
Why Negative Results Can Be Some of the Most Useful Results in Science: Lessons From Lee Lorenzen
Science loves a win. A successful experiment creates a clean graph, an exciting paper, and maybe even a
Concern after Europeans endorse US science agenda
Germany’s biggest research funder has said it is “concerned” after Berlin, plus several other European countries, endorsed a controversial US-led science policy statement. On October 4, the White House announced that 16 countries, including Germany, the UK, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland, Japan and South Korea had backed the Kyoto Vision for a Golden Age of Science.The document, agreed on the margins of the annual Science and Technology in Society forum in Kyoto, which gathers science ministers from across the world, appears uncontroversial at first sight. It’s a one-page statement, without any concrete measures, that touches on reducing administrative burden on scientists, experimenting with new funding models and the use of “super intelligence” in science, the Trump administration’s preferred term for artificial intelligence. However, what’s controversial is that much of the language in the Kyoto Vision reflects Science: A New Golden Age, a major policy document released by the White House in July.That document attracted criticism for deriding universities as “legacy institutions” and suggesting money be diverted to new research labs. In a speech in Kyoto on October 4, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy and the report’s author, said that the US was seeking to “diversify the ways that we support research to meet our best scientists where and when they do their best work.” The worry is that the Trump administration may be using genuine dysfunctions in academia as a pretext to defund and disempower universities, which US vice president JD Vance has labelled “the enemy.” Many in Europe also want more experimentation and reform of how science is organised and funded, and agree with criticisms of academia made by Science: A New Golden Age. But some also fear that if the US pushes for reform partially in bad faith, it could politicise and undermine the whole agenda. Washington is currently trying to change federal funding rules so that political appointees can block and cancel scientific grants. It has cut grants mid-project on topics related to diversity and other politically forbidden areas. And last year, it threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless it admitted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create campus “viewpoint diversity.” “Particularly concerned”Because of this wider US political context, the Kyoto Vision’s otherwise innocuous sounding statement that “we encourage experimentation with new institutional models for science that provide varying levels of autonomy, resources and direction” has caused consternation in Europe, particularly from some of Germany’s biggest science organisations. A spokesperson for the German Research Foundation (DFG), the country’s biggest funder, said that it would “closely monitor whether the current US administration uses the Kyoto Vision to restructure research funding to the detriment of research institutions such as universities and their autonomy.” The DFG was “particularly concerned” with the statement’s references to Science: A New Golden Age, they continued. A spokesperson for the German Rectors’ Conference, which represents the country’s universities, said that the reference to “new institutional models” raises “questions on the underlying understanding of academic freedom and autonomy.” Research funding must “guided first and foremost by scientific not political principles,” they went on. Dampen criticismEuropean endorsement of the Kyoto Vision might dampen domestic criticism of the Trump administration’s science policy, some in the US fear, by suggesting international support. “What we saw from Germany, Japan, the UK and other countries, is an impulse that the administration has exploited with our own science reform movement, a belief they can use dialogue to make things better,” said Cole Donovan, director of science policy at the campaigning group Stand Up for Science. “In practice, the administration has done the opposite.” Not a binding statementThere’s been so much concern in Germany that the country’s federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space put out a statement defending its endorsement of the Kyoto Vision, which it has posted on its website. Related articlesIs metascience being co-opted?European researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationThe US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know The ministry said that it “should be regarded as a basis for discussion and does not constitute a binding statement.” Backing the statement gives Germany the chance to raise “issues and concerns” with the US during upcoming talks on science and technology scheduled for November. “Although these intentions appear, in principle, to be worthy of support, they will be scrutinised and examined more closely as the process continues,” the statement continues. Super intelligence?A ministry spokesperson confirmed to Science|Business that Germany had broadly endorsed the Kyoto Vision.However, they said Berlin had not agreed to final changes in the statement to refer to AI as super intelligence. In September, facing protests against data centres and polling that suggests US citizens are far more concerned than excited by the technology, Trump issued an executive order that attempts to rebrand AI as super intelligence, following polling on social media.The name change is to “reflect the transformative capabilities of these technologies and the limitless opportunities they create for the American people,” the order says. EU askedThe UK and Italian science ministries did not respond to a request for comment on their endorsement of the Kyoto Vision. Although most EU countries did not endorse the statement, it’s not clear which states the US asked. The White House Office for Science and Technology Policy did not return a request for comment. A European Commission official, speaking under condition of anonymity, said that the US had approached the EU, but too late for the EU to quiz all its member states on whether Brussels should endorse the statement.
Can scientists forecast earthquakes? A 2026 study offers clues
A decade-long California experiment tested earthquake forecasting models against nearly 600 earthquakes. Here's what it found.
Why does an electrified pickle glow? We’re not exactly sure
Portland State University engineering professor Joshua Méndez is conducting experiments in his lab to get to the bottom of this electrostatic mystery.
Fifth Grade Girls Conduct Science Experiments During STEM Day
1 (Photo by Shelley Hanson) Fifth graders Victoria Stumm and Saydie Cain watch as their homemade lava lamps begin to bubble during the CTE Girls STEM Day at John Marshall High School on Tuesday. The girls attend Sand Hill Elementary School. 2 (Photo by Shelley Hanson) Central Elementary School fifth graders Nova Howard, at left, […]
NVIDIA Launches DGX Spark 64 GB Desktop AI Systems
Local AI is becoming more useful by the token. As AI agents move from experiments into everyday development, increasingly capable open models are shrinking to fit on more devices, giving builders more to run locally. Coming this month, NVIDIA DGX Spark will be available with 64 GB of unified...
OpenAI acquires startup Orchestra Bio to beef up its biotech business
OpenAI says it's adding Orchestra's team and technology to work on Rosalind, its AI model for life sciences research, and to its related Rosalind Workbench tool, a harness that aims to help researchers plan experiments and analyze results.
Reading Science Center to celebrate expanded exhibit space with free community event
New space offers more opportunities to explore, experiment and interact with science, officials said.
It’s Time We Reframe Healthcare Organizational Culture Using Behavioral Science
Data, behavioral insights, and experimentation can be used to understand how stress, motivation, and trust shape company culture. Positively changing company culture leads to direct improvements in patient health outcomes, clinician wellbeing, and company performance.
NVIDIA and Danaher are working to link AI with lab experiments. The initial work focuses on select instruments.
Danaher is working to combine lab instruments, automation, software and data with NVIDIA computing and AI; work could extend beyond select instruments.
Students share science lessons at Walk Walton
Students Journey Hicks and Scarlett Brooks presented their water filtering experiment to visitors at the Walk Walton event on Oct. 18.
Magnolia Heights students visit Northwest Mississippi Community College for science field trip
Students from Magnolia Heights explored biology and chemistry through campus labs and hands-on experiments, according to Northwest Mississippi Community College.
'You Can See Everything' just become a major player in the Oscar race
Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim's experimental portrait of Elizabeth Holmes is the kind of phenomenon that even the pickiest awards voters will need to pay heed to.
Breathwork Really Can Induce an Altered State of Consciousness, Experiment Shows
This is totally surreal.
Using an iPad mini to preview the iPhone Duo experience
Alongside using the iPhone 18 Pro, I’ve also been carrying out a little experiment as we await the launch of...
This AI Scientist Can Design Experiments, Run Them in the Lab and Learn From the Results
The system can propose biological questions, design experiments and send robots to test them.
Genesis Mission: SYNAPS-I Brings Agentic AI to Experimental Workflows
With support from ALCF computing resources and AI services, the SYNAPS-I team demonstrated a new agentic AI platform that uses natural-language instructions to automate complex experimental workflows as part of the DOE Genesis Mission. Oct. 8, 2026 — Science has increasingly used artificial intelligence (AI) as a kind of microscope — sorting data, analyzing images […]
Bay Area Science Festival set for Saturday; free event to feature games, robots, animals and experiments
13th annual gathering at UC San Francisco Mission Bay Campus showcases innovation and research, with a focus on kids
FAU Receives NSF Grant to Prepare Future AI, Robotics Workforce
FAU engineering researchers have received a $500,000 NSF grant to integrate AI, digital twins and robotics experimentation, advancing research and training in intelligent systems.
How a 1940s US experiment tried, and failed, to create a 'super dog'
In 1940s Maine, a group of scientists built the School for Dogs, a massive facility to breed a "super-dog". Things didn't go as planned.
3 Priorities That Will Define the Hawks' 2026-27 Season
The Hawks must balance development, lineup experimentation, and winning as they enter a season with elevated expectations.
Hands-On Science Center announces Fall Break Camp
Looking for something exciting and educational to keep kids engaged during fall break? The Hands-On Science Center is inviting children ages 6–13 to spend a week exploring, experimenting, and discovering at its upcoming Fall Break Camp, taking place Oct. 5–9 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (begin drop-off as early as 8:30 a.m. and pick […]
Francis Bacon’s 'Sylva Sylvarum' Stars in New Art and Science Exhibit
Opening next month at the Bodleian Libraries in Oxford, Plain Things Wonders marks 400 years since the publication of Francis Bacon’s influential experimental science text Sylva Sylvarum.
Stop treating your daily-driver Linux PC like a science experiment
I learned the hard way that your main computer shouldn't be a lab—here is why boring is better for your daily driver.
'The New Stanford Prison Experiment' review: A project reimagined for TV
Netflix's new reality series is a mix of the 1971 social experiment that investigated power dynamics, 'Big Brother' and 'Wonka's Golden Ticket.'
Scientists Discover Metals That Refuse To Crack at an Astonishing -424°F
Two experimental alloys resisted cracking at −424°F by forming new crystal defects, offering a possible route to tougher metals for extreme cold. Most metals become stronger as they cool, but some also become more vulnerable to breaking. Iron, tungsten, and chromium belong to a class called body-centered cubic metals, whose atomic arrangement can make them
Free 'Cool Science Festival' returns with experiments from hot plates to hot dogs
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KRDO) - The 17th annual Cool Science Festival kicks off Saturday at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs with Carnival
Seiko Just Made A £510 Panda Watch With Ears For Pushers And A Tail
It started life as one of Seiko’s mad design experiments. Now 5,000 are going on sale
Trick-or-treating, spooky science and haunted houses arrive at Miami Children’s Museum for Halloween - WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports
Trick or treating in a museum can be full of surprises because mixing up spooky science with costumes equals a bash to remember. Experimenting withRead More
In 2021, Australian scientists sprayed wheat scent across farm plots to confuse hungry mice; the treatment reduced seed loss by up to 74% in a field experiment without poisoning the rodents
Australian scientists have tested a non-toxic way to protect wheat seeds from hungry mice by making it harder for the rodents to locate them. In an experiment carried out in 2021, instead of poisoning the mice or using bait, the researchers sprayed diluted wheat germ oil across farm plots to camouflage the smell of wheat seeds.
Science History Institute Opens Permanent Alchemy Exhibit in Philadelphia
A new permanent exhibit at the Science History Institute in Philadelphia, Fire and Gold: The Art of Alchemy (1450–1850), explores alchemy as early modern chemistry and the development of experimental,…
Mystery Science Theater 3000 The RiffTrax Experiments Behind the Scene
Variety went behind the scenes of “Mystery Science Theater 3000: The RiffTrax Experiments"
Google experiments with an AI-powered gaming platform
Google Labs is working on a new AI-powered game-creation platform called Playground for users to build browser-based games using simple text prompts.
For an Experiment in Political Affirmative Action, Look to Taiwan
The island adopted quotas for women running for public office decades before other countries. The upshot? Today, few of them need quotas to get elected.
Science History Institute Opens Permanent Alchemy Exhibit in Philadelphia
A new permanent exhibit at the Science History Institute in Philadelphia, Fire and Gold: The Art of Alchemy (1450–1850), explores alchemy as early modern chemistry and the development of experimental,…
Studying Science in an Anti-Scientific Time
This Chronicle Review Deep Cut was first published in 2025. By Julianne Werlin Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe The last two decades have not been kind to science studies. Already bruised and battered by the “science wars” of the 1990s, by the 2000s sociologists of science — who had long argued that science had to be understood in its human context — were encountering the funhouse-mirror version of their own views in right-wing critiques of climate scientists. It was enough to give some prominent scholars pause. “Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?” asked Bruno Latour, the most famous sociologist of science in the world, in 2003. “Should we apologize for having been wrong all along? Or should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: What were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?” In response, Latour proposed a change of method and attitude. Science studies, now chastened and contrite, would no longer seek to strip facts of their authority, but to enrich and enhance them. What this meant in practice was never fully clear. But his diagnosis of problems resonated, even if his solutions did not. Latour’s exercise in public hand-wringing signaled a shift in mood. By 2016, with the first election of Donald Trump, the idea that skepticism of science was a right-wing position, not a left-wing one, had become a commonplace, discussed eagerly in The New York Times. For liberals, vaccine denial during the Covid era and Trump’s second-term attacks on the funding of scientific research, covered extensively in these pages, added a new urgency to the defense of science on both practical and principled grounds. There was little appetite for a sociology or philosophy of science that emphasized the messiness and missteps of the scientific process rather than its integrity and triumphs. The distinguished historian of science Peter Dear’s new book, The World as We Know It: From Natural Philosophy to Modern Science (Princeton University Press, 2025), which seeks to tell the story of 18th- and 19th-century science for a general public, may seem comfortably remote from these bitter contests. In its 16 short chapters, Dear draws swift, sure sketches of major discoveries from Newton to Einstein, ably guiding the reader through debates on stellar nebulae, animal taxonomy, atomic chemistry, evolution, and other flashpoints in the history of science. But though a work of history, Dear’s book must still negotiate our polarized present. In a blurb on its back cover, the historian of biology Lynn K. Nyhart alludes to the “present moment, when scientific knowledge is being swamped by misinformation and its institutions are under siege.” Dear himself, in his conclusion, refers to the “yard signs” and “bumper stickers” that proclaim “Science Is Real.” One antidote to both anti-science propaganda and to reductive slogans in science’s defense is a robust history and philosophy of science: exactly what Dear’s scholarship has long offered. But his new book illustrates how difficult such work has become. Dear, an emeritus professor of history at Cornell University, is best known as a creative and philosophically minded historian of the Scientific Revolution. His edited volume The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument (1991) analyzed the rhetoric of Galileo’s thought experiments to brilliant effect. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution (1995) was a major contribution to the analysis of scientific experiments in early modern Europe and beyond, while Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge in Transition, 1500-1700 (2001), now in its third edition, remains one of the best overviews of the profound epistemological upheavals of 16th- and 17th-century science. But Dear has also ventured into later periods. Nearly two decades ago, in The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World (2006), he turned to the 18th and 19th centuries to sketch a history and theory of scientific knowledge. Aimed at a generalist audience, Dear’s simple prose belied serious philosophical ambitions. Science, Dear argued, has two aspects: “natural philosophy,” the quest to understand the true nature of the universe, and “instrumentality,” the applied skills and technologies that allow us to manipulate the world for human advantage. Both strands are ancient, but the innovation of the phenomenon we call “science” was to yoke them together. As Francis Bacon wrote, “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced,” an insight typically abridged to “knowledge is power.” Or, in Bertrand Russell’s characteristically blunt phrase, science has two functions, “1. to enable us to know things, and 2., to enable us to do things.” So far, so conventional. But Dear took issue with this familiar story in one respect. Bacon’s formula implied that theory and practice could be fused in a single method. In fact, Dear argued, the quest to understand nature and the desire to manipulate it were coupled only loosely. They could come together, but they could also pull apart. Focusing on natural philosophy, the “knowing” half of the scientific circle, he used a series of case studies from cosmology, taxonomy, chemistry, electromagnetism, and quantum theory to show how theories changed over time, in dialogue with practice, but never reducible to it. Take the case of matter, the basic substrate of the physical world. In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists not only disagreed about what it was, but also about how well it could be known. In 1789, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier dismissed speculation about the atomic composition of chemicals as “discussions entirely of a metaphysical nature,” as he sought to orient chemistry away from philosophical abstraction and toward laboratory results. But in the 19th century, atoms returned with a vengeance in the atomic chemistry of John Dalton, who wanted to explain the underlying structure of nature. It was not just that Dalton and Lavoisier had a different set of experimental results, or even a different theory, Dear showed. What counted as an explanation had changed. In arguing that scientific theories depended on their intelligibility to human beings with complex arrays of beliefs and commitments, Dear was in sympathy with science studies. Key figures such as the sociologist Steven Shapin emphasized the importance of psychological mechanisms like trust in the formation and acceptance of scientific ideas. But in focusing on the scientific pursuit of knowledge, not its politics or economics, Dear resisted the more cynical perspective of some of his colleagues. The Intelligibility of Nature strikes a very different note than Shapin’s collection of a few years later, Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People With Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority (2010), to name just one example. Walking a very fine line, Dear depicted science as driven at once by complex social dynamics and by the intellectual power of real discoveries. It was a testament not only to his own acumen but also to the vitality of the field that he was able to do so. Nearly two decades later, The World as We Know It returns to the questions broached in The Intelligibility of Nature. Like Dear’s earlier study, it begins with the Newtonian cosmos and ends with debates between Einstein and Bohr on quantum physics. Beyond its terminal figures, many of the same characters appear in both studies, including the naturalists John Ray and the Comte de Buffon; the chemists Étienne François Geoffroy, Antoine Lavoisier, and John Dalton; as well as Charles Darwin and Michael Faraday, among others. Its subject is nearly identical: As in The Intelligibility of Nature, The World as We Know It considers natural philosophy as opposed to instrumentality, here defined as the “desire to create a picture of what the world is really like — the world as God knows it — rather than simply having instrumental or operational control over it.” The two books also overlap in insights — and sometimes even in language. The reader who has learned in The Intelligibility of Nature that Buffon’s method of classifying animals “reflected his belief in the importance of the senses and empiricism in learning about nature (a doctrine associated with Newton and the philosopher John Locke)” will experience a sense of déjà vu on reading, in The World as We Know It, that the classification “reflects Buffon’s commitment to the epistemological stance of Newton and his philosophical underlaborer John Locke, who stressed the role of the senses in creating natural knowledge.” Later in the passage, we read that, “because of its stress on understanding the ways of life of animals in their environments, Buffon’s approach could almost be labeled (anachronistically) as ‘ecological.’” And again, “an anachronistic way of putting it would be to say that Buffon recommends an ecological mode of understanding.” Likewise, in The Intelligibility of Nature we read of Dalton that he was initially drawn to meteorology, and that: He did a bit of experimental work on these things, especially having to do with the water-holding capacity of gases, but his real interest lay in understanding what, at an underlying natural-philosophical level, was really going on physically.” Whereas, in The World as We Know It: He did experimental work on these things, especially concerning the water-holding capacity of gases — although not at a very refined level quantitatively — but he was continually trying to develop a theoretical conception of what was happening physically. The final full chapter of each book closes on the same resigned note. Intelligibility: These days, most serious work on the natural philosophical underpinnings and implications of quantum mechanics is performed not by physicists but by philosophers of science. Among scientific practitioners themselves, Bohr’s attempt to use instrumentality as sufficient grounds for a respectable science has met with a high degree of success. And again, in The World as We Know It: Bohr’s and Einstein’s concerns are now questions that are mostly discussed by philosophers of science rather than by physicists themselves. The marginalization of these sorts of questions amounts to the demise of natural philosophy, at least in physics, in the 20th century. Quantum mechanics “works,” and that’s good enough for most scientists who encounter it. Examples could be multiplied. When handling the same subject matter, some echoes are inevitable. Scholars should not feel that because they have written “Isaac Newton died in 1727” in one book, in the next they must describe him as perishing, expiring, or meeting his maker. But the repetitions of language and arguments (not to mention six reproduced images) threaded throughout The World as We Know It are more extensive than that. They should have been caught by Princeton University Press or its reviewers, and revised. Because the two books have so much in common, it is easy to see where they diverge. The World as We Know It is a less theoretical work than its predecessor. The sociology of knowledge that organized The Intelligibility of Nature has been reduced in scale and folded into readings and examples. The taut interplay between history and theory, which gave the earlier study so much interest, is there, but it is subtle. In the earlier book, the case studies demonstrated theoretical claims about the character and development of science. In the later work, each narrative of discovery is an end in itself. Insights emerge from the history, but they do not control the organization of the study. With the theory muted, it can be hard to understand the logic uniting Dear’s sprawling history of more than two centuries of scientific knowledge. The 16 brisk chapters cover an enormous amount of material. But the closer the volume edges to comprehensiveness, the more obvious the missing elements become. A chapter on “Institutions and Pedagogy,” describing the birth of the research university, illustrates the problem. Inserted roughly halfway through the book, the unnumbered chapter is designed as an “entr’acte,” in acknowledgement that it does not fit the study’s organization around scientific discoveries. Yet as Dear is well aware, no general history of the development of modern science can bracket its 19th-century institutionalization and professionalization. It was the 19th-century university, after all, that gave us the “scientist,” a term coined by the Cambridge philosopher William Whewell. Dear’s history of scientific discoveries implies a wider social and institutional history, but it remains largely subterranean, only occasionally extruded under the pressure of the narrative. It must be said that the balance is not all on the side of the earlier study. There are some advantages to the more historical, less theoretical organization of The World as We Know It. Dear’s accounts of paradigm shifts are remarkably lucid, no small accomplishment given that they span fields and centuries. He makes excellent use of the wealth of new scholarship on Darwin and his influences, to which he has himself contributed. It is satisfying to see puzzle pieces from Buffon’s natural history, Georges Cuvier’s animal taxonomy, Thomas Robert Malthus’s demography, and Charles Lyell’s geology recombined seamlessly in the Darwinian jigsaw. Likewise, Dear’s discussion of stellar nebulae, divided between chapters two and 15, shows vividly how Newton, Kant, Herschel, and Hubble reimagined insights and observations as they sought to discover whether the diffuse light that filtered through early telescopes was a glowing, gaseous substance or discrete but distant stars. Yet despite such pleasures, the book remains a more modest work than The Intelligibility of Nature. Dear has clearly not changed his views about the history of science. But in the two decades that have elapsed, the discipline and the world around it have changed, making it harder to write a sociologically and philosophically ambitious history of science for the general reader. That is a shame, because in the age of Silicon Valley and biotechnology, both the reciprocity and the tensions Dear identified between the epistemological and instrumental ambitions of science are more evident than ever. In recent years, some of the most exciting new books on the history of science in early modernity have focused precisely on this pressure point. Important studies such as Pamela H. Smith’s From Lived Experience to the Written Word (2022), James Poskett’s Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science (2022), and Vera Keller’s The Interlopers: Early Stuart Projects and the Undisciplining of Knowledge (2023) all shed new light on how early modern science negotiated the relationship between its instrumental and epistemological ambitions, or in Russell’s phrase, knowing and doing. There is every opportunity for a philosophically informed approach to draw new insights from this wealth of material. Dear, unfortunately, has not done so in The World as We Know It. But for future scholars of the history of science, his body of work over nearly four decades may provide just the model. Julianne Werlin is an associate professor of English at Duke University. Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
Slow TV, the Norwegian experiment that turned long journeys into global entertainment
Discover how Norway’s Slow TV transformed long journeys and everyday moments into unique television experiences.
Bill Nye the Science Guy experiments with prevalent topics at Beyond the Conversation
Bill Nye, known to generations as “The Science Guy,” took the Beyond the Conversation stage Wednesday as Titans filled TSU Pavilions A, B and C, welcoming the legend himself with
Pumpkins and combustions at the Maryland Science Center
The Maryland Science Center is making experiments exciting on their demonstration stage, and they bring a sneak preview to the 11 News studio.
Particle collider experiment recreates the Big Bang's primordial soup — and finds an unexpected twist
A particle collider experiment just revealed something unexpected about how the fiery soup of particles that filled the universe after the Big Bang coalesced into the protons and neutrons that make up matter today.
Plague is stoppable. The next health threat may not be.
The word plague is scary. Centuries ago, the Black Death killed tens of millions of people and changed the course of history. Plague still kills people around the world, and the word still evokes catastrophe. New fears of plague surfaced on October 2, when a lab worker in Irkutsk, Russia, died of pneumonia. Reports suggested that she may have contracted plague through a laboratory exposure. Understandably, people were alarmed. On October 7, the World Health Organization called for the Russian Federation to be transparent about what it knew. WHO issued an update on October 10. Russian authorities told WHO that testing did not identify plague and that investigations found no laboratory release. WHO said confidence in its risk assessment remained limited and that further clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory information was needed. The cause of the woman’s illness remains unknown, and WHO says a laboratory-associated exposure cannot be excluded. As I explained in a recent interview, this incident is very unlikely to lead to a pandemic. Plague is still active, including in the U.S., which sees a handful of cases each year. But it is a disease we can prevent and treat. Plague doesn’t spread readily, and it responds to antibiotics. The standard response—isolate the patient, trace contacts, and administer antibiotics and monitor for symptoms among contacts for seven days—works. We have even planned for antibiotic-resistant plague. At CDC, we developed a playbook for antibiotic-resistant plague and ran exercises on how to find and stop it. CDC guidance anticipates engineered resistance and recommends two different classes of antibiotics if there’s reason to suspect it. There is no evidence that resistance—or even confirmed plague—is involved in this incident. We have thought through how to address plague, but we’re not ready for the next major health threat that emerges from a lab or from animal spillover to humans. What should concern people is how little stands between the world and the next pathogen to get loose. Since peak COVID, epidemic preparedness has fallen off the political agenda, but the risk is greater than ever. More labs handle dangerous pathogens with more ways to make those pathogens deadlier, and more people live and work in close contact with animals. There are actions we can take now: We need better lab safety in every country. The number of labs that work with dangerous pathogens has increased worldwide over two decades, but there’s no enforceable international standard and no inspection regime; the Biological Weapons Convention, fifty years on, still has no verification mechanism. Labs that study dangerous germs need strong safety systems, training, and oversight. We need to reduce spillover events. Three in four emerging human infections start in animals, and there’s a lot we can do to reduce spillover risk, but the world is doing very little of it. Live-animal markets are one place to act. For instance, closing live-bird markets helped control H7N9 influenza in China. Reducing opportunities for people to encounter infected animals can prevent infections before they become outbreaks. In The Formula for Better Health, which is now out in paperback along with the hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook versions, I argue that labs do too many risky experiments with too many dangerous pathogens in too many institutions, and that every experiment should first answer one basic question: Is the likely benefit greater than the risk? Spillover risk can also be reduced: In the book, I discuss how Brazil cut its deforestation rate by 70% from 2004 to 2012 while increasing agricultural production and reducing risky contact between people and forest animals. We need faster detection and response. Delay costs lives. Strong surveillance, good labs, and trained responders can turn a single case into a small cluster of infections instead of an epidemic. Resolve to Save Lives has worked for nearly a decade to help countries find and stop outbreaks faster. The 7-1-7 target, which Resolve to Save Lives developed with partners in Uganda and elsewhere, provides a clear standard: detect within 7 days, notify within 1 day and complete all essential early response actions within 7 days. In Uganda’s Kasese district, for example, a review of a measles outbreak using 7-1-7 identified shortages of accessible funds, fuel, and vehicles that delayed the response. District leaders established funds they could access quickly. When, a few months later, the Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever appeared, the district detected it in three days, notified authorities in one, and mounted an effective response in two. Only one case was confirmed, and the patient survived. Because funds were available before the emergency, authorities were prepared and able to act. This kind of preparation can’t wait until the next crisis begins. Plague is an old disease we that know how to stop. The next threat may be harder to recognize, harder to treat, and easier to spread. Safer labs, less risk of spillover, and faster outbreak detection and response need sustained investment now, while we still have time to prevent the next emergency. Share
Mad Science owner brings spooky Halloween science experiments to life
Rob Diaz from Mad Science of NYC & Westchester joins 'Fox & Friends Weekend' to demonstrate spooky Halloween science experiments, including bubbling dry ice potions and a giant fog explosion.
COSI spotlights fall leaf color science experiment, plus new attractions for all ages
AI study of 101,000 patients links brown fat to heart and mental health
In a retrospective analysis of PET-CT records from 101,243 patients, researchers found that detectable brown fat was associated with lower prevalence of cardiometabolic and psychiatric conditions, while greater activity, particularly in the axillary region, was linked to more favourable metabolic outcomes. Medication screening identified losartan, which increased brown fat thermogenic activity in laboratory experiments and energy expenditure in mice, although its effects on human brown fat remain unproven.
New Richland Lab Could Transform How Scientists Study Microbes and Boost Regional Jobs
The BriefGroundbreaking held Tuesday: PNNL officially began construction on the M2PC lab, a 30,800-square-foot facility funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science that will study soil microbes to improve crop productivity and develop new biotechnology applications. The facility will be open to researchers from around the nation and the world.Research timelines could shrink dramatically: The facility's automation and AI capabilities could reduce experiments that currently take six months to just 72 hours, allowing scientists to explore more possibilities faster than ever before.New jobs coming to the Tri-Cities: The project is expected to create positions for automation engineers, AI experts, roboticists, technicians, and skilled craftspeople, with the facility opening in 2029.RICHLAND, Wash. — Pacific Northwest National Laboratory broke ground Tuesday on a first-of-its-kind facility that could accelerate scientific discoveries about the microscopic organisms living in soil—organisms that may hold the key to growing more food and developing new energy technologies.The Microbial Molecular Phenotyping Capability, or M2PC, represents a significant investment in automation and artificial intelligence to speed up research that traditionally takes years to complete. The 30,800-square-foot facility will house more than 100 connected automated instruments designed to study microbes at a pace and scale never before possible.Reshaping Agriculture's FutureThe M2PC facility will not put a new tool directly into a farmer's hands tomorrow morning, but it is actively reshaping the commercial pipeline to solve agriculture's biggest headache with biologicals: inconsistent field performance. For years, PNNL researchers have explored how microbes work and how they might help produce useful materials, advance energy technologies, and address challenges involving critical materials and minerals. But those experiments have been limited by what researchers could accomplish by hand."They can be used to provide nutrients to a plant so that the plant would grow more. So, like increasing your crop productivity, for example," said Douglas Mans, PNNL's Associate Laboratory Director for Integrated Discovery Sciences.PNNL's own research shows soil microbes can help plants access nutrients and withstand drought—benefits that could prove crucial as farmers face growing environmental pressures. The M2PC facility will allow scientists to identify and optimize useful microbes faster than ever before, accelerating the development of biological solutions that actually work consistently in the field.What Makes M2PC UniqueThe Microbial Molecular Phenotyping Capability differs from traditional research labs because it operates as a first-of-its-kind, AI-enabled autonomous laboratory designed to shrink experimental timelines from years down to months or weeks. The M2PC lab will connect more than 100 automated instruments to grow microbes, prepare samples, measure their behavior, and link observations to the molecular processes behind them. Artificial intelligence will help analyze results and guide the next experiments, allowing scientists to explore more questions faster.Deb Gracio, PNNL Director, emphasized the transformative potential during Tuesday's groundbreaking ceremony: "Research that has taken years will become possible in months and hopefully in weeks."That acceleration is already being demonstrated. PNNL's smaller automated lab, called the Anaerobic Microbial Phenotyping Platform or AMP2, completed three experimental cycles in just 72 hours—a process that normally would have taken about six months."That normally would have taken us about six months … and we were able to do that in 72 hours," Mans said.The AMP2 laboratory is not being closed or replaced. Instead, the current 1,800-square-foot laboratory serves as an active prototype and precursor for the much larger M2PC facility. AMP2 will continue operating as a separate lab designed to run anaerobic experiments—those conducted in the absence of oxygen—while M2PC will focus on aerobic research.Broader Applications Beyond AgricultureWhile improving crop productivity is one important application, the M2PC facility is designed to support research into multiple areas critical to national priorities. The lab will advance research into biofuels, manufacturing materials, and energy technologies. It will also help researchers understand how microbes respond to environmental changes and how to design biological systems for biotechnology applications.As a flagship component of the Department of Energy's Genesis Mission, M2PC represents a significant investment in using artificial intelligence and automation to accelerate U.S. scientific discovery. Dorothy Koch, Associate Director of the DOE Office of Science Biological and Environmental Research program, highlighted the facility's importance during the groundbreaking."M2PC will accelerate biological discovery and design," Koch said, noting that the facility is expected to conduct a minimum of 500 strain experiments per week, 100 microbiome experiments per week, and take a million measurements per month.Economic Opportunity for the RegionBeyond the scientific breakthroughs, the M2PC project represents significant economic opportunity for the Tri-Cities region. The facility will require hiring automation engineers, AI experts, technicians skilled in operating robotics, and specialized craftspeople to build and maintain the sophisticated equipment."We're anticipating that type of hiring," Mans said when asked about job creation.PNNL has already begun recruiting talent nationally and internationally for positions related to the smaller AMP2 lab, bringing automation engineers from cities like Boston and San Francisco to work in the region. The M2PC facility is expected to accelerate that trend."This capability won't really exist anywhere else in the world," Mans said, suggesting the facility could become a draw for scientific talent seeking to work on cutting-edge biotechnology research.Timeline and Next StepsThe M2PC facility is expected to open in 2029. Between now and then, construction crews will level and prepare the ground, while the building takes shape. Simultaneously, Ginkgo Bio Works, the automation contractor, will build the facility's automation components off-site so they can be installed as the building is completed.In the interim, PNNL researchers and the broader scientific community will begin planning the first experiments to be conducted in the facility, ensuring research is lined up and ready to begin as soon as the doors open.The groundbreaking ceremony included representatives from the Department of Energy, PNNL leadership, and elected officials at the federal, state, and local levels, underscoring the project's significance to the region and the nation's biotechnology future. News The U.S. Department of Energy Secretary tours Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Dan Hanson, Apple Valley News Now News Beyond DNA: Scientists Explore New Frontiers in Biology Research Dan Hanson, Apple Valley News Now News TRIDEC optimistic that Hanford, PNNL will see funding in national budget Robert Desaulniers News Big picture science: monitoring the Yakima River Basin News PNNL research could shape the future of fighting fentanyl COPYRIGHT 2026 BY APPLE VALLEY NEWS NOW. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED.
Pumpkins, Wetlands And A Little Halloween Science
This weekend visitors to the annual FallTastic Trail Walk can participate in a science experiment that combines festive fun with environmental learning.
An ambitious financial experiment tried to support struggling rural hospitals in Pa. for years. Did it work?
The Pennsylvania Rural Health Model ran from 2019 through 2024 at 18 hospitals across the commonwealth.
Science magician set to bring experiments, illusions to Keystone Elementary
Emmy-nominated science magician David Hagerman will bring his Extreme Science 2.0 show to Keystone Elementary School on Oct. 13, according to a press release.
Pomegranates, time-change preps and a fun science experiment | What's in Season with Michael Marks
Physicians Committee Applauds New Guidance on Animal Use From the National Cancer Institute
In August, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published new guidance on grant applications for studies involving animal experiments. This guidance requires researchers to justify their use of animals in the publicly available abstract section of applications and encourages them to use human-based methods.
Ubisoft plans cuts at German studios, adding to wave of workforce reductions
Ubisoft is planning to reduce its workforce in Germany, where it operates a trio of studios, by about 100 workers, Game File has learned. The company wants to offer employees buyouts to, should enough people accept, avoid having to lay anyone off. “In Germany, we initiated discussions with the Works Council last week regarding a proposed voluntary departure plan across Ubisoft Dusseldorf, Ubisoft Berlin & Ubisoft Mainz,” a company rep told Game File. A “works council” is a union-like group representing employees. “The voluntary plan is the primary measure being proposed to support the intended organizational changes,” the Ubisoft rep added. The company declined to confirm the scale of the potential headcount cut. Of the impacted studios, Mainz might be the best known to the public. It leads development of the Anno series and shipped the well-reviewed strategy game Anno 117: Pax Romana in November 2025. Berlin and Dusseldorf operate as support studios within Ubisoft’s creative network. Berlin recently supported the development of Rainbow Six Siege and the Rayman Legends Retold remake. Dusseldorf also contributed to those projects, as well as The Settlers and Ubisoft-branded escape rooms. Dusseldorf is the biggest of the three studios, with some 400+ workers, compared to just over 100 at the other two, a source familiar with the reductions and the teams told Game File. More than half of these new reductions of about 100 people are expected to happen at Dusseldorf. The planned cuts were announced at a town hall for the German studios on Tuesday of last week. In an email follow-up, the studio group’s managing director, Benedikt Grindel, said the cuts were intended to “best position our German studios for the future... with a clearer focus on their role, capabilities and organizational setup needed for the work ahead.” The email was an echo of the past. In January 2025, Grindel had emailed the Ubisoft developers in his region (or studio “zone”) to explain that a round of 185 cuts at the time, including about 65 at Dusseldorf, were “essential to improve our operational efficiency and ensure the long-term sustainability of our studios, the zone and the company.” A half-decade of continued job cuts Ubisoft has been aggressively cutting its headcount for years. At the end of September 2022, it had 20,729 workers. By the end of March 2026, that total was down to 16,590. Studio management is trying to trim costs as it grapples with a changing industry and a drought of releases, let alone hits. The company announced earlier this year that it had reduced its costs since 2022 by “nearly €325 million” ($362m) and planned to lower them through 2028 by another €180 million ($200m). In June the company said it was closing down its Winnipeg and Belgrade studios and cutting roles in its Barcelona team. Even commercial and creative success hasn’t spared studios from this ongoing company-wide contraction. As Game File was nailing down details around the proposed cuts in Germany, Ubisoft management was informing workers of cuts in its Singapore studio, which shipped a hit remake of Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag this past July. Some 70 positions in Singapore are being eliminated “to align the studio with upcoming production needs,” per a company rep’s statement to Game File. In early 2024, a large team in the Singapore studio launched the multiplayer pirate game Skull & Bones. It performed poorly but has been supported with regular content updates since. Many of Ubisoft’s studios around the world are heavily subsidized via regional grants and tax breaks. Singapore had been among them for years, but received no such local assistance in the 12 months ending this past March. News of the Singapore cuts broke today alongside word that Ubisoft is also proposing the closure of RedLynx, pending negotiations with officials. The Finnish studio behind the motorbike series Trials was founded in 2000 and sold to Ubisoft in 2011. As reported by VGC (and corroborated by Game File), Ubisoft management told employees it could not come up with a new, sustainable assignment for RedLynx. The 2025 workforce at Ubisoft Dusseldorf were straight-up cuts. This time, Ubisoft is hoping the reductions at its trio of German studios will largely come from workers taking a payout to leave. The company offered such voluntary dismissals at its Massive Entertainment studio (The Division) a year ago. For the German studios’ buyouts this time around, Ubisoft and the Works Council had discussed a formula that’d pay a worker’s monthly salary multiplied by 1.5 and by the number of years they’ve worked at the company, according to Game File sources. The formula is still subject to negotiations with the Works Council and has not yet been part of an official offer to workers. It could be adjusted up or down, and it could be supplemented with additional bonuses. Asked about the floated payout formula, a Ubisoft rep told Game File, “The terms of a potential voluntary departure program remain subject to negotiation with employee representatives. No final agreement has been reached, and we won’t comment on specific proposals while discussions are ongoing.” Game File is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Item 2: Epic’s AI adventures Epic Games (Fortnite, the Unreal engine) is all-in on using AI to try to transform the way it makes video games and game-making tools. It’s leaders appear to be undeterred by any resistance among gamers and some game developers around generative AI—and instead emboldened by advances, particularly in AI-assisted programming. A recap of the last three days: On Monday, Bloomberg reported that Epic management told workers last week that development of an upcoming game combining Star Wars and Marvel characters would be “AI first.” Employees would be expected to use AI models such as Claude to code the game. A manager told Epic’s developers there would be “[n]o more hand-written code” and that art for the game would be “generated with full AI workflows,” per the outlet. Just ahead of that story running, Epic founder Tim Sweeney tweeted: “We have a huge pivot underway here at Epic, moving developers around to retool for maximum AI acceleration. The aim isn’t to do the same stuff with fewer people, but to enable everyone here to build MORE and BETTER stuff, and to bring the benefits to all teams using Unreal.” In a follow-up, Sweeney predicted that most game development processes would be at least three times faster a year from now than they were in January 2026, thanks to AI. To a person on X who told him he was failing to read the room, Sweeney said: “Much of the room wants it to be 2016 again, but it’s not. Our job, as the provider of tools and technology to much of the industry, is to design for the present that is and the future that will soon be.” On Wednesday, Epic announced it was releasing a faster launcher for its Epic Games Store marketplace. It did so by stating in a blog post as clear as could be that the launcher is an AI-enabled, vibe-coded project: Programming is hard. So, instead of doing that, we vibe coded a new Epic Games Launcher that’s way faster and more responsive than the current one, and has a new look. Programming is hard? That was unexpected phrasing from a company founded by a legendarily great programmer. Back in 2011, Sweeney told me that he’d picked up programming quickly as a kid and rejoiced at the power it gave him. “I could look at any program that anybody else had written and, with enough effort, build something cooler.” Item 3: The Xbox Labs experiment (and one of the people behind it) Microsoft’s Xbox division, which is flooding the zone with announcements lately, yesterday revealed a new internal tech-tinkering team called Xbox Labs. In the words of Xbox boss Asha Sharma Labs is “a small group of game makers, engineers and scientists whose job is to turn emerging ideas into things our players and developers can experience.” Conventional wisdom coming out of the announcement is that Labs is a team that’ll focus on ideas driven by generative AI. In her announcement, Sharma cited some of the dizzying achievements in tech and gaming over the past month as AI agents and other AI tools have been deployed to swiftly figure out how popular games work, then rebuild them and mix them up. She mentioned seeing ”games rapidly decompiled and rebuilt to run on hardware they were never originally designed to support” and said “[p]erhaps more surprisingly, we’ve seen many of the biggest games in the world have been remixed into the source code of another.” (Minecraft plus Elden Ring, for example, or Fortnite + Super Monkey Ball + Overwatch + Diablo + others.) Sharma also cited the work of Windows PC games being ported to run in browsers, a seeming reference to a recent AI-assisted fan port of Halo. Or perhaps Call of Duty or GTA. Sharma didn’t use the specific term “AI” in her memo, but she came close, citing AI “agents” and their potential for game-making tools that Labs could help craft: I think XBOX has an important role to play here. Coding became the first major workload for agents because they can write, run, and test software. Games share many of those same properties, and people spend more than 72 billion hours a year playing XBOX games, roughly five times the estimated time spent writing code worldwide. We’ve spent 25 years learning how to make great games, and I want our game makers to help shape what these new technologies make possible. As we learn, we’ll share the tools we build with developers across the industry, just as we always have. When I asked an Xbox rep if Labs was an AI-centric team, they said genAI was not the focus, describing it as having a broader mandate for using new tech in new ways in gaming. As an example, they pointed to Xbox’s recently launched disc-to-digital gaming usage rights program. Microsoft didn’t specifically name anyone involved full-time in Xbox Labs yesterday, but on social media and LinkedIn, I spotted Adrian Mato IDing himself as leading the creatio of tools at Labs and talking up the launch. Mato first caught my attention in late September, when he said on X that he was “starting to build a new team at Xbox focused on products and tools for how games get built and distributed as agentic tools become more capable.” At the time, he framed AI-based tools as a supplement to traditional game dev tools. “I don’t think we need to replace them,” he said. Since then, he’s publicly shown interest in AI and in games. He’s recently spent some of his X feed marveling at the power of AI agents and praising the lighting in the latest Gears of War. Following the Labs announcement yesterday, he enthused about the Xbox Labs’ stylish landing page. He wrote: “We built some fun tools to art-direct shaders in real time, experimented with interactive ASCII art, and sprinkled in lots of tiny details. “Move your mouse to leave a colorful trail that reveals the original footage, or interact with the video to trigger bursts of particles. “A lot of love went into making it all feel just right. “More to come”
Sundance documentary about teacher\'s famous \'Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes\' experiment coming to West Art
A buzzworthy documentary about a teacher’s pioneering experiment to teach students about racism will be screened at West Art this weekend.
The Brockman Gallery is celebrated in new LACMA exhibition
The Brockman Gallery, founded by brothers Alonzo and Dale Brockman Davis after the Watts rebellion, became a community hub for multicultural experimentation in art. That legacy is explored in a new exhibition at LACMA.
Four Red Flags and One Truth Amid the Peptide Hype
Experimental peptides are all the rage on longevity and “optimization” podcasts, but a lot of the chatter is misleading.
The Business Case For SEO Is Changing; Budget Justifications Should Too
Build an SEO budget around revenue growth, revenue protection, shared infrastructure, and AI experiments to justify spending beyond organic traffic.
Media Briefing: Publishers are turning GEO from an experiment into a business
Publishers are turning GEO into a new revenue stream as clients increasingly look to boost their brands’ visibility in AI-generated answers.
Microplastics Have Been Linked With Myriad Human Health Problems. Scientists May Have Finally Figured Out How They Harm the Body
Lab experiments suggest that tiny bits of plastic can react with water inside us to produce highly reactive molecules. They can lead to damaging oxidative stress and inflammation
Microsoft Pushes AI Deeper Into Scientific Discovery With Quine
AI can already help scientists make sense of large amounts of data. Microsoft Research is now testing whether it can play a bigger role in deciding what scientists should investigate next. Its new experimental system, Quine, brings together biological data, computational models and research tools to make predictions that researchers can put to the test […]
Hundreds of Families Turn Out for Celebrate Science Indiana Festival
The October 10th event allowed children and parents the opportunity to conduct science experiments, learn about robotics, and more. The 15th annual Celebrate Science Indiana Festival brought together thousands of students, families, educators, and science enthusiasts to the Indiana State Fairgrounds for a day of hands-on learning and exploration. Organized by the Science Education Foundation […]
A Yale physicist — and IceCube member — salutes this year’s Nobel Prize winner
Yale physicist Reina Maruyama was part of the construction and commissioning team for the IceCube experiment, whose principal investigator, Francis Halzen, won the 2026 Nobel Prize for physics.
WNC SCIENCE EXPERIMENT ON SPACE X
THE SPACE-X ROCKET THAT WE SAW STREAK ACROSS THE UPSTATE SKY YESTERDAY MORNING HAD A LOCAL SCIENCE EXPERIMENT ON BOARD.
Bucs’ Kenny Gainwell experiment is off to a rough start
Kenny Gainwell has not been as advertised
Novichok Nerve Agents: What Science Actually Knows About the Deadliest Weapons
A new review finds that while Novichok agents potently inhibit acetylcholinesterase and modern forensics can verify exposure, many claimed properties of these weapons remain unvalidated by experiments on authenticated compounds.
TikTok accused by NY of running secret safety tests on teens
New York Attorney General Letitia James has added new allegations to a child safety lawsuit against TikTok Inc., accusing the platform of running secret experiments on teen users. The new
Yale physicist will use Moore Foundation award to expand tabletop neutrino research
David Moore, associate professor of physics, has been named a Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Experimental Physics Investigator.
PROFILE: Ben Sio
New President of CenterState CEO Brings Nearly Two Decades of Experience to Drive CNY Growth By Stefan Yablonski Ben Sio serves as president of the CenterState Corporation for Economic Opportunity — or CenterState CEO. The independent Syracuse-based nonprofit is committed to creating inclusive, equitable and sustainable economic growth in Central New York. “I started in this position in March, so it has been six months. I’m in my 19th year with CenterState,” he said in August. As president, he is responsible for overseeing the organization’s administration and governance, while leading and executing its vision to be an effective advocate, exceptional employer and a force for positive outcomes for the community. He previously served as chief of staff and senior vice president of strategy, policy and planning, overseeing the organization’s long-term strategic planning, consulting, corporate governance, fundraising and development, land-use planning and government relations. In his years with the organization, Sio has led or supported many high-profile strategic initiatives including the creation of the CNY Rising Plan, the launch of the NUAIR Alliance and the region’s UAS strategy, the creation of the Micron-enabled Community Priorities Document and the recently awarded NY Smart I Corridor Tech Hub. “When we decided to split Rob’s [Simpson] role into two positions, he has the CEO title and I got the president title. Rob remains focused on forward looking vision strategy for the organization and I’m more focused on the day-to-day operations,” he explained. “I’m also responsible for building consensus around strategic needs and priorities and managing the change necessary to drive execution. It’s an eventful job. “The experiment that we call CenterState is always evolving and shifting and addressing where we see market demand and market failure. “If we see something in our economy that isn’t going the way we think it should go, then whether it is housing development or workforce development or something else, we are always figuring out how to step into these situations and address those challenges.” “We are the largest ever in terms of staff that we have ever been. We are no longer the 20-person organization we were when we started out many, many years ago,” he said. “There are more day-to-day things to take care of. But also there is just so much happening in the community right now that is pulling CenterState and our expertise in so many directions. I tell people if we were bored and not busy, then I’d be really concerned about what we are doing. But we are not bored. We’ve certainly got our hands full — and that is a good thing.” CenterState has now approximately 63 employees on its staff, according to recent nonprofit database records. It’s involved in myriad programs, ranging from Genius NY, a business accelerator competition for uncrewed systems, IoT and robotics startups, to CenterState Up Start, a collaborative business development program that connects local, service-based businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs to the tools and networks that help them thrive. CNY Guy Through and Through A Central New York guy through and through, Sio was born and raised in Skaneateles. “My mom was a teacher, an art teacher. My father worked for many, many years with National Grid. He was there through the transition from Niagara Mohawk to National Grid,” he said. “Neither of my parents were touched by cutbacks and job loss. But I grew up going through that transition and being concerned that there were rounds of layoffs. My childhood connection to the economy here in Central New York … years ago it was on the decline. There were people that lived here that were concerned about losing their job. They were thinking they lived in a place that didn’t show much promise.” That narrative translated to his generation, he added. “The kids that grew up in the ‘90s in Central New York were very much told, directly or indirectly, by their parents, that they had to go somewhere else to find economic opportunity. That is what I grew up thinking,” he said. “I only went a few miles down Route 20 for college — in Geneva, New York; I graduated from Hobart and William Smith College with a bachelor’s degree in public policy and political science. “I got real interested in regional economies; because what makes regional economy is what makes the economy successful. And when I graduated, I had an opportunity to move to Washington, DC and work down there at a nonprofit doing this work.” However, he decided to stay in Central New York. “I got hired two weeks after I graduated. I got hired by the Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce. At the time it was one of two entities doing economic development in Central New York — [the Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce and the Metropolitan Development Association] — and it eventually became CenterState CEO,” he said, referring to 2010 merger between the two organizations. During his time at CenterState, Sio has also split time at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., where he supported communities developing export and foreign direct investment (FDI), a long-term cross-border investment where an individual or company from one country buys a lasting stake or control in a business located in another country. The program — known as Global Cities Initiative — was designed to help leaders in major U.S. and international metropolitan areas reorient their local economies toward global markets. “Early on in my tenure at CenterState, we had done a lot of work with the Brookings Institution, just regional planning stuff. We worked with them on developing a regional export plan, to export more products out of Central New York and a larger business plan for the region. They hired me on to help replicate those plans in different parts of the country,”Sio explained. “So, I worked there for three or four years. I worked for CenterState, but I was technically loaned to Brookings for a period of time to help them do this work elsewhere.” Family ties “My wife is Carly. We have been married 14 years. We have two kids, a 3-year-old and a 7-year-old. “With a 3-year-old and a 7-year-old, fun is a relative term these days. We do a lot of hiking. The kids this summer got very interested in waterfalls. We’ve hit every waterfall we could in a short hike — we’ve done Skaneateles and some others.” “I do woodworking and wood turning — it’s a branch of woodworking; you use a wood lathe. My big thing there is making wood bowls. I do that in most of my free time, which is not much,” he quipped. “I like to get into my woodshop and make a bowl and decompress and turn off the rest of the world for a little bit. I usually do it late at night when the house is quiet. It is definitely my escape from the day to day. I make a lot of bowls; all different sizes, all different species of wood. It’s a fun thing to do for me.” He gives away many of his creations. “They are mostly gifts — I don’t really sell them. I really don’t have time to go set up a booth at a fair or craft show. I usually give them away. I donate them to different things. If you are in my periphery, you’ve likely received a salad bowl from me as a gift. I just need to find something to do with all the stuff that I create,” he said. Lifelines Name: Benjamin Sio Position: President, CenterState CEO Birth Date: Not provided Birth place: Syracuse Residence: Westvale Education: Hobart and William Smith Colleges in the Finger Lakes Affiliations: Member of the boards of Skaneateles Festival, Greccio Foundation, Interfaith Works, CNY Community Foundation Personal/family: Married with two kids Hobbies: Woodworking and woodturning
Traverse City Central's New 'Ride Lab' Uses Skateboards to Teach Physics, Business Skills
What if the most effective physics classroom isn’t a classroom at all, but a skate park? This fall, Traverse City Central High School is experimenting with that very question. Brett Derr is one the teachers behind the Ride Lab, a brand-new double-block course at Central that combines physics, business, marketing, and advertising. In the past, …
As AI Learns to Write, Tuhin Chakrabarty Studies What Humans Stand to Lose
As AI models are able to generate increasingly convincing prose, what began as an experiment—can AI write something that sounds plausibly human?—is becoming a commercial reality, with blog posts, YouTube video scripts and even bestselling novels bearing AI’s fingerprints. But the speed of that shift brings unique challenges, including questions of copyright infringement and an
Watch: Inside Our $22K Sports Betting Experiment
What happens when you bet like a problem gambler on DraftKings and FanDuel? Reporter Jake Pearson spent 10 weeks on the apps to find out.
Scientists Just Built a Computer Out of DNA—and It Runs Without Electricity
A new DNA computer performed 700 computations across several experiments—without silicon or continuous energy input.
Microplastics Have Been Linked With Myriad Human Health Problems. Scientists May Have Finally Figured Out How They Harm the Body
Lab experiments suggest that tiny bits of plastic can react with water inside us to produce highly reactive molecules. They can lead to damaging oxidative stress and inflammation
Cannabis and Health: How Cannabinoids Affect the Human Body
Dietary cannabinoids such as CBD show anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activity in experimental studies, but evidence that supplementation improves human health remains limited.