These cities have big rat problems, and there's one thing to blame

A surprising study revealed biological activity on a distant planet. Weeks later, scientists say there's more to the story

Yahoo

5 hours ago

Yahoo

A surprising study revealed biological activity on a distant planet. Weeks later, scientists say there's more to the story

Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. A tiny sign revealed in April seemed like it might change the universe as we know it. Astronomers had detected just a hint, a glimmer of two molecules swirling in the atmosphere of a distant planet called K2-18b — molecules that on Earth are produced only by living things. It was a tantalizing prospect: the most promising evidence yet of an extraterrestrial biosignature, or traces of life linked to biological activity. But only weeks later, new findings suggest the search must continue. 'It was exciting, but it immediately raised several red flags because that claim of a potential biosignature would be historic, but also the significance or the strength of the statistical evidence seemed to be too high for the data,' said Dr. Luis Welbanks, a postdoctoral research scholar at Arizona State University's School of Earth and Space Exploration. While the molecules identified on K2-18b by the April study — dimethyl sulfide, or DMS, and dimethyl disulfide, or DMDS — are associated largely with microbial organisms on our planet, scientists point out that the compounds can also form without the presence of life. Now, three teams of astronomers not involved with the research, including Welbanks, have assessed the models and data used in the original biosignature discovery and got very different results, which they have submitted for peer review. Meanwhile, the lead author of the April study, Nikku Madhusudhan, and his colleagues have conducted additional research that they say reinforces their previous finding about the planet. And it's likely that additional observations and research from multiple groups of scientists are on the horizon. The succession of research papers revolving around K2-18b offers a glimpse of the scientific process unfolding in real time. It's a window into the complexities and nuances of how researchers search for evidence of life beyond Earth — and shows why the burden of proof is so high and difficult to reach. Located 124 light-years from Earth, K2-18b is generally considered a worthy target to scour for signs of life. It is thought to be a Hycean world, a planet entirely covered in liquid water with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, according to previous research led by Madhusudhan, a professor of astrophysics and exoplanetary science at the University of Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. And as such, K2-18b has rapidly attracted attention as a potentially habitable place beyond our solar system. Convinced of K2-18b's promise, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues used observations of the planet by the largest space telescope in operation, the James Webb Space Telescope, to study the planet further. But two scientists at the University of Chicago — Dr. Rafael Luque, a postdoctoral scholar in the university's department of astronomy and astrophysics, and Michael Zhang, a 51 Pegasi b / Burbidge postdoctoral fellow — spotted some problems with what they found. After reviewing Madhusudhan and his team's April paper, which followed up on their 2023 research, Luque and Zhang noticed that the Webb data looked 'noisy,' Luque said. Noise, caused by imperfections in the telescope and the rate at which different particles of light reach the telescope, is just one challenge astronomers face when they study distant exoplanets. Noise can distort observations and introduce uncertainties into the data, Zhang said. Trying to detect specific gases in distant exoplanet atmospheres introduces even more uncertainty. The most noticeable features from a gas like dimethyl sulfide stem from a bond of hydrogen and carbon molecules — a connection that can stretch and bend and absorb light at different wavelengths, making it hard to definitively detect one kind of molecule, Zhang said. 'The problem is basically every organic molecule has a carbon-hydrogen bond,' Zhang said. 'There's hundreds of millions of those molecules, and so these features are not unique. If you have perfect data, you can probably distinguish between different molecules. But if you don't have perfect data, a lot of molecules, especially organic molecules, look very similar, especially in the near-infrared.' Delving further into the paper, Luque and Zhang also noticed that the perceived temperature of the planet appeared to increase sharply from a range of about 250 Kelvin to 300 Kelvin (-9.67 F to 80.33 F or -23.15 C to 26.85 C) in research Madhusudhan published in 2023 to 422 Kelvin (299.93 F or 148.85 C) in the April study. Such harsh temperatures could change the way astronomers think about the planet's potential habitability, Zhang said, especially because cooler temperatures persist in the top of the atmosphere — the area that Webb can detect — and the surface or ocean below would likely have even higher temperatures. 'This is just an inference only from the atmosphere, but it would certainly affect how we think about the planet in general,' Luque said. Part of the issue, he said, is that the April analysis didn't include data collected from all three Webb instruments Madhusudhan's team used over the past few years. So Luque, Zhang and their colleagues conducted a study combining all the available data to see whether they could achieve the same results, or even find a higher amount of dimethyl sulfide. They found 'insufficient evidence' of both molecules in the planet's atmosphere. Instead, Luque and Zhang's team spotted other molecules, like ethane, that could fit the same profile. But ethane does not signify life. Arizona State's Welbanks and his colleagues, including Dr. Matt Nixon, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of astronomy at the University of Maryland College Park, also found what they consider a fundamental problem with the April paper on K2-18b. The concern, Welbanks said, was with how Madhusudhan and his team created models to show which molecules might be in the planet's atmosphere. 'Each (molecule) is tested one at a time against the same minimal baseline, meaning every single model has an artificial advantage: It is the only explanation permitted,' Welbanks said. When Welbanks and his team conducted their own analysis, they expanded the model from Madhusudhan's study. '(Madhusudhan and his colleagues) didn't allow for any other chemical species that could potentially be producing these small signals or observations,' Nixon said. 'So the main thing we wanted to do was assess whether other chemical species could provide an adequate fit to the data.' When the model was expanded, the evidence for dimethyl sulfide or dimethyl disulfide 'just disappears,' Welbanks said. Madhusudhan believes the studies that have come out after his April paper are 'very encouraging' and 'enabling a healthy discussion on the interpretation of our data on K2-18b.' He reviewed Luque and Zhang's work and agreed that their findings don't show a 'strong detection for DMS or DMDS.' When Madhusudhan's team published the paper in April, he said the observations reached the three-sigma level of significance, or a 0.3% probability that the detections occurred by chance. For a scientific discovery that is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, the observations must meet a five-sigma threshold, or below a 0.00006% probability that the observations occurred by chance. Meeting such a threshold will require many steps, Welbanks said, including repeated detections of the same molecule using multiple telescopes and ruling out potential nonbiological sources. While such evidence could be found in our lifetime, it is less likely to be a eureka moment and more a slow build requiring a consensus among astronomers, physicists, biologists and chemists. 'We have never reached that level of evidence in any of our studies,' Madhusudhan wrote in an email. 'We have only found evidence at or below 3-sigma in our two previous studies (Madhusudhan et al. 2023 and 2025). We refer to this as moderate evidence or hints but not a strong detection. I agree with (Luque and Zhang's) claim which is consistent with our study and we have discussed the need for stronger evidence extensively in our study and communications.' In response to the research conducted by Welbanks' team, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues have authored another manuscript expanding the search on K2-18b to include 650 types of molecules. They have submitted the new analysis for peer review. 'This is the largest search for chemical signatures in an exoplanet to date, using all the available data for K2-18b and searching through 650 molecules,' Madhusudhan said. 'We find that DMS continues to be a promising candidate molecule in this planet, though more observations are required for a firm detection as we have noted in our previous studies.' Welbanks and Nixon were pleased that Madhusudhan and his colleagues addressed the concerns raised but feel that the new paper effectively walks back central claims made in the original April study, Welbanks said. 'The new paper tacitly concedes that the DMS/DMDS detection was not robust, yet still relies on the same flawed statistical framework and a selective reading of its own results,' Welbanks said in an email. 'While the tone is more cautious (sometimes), the methodology continues to obscure the true level of uncertainty. The statistical significance claimed in earlier work was the product of arbitrary modeling decisions that are not acknowledged.' Luque said the Cambridge team's new paper is a step in the right direction because it explores other possible chemical biosignatures. 'But I think it fell short in the scope,' Luque said. 'I think it restricted itself too much into being a rebuttal to the (Welbanks) paper.' Separately, however, the astronomers studying K2-18b agree that pushing forward on researching the exoplanet contributes to the scientific process. 'I think it's just a good, healthy scientific discourse to talk about what is going on with this planet,' Welbanks said. 'Regardless of what any single author group says right now, we don't have a silver bullet. But that is exactly why this is exciting, because we know that we're the closest we have ever been (to finding a biosignature), and I think we may get it within our lifetime, but right now, we're not there. That is not a failure. We're testing bold ideas.'

How one planet is revealing why it's so hard to detect life beyond Earth

Yahoo

11 hours ago

Yahoo

How one planet is revealing why it's so hard to detect life beyond Earth

Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. A tiny sign revealed in April seemed like it might change the universe as we know it. Astronomers had detected just a hint, a glimmer of two molecules swirling in the atmosphere of a distant planet called K2-18b — molecules that on Earth are produced only by living things. It was a tantalizing prospect: the most promising evidence yet of an extraterrestrial biosignature, or traces of life linked to biological activity. But only weeks later, new findings suggest the search must continue. 'It was exciting, but it immediately raised several red flags because that claim of a potential biosignature would be historic, but also the significance or the strength of the statistical evidence seemed to be too high for the data,' said Dr. Luis Welbanks, a postdoctoral research scholar at Arizona State University's School of Earth and Space Exploration. While the molecules identified on K2-18b by the April study — dimethyl sulfide, or DMS, and dimethyl disulfide, or DMDS — are associated largely with microbial organisms on our planet, scientists point out that the compounds can also form without the presence of life. Now, three teams of astronomers not involved with the research, including Welbanks, have assessed the models and data used in the original biosignature discovery and got very different results, which they have submitted for peer review. Meanwhile, the lead author of the April study, Nikku Madhusudhan, and his colleagues have conducted additional research that they say reinforces their previous finding about the planet. And it's likely that additional observations and research from multiple groups of scientists are on the horizon. The succession of research papers revolving around K2-18b offers a glimpse of the scientific process unfolding in real time. It's a window into the complexities and nuances of how researchers search for evidence of life beyond Earth — and shows why the burden of proof is so high and difficult to reach. Located 124 light-years from Earth, K2-18b is generally considered a worthy target to scour for signs of life. It is thought to be a Hycean world, a planet entirely covered in liquid water with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, according to previous research led by Madhusudhan, a professor of astrophysics and exoplanetary science at the University of Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. And as such, K2-18b has rapidly attracted attention as a potentially habitable place beyond our solar system. Convinced of K2-18b's promise, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues used observations of the planet by the largest space telescope in operation, the James Webb Space Telescope, to study the planet further. But two scientists at the University of Chicago — Dr. Rafael Luque, a postdoctoral scholar in the university's department of astronomy and astrophysics, and Michael Zhang, a 51 Pegasi b / Burbidge postdoctoral fellow — spotted some problems with what they found. After reviewing Madhusudhan and his team's April paper, which followed up on their 2023 research, Luque and Zhang noticed that the Webb data looked 'noisy,' Luque said. Noise, caused by imperfections in the telescope and the rate at which different particles of light reach the telescope, is just one challenge astronomers face when they study distant exoplanets. Noise can distort observations and introduce uncertainties into the data, Zhang said. Trying to detect specific gases in distant exoplanet atmospheres introduces even more uncertainty. The most noticeable features from a gas like dimethyl sulfide stem from a bond of hydrogen and carbon molecules — a connection that can stretch and bend and absorb light at different wavelengths, making it hard to definitively detect one kind of molecule, Zhang said. 'The problem is basically every organic molecule has a carbon-hydrogen bond,' Zhang said. 'There's hundreds of millions of those molecules, and so these features are not unique. If you have perfect data, you can probably distinguish between different molecules. But if you don't have perfect data, a lot of molecules, especially organic molecules, look very similar, especially in the near-infrared.' Delving further into the paper, Luque and Zhang also noticed that the perceived temperature of the planet appeared to increase sharply from a range of about 250 Kelvin to 300 Kelvin (-9.67 F to 80.33 F or -23.15 C to 26.85 C) in research Madhusudhan published in 2023 to 422 Kelvin (299.93 F or 148.85 C) in the April study. Such harsh temperatures could change the way astronomers think about the planet's potential habitability, Zhang said, especially because cooler temperatures persist in the top of the atmosphere — the area that Webb can detect — and the surface or ocean below would likely have even higher temperatures. 'This is just an inference only from the atmosphere, but it would certainly affect how we think about the planet in general,' Luque said. Part of the issue, he said, is that the April analysis didn't include data collected from all three Webb instruments Madhusudhan's team used over the past few years. So Luque, Zhang and their colleagues conducted a study combining all the available data to see whether they could achieve the same results, or even find a higher amount of dimethyl sulfide. They found 'insufficient evidence' of both molecules in the planet's atmosphere. Instead, Luque and Zhang's team spotted other molecules, like ethane, that could fit the same profile. But ethane does not signify life. Arizona State's Welbanks and his colleagues, including Dr. Matt Nixon, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of astronomy at the University of Maryland College Park, also found what they consider a fundamental problem with the April paper on K2-18b. The concern, Welbanks said, was with how Madhusudhan and his team created models to show which molecules might be in the planet's atmosphere. 'Each (molecule) is tested one at a time against the same minimal baseline, meaning every single model has an artificial advantage: It is the only explanation permitted,' Welbanks said. When Welbanks and his team conducted their own analysis, they expanded the model from Madhusudhan's study. '(Madhusudhan and his colleagues) didn't allow for any other chemical species that could potentially be producing these small signals or observations,' Nixon said. 'So the main thing we wanted to do was assess whether other chemical species could provide an adequate fit to the data.' When the model was expanded, the evidence for dimethyl sulfide or dimethyl disulfide 'just disappears,' Welbanks said. Madhusudhan believes the studies that have come out after his April paper are 'very encouraging' and 'enabling a healthy discussion on the interpretation of our data on K2-18b.' He reviewed Luque and Zhang's work and agreed that their findings don't show a 'strong detection for DMS or DMDS.' When Madhusudhan's team published the paper in April, he said the observations reached the three-sigma level of significance, or a 0.3% probability that the detections occurred by chance. For a scientific discovery that is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, the observations must meet a five-sigma threshold, or below a 0.00006% probability that the observations occurred by chance. Meeting such a threshold will require many steps, Welbanks said, including repeated detections of the same molecule using multiple telescopes and ruling out potential nonbiological sources. While such evidence could be found in our lifetime, it is less likely to be a eureka moment and more a slow build requiring a consensus among astronomers, physicists, biologists and chemists. 'We have never reached that level of evidence in any of our studies,' Madhusudhan wrote in an email. 'We have only found evidence at or below 3-sigma in our two previous studies (Madhusudhan et al. 2023 and 2025). We refer to this as moderate evidence or hints but not a strong detection. I agree with (Luque and Zhang's) claim which is consistent with our study and we have discussed the need for stronger evidence extensively in our study and communications.' In response to the research conducted by Welbanks' team, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues have authored another manuscript expanding the search on K2-18b to include 650 types of molecules. They have submitted the new analysis for peer review. 'This is the largest search for chemical signatures in an exoplanet to date, using all the available data for K2-18b and searching through 650 molecules,' Madhusudhan said. 'We find that DMS continues to be a promising candidate molecule in this planet, though more observations are required for a firm detection as we have noted in our previous studies.' Welbanks and Nixon were pleased that Madhusudhan and his colleagues addressed the concerns raised but feel that the new paper effectively walks back central claims made in the original April study, Welbanks said. 'The new paper tacitly concedes that the DMS/DMDS detection was not robust, yet still relies on the same flawed statistical framework and a selective reading of its own results,' Welbanks said in an email. 'While the tone is more cautious (sometimes), the methodology continues to obscure the true level of uncertainty. The statistical significance claimed in earlier work was the product of arbitrary modeling decisions that are not acknowledged.' Luque said the Cambridge team's new paper is a step in the right direction because it explores other possible chemical biosignatures. 'But I think it fell short in the scope,' Luque said. 'I think it restricted itself too much into being a rebuttal to the (Welbanks) paper.' Separately, however, the astronomers studying K2-18b agree that pushing forward on researching the exoplanet contributes to the scientific process. 'I think it's just a good, healthy scientific discourse to talk about what is going on with this planet,' Welbanks said. 'Regardless of what any single author group says right now, we don't have a silver bullet. But that is exactly why this is exciting, because we know that we're the closest we have ever been (to finding a biosignature), and I think we may get it within our lifetime, but right now, we're not there. That is not a failure. We're testing bold ideas.'

Will Medicaid change under new bill? What to know after 'we all are going to die' comment

USA Today

13 hours ago

USA Today

Will Medicaid change under new bill? What to know after 'we all are going to die' comment

Will Medicaid change under new bill? What to know after 'we all are going to die' comment Show Caption Hide Caption 'Kill the bill': Musk urges lawmakers to stop Trump's tax cut bill Elon Musk blasted President Trump's new tax bill as a 'disgusting abomination,' urging millions of followers to lobby lawmakers to 'kill the bill.' Sen. Joni Ernst's comment, "we are all going to die," to a question about Medicaid changes under the new bill has sparked controversy. The proposed bill would require nondisabled Medicaid recipients to work at least 80 hours per month and would also increase eligibility checks. An estimated 10.9 million Americans could lose Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passes. Medicaid changes under the Republican tax and domestic policy bill have gained attention after a Republican senator said, "we are all going to die," in response to a town hall question. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, was speaking about federal cuts to Medicaid at a town hall on May 30 when someone from the audience shouted, "people will die!" "People are not – well, we all are going to die. For heaven's sakes, folks," Ernst responded in a now-viral refrain. House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, went on to tell CNN on June 1, "people will literally die." His comments sparked a "Mythbuster" message from the White House. "Medicaid will be strengthened for the American citizens for whom the program was designed," a June 2 White House article on it stated. The bill has passed the House but is under consideration in the Senate; it may face opposition over Medicaid and other things. So what does the bill, dubbed by President Donald Trump as the "Big Beautiful Bill," say about Medicaid? Meet India May: What's next for the Iowan who shouted 'people will die' at Joni Ernst over Medicaid cuts Who would lose Medicaid under the Trump bill? About 10.9 million Americans would lose coverage by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The bill would require that nondisabled Medicaid recipients participate in at least 80 hours of work per month. Americans could qualify for an exemption, like being a student or caregiver. Immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs would also lose their coverage. The bill would also increase the eligibility checks for coverage. How many Americans are on Medicaid? As of January 2025, about 71 million people were enrolled in Medicaid, according to Iowa Senator defends her statement in sarcastic video mentioning tooth fairy Ernst addressed the town hall moment in a seemingly sarcastic video on May 31. "Hello everyone," Ernst said in the video posted to her Instagram Story and apparently filmed in a cemetery. "I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. "I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth," she said. "So, I apologize. And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well." Republicans have defended the Medicaid cuts, saying they will protect coverage for eligible people and reduce spending. Elon Musk says 'KILL BILL' In a surprising turn from his alliance with Trump, Elon Musk has waged a full-on "kill the bill" social media campaign on the legislation. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk said on June 3. He has said changes in the bill will be too expensive. "I'm very disappointed with Elon," Trump said on June 5, before taking to Truth Social to escalate their disagreement. "I helped Elon a lot." Contributing: Ken Alltucker, Riley Beggin, Savannah Kuchar, USA TODAY; Stephen Gruber-Miller, Des Moines Register Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @

These cities have big rat problems, and there's one thing to blame

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

A surprising study revealed biological activity on a distant planet. Weeks later, scientists say there's more to the story

How one planet is revealing why it's so hard to detect life beyond Earth

Will Medicaid change under new bill? What to know after 'we all are going to die' comment

These cities have big rat problems, and there's one thing to blame

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

A surprising study revealed biological activity on a distant planet. Weeks later, scientists say there's more to the story

How one planet is revealing why it's so hard to detect life beyond Earth

Will Medicaid change under new bill? What to know after 'we all are going to die' comment

Get Started Now: Download the App