SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " manuscript " 25 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Undeciphered Voynich manuscript may have been bound out of order, study finds
Experts argue that the mysterious Voynich manuscript was incorrectly bound — a discovery that "moves the ball" in finally deciphering the 15th-century document.
Book Review: ‘Luna, Phoenix, Queen,’ by Julie Orringer
In Julie Orringer’s novel “Luna, Phoenix, Queen,” a husband discovers his ailing wife’s secret, steamy manuscript — and co-opts it as his own.
The Math Singularity Is Here, and Science May Be Next
OpenAI has released an extraordinary body of mathematical work produced by an unreleased frontier model: 722 manuscripts spanning 372 research families across fields including number theory, complexity theory, and mathematical physics. Each result required, on average, the equivalent of roughly three hours of ChatGPT Pro reasoning. A New Era of Discovery We may be witnessing the beginnings of a “math singularity”: a point at which machine-generated discovery accelerates beyond humanity’s ability to independently reproduce, verify, or fully absorb it. If frontier models can generate hundreds of meaningful results in the time it takes a human researcher to investigate one, the constraint will no longer be producing new mathematics. It will be our capacity to validate, interpret, and integrate it. This does not make mathematicians obsolete. It changes their role. They may increasingly serve as guides, critics, and meaning-makers. Increasingly, they will decide which questions matter, determining which results can be trusted, and explaining why they are important. Mathematical insight may become abundant, while human judgment becomes more valuable than ever. Mathematics May Be Only the Beginning Every scientific discipline could eventually experience a similar acceleration. AI systems could generate and test hypotheses, connect findings across specialized fields, and explore possibilities at a scale no human research community could match. In medicine, imagine models identifying overlooked disease mechanisms, designing drugs and clinical trials, personalizing treatments, or discovering cures in months rather than decades. In materials science, AI could help create better batteries and cleaner industrial processes. In climate science, it could accelerate advances in energy, forecasting, and carbon removal. In biology, it could uncover relationships hidden across enormous genomic and molecular datasets. The result would not simply be faster research. It could expand the frontier of what is scientifically possible. The New Bottleneck Scientific discovery, however, is not the same as scientific progress. A medical breakthrough must still survive laboratory testing, clinical trials, regulatory scrutiny, manufacturing constraints, and real-world deployment. As machine-generated ideas multiply, the bottleneck may shift from producing breakthroughs to validating them safely and translating them into practice. We may soon have more hypotheses than laboratories can test, more drugs than clinical trials can evaluate, and more mathematical results than experts can review. That imbalance will require better systems for automated verification, reproducible research, prioritization, peer review, and collaboration between AI and domain experts. The importance of OpenAI’s work is not merely the number of manuscripts produced. It offers a glimpse of a world in which intelligence can explore thousands of intellectual paths in parallel. If ideas cease to be scarce, humanity’s defining challenge will be deciding which are true, which matter, and how to turn them into progress. The math singularity is not the end of human inquiry. It is the beginning of a new kind—one in which machines expand the frontier of knowledge and humans decide where it should lead. Subscribe Share Leave a comment
Is the ‘Verity’ cast Team Letter or Team Manuscript? Anne Hathaway weighs in on debate
Anne Hathaway, Dakota Johnson, and Josh Hartnett explain to EW where they stand on the shocking ending of their new movie ‘Verity.’
Sacred pages of 1,000-year-old gospel reveal ancient DNA scientists never expected
1,000-year-old manuscript found to have traces of ancient virus DNA preserved in its parchment pages.
Sacred pages of 1,000-year-old gospel reveal ancient DNA scientists never expected
1,000-year-old manuscript found to have traces of ancient virus DNA preserved in its parchment pages.
Sacred pages of 1,000-year-old gospel reveal ancient DNA scientists never expected
1,000-year-old manuscript found to have traces of ancient virus DNA preserved in its parchment pages.
Jason Jones, Co-Creator of Halo and Destiny and Co-Founder of Bungie, Announces New Studio
Jason Jones, one of the co-founders of Bungie and a co-creator of Halo and Destiny, has announced his new studio, Stone Kite, which will work on projects across various entertainment mediums. The studio's first release is One Zero One, a limited-series comic book based on a manuscript written by Jones.
Mad about Science: The Voynich Manuscript » Sandpoint Reader
By Brenden BobbyReader Staff Pumpkin spice, cobwebs and pumpkins can mean only one thing: spooky season is upon us! To celebrate the season, we are going to look at one of the most elaborate...
Debt service and the Pentagon. Private equity and the politics of the US housing market. The return of black lung disease & the Franco-Prussian War in color.
Thank you for opening your Chartbook email. RALPH BALSON. 1890—1964. Oil and enamel, signed. Source: Gavekal This going to hurt - the two 7s in the US: diesel and mortgage rates Source: Gavekal In the US housing market, costs are soaring and the role of corporate, private equity-backed buyers is high on the mid-term election agenda. HEY READERS, THANK YOU for opening the Chartbook email. I hope it brightens your day. I enjoy putting out the newsletter, but tbh, what keeps this flow going is the generosity of those readers who clicked the subscription button. If you are persuaded to click, please consider the annual subscription of $60. It is both better value for you and a much better deal for me, as it involves only one credit card charge. Why feed the payments companies if we don’t have to. Subscribe It is striking how, since 2020, big banks have dropped out of the political spotlight in the US. For contributing subscribers only. Subscribe Rates of the lung disease pneumoconiosis among working US coal miners have risen to levels not seen in nearly 40 years Source: Bloomberg Chinese Clean Technology Exports For contributing subscribers only. Subscribe Ralph Balson (1939) Portrait of Grace Crowley Cole, G. O. & Haseman, S. M., (2023) “‘The Substance of Paint’: Class and Materiality in the Work of Ralph Balson”, Open Library of Humanities 9(2). Ralph Balson (1890–1964) was an English plumber and house painter who emigrated to Australia in 1913 and subsequently became a key member of Sydney’s artistic avant-garde. He is credited with having the first solo exhibition of purely abstract painting in Australia in 1941. Despite his role in developing Australian non-objective painting, Balson remained principally a house painter, working on his art practice at weekends. In 1955 he retired on a state pension and became a full-time artist. Balson’s artistic education and methods were critically shaped by his working-class background. He did not travel abroad until 1960 and was an avid auto-didact. His materials, palette, techniques and compositional strategies were likewise informed by his trade. Balson’s profession as a painter-decorator made him conspicuous within the predominantly middle-class Sydney art scene, though his painting partner Grace Crowley considered it an advantage in their pursuit of constructive painting. This paper explores the impact of Balson’s trade on his trajectory towards pure abstraction. While his art was at odds with the predominantly figurative mode of class-conscious art in Australian Modernism, we argue that it is embedded in the experience of class through its creative adaptation of labour into aesthetics. Source: OLH Svetlana Alexievich, The Art of Oral History No. 1 Paris Review Issue 257, Fall 2026 Interviewed by Elena Kostyuchenko INTERVIEWER How were you able to go to Chernobyl? Did you need special papers? ALEXIEVICH It was a time of chaos. They let me right into the zone. … More than anything, there was confusion. Adamovich [Ales Adamovich, the Soviet Belarusian writer], I remember, persuaded Gorbachev to send in the scientists, who showed up without even bringing their shaving kits. They were told that there had been an explosion at a nuclear power plant, but for some reason they thought that they’d be there for only a day or two. The first time I went was several months later, and people kept telling me about things they didn’t understand—how the fishermen couldn’t find worms, because they’d burrowed deep into the earth, how the milk wouldn’t curdle at the cheese factories. The honeybees wouldn’t come out of their hives. The evacuations started, I think, in the first month. The old women hid, they wouldn’t leave. I mentioned radiation to one of them and she said, “I’ve seen that radiation, all right! It’s yellow with green in it. I saw puddles of it in my garden, and I told the other women, and we ran and looked, and she had it in her garden, and the other one, too!” God, it was wild, the way the mind made sense of it. There was a story going around about Gorbachev telling the scientists to show him the radiation. “We can’t, it’s invisible.” “But I want to see it!” I also ran into the soldiers who’d been flown in on helicopters from Afghanistan. I asked them, “What are you doing here with your machine guns?” They said, “We’re collecting the radiation, that’s what.” So you had some of them running around with their guns, others out in the village washing off firewood or burying soil in the soil. These were the kinds of things that exploded our worldview. They made you realize that culture was just a chest filled with old manuscripts. There were no books in there that could help me. Our philosophers turned out to be useless when faced with the unprecedented. Derrida, Baudrillard—philosophy fell silent. What was happening? How would we live with it? That’s when I decided it simply needed to be witnessed. Which is what I did. INTERVIEWER I wanted to ask about how you talk to people. … ALEXIEVICH Yes, we sit and we talk—about what interests me and about life in general. About love, about everything in the world. That way, what comes out is three-dimensional. If you cut straight to the part you need, which is what journalists do, it won’t be interesting, and it won’t be the truth, either. Not the whole truth. INTERVIEWER Do people always open up when you ask questions, or can questions get in the way? ALEXIEVICH You have to ask questions, of course. Your job is to scour away the banality and return people to their true selves, to make them face what they rarely tap into. With every new person, you have to find a new way to do it. When you ask an interesting question or you share what happened to you, you help people really think about what they’re saying and not just repeat whatever they’ve picked up from the newspaper. But not everybody is capable of it, not everyone wants to put themselves through that. Either the chemistry starts to kick in or it doesn’t. A person might be wonderful, but you can tell that the conversation just isn’t going to happen. You can try to push it, but it will be a product of your own intellect, rather than of that mysterious connection. Life doesn’t come from the mind. Some people I can call two years after our last conversation, and they’ll say, “Oh, Svetochka! I think of you all the time,” and we’ll start talking again. With others, that won’t happen. That doesn’t mean they’re not extraordinary people, just that you can’t connect with them. They might have some insight, but you don’t have the right antenna to pick up their signal. Source: The Paris Review Colorized Franco-Prussian war … the ruins of Strasbourg with a French photographer and his mobile dark room. Ralph Balson (1961) Matter Painting If you’ve scrolled this far, you know you want to click: Subscribe
Filippo Bernardini Scammed the Book Business for Years. Is He Back?
The man who admitted to stealing hundreds of manuscripts swore he’d never do it again. New online skulduggery resembles his old tricks, and then some.
Where disciplines meet: UTulsa scientists, conservators unlock secrets of centuries-old manuscripts
UTulsa and Gilcrease Museum researchers use Raman microscopy to analyze pigments in 16th-century Indigenous Mexican manuscripts, uncovering historical and scientific insights while preserving cultural heritage.
A 3,700-Year-Old Virus Hiding in a Medieval Book Just Killed 500,000 Animals
Holy manuscripts preserved the genome of a plague that wiped out up to 90% of Europe’s historical sheep herds.
10 Literary Science Fiction and Fantasy Novels That Offer Hope for the Future
During graduate school, I finished the novel that found me an agent—but when my agent submitted it to publishers, all twenty of them turned the manuscript down. Truthfully, it was closer to a colle…
QED Science: Interview With VP Of Product Guy Ronen About Validating Scientific Research With AI
QED Science provides an AI validity engine that breaks manuscripts and grant proposals into individual claims, tests each against the published literature, and scores them for originality and validity. The company also publishes The 1%, a blind ranking of the strongest new preprints in life science. Pulse 2.0 interviewed QED Science VP of Product Guy Ronen to learn more.
Do You Have to Be Fancy to Get Published in “Science”?
No, not necessarily. But scientists who work for a prestigious university are three times more likely than their peers who don’t to get published in the top-tier journal, according to a new independent analysis of Science’s manuscript data.
60% of medieval knight tales lost to time
New research suggests that an enormous amount of chivalric manuscripts disappeared.
We can create the future of science right now
Paul Litvak is the founder and Executive Director of the Robyn Dawes Institute and a Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley. He has a PhD in Behavioral Decision Research from Carnegie Mellon where he studied emotions and the sunk cost bias. Over 15 years in industry, he solved a wide range of challenging technical problems. At Meta he created models optimizing the ad review process. At Google he ran experiments to measure social influence. At Airbnb, he was a product manager leading machine learning teams optimizing search ranking and price suggestions. He also co-founded and led product at Rhythmic Health, a venture-backed biosensing startup, creating an accurate low cost system using a color changing strip and a smart phone to measure salivary lactate. The bottleneck At this point, it is uncontroversial to say that science needs to stop using the PDF article as the unit of knowledge and currency. The unbearable slowness of scientific publishing, the profit motive and margins: I’m not saying anything new. The PDF also sucks because it’s hard to extract structured information, which makes it hard to do evidence synthesis. As a result, we do much less evidence synthesis than is needed. And evidence synthesis ultimately undergirds most policy and medical decision-making. I can see second-by-second real-time odds for any sporting or newsworthy event, but a school board can’t see the best evidence on whether their 8th graders should be taught algebra. As a society, we don’t treat this as an important problem. Again, not controversial. Not only is the problem well understood, but the solution has already been laid out. What we need is AI-assisted living evidence synthesis - (1) an open knowledge graph of atomic claims, (2) claims linked to evidence, (3) assessment and synthesis of each piece of evidence, and (4) continuous updating with new data. What few realize (yet) is that the technical capacity to build this vision for a significant portion of science already exists. Not only that, scientists and startup teams are already building many of these components. I know this because I’ve been surveying the space and talking to many of the builders. There are some missing pieces: for example, evaluations of how well some of the components work. But at this point, most of what’s missing is a fully end-to-end working integration of all of these parts. In the rest of this essay, I’m going to lay out all the parts of a working living evidence layer for science and who is working on them, and propose concrete next steps for building this system. What’s now possible The diagram above outlines the components of a living evidence synthesis platform, including some of the teams working on each component1. Scientific PDFs are processed into claims with associated evidence. The evidence is subjected to a forensic audit, methodological evaluation and robustness and reproducibility checks. Finally it’s given a weight in a continuously updating synthesis. What follows is a description and status of each component and a few of the teams working on them. Document understanding The first thing you need to be able to do is turn an article into structured data. Mostly that means parsing PDFs. There are often multicolumn layouts that confuse non-specialized PDF to text processing libraries. For scientific papers, there is the added complexity of parsing formulas and tables and figures. This is a really hot area - there are startups offering APIs, and it seems like a new open source package gets posted to Github every few weeks. What follows isn’t exhaustive. A package called GROBID was the state of the art for a while, they didn’t update their package for nearly two years until very recently. In the meantime reducto.ai released an AI powered PDF extraction API, PaddleOCR became popular, IBM released a model called Docling, and both Mistral and Gemini created models and libraries. I also know of at least one other well-funded psychology research group working on a paper parser. By contrast, there are few open evals in this space, with no extensive evals for complex table comprehension in particular. Nonetheless, I’m confident this will be a solved problem soon, given the combination of LLM advances and developer interest. Hypothesis level extraction There has been increasing interest in comprehending the extracted text of papers and linking information to evidence for each hypothesis. A lot of work has already been done. Trialstreamer (Marshall et al. 2020) and RobotReviewer LIVE (Marshall et al. 2023) demonstrated automated extraction of trial population, intervention, and outcome at scale on clinical RCTs. PaperQA2 (Skarlinski et al. 2024) and Ai2 ScholarQA (2024) extended this to retrieval-augmented question answering with citation grounding. Elicit, Consensus, and SciSpace operationalized claim-level extraction for end users. OpenEval (Booeshaghi et al. 2026) is the most recent and most ambitious: 1.96 million atomic claims extracted from 16,087 eLife manuscripts using Claude Sonnet 4.5, grouped into ~299,000 results, with LLM evaluations showing 81% agreement with human peer review on a 2,487-paper subset. None of these solutions link claims to test-statistics, as you would need to evaluate randomized controlled trials. This is why I built the evidence.guide API - to extract hypotheses and associated test statistics from behavioral science papers. The best public eval of this kind of extraction I’m aware of comes from the recent SCORE project - they had humans code thousands of psychology papers to extract their claims by hand. It would be extremely helpful to the world if all scientific PDFs were available as structured open data. I’ve been working to make this happen, both directly at Berkeley and through coordination with large entities I can’t yet speak of; as hard as it is to do, I think it’s possible2. Forensic audit A lot of work has been done on forensic audit, but some gaps remain. Of course, for biology papers that rely on images for evidence, there are a variety of tools (notably Proofig and ImageTwin) to spot anomalies. These are still well short of what sleuths like Elizabeth Bik can do on her own, but these tools are constant companions among fraud analysts. There’s someone working on auditing Excel files for anomalies, and a number of teams are automating numerical checks like GRIM and SPRITE, including Scrutiny project, the INSPECT-SR team as well as statcheck. The regcheck team is building a way to use AI to compare preregistrations to analyses in papers, to ensure there aren’t significant deviations. Nonetheless, there are many other kinds of anomalies to screen for, both public and less publicly known. And there are no formal evals for anomaly detection that I’m aware of. Still, there’s a lot to draw from in this space and I’m pretty certain we will be able to scan papers for most kinds of obvious anomalies in the near future. Methodological review This area has been white hot, though I fear for many of the startups in this space, because this capability may become commoditized. There are at least six different AI peer review companies, including Refine.ink, Reviewer3, ReviewerZero.ai, Q.E.D. Science, Paper Wizard, and Isitcredible. Coarse (a pun on refine) was also recently created as an open source alternative. These systems provide qualitative feedback on the content of papers, spotting methodological weaknesses and mathematical errors. They seem to work pretty well, and many academics report bitterly that they exceed the average quality of typical peer reviewers. But there are few evals here either. What evals exist so far involve using LLM-as-judge (circularity problems abound) or comparing against human reviews of questionable quality. What you’d ideally want is an eval that measures capturing known errors in papers3. Reproducibility and robustness Another active area has been using AI agents to automate computational reproducibility4 and robustness5 checks in papers that report numerical results. For more recent papers where data and code are available, AI agents can see whether they can re-run the analyses and produce the numbers reported in the published paper. In addition to a handful of individual academics who have been experimenting using Claude Code for this, the Institute for Replication is a leading group working on building an end to end system. The evals related to this problem are the most mature, with CORE-Bench (Siegel, Kapoor, Narayanan 2024) and PaperBench (OpenAI 2025) available to benchmark agents on this task. There is also work on getting AI agents to test alternative ways of analyzing the data to ensure the results are robust to small analytic design choices. Synthesis This is the most underdeveloped area where significant investment is required. Although some automated evidence synthesis systems exist — for example, otto-sr is building an AI agent to write systematic reviews — none of these incorporate the full range of paper level signals to weight evidence appropriately. Nor is there anything like an eval or a gold standard for a good systematic review. Arguably Cochrane reviews are the closest we have to gold standard human systematic reviews, though I’ve heard academics in the know complain about their uneven quality. A key question for a synthesis platform is how to weight anomalies and methodological issues in assessing the quality of a piece of evidence. This is an unsolved problem and one I’m very keen to work on. Continuous updating There are many pieces of basic infrastructure available for monitoring for new research and initiating updates. OpenAlex is the current open citation graph. Retraction Watch integrated into Crossref in October 2023. Scite tracks how citations support, contrast, or mention prior claims. The Living Evidence Network demonstrated continuous-update workflows in clinical guidelines. Engineering this is a relatively straightforward task. When you look over this technical architecture and all the progress being made, it’s hard not to be optimistic that a living guide to scientific evidence will be built. The stakeholders are ready The social infrastructure for this is starting to coalesce — it’s not just a pie in the sky academic exercise to imagine this coming into existence. Institutions like the Center for Open Science, the Institute for Replication, the INSPECT-SR, the Living Evidence Network and more are all working on scaling work to improve research quality. Funders are also aligned. The Sloan Foundation has funded living evidence work through COS. Coefficient Giving supports the Institute for Replication and COS. The Astera Institute and the Institute for Progress have shown interest in this space. NIH has established an Office for Replication and Reproducibility. Although there are (very unfortunately) serious headwinds in science funding generally, there is an active group of funders interested in metascience. A brief word about what I’ve been doing at RDI. First, as a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley I’ve been actively figuring out how a non-profit and a public university can conduct and make public the results of large-scale academic article data mining. With some of the money I raised from donors, I commissioned a legal analysis of recent case law and publisher text data mining (TDM) agreements in order to understand whether a massive open data mining of academic articles is possible (with caveats, it is). I’ve also been working to bring together stakeholders in this space, and identify gaps. I’ve also been doing some software development in this space, with more to come. A pilot proposal The assumption undergirding all of this is that an AI, given all this information, would make the right judgment about a scientific claim with lots of conflicting evidence, weighing all the factors appropriately. That’s the hypothesis we need to test. Randomized control trial research is the best place to focus on first. RCTs are used to make many of the important decisions in society - from medical trials to public policy changes. And they use a relatively uniform set of inferential statistics with lots of known and available diagnostics. Behavioral science experiments, within the broader realm of RCTs, should be first used as a testbed whose results can be generalized. Because behavioral science is at the vanguard of open science practices, replications abound (there are thousands of them) to serve as ground truth training data. Key Hypothesis Therefore the pilot would test, in behavioral RCTs that have been replicated, whether the quality of evidence for a claim can be used to accurately predict whether that claim will replicate. Secondary Hypotheses Compared to claims that replicated, non-replicated claims demonstrate a greater share of forensic anomalies in their source literatures. Hypothesis level claim and statistic extraction is accurate enough to scale living evidence without onerous human review costs. Replication prediction is more accurate than prediction markets6 or journal prestige. If all the different quality signals we gather do accurately predict which studies will replicate, then we can use that model to score evidence to power the living evidence layer. Why this is informative regardless of outcome If the pilot succeeds, the architecture extends to medical RCTs (where Living Evidence already operates and integration is mostly about claim representation), then to slices of basic biology with stable replication structure. If it fails, the field learns which quality signals are load-bearing and which ones metascience has oversold. Either result is a contribution to knowing what the literature supports. Implications for funders Because this burgeoning ecosystem of builders already exists, a well-informed philanthropic or government funder could play a crucial catalyzing role in bringing this future about. They could play at least three roles: creating open structured datasets, publishing open benchmarks and incentivizing the solving of key technical challenges. First, open archives of papers that the government maintains, like PubMed, could be turned into structured data amenable to large scale metascience and claim aggregation. I know the US government already has an interest in doing this, though some key open questions remain unanswered. How do you determine the best models and systems for accurately extracting information from papers? How can you establish a robust way to allow researchers to flag errors and correct them? And finally, how do you create a legal regime in working with publishers to maximize the scope of available papers? For the latter, a university or a private philanthropy may be better positioned to make structured data publicly available under journal subscription terms or fair use. Philanthropists or government funders could also coordinate to create or commission benchmarks that evaluate whether important problems have been solved. For example, an open benchmark for claim extraction from a range of different scientific article types would be extremely helpful. Ensuring the underlying data are accurate is vital for creating these evaluations. I’ve discussed opportunistically using various human-created datasets for this purpose, but a consistent problem is that errors in human data make it difficult for them to serve as a gold standard. Finally, with structured data and benchmarks available, the government or private philanthropy could use them to incentivize groups to develop machine learning systems that meet these benchmarks. Prizes are one potentially valuable tool for this. For example, you could establish a prize for a system that accurately updates a living meta-analysis for a small set of claims. Prizes are particularly useful as signals of problem importance, and can help create vibrant ecosystems of public and private research—see, for example the role the government played in kickstarting the current work on nuclear fusion. Conclusion The drawbacks of the current scientific publishing system are known. Scientists agree, metascientists agree, philanthropists agree: the published PDF plus citation graph isn’t the right substrate for maintaining a representation of the evidence base in science. The pieces needed to build the alternative either already exist or are rapidly taking shape. The community is forming around exactly this problem, with concrete partnerships and shared infrastructure. A pilot should start on behavioral science RCTs because that’s the slice of empirical science most amenable to legibility, where replication ground truth is richest, and where the failure modes are best documented. What’s been missing is the galvanizing mission to assemble these pieces into something that works. That’s what I’m proposing to build. *** 1 I have a broader field map that I’ll release publicly soon. This is me, building in public! 2 If this is something that you are excited about, please reach out and talk to me. 3 More on this very soon too! 4 This tests whether, given the code and the data, you can get the same statistics as reported in the published paper. 5 This tests whether the results are the same as a paper’s given alternative analytical decisions in conducting the analysis (like outlier omission). Closely related is the idea of a “multiverse” where you come up with many different ways of answering the same underlying research question with the same data, and test whether the results hold in all those alternative methods. There’s been work on the latter as well. 6 Some of the replications, e.g. those from the SCORE project, had paired the experiments with forecasts from prediction markets. So we get to look at this for free.
Create Amazon-Ready Business Books with This AI Book Creator for a One-Time $48.99
From idea to manuscript quickly.
Advancing epidemic and pandemic preparedness through research readiness: SEAR Unity Studies Network Sites chart the way forward in 2026
On 25 March 2026, WHO Regional Office for the South‑East Asia Region (SEARO) convened the first meeting of the SEAR Chapter of the Unity Studies Network Meeting in 2026 to take stock of progress and plan next steps for strengthening epidemic and pandemic preparedness across the Region. The meeting focused on reviewing the ongoing adaptation of selected, standard Unity Study methodologies, sharing field implementation experiences from 2025, and identifying key priorities to guide collaborative work in 2026.Held virtually, the meeting brought together representatives from six Unity Studies network sites across five countries (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Thailand) as well as participants from all three levels of WHO.The meeting took place against the backdrop of ongoing regional efforts in South‑East Asia to strengthen early investigations and studies for epidemic and pandemic preparedness, with a focus on pandemic influenza and other emerging respiratory pathogens with epidemic and pandemic potential. In this context, and as part of preparedness for the rapid generation of evidence, the WHO Health Emergencies Programme in SEAR (WHE/SEAR) encourages Unity Studies sites to adapt prioritized, standardized Unity Study protocols to their national contexts. This approach supports the generation of timely and reliable evidence to inform public health decision‑making during epidemics and pandemics.These efforts are supported through a combination of experience sharing, participation in the global Unity Studies network webinars, capacity‑building of the national public health workforce, and regional collaboration that promotes inter‑country, inter‑agency, and inter‑ministerial action. In parallel, sites are encouraged to explore diversified funding sources to help sustain research preparedness over the long term.Discussions highlighted the importance of WHO’s catalytic financial support through the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Partnership Contributions (PIP‑PC). When combined with national and institutional resources, this support enables countries and sites to maintain continuity of activities at a core level and remain prepared to respond rapidly and effectively to future epidemics and pandemics.Regional and Global Updates: Opening the session, Dr Pushpa Ranjan Wijesinghe, Programme Area Manager, Pandemic and Epidemic Management (PEM) Unit, WHO Health Emergencies Programme, highlighted the progress made in operationalizing the Unity Studies Network across the Region and acknowledged the collaborative efforts of WHO at all three levels, together with country unity studies sites. He emphasized the availability of limited but catalytic funding through the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Partnership Contribution (PIP‑PC) workplan at SEARO to sustain network activities in 2026, while encouraging sites to leverage additional funding sources to expand implementation.Representing SEARO, Dr Ashok Basnet, consultant, Pandemic Influenza Preparedness reported that, at the regional level, the Unity Studies Network currently includes six sites across five countries: Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. He noted that in 2025, catalytic funding supported protocol adaptation, training, and pilot implementation. In addition, a regional Unity Studies symposium held during the Global Public Health Summit in Sri Lanka strengthened and advocated collaboration between the Unity Studies site, national decision‑making forum, relevant technical units of the ministry of health, WHO and other partners.The symposium also highlighted the role of early investigations and studies as a key component of a multi‑source surveillance system needed at country level to generate a broad range of evidence. It underscored the critical role of country Unity Studies sites and similar research entities in generating evidence to support public health decision‑making during epidemics and pandemics.Participants of the WHO GISRS Unity Studies Sites Network- SEAR Chapter Meeting 2026 (Photo credit- PEM/WHE/SEARO). SEARO also updated participants on ongoing efforts to develop a regional Unity Studies webpage and to promote participation in global knowledge‑sharing platforms, including webinars and the WHO Community of Practice. Priorities for 2026 include supporting the implementation of Unity protocols, strengthening collaboration and experience sharing across sites, documenting and publishing findings, integrating Unity Studies activities as a component of multi-source national surveillance systems, and building workforce capacity.Dr Nickle Boddington of the Global Influenza Programme (GIP) at WHO Headquarters, which coordinates the Unity Studies Network globally, provided updates on global Unity Studies activities, noting that the network has expanded to 16 sites worldwide. New and updated protocols, including rapid clinical severity assessment tools and standardized data platforms, are being developed to support implementation. The global Community of Practice has also been launched to facilitate technical exchange, and continued support will be provided to sites for protocol adaptation, ethical approvals, and readiness for early investigation during outbreaks. Updates from Unity Studies sites in SEAR in 2025Unity Studies sites shared progress and experiences in implementing protocols across diverse country contexts. Sites initiated activities in 2025 using catalytic funding from SEARO, complemented by the mobilization of internal national resources. The Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), Bangladesh, reported the adoption and piloting of investigation protocols on non‑seasonal influenza and emerging respiratory diseases during recent avian influenza outbreaks, demonstrating a multi‑source funding approach involving government, WHO and One Health partners.The Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (HIMSR), New Delhi, India, highlighted the piloting of household transmission investigation studies, the expansion of the national Unity Studies network, and the contribution of study findings to global evidence through published outputs. The All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India, shared experiences from large‑scale seroprevalence studies conducted during the COVID‑19 pandemic, recent efforts to strengthen national Unity network sites through training activities, and plans to initiate multi‑centre studies on respiratory viruses.Similarly, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand, highlighted its experience in developing integrated surveillance and diagnostic protocols for multiple respiratory pathogens, enhancing readiness for targeted investigations of emerging threats. The University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka, reported ongoing engagement with the Ministry of Health and exploration of additional funding sources to initiate studies. Meanwhile, the National Public Health Laboratory, Nepal, provided updates on continued coordination with national stakeholders to initiate implementation, despite delays related to the country context.Across sites, shared experiences underscored the importance of protocol adaptation, multisectoral collaboration, and sustainable funding to operationalize Unity Studies and generate evidence for public health action.Discussions and Way ForwardThe meeting reinforced key priorities for 2026, including strengthening unity studies protocol implementation, enhancing collaboration, knowledge sharing, integrating research as a component of national multi-source surveillance systems, and ensuring that generated evidence informs public health decision‑making. Participants also emphasized the importance of documentation, visibility, and leveraging multiple funding sources, and agreed on the following action points.Unity Studies Sites and WHO Country Offices:Advance adoption and implementation of at least one Unity protocol, continuing activities initiated in 2025 with catalytic funding, supplemented with other sources of funding where feasible.Document site-specific experiences, outcomes, and lessons learned; participate in regional and global knowledge-sharing platforms including WHO webinars and the Community of Practice.Work closely with ministries of health to establish unified national platforms for translating generated evidence into national public health decision-making. WHO Country Offices may facilitate technical support and complementary, synergistic funding opportunities where feasible. WHO Regional OfficeCoordinate with WHO Country Offices to support implementation of core unity studies activities by network sites through catalytic funding and provide technical guidance and virtual engagement opportunities throughout 2026.Facilitate the participation of all Unity Studies sites in the regional meeting on Unity Studies implementation in October 2026, to be held back‑to‑back with the Annual SEAR Regional PIP‑PC Meeting; develop and host a SEAR Unity Studies website; and mobilize support from academic institutions within the SEAR Unity Studies Network to support the development of regional manuscripts that showcase Unity Studies activities to scientific audiences and promote knowledge‑sharing.Explore complementary funding opportunities and partnerships to sustain and expand network activities across the Region.WHO HeadquartersProvide global technical guidance, updated protocols, and toolkits to support the implementation of Unity Studies in SEAR.Facilitate engagement of SEAR sites in global webinars, the Community of Practice, and opportunities to showcase their work.Support joint publications, inclusion of SEAR experiences in global outputs, and identification of additional funding and collaborative opportunities to strengthen Unity Studies activities.
This week in PC games: sci-fi shooter Pragmata, 2.5D platformer Replaced, and the most wishlisted game on Steam compete with illuminated manuscripts
All the biggest and most interesting PC games out this week, inlcuding pirate sandbox Windrose, sci-fi adventure Pragmata, and 2.5D platformer Replaced.
Made at the Library: Claiming Space in the Capital City of Science
Learn about the emergence of Washington, D.C. as a scientific city, the pioneering anthropology of Anita Newcomb McGee, and the scientific advocacy of astronomer Simon Newcomb in a conversation with historian and author Vincent Femia on his recent scholarship and research in the Manuscript Division.
Experts Warn: The Dangerous Blur Between Science and Wellness in Mental Health Bestsellers
A marketplace where labels blur In many bookstores, titles rooted in clinical science sit inches from glossy self-help guides promising instant serenity. That proximity can make rigorous research look interchangeable with lifestyle advice, especially when everything shares the same bright displays. Readers encounter a single aisle labeled “psychology,” even when the content ranges from peer-reviewed evidence to spiritual rituals. The result is a subtle but pervasive blur, turning a complex health landscape into a grab-bag of mixed claims. Why the shelves can mislead Retail categories are built for convenience, not for methodological clarity or clinical accuracy. When “development personal” or “wellness” becomes the default bin, evidence-based psychology competes with coaching manifestos and mystical manuals. The visual language of covers—calming color palettes, confident subtitles, glowing endorsements—flattens the distinction between randomized trials and anecdotal wisdom. In that aesthetic harmony, a guide on cognitive behavioral therapy may appear no more “serious” than a book on moon manifestation. The stakes for readers and patients Confusion carries real risks, including delayed care when people self-treat serious symptoms with untested routines. Vulnerable readers—facing depression, trauma, or anxiety—may be swayed by charismatic voices over careful data. Some messages frame recovery as pure willpower, which can amplify shame when symptoms persist despite effort. Others overpromise universal solutions, ignoring cultural context, diagnostic nuance, and comorbidity. “Shelving is not neutral; it shapes beliefs, expectations, and choices.” What professionals and retailers are asking Clinicians and public-health experts argue for clear, readable signage that separates science-based mental health from broader wellness. Books by licensed psychiatrists or psychologists that cite peer-reviewed studies could be grouped under “Evidence-Based Mental Health.” Adjacent space might host reflective memoirs, coaching workbooks, or contemplative philosophy—valuable in their way, but clearly labeled as non-clinical guidance. Booksellers emphasize their dual role as cultural curators and commercial actors, noting they respond to demand while striving for quality standards. How clarity could look and feel The goal is not to police ideas, but to help readers navigate with confidence. Transparent categorization respects reader autonomy while lifting the signal of credible practice. Clear tags—such as “scientific references,” “clinical overview,” or “personal narrative”—can work like map legends, turning a maze into a route. And when a book blends modes, hybrid labels can acknowledge both insight and limitation. A practical checklist for choosing wisely Check the author’s credentials: clinical license, academic affiliation, or relevant training. Scan the references: citations to peer-reviewed journals or reputable guidelines. Look for scope limits: clear statements about who the book is and isn’t for, and when to seek care. Seek methods, not miracles: approaches tested across diverse groups, with measurable outcomes. Watch the language: be wary of absolute claims, stigmatizing tones, or one-size-fits-all promises. Cross-verify with trusted bodies: national psychology associations or public-health agencies. The publisher’s responsibility Publishers can raise the bar by standardizing disclosure on methods, sample sizes, and limitations. Editorial policies could require conflict-of-interest statements, transparent citations, and plain-language summaries of evidence. Marketing should avoid medicalized framing for books that lack clinical validation, even when sales incentives press for bold claims. When a manuscript mixes reflection with research, honest jacket copy can prevent false equivalence. Coexisting without confusion Wellness writing can offer genuine comfort, perspective, and daily habits that support well-being. Scientific texts can provide structured tools, validated therapies, and realistic expectations for progress. The aim is to let these strands coexist, while giving readers the navigational cues to tell them apart. With clearer shelves, informed labels, and modest design tweaks, we can protect reader trust—and keep the aisle both inviting and intelligent.
Interventional cardiologists take on angiography-derived physiology in new expert opinion
ADP offers care teams multiple benefits not seen with traditional wire-based physiologic assessments. A roundtable of 17 expert clinicians discussed the topic at length, and their findings were used to develop a new manuscript published in JSCAI.
Mysterious Voynich manuscript may be a cipher, a new study suggests
A newly invented cipher may shed light on how the mysterious Voynich manuscript was made in medieval times.