New Evidence Rewrites the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls
A scholar from the Netherlands used AI to determine that the Dead Sea Scrolls may be older than previously believed.
The new AI model pairs handwriting data with radiocarbon dating information to date ancient manuscripts.
In the future, scientists hope the model will be useful in dating other mysterious ancient texts
Dating ancient artifacts is very difficult. Experts have a number of techniques they can use to get close, but there are limitations that often can't be overcome without additional information. That said, sometimes you get lucky, like the researchers investigating the famous Dead Sea Scrolls did when they realized that the author wrote the dates of creation directly on several of the pages.
However, not every scroll was labeled, and as a result, the undated Dead Sea Scrolls have been much harder for scientists to pin down. But when new technologies arise, things can change.
According to a new study—in which scientists used AI modeling to study handwriting styles across ancient manuscripts with known dates—some of the undated Dead Sea Scrolls may be older than previously believed. Mladen Popovic (from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands) and his research team claim that their work not only re-dates some Dead Sea Scrolls, but could open a new way to place undated manuscripts on the timeline of ancient history. The team published their findings in the open-access journal PLOS One.
'It is very exciting to set a significant step in solving the dating problem of the Dead Sea Scrolls and also creating a new tool that could be used to study other partially dated manuscripts from history,' the authors wrote in a statement. 'This would not have been possible without the collaboration between so many different scientific disciplines.'
The process started with a bounty of ancient texts used to help build datasets. The team parsed through historic manuscripts from various sites in modern-day Israel and the West Bank and used radiocarbon dating to estimate the ages of the documents. The team then trained a machine-learning model to understand the handwriting styles of each document in direct relation to the historic date of the manuscript.
The AI model—dubbed Enoch, after the prominent biblical figure—then merged the two datasets. The goal of the work is to be able to 'objectively determine an approximate age range' of a manuscript based solely on the handwriting style on the document.
During testing, the scholars said that Enoch's age estimates for the 135 Dead Sea Scrolls were 'realistic' 79 percent of the time, and non-realistic 21 percent of the time (non-realistic here meaning significantly too old, significantly too young, or indecisive).
The Enoch model, paired with radiocarbon dating, estimates older ages for 'many of the Dead Sea Scrolls' than traditional handwriting analysis methods. The authors said that more data and further research could help pinpoint the timelines.
'With the Enoch tool we have opened a new door into the ancient world, like a time machine, that allows us to study the hands that wrote the Bible,' the authors wrote in the statement, 'especially now that we have established, for the first time, that two biblical scroll fragments come from the time of their presumed authors.'
You Might Also Like
Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lead to Weight Loss?
Bobbi Brown Shares Her Top Face-Transforming Makeup Tips for Women Over 50
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
How Scientists Are Using Drones to Study Sperm Whales
In the waters off Dominica in the Caribbean, a drone descends from the sky toward a sperm whale. Instead of dropping a tag from above, this drone will press against the whale's back to attach a specialized sensor. The tag's suction cups will stick to the whale's skin, allowing the device to record audio of these marine mammals communicating. The technique, which researchers call tap-and-go, is described in a new study published in the journal PLOS One on Wednesday. The findings demonstrate that the approach is a possible way to gather vital scientific data while minimizing the disturbance to whales. 'This is definitely the future,' said Jeremy Goldbogen, a marine biologist at Stanford University who was not involved with the research. 'It's really exciting to see these new innovations,' he said. Scientists have long used a traditional tagging method that involves standing on a boat's prow and using a 20-foot pole to attach the tag to the whale. But the boat's noisiness and proximity to the whales can cause them stress. The method also takes a lot of time and coordination, said Daniel Vogt, a research engineer at Harvard and the lead author of the study. 'We always wanted to improve this method,' he said of traditional tagging. Drones, in comparison, allow scientists to reach the whale from a distance, and more quickly. 'We want to reduce the disturbance to the animal while improving the quality of the data that we collect,' Mr. Vogt said. In recent years, drone technology has changed the way scientists study whales. Drones offer more than eyes in the sky: They can identify and measure individual whales, compare their behavior at the sea surface and even collect biological samples. By flying through the clouds of vapor, or 'blow,' that whales emit when they surface to breathe, drones can gather information about the whale's genetics, hormones and microbiomes. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Scientific American
3 days ago
- Scientific American
Pessimistic Dogs Are Better at Smelling Cancer—And Other Keys to Disease-Sniffing Success
Billy, a floppy-eared little beagle, darts around a platform sniffing a series of holes. Each hole contains a used surgical-type mask bearing a different human's distinct mix of scents. But her sharp nose is hunting for just one such combination: the one that signals cancer. Cancer can change a person's 'volatilome,' the unique set of volatile organic compounds found in breath, sweat, blood and urine. Billy and her cohort have learned to sniff out these subtle scent cues in masks worn by people with cancer diagnoses. Researchers are also studying how dogs can detect diseases such as COVID and malaria, as well as psychological conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Scientists discovered dogs' powerful disease-smelling skills in 1989, when a dog detected cancer in its handler. But clinicians still do not routinely use dogs for diagnosis. Besides the obvious logistical challenges, dogs vary greatly in their olfactory accuracy. Researchers are increasingly finding that disease-sniffing prowess may come down to individual dogs' personality—and how well their handlers know them. New research efforts are focused on figuring out which dogs would be best for the job and on interpreting dogs' behaviors during a smell test. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Sharyn Bistre Dabbah, a veterinary scientist now at the University of Bristol in England, set out with colleagues at the U.K. charity Medical Detection Dogs to learn how the animals' personalities—especially their level of optimism or pessimism—affect disease-detection skills. Their results appeared recently in PLoS One. The researchers first showed the dogs what lay behind two screens at one end of a room: a 'positive' location with a tasty treat and a 'negative' one with an empty bowl. On subsequent visits to the room, the dogs typically bounded happily toward the former but trotted very slowly when they went to check out the latter—or simply didn't go there at all. The scientists then placed bowls behind two new screens between the positive and negative spots, and they classified the dogs as 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic' based on how quickly they investigated these new locations. Next, the team evaluated how accurately each dog could pick out a disease scent it was trained to detect among other smells. On average, the pessimistic dogs turned out to be more discerning. Pessimistic dogs are more cautious, and 'a more cautious dog might be better at not making mistakes,' Dabbah says. Other personality traits also play a role, says Clara Wilson, who researches disease- and stress-sniffing dogs at the University of Pennsylvania. Dogs that enjoy the thrill of a hunt—and thrive while searching for missing people or hidden bombs—might find sniffing through disease samples again and again rather repetitive. 'We want a dog that doesn't get frustrated. They [should] find it rewarding, even though it may be less exciting,' Wilson explains. Handlers' interpretations of dog behavior can also skew detection outcomes, says Akash Kulgod, co-founder of Dognosis, the Bengaluru-based start-up that trained Billy. Instead of teaching dogs to perform a specific behavior such as sitting or barking when they pick up an assigned scent—a process that takes extra time and can lead to dogs 'lying' for treats—Kulgod and his team directly analyze each dog's natural body language. Based on how confidently the dogs move, as analyzed with computer vision–based machine-learning tools, the team can spot successful detections. 'One of our dogs sniffs and then very confidently somersaults to go to the feeder,' Kulgod says. 'They each have their own unique quirks—but all of it can be quantified because it's all related to this reward expectation that you have from the past sessions.' In a pilot study with 200 test samples involving 10 cancer types, presented at this year's American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, Dognosis dogs detected 96 percent of cancers. Next, the Dognosis team will scale up its study with 1,500 test samples. Doctors currently diagnose many kinds of cancers by using a combination of blood tests and biopsies. Researchers are always on the lookout for less invasive methods—including options directly involving our canine companions, as well as electronic noses inspired by them. Dogs can currently outperform electronic sniffers. But this primacy may not last, according to Andreas Mershin, chief science officer at the Boston-based start-up He and his colleagues are developing electronic noses to sniff urine samples for prostate cancer and other diseases. If machine olfaction eventually surpasses dogs' abilities, it could help tackle the scalability problem—and give the animals a break. Mershin's team put mammalian smell receptors on an electronic chip and used machine-learning algorithms to interpret the output. The technique focuses on broader patterns among detected molecules rather than categorizing them individually. Dogs don't tick off a list of molecules in their heads, either; they just 'know' what cancer smells like. This helps them to sense it accurately no matter which organ it is from or what the patient ate before giving their breath sample. 'The dogs can generalize. They don't care about the font in which you write the scent; they just interpret it correctly,' Mershin says. In a study published in PLoS One, Mershin and his team used machine-learning models to spot and analyze patterns of different odorants in urine samples from confirmed prostate cancer patients. Their findings, which built on work with diagnosis data from Medical Detection Dogs, suggest that focusing on this type of 'scent character' might work as a scalable alternative to dogs, even if it's currently much slower. Meanwhile, back on the test platform, floppy-eared Billy quickly detects the subtle scent of cancer in one of the masks she has been sniffing—and confidently bounds back to get her reward. Such tests show strong potential, says postdoctoral researcher Amritha Mallikarjun of the University of Pennsylvania: 'The dogs, because of their amazing sense of smell and detection capabilities, are demonstrating to us what technology could look like 10 to 15 years from now.'
Yahoo
07-08-2025
- Yahoo
Study sheds light on how reams of fake scientific papers are getting into literature
Fraudulent scientific research is now being produced and published on a large scale, with some unethical researchers colluding with unethical editors to attain the prestige that comes with publication, according to a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Large groups of editors and authors appear to have cooperated in what it called "the tide of fraudulent science." Among their efforts, the researchers who conducted the study obtained about 47,000 retracted articles. They collected reports of the same image used in multiple publications. They compiled 33,000 papers of suspicious origin. Making use of the fact that editors' names are public at some science publishers, they looked at whether some editors handled disproportionate numbers of problematic scientific papers, ones that were later retracted or noted negatively by other scientists. At the journal PLOS One, they were able to link 30.2% of the retracted articles to 45 editors. Of these editors, 25 had their own papers retracted. The 45 editors represented 0.25% of the total number of editors at the journal. PLOS One did not respond to a request for comment. Researchers also found clusters of articles accepted in less than a month, often involving the same editors and authors. 'They found cases where people submitted papers and those papers got accepted extremely fast, and when you looked at the editors, they were just sending them to each other,' said Luís Amaral, a systems biologist at Northwestern University and senior author of the study. 'There are people who believe that there is widespread fraud,' said Reese Richardson, a postdoctoral researcher in the Amaral Lab at Northwestern and lead author of the study. 'What this paper does is give a method and a starting point and the data to show that this is actually happening, and that the current mechanisms are not equipped to stop it.' The study's findings confirm the suspicions of many researchers, including Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and independent scientific integrity consultant who has spent years identifying fraudulent research. In one case, she found 125 papers that reused parts of the same image. 'It was the same photo, but different crops of the same image," she said. "They didn't generate the photos themselves. They got the photos from a third party — a broker, a paper mill.' Researchers have been using the term "paper mill" to describe organizations that sell mass-produced low quality and fabricated research articles. Many of these fraudulent papers, Bik added, seem to come from doctors or researchers in countries where promotions are tied to publication metrics. They see it as an investment, she explained, where a couple of thousand dollars gets them a paper, and a fast track up the promotional ladder. This institutional pressure is especially common in India and China, where promotions, medical licensing or graduation are linked by policy to publication counts, several experts said. In a survey of medical residents in China three years ago, 47% admitted to buying and selling papers, letting other people write papers, or writing papers for others. When the study authors analyzed an archive of articles from a business offering services to "research professionals who are desperate" for publication, they found 26% of the authors were from India. Although the "publish or perish" culture is also common in the U.S., it manifests more in expectations around prestige, funding and tenure, rather than fixed quotas. India and China are the world's most populous nations and both are scientific powerhouses. The paper notes that science fraud can happen anywhere. The accumulation of fake literature has turned some scientific fields — RNA biology, for example — into what Richardson called an academic "minefield," making it difficult for researchers to identify which studies are reliable. Some fraudulent studies have even made it into meta-analyses that shape the way doctors treat patients. They found evidence that this field of research has been targeted by bad actors. Experts say growing awareness of fraud could feed broader skepticism of science, especially if institutional action doesn't keep up. 'The more polluted the record becomes, the harder it is to clean up, and the harder it is to rebuild trust inside and outside the scientific community,' said Stephanie Kinnan, a longtime member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The scientific community has tools to fight back. It fines and excludes researchers and universities. Journals retract articles. Aggregators can sideline problematic journals. But the authors of the paper found the amount of "research" from suspected paper mills has been doubling roughly every 1½ years. The actions are not keeping up. For Amaral, and many other scientists, the implications are deeply personal. 'I dreamed of being a scientist since I was 12,' he said. 'Seeing the thing that I've dreamt of being a part of, that I cherish, being potentially destroyed is really enraging.' All research is built on previous research, Amaral explained. That collapses without trust. "This is the great fear — that the entire scientific enterprise that gave us vaccines, that gave us medicine for cancer, that gave us, X-ray machines, computer scanning devices — would just disappear,' he said. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword
