Doubts over hope of alien life on exoplanet K2-18b as case for biosignatures weakens
A growing number of studies have cast doubt on earlier claims about signs of life on K2-18b, a planet 124 light-years away in the Leo constellation, concluding that the available data doesn't support such bold interpretations.
Last month, scientists had announced that they might have identified what appeared to be the most promising signs of alien life discerned so far on the distant planet. However, latest research contends that there was not enough evidence to estimate alien presence.
K2-18b orbits within the habitable zone of its star, making it a compelling target for the search of alien life due to the potential presence of liquid water.
Astronomers working with the James Webb Space Telescope drew global attention in April by reporting possible traces of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) in the planet's atmosphere.
On Earth, these compounds are produced exclusively by living organisms such as marine algae, which is why they are considered potential biosignatures—chemical hints that life might exist elsewhere.
Led by Cambridge University's Nikku Madhusudhan, the research team was careful to stress that the potential biosignature was far from conclusive. The signal reached a three-sigma level of statistical significance, meaning there remains a small but meaningful possibility that the result was a fluke.
Two of Madhusudhan's former students, Luis Welbanks of Arizona State University and Matthew Nixon of the University of Maryland, were part of a team that re-examined the data behind the initial announcement.
In a preprint study published online towards the end of last month, they reported that when using alternative statistical models, the signals originally interpreted as potential biosignatures no longer stand out. In one approach, the researchers broadened the pool of possible atmospheric chemicals from 20 to 90, significantly weakening the case for a unique biological explanation.
Embracing the ongoing scientific discussion, Madhusudhan highlighted the importance of keeping an open mind throughout the research process. His team added to the conversation by releasing a new preprint study last week that expanded the list of potential atmospheric chemicals to 650.
Among the top candidates identified as an indicator of alien life was dimethyl sulfide (DMS). Meanwhile, dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), which had featured prominently in their earlier announcement, was no longer considered a leading possibility.
Astronomers observe distant exoplanets like K2-18b by tracking their passage across their host stars, which allows them to analyze how molecules in the planet's atmosphere absorb specific wavelengths of starlight.
Earlier this week, a study led by postdoctoral researcher Rafael Luque at the University of Chicago combined Webb's observations of K2-18b in both near-infrared and mid-infrared wavelengths. The research found no statistically significant evidence for dimethyl sulfide (DMS) or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS).
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/S-fOZziSlqg
In addition, an earlier paper by Oxford astrophysicist Jake Taylor, using a basic statistical method, also reported no strong signs of biosignatures.
However, Madhusudhan dismissed Taylor's paper noting the simple exercise used to draw conclusions was far from a robust method to observe physical phenomena. The scientist also highlighted that more data on K2-18b will be collected over the next year, which should help provide a clearer and more definitive picture.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
New model helps to figure out which distant planets may host life
The search for life beyond Earth is a key driver of modern astronomy and planetary science. The U.S. is building multiple major telescopes and planetary probes to advance this search. However, the signs of life – called biosignatures – that scientists may find will likely be difficult to interpret. Figuring out where exactly to look also remains challenging. I am an astrophysicist and astrobiologist with over 20 years of experience studying extrasolar planets – which are planets beyond our solar system. My colleagues and I have developed a new approach that will identify the most interesting planets or moons to search for life and help interpret potential biosignatures. We do this by modeling how different organisms may fare in different environments, informed by studies of limits of life on Earth. Astronomers are developing plans and technology for increasingly powerful space telescopes. For instance, NASA is working on its proposed Habitable Worlds Observatory, which would take ultrasharp images that directly show the planets orbiting nearby stars. My colleagues and I are developing another concept, the Nautilus space telescope constellation, which is designed to study hundreds of potentially Earthlike planets as they pass in front of their host stars. These and other future telescopes aim to provide more sensitive studies of more alien worlds. Their development prompts two important questions: 'Where to look?' and 'Are the environments where we think we see signs of life actually habitable?' The strongly disputed claims of potential signs of life in the exoplanet K2-18b, announced in April 2025, and previous similar claims in Venus, show how difficult it is to conclusively identify the presence of life from remote-sensing data. Oxford Languages defines 'habitable' as 'suitable or good enough to live in.' But how do scientists know what is 'good enough to live in' for extraterrestrial organisms? Could alien microbes frolic in lakes of boiling acid or frigid liquid methane, or float in water droplets in Venus' upper atmosphere? To keep it simple, NASA's mantra has been 'follow the water.' This makes sense – water is essential for all Earth life we know of. A planet with liquid water would also have a temperate environment. It wouldn't be so cold that it slows down chemical reactions, nor would it be so hot that it destroys the complex molecules necessary for life. However, with astronomers' rapidly growing capabilities for characterizing alien worlds, astrobiologists need an approach that is more quantitative and nuanced than the water or no-water classification. As part of the NASA-funded Alien Earths project that I lead, astrobiologist Rory Barnes and I worked on this problem with a group of experts – astrobiologists, planetary scientists, exoplanet experts, ecologists, biologists and chemists – drawn from the largest network of exoplanet and astrobiology researchers, NASA's Nexus for Exoplanet System Science, or NExSS. Over a hundred colleagues provided us with ideas, and two questions came up often: First, how do we know what life needs, if we do not understand the full range of extraterrestrial life? Scientists know a lot about life on Earth, but most astrobiologists agree that more exotic types of life – perhaps based on different combinations of chemical elements and solvents – are possible. How do we determine what conditions those other types of life may require? Second, the approach has to work with incomplete data. Potential sites for life beyond Earth – 'extrasolar habitats' – are very difficult to study directly, and often impossible to visit and sample. For example, the Martian subsurface remains mostly out of our reach. Places like Jupiter's moon Europa's and Saturn's Moon Enceladus' subsurface oceans and all extrasolar planets remain practically unreachable. Scientists study them indirectly, often only using remote observations. These measurements can't tell you as much as actual samples would. To make matters worse, measurements often have uncertainties. For example, we may be only 88% confident that water vapor is present in an exoplanet's atmosphere. Our framework has to be able to work with small amounts of data and handle uncertainties. And, we need to accept that the answers will often not be black or white. The new approach, called the quantitative habitability framework, has two distinguishing features: First, we moved away from trying to answer the vague 'habitable to life' question and narrowed it to a more specific and practically answerable question: Would the conditions in the habitat – as we know them – allow a specific (known or yet unknown) species or ecosystem to survive? Even on Earth, organisms require different conditions to survive – there are no camels in Antarctica. By talking about specific organisms, we made the question easier to answer. Second, the quantitative habitability framework does not insist on black-or-white answers. It compares computer models to calculate a probabilistic answer. Instead of assuming that liquid water is a key limiting factor, we compare our understanding of the conditions an organism requires (the 'organism model') with our understanding of the conditions present in the environment (the 'habitat model'). Both have uncertainties. Our understanding of each can be incomplete. Yet, we can handle the uncertainties mathematically. By comparing the two models, we can determine the probability that an organism and a habitat are compatible. As a simplistic example, our habitat model for Antarctica may state that temperatures are often below freezing. And our organism model for a camel may state that it does not survive long in cold temperatures. Unsurprisingly, we would correctly predict a near-zero probability that Antarctica is a good habitat for camels. We had a blast working on this project. To study the limits of life, we collected literature data on extreme organisms, from insects that live in the Himalayas at high altitudes and low temperatures to microorganisms that flourish in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor and feed on chemical energy. We explored, via our models, whether they may survive in the Martian subsurface or in Europa's oceans. We also investigated if marine bacteria that produce oxygen in Earth's oceans could potentially survive on known extrasolar planets. Although comprehensive and detailed, this approach makes important simplifications. For example, it does not yet model how life may shape the planet, nor does it account for the full array of nutrients organisms may need. These simplifications are by design. In most of the environments we currently study, we know too little about the conditions to meaningfully attempt such models – except for some solar system bodies, such as Saturn's Enceladus. The quantitative habitability framework allows my team to answer questions like whether astrobiologists might be interested in a subsurface location on Mars, given the available data, or whether astronomers should turn their telescopes to planet A or planet B while searching for life. Our framework is available as an open-source computer model, which astrobiologists can now readily use and further develop to help with current and future projects. If scientists do detect a potential signature of life, this approach can help assess if the environment where it is detected can actually support the type of life that leads to the signature detected. Our next steps will be to build a database of terrestrial organisms that live in extreme environments and represent the limits of life. To this data, we can also add models for hypothetical alien life. By integrating those into the quantitative habitability framework, we will be able to work out scenarios, interpret new data coming from other worlds and guide the search for signatures of life beyond Earth – in our solar system and beyond. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Apai, University of Arizona Read more: Are we alone in the universe? 4 essential reads on potential contact with aliens 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' − an astronomer explains how much evidence scientists need to claim discoveries like extraterrestrial life Extraterrestrial life may look nothing like life on Earth − so astrobiologists are coming up with a framework to study how complex systems evolve Daniel Apai receives funding from NASA, Heising-Simons Foundation, Department of Defense, Space Telescope Science Institute, and the University of Arizona, and leads the NASA-funded Alien Earths astrobiology research team that developed the framework described here. He is affiliated with the Steward Observatory and Lunar and Planetary Laboratory of The University of Arizona.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Does extraterrestrial life smell like the sea?
Dimethyl sulfide, also known as DMS, sounds like it could be a chemical compound you'd try to avoid on an ingredient label, or the poisonous ingredient in a murder mystery. But some scientists view this simple compound as a biosignature — a key indicator of life. So there was great excitement when DMS was discovered on a "sub-Neptune planet" far from our solar system – 124 light years away, or about 17 trillion miles, in the constellation Leo. 'We want to be a bit careful in claiming any evidence of life at this stage,' cautioned lead author Nikku Madhusudhan, of Cambridge University, about the findings he published last month in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, a publication of the American Astronomical Society, with other researchers from two American space institutes and two British physics and astronomy departments. 'We have to look at a lot more molecules, and we have, and we couldn't come up with a much better explanation,' Madhusudhan told Salon in a video interview. He admits he can't be 100% certain that dimethyl sulfide, or (CH3)2S, exists on the planet called K2-18 b. But it looks very likely, as last month's research built on a paper published in 2023 that also found suggestions of DMS on the same planet but relied on different evidence. But why would a random compound detected on a planet so far beyond our reach be a strong indicator of life? Well, let's consider the story of DMS on Earth, a story of the strange and poetic ways life appears and reappears in different guises — and with different scents. Dimethyl sulfide is the largest natural source of atmospheric sulfur on Earth, which means that it gets into the atmosphere and cycles around. But it starts its journey in the ocean. You're absolutely familiar with DMS, even if you've never heard of it before. It's the source of the smell of the sea, that sort of fishy, sort of eggy aroma that evokes deeply nostalgic reactions in, well, almost everyone. Interesting pushback came from Christophe Laudamiel, a master perfumer at Generation by Osmo. 'I have personally never used that ingredient for the smell of the sea,' he told Salon by email. 'It would be rather used for 'hot' smells and for ripe to overripe smells." He compared the odor of DMS to "fish that stayed too long in the sun," adding, quite understandably, that "we usually avoid" such associations "when we recreate the smell of the sea in perfumery." Rather than relying on those fish-rotting-in-sun odors to get ocean-smelling perfume, suggested Generation by Osmo founder and CEO Alex Wiltschow (also by email), "We combine aquatic notes with mineral wet stone notes, salty notes and clean air notes," along with, perhaps, "a touch of seaweed absolute as well or mossy top notes." Similarly environment-evoking are the substances geosmin and petrichor. Petrichor is the pleasant, earthy aroma of rain falling on dry soil, sometimes described more simply as the smell of rain. That word has almost become trendy. In fact its use appears to have skyrocketed in the past quarter-century, though it was coined in the journal Nature in 1964. Like geosmin, the substance that gives earth its characteristic "earthy" odor, petrichor remains close to the ground. Dimethyl sulfide, however, gets around. The DMS that cycles around our world is produced, for the most part, by marine organisms, most notably the microscopic plants known as phytoplankton that live in the nutrient-rich upper layer of the ocean. These tiny organism exist in abundance, which is why DMS is responsible for most of that smell we associate with the seaside. From the surface layer of the Earth's oceans, DMS, which is a volatile chemical, escapes into the air, joining the atmospheric cycling of sulfur. As one researcher describes this process, once in the atmosphere DMS "has other major effects, being the 'seed' that sets off cloud formation over the oceans. Indeed, the production of this molecule is on such a scale that it has major effects on the world's climate, thanks to its effect on the cloud cover over the oceans.' That quotation is nearly 20 years old, but scientists still don't know exactly to what extent DMS is responsible for seeding clouds, just that it's a significant factor. The tiny aerosol particles formed when DMS molecules are zapped by sunlight and other molecules in the atmosphere, which become the 'seeds' for clouds, also exert meaningful effects on our climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. In 2007, scientists at the University of East Anglia discovered that a single gene could produce dimethyl sulfide from dimethylsulfoniopropionate, or DMSP, the food that phytoplankton eat. As described in a paper in Science, you can take that gene, which has the catchy name dddD, from bacteria that live in the sea, or find it in other species of bacteria that hang out with plants instead but also produce DMS. Once you've found a bacterium with the dddD gene, you can clone it and stick it into an bacterium, which will then happily produce dimethyl sulfide. The aforementioned predecessor chemical DMSP is found, by the billions of tons, all over the world's oceans, seas and seashores. Marine plants and phytoplankton use it to protect themselves from the saltiness of seawater, literally as a buffer against stress. When these tiny plants die, some of their DMSP becomes available, as food for other bacteria. Terrestrial plants may also have symbiotic bacteria living in their root systems, which produce dimethyl sulfide from the DMSP released when their hosts die. This process — one kind of organism dies, offering sustenance to others — is how this cycle begins, at least on Earth. (If you can actually say that a cycle has a beginning or an end.) As one of the East Anglia scientists, Andrew Johnston, wrote in a 2007 project funding proposal, describing the role of DMS in seeding clouds, its importance has been known since 1971, "with some 30 million tons of it being liberated into the air, worldwide, every year.' Aquatic bird species such as sea petrels and shearwaters are attracted to the ripe-fish aroma, while Johnston later discovered that the Atlantic herring has strains of bacteria in its gut microbiome called Pseudomonas and Psychrobacter, which digest DMSP and break it down into, yes, dimethyl sulfide. How did those bacteria get inside a fish? Herring eat small plants known as mesozooplankton, which themselves eat the much smaller phytoplankton. This familiar ecological pattern — bigger creatures eating smaller creature — has internalized the production of this evocative and volatile to the food chain, it seems, the creation dimethyl sulfide can take place not just in the surface layer of the ocean, but inside herring guts as well. Herrings are vertebrates, in the greater evolutionary scheme not all that different from us. Does this mean that humans also have the potential to create sulfurous stinks from our own insides? Well, there's no evidence at this point that our microbiomes contain DMS-producing bacteria. But that's ok. As you may be aware, our species can produce our own glorious forms of stink. Dimethyl sulfide is an essential element in the characteristic odors of blood, serum, tissues, urine and breath in people (and rats). Not to mention the distinctive smell of feces and flatus, i.e., farts. Let's mention here that dimethyl sulfide is emitted during wildfires, and so contributes to a scent that has grown chillingly familiar in many parts of North America in recent years. It's also largely responsible for the smell of the delicately-named dead horse arum, a relative of the so-called corpse flower, or titan arum. Other flowers with unappetizing odors use different chemicals as their top notes, all with the purpose of attracting pollinators drawn to the aroma of their preferred type of rotting meat. Here for example is Wikipedia's almost lyrical rundown of the various sources of the corpse flower's scent: 'Analyses of chemicals released by the spadix show the stench includes dimethyl trisulfide (like limburger cheese), dimethyl disulfide (garlic), trimethylamine (rotting fish), isovaleric acid (sweaty socks), benzyl alcohol (sweet floral scent), phenol (like Chloraseptic), and indole (like feces).' Scientists comparing the molecules involved in producing the stench of dead horse arum with those produced by a rotting corpse found that dimethyl sulfide was associated with the middle stage of decomposition in actual corpses (to be clear, this involved dead mice, not dead horses or human cadavers). All this odoriferous research has convinced some scientists that DMS is intimately associated with life, making it an ideal biosignature if found hundreds of light years away on some lonely planet. Critics of Madhusudhan's findings point out, however, that dimethyl sulfide can exist without demonstrating life at all. For one thing, you can make it in a lab. As the perfumer Laudamiel told Salon, DMS is "often used in perfumery, but not for its low-tide, rotten egg facet.' The human nose can detect one part per million of DMS, as an unpleasant, cabbage-like smell used, for example, to add a warning signal to the poisonous gas carbon monoxide, which is otherwise odorless natural gas. DMS also results from kraft pulping, producing a ghastly, retch-inducing smell you'll have noticed if you've ever driven by a paper processing plant. It's produced naturally as bacteria do their work on dimethyl sulfoxide waste in sewers. When it's not saving us from asphyxiation or carrying out useful industrial processes, dimethyl sulfide also lends its "low-tide, rotten egg facet" as a nearly subconscious flavor in food and drinks, measured in a few parts per million. In brewing certain lagers, though, breweries may want that slightly funky flavor, and add enough DMS to cross the flavor threshold as a hint of the ocean (or of distant rotten eggs, or cabbage). The natural production of DMS is also medically useful. It turns out that as a kind of bacteria turns from existing peacefully in our mouths to causing colon cancer in our nether regions, it produces dimethyl sulfide. Worsening osteoporosis in older women may lead to exhaling DMS, as can the positive effects of a medication cocktail for children with cystic fibrosis. But how is it that the compound that gives us the glorious smell of the sea — and just perhaps, our first evidence of life on a distant planet — also provides the generally disagreeable fragrance of flatus, feces and flowers that smell like rotting meat? 'It works just like salt in a cake," explained Laudamiel. "In combination with other molecules, at low, unrecognizable dosages, it brings out the flavors of other facets." Unpleasant-sounding flavor notes such as "the overripe 'vomity' note found naturally in papaya ... the 'feet' note found in Parmigiano or the 'sweaty' note found naturally in dark chocolate" produce magical effects in combination with others and in just the right amount. Remove those notes, he concluded, and your papaya, cheese or chocolate will "taste much less yummy." Indeed, DMS, provided by nature at just the right dosage, is a component in the much coveted scent of truffles. Turning away from our planet with its stinky-feet cheese, vomity papayas and sweaty chocolate, and turning to the stars, DMS is used as an additive in rocket fuel, added to ethylene oxide to prevent exhaust nozzles getting dirty and stop carbon building up on firing-chamber surfaces. But no existing or planned spacecraft can get us anywhere near the next possible known source of dimethyl sulfide on K2-18 b, the planet where Madhusudhan and colleagues have found, thanks to the James Webb Space Telescope, what they think could well be this signature of life. Astronomers these days are really interested in sub-Neptune planets, meaning those with diameters larger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. It's an exotic niche that doesn't exist in our solar system, and could offer new possibilities for finding life. They're particularly interested in a newly-defined type of planet that could exist within that range: Hycean worlds, which would possess water-rich interiors, planet-spanning oceans and atmospheres rich in hydrogen gas. The Madhusudhan team's detection of methane and carbon dioxide gases on K2-18 b supports his argument that the planet might have surface water, as does the fact that they did not find ammonia, which is soluble in water — if that's detected in the atmosphere, there probably isn't an ocean. But while DMS is a biosignature here on Earth, other scientists point out that it could be cooked up by some other process elsewhere, just as it can be produced in a laboratory for industrial purposes. Some scientists have suggested other possible explanations for the signals found by Madhusudhan's team, including statistical noise. Two findings within the past year bolster these criticisms. One, described last October, is the presence of dimethyl sulfide in a comet named 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which no one would argue suggests biological activity. Madhusudhan says that does nothing to disprove his hypothesis; comets are known to be little laboratories that can cook up all sorts of unlikely things. 'The same comet also has molecular oxygen in it, right?' he countered. 'It also has methane and other molecules, including amino acids." Finding something in a comet, he said, "doesn't mean that it can't be a biosignature in a planetary atmosphere, because those are two very different environments." Another finding that may cast doubt on the idea that DMS equates to the presence of life is the discovery of dimethyl sulfide, which here on Earth makes the sea smell like the sea, drifting around in deep space between the stars. Reporting on the open science platform Arxiv in February, an international group of astronomers said they found DMS during an ultra-deep molecular line survey, which uses fancy telescopes to look at a spectrum of wavelengths in one particular stretch of outer space and then catalog its chemical composition and physical properties, such as temperature and density. In this case, they pointed their telescopes toward a Galactic Center molecular cloud named G+0.693-0.027. And there they found dimethyl sulfide, just vibing in the void.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Breast-cancer checks could begin as young as 30 to catch disease early
Women could be offered breast-cancer checks from the age of 30 under a new approach being trialled by the NHS. Early findings show almost one in five of those in their 30s have significantly increased risks of breast cancer, the most common cause of death in young women. Every year, more than 10,000 women in the UK who are too young to be offered screening are diagnosed with the disease, with 2,000 deaths among those below the age of study is being led by a consultant at the world-renowned Christie hospital in Manchester, which treated Sarah Harding, the Girls Aloud singer, who died from breast cancer aged 39. Dr Sacha Howell, the lead oncologist on the study, said that in future, all women should undergo 'comprehensive risk assessment' from the age of 30. This would mean DNA tests and health questionnaires as a minimum, with annual mammograms for some and lifestyle advice for all. Currently, NHS breast-cancer screening normally starts at age 50, but around one in three women do not come forward for checks. Ms Harding's former bandmates said the findings were 'astounding' and that the singer, who died in 2021, would have been 'thrilled' that her legacy was making such a difference. The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment in Young Women (Bcan-Ray) study has tested more than 700 women aged 30 to 39 so far, and aims to recruit 1,000 by the end of June. The research will compare 750 women who have not had breast cancer and have no strong family history of the disease, with 250 women who have already been diagnosed with breast cancer. The research is being expanded to other hospitals as NHS officials work on a national cancer plan, which will have the aim of speeding up diagnosis and treatment. Under the new model, every participant receives a low-dose assessment mammogram, completes a detailed questionnaire, and provides a saliva sample for genetic testing. The team works with scientists from Cambridge University to calculate each woman's personalised breast-cancer risk score. On Saturday, Dr Howell will chair a panel on prevention, risk reduction and genetics at a cancer conference hosted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. Speaking ahead of the event, the oncologist said: 'Breast cancer is the most common cause of death in women aged 35 to 50 in this country and about two-thirds of women who develop breast cancer don't have a family history of it. 'What we want to do is to try and identify women at increased risk so that we can start screening early and reduce the chances of these women dying.' Dr Howell added: 'I would like all women over 30 to have a breast-cancer risk assessment; that doesn't have to be a mammogram, probably the most powerful part of this is the DNA analysis.' The study is one of the first in the world to identify new ways to predict the risk of younger women getting breast cancer. So far, of the 548 cases analysed, 104 – or 19 per cent – were identified as higher-than-average risk. These are now being offered tailored health advice, including how to cut their risk of cancer through diet and exercise, with annual mammograms scheduled once they cross risk thresholds. The definition of 'higher risk' means a 3 per cent chance of developing breast cancer in the next 10 years. This is the average risk for a woman aged 50 and over, which is why mammograms are offered routinely then. The study is the first of its kind for young women, helping to identify those more at risk to offer breast surveillance to detect cancers earlier, when treatment is more likely to be successful. The research is being funded by the Christie Charity's Sarah Harding Breast Cancer Appeal, and contributions from her family and former bandmates. Dr Howell said the singer had spoken to him many times about 'wanting to leave a legacy for future women'. The appeal was initiated by the Christie Charity in collaboration with the singer's family, friends, and her Girls Aloud bandmates: Cheryl Tweedy, Kimberley Walsh, Nadine Coyle, and Nicola Roberts. They said: 'We are so pleased about the progress of the Bcan-Ray study and know that Sarah would be thrilled. 'To hear that women who had no idea they could be at risk of breast cancer are being identified and able to take preventative measures is astounding. 'This study in Sarah's name has the potential to be life saving and we are hopeful the results will be rolled out across the UK allowing doctors to predict and prevent breast cancer for many women. Sarah was an amazing woman and we couldn't be more proud of the legacy she has left.' Together, the appeal, which is also backed by Ms Harding's family and friends, has raised over £1 million for breast-cancer research. Around 2,300 women aged 39 and under are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK each year. The programme began in the Christie hospital but is being expanded to other NHS cancer units across the UK, including units in Lancaster, Wirral, Bolton, Tameside, Leighton, Wigan and Macclesfield. Results are expected to be published next year, and fed into the UK national screening committee, after which trials may be rolled out more widely. It will see how far breast density is a risk factor in younger women, who are known to often have more dense breasts, but are rarely screened. Women with dense breasts are four times more likely to develop breast cancer, but tissue can also mask tumours on a mammogram, making disease harder to spot. Separate research will compare different methods, to see whether mammograms are required to check breast density. Breast screening is routinely offered to women aged 50 and over, but millions of women miss out on mammograms, with around one third failing to come forward. Programmes saw a significant dip in uptake during the pandemic, with services closed during the first lockdown. Simon Vincent, director of research, support and influencing at charity Breast Cancer Now, said: 'While breast cancer is less common in younger women, it's a leading cause of death in women aged under 50. 'Around 2,400 women aged 39 or under hear the words 'you have breast cancer' each year in the UK, and this is why ongoing research, like Bcan-Ray, plays a vital role in helping us to further understand breast-cancer risk in younger women and, importantly, whether the introduction of risk-based screening or screening at a younger age could save more lives from the disease.' He said the upcoming national cancer plan for England 'presents a critical opportunity to focus on improving access to risk-reduction treatment and early diagnosis tools, that can ultimately help reduce deaths from breast cancer'. Prof Peter Johnson, NHS national clinical director for cancer, said: 'We are working closely with the Government on a national cancer plan to ensure the NHS continues to deliver progress in diagnosing more cancers earlier and saving lives, and this research provides valuable information about the potential for more personalised approaches to screening. 'If women are worried about any symptoms, whatever their age, or if they notice a change in their bodies or something that's unusual for them, then I would encourage them to contact their GP.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
