SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " spontaneous " 27 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
As demographics shift, downtown Anchorage businesses adjust to attract younger customers
Forgoing a spontaneous trip to the bar, Gen Z seems to prefer a more curated experience with social media buzz.
Mental health solutions for the digital age
Ask the digital natives of Gen Z about the source of their biggest mental health challenges, and most will say social media and AI.Several of the nearly 400 guests at the third annual Gen Z Wellness Summit, presented by the Friends of Semel Teen Advisory Council at UCLA on March 8, explicitly named the endless stream of content on their phones as serious stressors. “Everybody is addicted to (Tik Tok) as if they were addicted to substances,” said Jantin Asmar, 17, a senior at Virtual Academy in Antelope Valley. “We’re always chasing that dopamine. We’re expecting that dopamine rush and it’s really decaying our interactions with others.” High school student Jantin Asmar was among nearly 400 people who attended the third annual Gen Z Wellness Summit. (Photo by Sandy Cohen) Even young teens feel pressure to be on social media constantly, both to consume content and collect “likes,” said 13-year-olds Chloe and Sophia, both students at Brentwood School. “Everyone’s always on, and you miss stuff if you’re not on it,” Chloe said, adding that social media’s emphasis on appearances is leading to eating disorders: “That’s a big thing for our generation.”The incessant influx of images and updates creates expectations that “weigh teenagers down,” said Linda Kou, 16, a junior at San Gabriel High School.Even though digital spaces allow people to connect with others beyond their immediate surroundings, it doesn’t always translate to real-life community, said Kelah Morgan, 17, a senior at Animo South Los Angeles Charter High School. High school students Kelah Morgan, left, and Linda Kou, shared about the challenges presented by social media. (Photo by Sandy Cohen) “Even if you see people saying that they relate to you online, it might be hard to find people in your personal life who you see every day who you feel comfortable enough to say, ‘You see me online, but this is me in real life and what I’m actually going through,’” she said.Solutions for our digital timesThe Gen Z Wellness Summit was intentionally designed as a free, in-person gathering where young people interested in mental health from across the southland could meet in person. “Peer support is the most important element of maintaining our mental health in community,” said Helena Hansen, MD, PhD, director of UCLA’s Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.Keynote speakers at the summit addressed AI, social connection and self-empowerment, while breakout sessions included discussions about eating disorders, dating, substance use, phone detox and breathwork. Here are some of the day’s top takeaways:Beware of FOPO: Scott Barry Kaufman, PhD, a psychology professor at Columbia University, said that rather than FOMO, or fear of missing out, we ought to be more aware of FOPO: fear of people’s opinions. “Just think about how much your FOPO might be holding you back in your life,” Dr. Kaufman said. “And just that inner contemplation should be enough for you to change your life, because there’s so many things we don’t go after because we have debilitating FOPO.”We don’t need to feel like we’re the best – or what he called “narcissistic self-esteem” – but it’s helpful to acknowledge our own worth, recognize our good qualities and develop self-belief in the skills and talents we’ve cultivated. When we have that – dignity and self-respect, without needing everyone to like us – FOPO is less of a concern.Self-reflection is most effective in community: “When we try to self-reflect alone, we sometimes ruminate,” said Ira Bedzow, PhD, executive director of the Emory University Purpose Project. “But when we self-reflect with people that we trust … (it) allows us to hold ourselves accountable to different ways of seeing and different ways of hearing and different ways of being.”Opening up about our experiences and listening to others are skills we can develop, Dr. Bedzow said.He invited students to participate in what he called a “fishbowl exercise,” where four students sat in a small circle, surrounded by a dozen or so students forming a larger circle. Those in the inner circle answered such questions as: “What stops you from being you today?” and “What helps you feel most like you?”Within minutes, the group in the small circle (the fishbowl), were sharing intimately about their life challenges as those in the outer circle nodded in understanding.After the exercise, one participant said, “I felt like I wasn’t alone, that it wasn’t just me who feels that way.”Another remarked on how “personal” it felt to share face-to-face with others, even strangers.Don’t let AI crush your creativity: Theoretical neuroscientist Vivienne Ming, PhD, has been studying artificial intelligence for more than 20 years. And while she said “it’s reasonable to be concerned” about the fast-growing technology, it can also help humans become better problem-solvers when used strategically.“The smartest thing on the planet today are humans and machines working together creatively,” Dr. Ming said. “What gets more valuable in humans as machines get smarter? Our ability to explore the unknown.“Your unique voice is literally your value to the world … but most of us for most of our lives have been taught to not be unique,” she continued. “Be your own person. Celebrate being different. It is genuinely, measurably, truly valuable.”In a breakout session called “Phone Detox? IYKYK: Living Your Story IRL” led by Don Grant, PhD, students shared their frustrations with AI compromising academic work, art and creativity.“Art is a translation of human experience,” one participant said. “When people use AI, they diminish their own human experience.”Dr. Grant urged them, as “the last generation to remember a world before AI,” to remember the power of imagination and creativity – and to act on it.Remember that social media distorts perceptions: Stuart B. Murray, PhD, PsyD, who directs the Eating Disorders Program and Translational Research in Eating Disorders Program at UCLA, asked the students in his breakout session to take a spontaneous selfie and edit it to conform with society’s beauty standards. All 20 girls in the room immediately got to work, thickening their hair, slimming their faces, plumping their lips.“The pressure to look like what we present on social media can be crippling,” Dr. Murray said. “We now know that social media use is part of a causal pathway into an eating disorder.”Adolescents and young adults are most at risk of developing an eating disorder, he said, with one in three students on college campuses exhibiting clinically meaningful eating-disorder symptoms. More than 4 million people in California will have an eating disorder in their lifetime.Even for those who don’t develop anorexia or bulimia, the ubiquity of modified images online distorts what we consider normal, making us feel worse about ourselves. Remembering that, he and other speakers said, might inspire us to log off occasionally and spend time in the real world with people who love us as we are.
Gravitational waves may be hidden in the light atoms emit
Scientists have proposed a surprising new way to detect gravitational waves—by observing how they change the light emitted by atoms. These waves can subtly shift photon frequencies in different directions, leaving behind a detectable signature. The effect doesn’t change how much light atoms emit, which is why it’s gone unnoticed until now. If confirmed, this approach could lead to ultra-compact detectors using cold-atom systems.
Deep-Sea Rocks Spontaneously Combusted After Scientists Brought Them to the Surface
A recent discovery highlights an unforeseen potential hazard of deep-sea mining.
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.
Scientists Collected Deep-Sea Rocks. They Spontaneously Caught Fire in The Lab.
What strange physics.
Danny Trejo recognizes L.A. tourist bus passenger as daughter of his estranged sister
‘Machete’ star and Los Angeles legend Danny Trejo had a spontaneous family reunion on a local tourist bus on Tuesday, when a passenger told the actor that she’s the daughter of his estranged sister.
MIT scientists turn chaotic laser light into powerful brain imaging tool
Scientists at MIT discovered that chaotic laser light can spontaneously form a highly focused beam instead of scattering—if the conditions are just right. This “pencil beam” enabled them to image the blood-brain barrier in 3D at speeds 25 times faster than existing techniques. The method also lets researchers watch how drugs move into brain cells in real time. It could dramatically accelerate the development of treatments for neurological diseases.
Scientists spot hidden magnetic state emerging inside a superconductor
YbSb₂ is the first known type-I superconductor to spontaneously break time-reversal symmetry, creating a tiny magnetic field inside itself as it enters the superconducting state.
Trump’s Former Venezuela Envoy Torches His Takeover Plans
“It’s too complex for us to run,” said Elliott Abrams, theorizing that Trump’s decision to announce the U.S.’s takeover of Venezuela was wholly spontaneous.
Turns Out, AI Has a Herd Instinct. It's Even More Pronounced in Stronger AIs
AI agents spontaneously follow majority (herd) opinion — and smarter models do this more strongly.
Lettuce brings the heat to the Englert
Lettuce continuously hones its improvisational skills, drawing inspiration from legends like the Grateful Dead and Miles Davis to authentically capture spontaneous musical moments live and in the studio.
Making science more visible
As he enters a laboratory with saltwater pools full of fish, Luka Žuvić explains how climate change is affecting the feeding ecology and reproductive biology of Atlantic bluefin tuna, and how the species is adapting.It is a topic that may seem remote to many people. But in a country where fishing and aquaculture are important to the economy and national identity, Žuvić’s research is at the intersection of science and society. “In Croatia, marine and environmental science are closely connected to people’s lives because fisheries, aquaculture, tourism and coastal development are a big part of our lives,” explains Žuvić, a doctoral student working at the Croatian Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries in the Adriatic coastal city of Split. He also serves as one of Croatia’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), a European Commission-funded project that aims to make scientific research more accessible, while inspiring young people to study the sciences. The project kicked off in Spilt on 20 January with a conference attended by partner institutions, community representatives, policymakers and scientists. Along with Split, Brest (in France) and Kiel (in Germany) will host a year of activities connecting scientists with the public.Žuvić, 31, is part of the Young Researchers' Career Development Project, a doctoral programme funded by the Croatian Science Foundation. His research on Atlantic bluefin tuna builds on a foundation-backed project focusing on the reproductive potential of farmed tuna, including their sexual maturation and spontaneous spawning in captivity, which has implications for the restoration of the Adriatic Sea's natural tuna populations. He also studies the tuna's feeding ecology through stomach-content analysis, using DNA metabarcoding and morphological approaches, and employs geometric morphometrics to improve the identification of juvenile tuna and related species. The research aims to enhance understanding of the tuna farming ecology, improve fish farm management and contribute to sustainable aquaculture and fisheries research.Engaging with local communitiesConnecting with the community is crucial for Žuvić’s research. Conversations with fishermen help him better understand the bluefin tuna's habits and how marine pollution affects the fish. “They are also curious about the biology and ecology of bluefin tuna,” he says of local fishermen, adding that sharing research with non-scientists benefits everyone. “Sometimes scientific research is invisible,” he explains. “That's why we as researchers need to go out from our institutions and labs to the public so that we can show them what we are working on. This helps create more trust in the scientists and their research.”Engaging the public also raises awareness about the anthropogenic changes to the marine environment resulting from human activities and pollution. Žuvić helps remove plastic and other rubbish from the Adriatic Sea that pose a direct threat to marine species. Predators, such as bluefin tuna, are especially vulnerable to ingesting waste churned up by fishing trawlers. “They are very opportunistic fish that follow trawlers and ingest everything,” he notes. To illustrate the impact, he has shown students the contents of bluefin tuna stomachs. “Finding a plastic bottle cap in the stomach of a bluefin tuna is concerning,” he says. "Science can be a powerful way to turn curiosity into practical solutions,” Žuvić adds, and sharing research outcomes “helps increase public awareness and improve understanding of human impacts on the marine environment.”The research also has implications for Croatia's economy. The Atlantic bluefin tuna’s rich, flavourful meat is highly valued for sushi and other raw fish dishes. However, overfishing nearly brought its population to collapse by the early 2000s. Although the species has made a comeback in the Atlantic and Mediterranean regions, catches continue to be managed through agreements with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Croatia was a pioneer in developing commercial aquaculture as an alternative to open-sea fishing and accounts for about 10% of the EU’s farmed production of the bluefin tuna, with Japan being a key export market.A history of European collaborationCroatia has participated in Europe’s framework programmes for research and innovation since 2007, six years before officially joining the EU. Žuvić believes that EU funding and collaboration with other European researchers is vital for Croatian science. As part of the SCTT opening conference, the Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, the University of Split and other local institutions were part of a science fair to showcase research on topics, such as robotics and an EU LIFE project on the protection of sharks and rays in the Mediterranean. “I hope that Science Comes to Town will help increase scientific literacy and curiosity among citizens, particularly students, and show that science is not something that is distant or abstract, but something that directly affects everyday life,” Žuvić concludes. “Ultimately, I hope that projects like it contribute to building a society that values knowledge and critical thinking, and that we can think about long-term sustainability using knowledge from science.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
AI can develop 'personality' spontaneously with minimal prompting, research shows. What does that mean for how we use it?
When large language models (LLMs) are allowed to interact without any preset goals, scientists found distinct personalities emerged by themselves.
Bumblebees have tiny brains but they can solve problems like chimps and elephants
New research suggests the fuzzy insects may be capable of spontaneously solving problems the way animals with much larger brains do.
UFC CEO Dana White said entrepreneurship isn't a shortcut to more free time
UFC CEO Dana White says working from the office creates the spontaneous conversations that spark ideas and surface new issues.
Scientists Propose a Radical New Way To Detect Gravitational Waves Using Atomic Light
A new theoretical study suggests that gravitational waves may leave subtle signatures not in giant detectors, but in the light emitted by atoms.
Physicists just found a tiny flaw in time itself
Physicists are rethinking one of quantum mechanics’ biggest puzzles: how fuzzy possibilities become definite reality. New research suggests that spontaneous “collapse” processes—possibly linked to gravity—could subtly blur time itself. This wouldn’t affect clocks we use today, but it reveals a hidden limit to how precise time can ever be. The findings open a new path toward uniting quantum physics with gravity.
High-end sports car spontaneously ignites in police storage after crash that killed OC influencer
The wreckage of a 2019 McLaren involved in the fatal crash that killed two people in Orange County spontaneously caught fire while in storage.
Scientists Collected Deep-Sea Rocks. They Spontaneously Caught Fire in The Lab.
What strange physics.
Someone’s Galaxy Z TriFold display already spontaneously broke
Samsung’s new Galaxy Z TriFold looks incredible – all the more so in person – but also came with the...
Most Women Give Birth at Night—Scientists Reveal the Surprising Reason Why - Futura-Sciences
The Night Owl Mystery of Labor This isn’t just a feeling shared by midwives and obstetricians doing overnight shifts. Research, including studies published by University College London in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, confirms this trend: spontaneous births cluster significantly during the nighttime hours. Behind this pattern lies our...
The explosive history of spontaneous combustion
In Europe in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, nearly a dozen cases of supposed spontaneous combustion were reported.
Improv troupe to bring an evening of laughter to Waynesville
Get ready for an evening of spontaneous comedy and nonstop laughter as Waynesville-based Parking Space Comedy Improv performs at 7:30 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 12.
Bone Health Without the Hype
I am at the Australasian Menopause Society meeting and we had a fantastic lecture on Bone Health on Day 2, called, “Everything you need to know about bones - except the boring bits!” Spoiler alert, there were no boring bits. The lecture was given by Dr. Amanda Beech, who is a senior staff specialist in Obstetric Medicine and Endocrinology at the Royal Hospital for Women, where she is director of the Bone Density Unit. I want to summarize my top 10 take-aways for you. Share Osteoporosis is a disease of low bone mass, disruption of bone microarchitecture, and fragility of the skeleton. It is a silent disease…until someone develops a fracture. The diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on either fragility/minimal trauma fractures or a T-score of less than -2.5 on a DXA (Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) or bone scan. It is important to recognize that about 50% of minimal trauma fractures occur when women have low bone mass (often referred to as osteopenia), but not osteoporosis. This tells us that bone strength is more complicated than a number on a DXA report. I am going to add a little here that wasn’t in the talk (one can only include so much in 25 minutes), as many women might read the above paragraph and think, “Shouldn’t we be treating everyone with low bone mass if this is when 50% of the fractures occur?” Many fractures happen for women with low bone mass because there are so many women with low bone mass –it is a statement about the population on a whole, not about the fracture risk of low bone mass. For you as an individual, bone density is only one component of fracture risk and many women with lower bone mass will not have a significantly elevated fracture risk. This is why individualized risk assessment matters. Subscribe We build bone in our teens and twenties, and by the time we are about thirty we have reached peak bone mass. This is why, when we discuss risk factors for osteoporosis, it is important to consider factors that might have affected us in our teens and twenties when we were actively building bone, such as nutritional restriction/energy imbalance. It is important to ask women about a history of eating disorders, and for those with such a history, getting a bone scan in perimenopause or at age 50 is likely warranted. (This image below isn’t from the talk, but is similar to one that was). Bone mass is relatively stable until about two years before the final menstrual period, and perimenopause marks a time of rapid bone loss for women. Using urinary markers of bone loss we know that the time of significantly accelerated bone loss starts about 1 year before the final period and ends about 2 years after the final period. The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) shows that over the menopause transition women lose an average of 10.6% of the bone at their lumbar spine and 9.1% at the femoral neck While this wasn’t covered in the lecture, I want to add that the rapid bone loss during perimenopause is clearly related to more than estradiol, because during this time estradiol levels can be erratic and not uniformly low. Bone loss during perimenopause is likely a multi-hormone event. For example, rising FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) tracks with bone loss better than estradiol, and there is evidence that FSH may act directly on bone. While decreased estrogen matters, there is clearly more going on. FSH and bone is an active area of research. Subscribe Screening for osteoporosis was recommended fairly broadly before age 65, and was taken from the “Practitioner’s Toolkit for Managing Menopause,” from Monash University. Here is a screenshot from the toolkit that was used as a slide: I am going to add a little bit more about body weight here for clarification. Low body mass (typically 152.1 lb): 0 points (risk neutral) 60–69 kg (132.3–152.1 lb): 3 points (adds some risk)
'Players' of an MMORPG for AI Agents Spontaneously Generated Their Own Religion
SpaceMolt is a new destination for vaguely portentous word salad.
Scientists May Have Discovered One Way Microplastics Could Harm the Body
Plastic is usually inert, but in a new lab study, microplastics in water spontaneously produced damaging free radicals. What does that mean for the human body?