
Scientific Strategies to Help Kids Meet the Challenges of a Cruel World
Between climate change, economic anxiety and political turmoil, the world can feel like a scary place, especially for kids. Today's young people have already been through a deadly global pandemic, they regularly drill to prepare for school shootings, and they must learn to navigate an age of misinformation and danger online. These stressors seem to be taking a toll; measurements show anxiety and sleep deprivation among adolescents are rising, and even teen suicide attempts are increasing.
To parents, the situation can feel overwhelming. The good news is, there's a lot parents can do to help their kids meet the challenges of the world we live in, writes parenting journalist (and frequent Scientific American contributor) Melinda Wenner Moyer. In her new book Hello, Cruel World! Science-Based Strategies for Raising Terrific Kids in Terrifying Times (Penguin Random House, May 2025) Moyer surveys scientific research on kids' mental health and ways to improve it.
Moyer divides her book into three sections focused on evidence-backed tips for helping young people cope with challenges, connect to others, and cultivate strong characters. Scientific American spoke to her about how to shield kids from online misinformation, nurture self-compassion and get your children to open up with you.
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.
[ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ]
The concept of the book, this 'cruel world,' resonates so much with me as a parent, and I'm sure with so many people. Tell me a bit more about how you started feeling like the world is becoming a really tough place for kids.
I have had this growing anxiety and angst as a parent, just thinking about the world that my kids were coming into and that they were going to inherit from us. There are so many things looming, you know, climate change and disinformation. I was also getting so many comments from parents saying, 'I'm just so scared on behalf of my kids, and I don't know what I can do to prepare them and help them get them ready for this world that we're going to hand them.' And I'm always trying to think of solutions and trying to figure out ways to reassure both myself and my readers. We do have some control here. And so I started researching, what are the key skills that we know can help kids get through all this? I was really trying to come up with concrete strategies that I could communicate to parents to help them feel a little less worried, a little more in control, and feel like they really could do something as parents, because I think parenting is a form of activism. We are raising the next generation of kids, and through our parenting, we can change the world.
In what specific ways do you think there are challenges that kids are facing today that previous generations haven't really had to face before?
We know from the research that there are a lot of tweens and teens who are struggling with mental health issues. Whether or not you think that the statistics are as bad as they seem, there seems to be a signal there that we should pay attention to. And so a big part of the book is about: How can we help kids cope? What are the things we can do to help them manage their emotions in healthy ways, rather than unhealthy ways?
Another big one is technology. Every generation panics about technology, and so the question is, well, how much different is our situation today than it was when the TV came out, or the printing press—these were all big changes at the time. But I think this is certainly the first generation where kids have a handheld connection to technology, potentially at all times. That does feel momentous.
One message in the book that really spoke to me was that helping our kids is also about helping ourselves—that we can't teach kids things like self-compassion, or balancing work and leisure, or all these other lessons, until we can embody them ourselves.
I do think a really overlooked aspect of child health and development is: How are the parents doing? What's their mental health like? What are the skills that they have or don't have? Because we are teaching our kids so much through the choices we make. You know, are we beating ourselves up when we burn dinner? Are we constantly putting ourselves down? Our kids are learning from that and thinking, okay, I should be doing this too. I think we do overlook the role of our own well-being. This is really important because our kids are watching us.
I want to be careful too: I'm not saying this to put more pressure on parents. We already have so many expectations of ourselves to ensure that our kids are succeeding at everything they do, that they're comfortable all the time, that they're protected all the time, that they're happy all the time. We have these expectations about what we should be doing as parents that are both unrealistic and unhelpful. When we overprotect, when we over-coddle, that actually undermines the development of key skills for them. Problem solving and resilience and emotional regulation, these are all skills that kids learn through practice. They need to be sad, they need to be disappointed and frustrated. They need to fail and experience what that is and understand that that's part of the process of learning. So a lot of what I'm trying to do is give parents permission to step back a little bit and to relax.
You write in the book a lot about connection—how a strong connection between parents and kids is important for their mental health and is protective against some of the things we worry about, such as bad influences from social media. How do you make sure your connection is strong?
If you're worried you're not connecting enough with your kids, then there are things you can do. I was really surprised at the power of listening to our kids—like really listening. I think we hear a lot about talking to your kids. And I think sometimes that can be misinterpreted as, lecture to your kids, you know, tell them not to do this and not to do that, and set rules and communicate the rules. But it's also really listening to them in a respectful way, and being willing to consider their perspective, which you may not always agree with.
And when they open up to you, drop everything. It's impossible sometimes, but when they are opening up to you, even if it's in a very inconvenient time, try to allow it and stop what you're doing. Kids often like to connect right before bedtime, which is the most frustrating time ever, right? But we should really allow the connection to happen on their terms, because that's a form of giving our kids some autonomy. If you're getting from your kids some willingness to be vulnerable with you, I think that that is a really good sign.
There's a relationship between feeling listened to and being willing to be self-reflective and also intellectually humble, which I think is really interesting. So when we feel heard, when we feel safe and not threatened, we're much more willing to consider what we don't know, and to acknowledge uncertainty within ourselves.
What can parents do if we're worried about the information, the bad actors, the scary, negative stuff that our kids are coming across online? What can we do to help them tell the difference between misinformation, lies and reality online?
There's very little media literacy education happening in schools. It really helps if the parent has some of those skills already, because then they can model media literacy and information literacy a little better for kids. So I encourage parents to try to learn about media literacy.
One thing that every media literacy expert said to me was to ask your kids open-ended questions about what they're seeing and hearing in the media. It's such a beautifully simple approach, but apparently it's very, very powerful. So this could be anything, like with little kids, asking: What do you like about this show? Or why do you think that character just did what they did? It could also involve talking about how movies and cartoons are made. And when kids get older, you can ask even bigger questions, like: Who made this? Why was it made? Why is it being presented this way? What or who is missing from this? Who might benefit from this? Who might be harmed by it? Getting kids to think about these big-picture questions about the media can be super helpful in fostering this sort of curiosity and this questioning perspective in kids.
These are some really wonderful tips, and I'm going to try to put them into practice. As a parent, I'm always reading and trying to learn how to be the best parent I can be. But sometimes I wonder how much it really matters what we do and how we parent. How much of who our kids are and who they're going to turn out to be, is completely out of our control anyway?
People still debate this. We know genetics, of course, really matter. We know that temperament and personality, these are not things that we're probably going to be able to shift in our kids. But we also do know that a lot of what we're passing on to our kids is through the relationships we build with them, through the conversations we're having with them to help them understand how the world works, to help them understand what they can do to build stronger relationships, how they can interact with people. They really do learn a lot from our modeling, in terms of how to behave, how to manage conflict, how to think about different situations. We know that there are a lot of skills that kids learn through observing others, through the conversations they have with others, through the opportunities they're given to develop skills.
A big example is resilience. We know that kids who are overprotected, prevented from failing, from experiencing challenges, that those are kids who are going to grow up not knowing how to problem solve and not knowing how to deal with feelings of frustration. They haven't been given opportunities to develop emotional regulation skills and they will really suffer for that when they get older. So I feel like we do have a lot of power in terms of the perspective that we help kids develop about the world, about why it looks the way it does. We can give them the opportunities at a young age to develop skills that will serve them the rest of their lives.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scientific American
3 hours ago
- Scientific American
Spellements: Monday, June 2, 2025
How to Play Click the timer at the top of the game page to pause and see a clue to the science-related word in this puzzle! The objective of the game is to find words that can be made with the given letters such that all the words include the letter in the center. You can enter letters by clicking on them or typing them in. Press Enter to submit a word. Letters can be used multiple times in a single word, and words must contain three letters or more for this size layout. Select the Play Together icon in the navigation bar to invite a friend to work together on this puzzle. Pangrams, words which incorporate all the letters available, appear in bold and receive bonus points. One such word is always drawn from a recent Scientific American article—look out for a popup when you find it! You can view hints for words in the puzzle by hitting the life preserver icon in the game display. The dictionary we use for this game misses a lot of science words, such as apatite and coati. Let us know at games@ any extra science terms you found, along with your name and place of residence,
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Can adults grow new brain cells?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The developing human brain gains billions of neurons while in the womb, and tacks on some more during childhood. For most of the 20th century, the conventional wisdom was that the brain cells grown before adulthood would be the only ones we would have for the rest of our lives. But over the past few decades, more and more research is challenging that belief. So is it actually possible for adults to grow neurons? While some experts believe there's strong evidence that we can gain brain cells after childhood, others are still skeptical of this notion. The process of creating new brain cells is called neurogenesis. Researchers first observed neurogenesis after birth in lab animals of various ages, including mice, rats and songbirds. In adult mice, they found new neurons growing in parts of the brain collectively called the subventricular zone, an area closely linked with sense of smell, as well as in the hippocampus, a structure that's central to memory. Researchers think that neurogenesis in these brain regions is important for plasticity, or the brain's ability to adapt and change over time. Plasticity underlies the ability to learn and form memories, for instance. In mice, it's clear that lifestyle factors such as living in a stimulating environment and exercising can promote the growth of new neurons. Conversely, in mouse models of diseases like Alzheimer's, neurogenesis is hampered. What's still up for debate is whether these findings extend beyond mice and other lab animals. "Most of our knowledge about adult neurogenesis came from studies in animal models," Hongjun Song, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, told Live Science in an email. "Whether such knowledge can be directly translated to human studies is a challenge." That's because many of the studies that have established the existence of adult neurogenesis in animals used methods that aren't possible in human studies, such as injecting radioactive tracer molecules into the brain. These methods enable scientists to visualize if and where new neurons are growing, but the tracers themselves can be toxic. These methods also require dissecting the brain after the animal has been euthanized. "Unfortunately, there is no way to measure neurogenesis in the living person yet," Gerd Kempermann, a professor of genomics of regeneration at the Center for Regenerative Therapies in Dresden, Germany, told Live Science in an email. Related: Is there really a difference between male and female brains? Emerging science is revealing the answer. There are, however, some rare cases in which scientists have been able to apply similar methods to track neurogenesis in humans. For example, the radioactive tracer molecules used in animal neurogenesis studies are also sometimes used by doctors to track tumor growth in patients with brain cancer. While these radioactive tracer molecules are too toxic to give to healthy people, their benefits outweigh their risks in patients who already have cancer. Scientists behind a 1998 study published in the journal Nature Medicine used this approach and analyzed the brains of cancer patients after their deaths. They reported that, in addition to flagging cancer cells, the tracer molecules had marked new neurons in the hippocampus. This finding suggested that humans could grow new neurons well into adulthood, given the patients were 57 to 72 years old. Later, a 2013 study in the journal Cell used a form of radiocarbon dating to look for new neurons in humans. Radiocarbon dating usually determines the age of a sample by comparing the relative proportion of two different forms of carbon, or carbon isotopes, called carbon-14 and carbon-12. But to study neurogenesis in humans, scientists instead looked at carbon-14 concentrations inside the DNA of cells. Their approach took advantage of the fact that there was a spike in carbon-14 levels in the atmosphere caused by nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s. People's bodies absorbed this carbon-14 via their diets, and it became incorporated into their DNA. The amount of carbon-14 in a given cell corresponds to the isotope's concentrations in the atmosphere at the time the cell formed, making it possible to roughly pinpoint the "birthday" of that cell — and determine whether it formed after its owner's birth. By analyzing postmortem brain tissue from people ages 19 to 92, this radiocarbon study identified newborn neurons in the adult hippocampus. But while compelling, the study's methods were so complex that the results have never been replicated. That said, there are also more indirect markers of neurogenesis, such as certain proteins that are only present in growing neurons. Using these methods, both Kempermann and other research groups have uncovered additional evidence of newborn neurons in the adult human brain. "There are many different markers that are more or less specific for adult neurogenesis," Kempermann said. "In tissue sections, one can study these markers under the microscope and look for patterns that are consistent with neuronal development." But some researchers aren't convinced by this evidence. Arturo Alvarez-Buylla, a professor of neurological surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, has spent his career studying the growth of new neurons. While he's observed new neurons being formed in children and adolescents, he's found little evidence to support the notion of neurogenesis in adults. Alvarez-Buylla believes there are a number of issues that may lead other researchers to find signs of neurogenesis in adult humans. For example, the chemical markers that some labs use to track new neurons may also show up in other cell types, such as glia, which are cells in the brain that support neurons' function in various ways. This may make it appear that new neurons are growing when they're actually not. He's also skeptical of the use of carbon-14 dating for this purpose, calling it "creative" but arguing that researchers can't confirm that the new cells are neurons, or if there could be other potential reasons for varying carbon-14 levels in cells. But Alvarez-Buylla isn't ruling out the possibility of human adult neurogenesis; he's only saying that — so far — the evidence hasn't convinced him. "I would say that is a rare phenomenon," said Alvarez-Buylla. "If it happens, it's very, very few cells." Kempermann, on the other hand, is a firm believer that people can grow new neurons well into adulthood. "The positive reports outnumber the critical papers by far, their take is much wider, and their quality is overall higher." The researchers said that understanding whether adult neurogenesis exists will continue to be a key question for the field of neuroscience. RELATED STORIES —Could we ever retrieve memories from a dead person's brain? —What happens in your brain while you sleep? —How much of your brain do you need to survive? "The question about whether adults can grow new neurons has tremendous implications for the plasticity of the adult brain," Song said. If new neurons can be grown and integrated into the brain, he explained, those mechanisms could form the basis for new therapies for a variety of conditions, including brain injuries and neurodegenerative disorders. Alvarez-Buylla said that even if he doesn't believe neurogenesis happens frequently in adults, it may nonetheless be possible to harness the mechanisms used by animals to grow new neurons for human therapies. "The whole idea that it can happen opens a huge door for repair," he said. "I hope that we can keep our plasticity open to things going either way."


Forbes
18 hours ago
- Forbes
Immigration Research Shows Stephen Miller Wrong About American Science
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller attends a press briefing at the White House on ... More February 20, 2025. Miller, the chief architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, argues that American scientific achievement owes little to immigrants. A significant body of research disputes that contention. (Photo by) Stephen Miller, the chief architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, said recently that American scientific achievement owes little to immigrants. A significant body of research disputes that contention. Miller's argument and a statement by Vice President JD Vance about the Apollo Program seem designed to justify the administration's restrictions on international students and high-skilled immigrants. On May 31, 2025, in a statement on White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote, 'During the middle of the 20th century—when the U.S. achieved unquestioned global scientific dominance—there was net zero migration. From the 20's to the 70's the foreign-born population was cut almost by half while the overall population doubled. (Until Hart-Celler kicked in).' Contrary to the implication of Miller's statement, American science owes a great deal to immigrants in the post-war period. Between 1945 and 1974, 16 of the 30 U.S. winners of the Nobel Prize in physics were immigrants, according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis. In 1954, the Atomic Energy Act established an award recognizing scientific achievements in atomic energy. Italian-born Enrico Fermi won the first award. Five of the first eight winners of what became the Enrico Fermi Award (named after his death) were immigrants. Four of the nuclear scientists who came to the United States from Europe in the 1930s later received a Nobel Prize for physics: Felix Bloch, born in Switzerland, won it in 1952, Emilio Segre (Italy) in 1959, and Maria Mayer (Poland) and Eugene Wigner (Hungary) won the award in 1963. Despite the immigration restrictions imposed by Congress in 1921 and 1924, U.S. universities and others found ways around some of the quotas as fascist governments drove many brilliant individuals out of Europe. Immigrants Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard signed a letter used by Russian-born economist Alexander Sachs to convince President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to start the Manhattan Project. Breakthroughs by Niels Bohr, born in Denmark, and Enrico Fermi were crucial in developing the atomic bomb. In the end, immigrant and U.S.-born scientists working together turned theory into reality in the race to build the bomb before Nazi Germany. Between 1945 and 1974, 15 of the 36 U.S. Nobel Prizes in medicine, or 42%, were awarded to immigrants. That tells only part of the story. Albert Sabin, an immigrant from Poland, and Jonas Salk, the son of an immigrant, developed the vaccines that ended polio as a threat to Americans. Both men were in America due to family immigration. 'Without Sabin and Salk, American children would continue to be paralyzed for life by polio,' Michel Zaffran, director of polio eradication at the World Health Organization, said in an interview. 'Their contribution is quite simply immeasurable.' Immigrants have been awarded 40% of the Nobel Prizes won by Americans in chemistry, medicine and physics since 2000, according to an NFAP analysis (updated through the 2024 awards). Enrico Fermi in His Laboratory (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images) The 1924 Immigration Act, which reduced the flow of immigrants by approximately 90% and blocked Jews, Eastern Europeans and Asians, proved disastrous economically for America. According to research by New York University economists Petra Moser and Shmuel San, the restrictive immigration quotas of the 1920s significantly reduced invention in the United States. 'After the quotas, U.S. scientists produced 68% fewer additional patents in the pre-quota fields of ESE-born [Eastern and Southern European immigrant] scientists compared with the pre-quota fields of other U.S. scientists,' write Moser and San. 'Time-varying effects show a large decline in invention by U.S. scientists in the 1930s, which persisted into the 1960s.' Moser and San said the results show that U.S. scientists benefited from the presence of immigrant scientists but suffered after U.S. immigration restrictions blocked their entry. 'A firm-level analysis of changes in patenting reveals that firms which employed ESE-born [Eastern and Southern European immigrant] scientists in 1921 created 53% fewer inventions after the quotas,' according to Moster and San. 'A text analysis of U.S. patents indicates that invention also declined more broadly. After the quotas, 23% fewer U.S. patents describe inventions in ESE [Eastern and Southern European immigrant] fields compared with other fields.' UPENN Wharton economics professor Zeke Hernandez said one would expect similar consequences today should U.S. immigration policy block the entry of international students and foreign-born scientists and engineers. 'America's innovation machine would be decimated,' said Hernandez. 'Sixteen percent of inventors in the U.S. are foreign-born, but they account for 36% of all patents.' He points out immigrants are 80% more likely than the U.S.-born to start new businesses, and they are founders of over half of startups that achieve a $1 billion valuation. Over 70% of the full-time graduate students in key technical fields at U.S. universities are foreign-born. According to economist Zeke Hernandez, 'You don't have to have compassion for foreigners to know that getting rid of immigrants is bad for us.'