Public Health Focuses on Childhood, Magnetic Poles Once Wandered, and Colossal Squid Discovered
This week's news roundup covers measles and whooping cough cases, evidence of a carbon cycle on Mars and the first glimpse at a colossal squid in its natural habitat.
By , Fonda Mwangi & Alex Sugiura
Rachel Feltman: Happy Monday, listeners! For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. Let's kick off the week with a quick roundup of the latest science news.
First, some public health updates. Measles is continuing to spread in the U.S., with 712 cases confirmed so far in 2025 as of April 11, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For reference, there were just 285 confirmed cases in all of 2024. The CDC has confirmed two deaths from measles this year and is investigating a third.
Last week the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met after its planned meeting in February was postponed. During the meeting last Tuesday a scientist leading the CDC's measles response said the number of measles cases is likely underreported.
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.
But measles isn't the only illness that's increasingly putting kids at risk. Cases of whooping cough, or pertussis, are up more than 1,500 percent nationwide compared with 2021, according to recent reporting by ProPublica. Deaths from whooping cough are also on the rise.
Caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis, whooping cough spreads easily between humans. Even people with mild symptoms can pass the microbe along, and the resulting illness can be much worse in vulnerable individuals like babies. While some infants will have cold symptoms, others may develop pneumonia and difficulty breathing.
The best way to prevent the spread of pertussis —and to avoid serious symptoms—is with the DTaP or Tdap vaccine, both of which offer combined protection against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. The CDC recommends that all children get doses of the DTaP vaccine at two months, four months, six months, sometime between 15 and 18 months, and again sometime from age four to six. Kids should then get a Tdap booster from age 11 to 12. The CDC also recommends that people get a Tdap booster while pregnant—ideally between 27 and 36 weeks—to help confer immunity to their newborns. If you're an adult who's never been immunized against pertussis, you can get a Tdap shot at any age. You can also opt to get a Tdap jab when it's time for a tetanus booster in case your immunity against whooping cough has waned.
According to ProPublica, vaccination rates among kindergarten students have fallen for measles, mumps and rubella; pertussis; diphtheria; tetanus; hepatitis B; and polio.
In other public health news a new CDC study published last Tuesday shows a rise in the autism rate in children. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is helmed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., put out a statement about the report that claimed it showed 'a persistent rise in [autism spectrum disorder] prevalence [and] an alarming escalation in case severity,' but this contradicts the conclusion of the study's own authors. The report suggests that rates of autism spectrum disorder are likely rising because early detection is improving, especially in groups that previously had less access to diagnostics. Kristin Sohl, who chairs the Autism Subcommittee of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Council on Children with Disabilities, told CNN that the results of the report were 'encouraging.'
Looking back to simpler times, a study published last Wednesday in the journal Science Advances explored how ancient humans survived something called the Laschamp event. This incident about 41,000 years ago was a geomagnetic 'excursion,' which is where the Earth's magnetic poles move around. While the North and South poles didn't completely flip, they did kind of wander. The planet's magnetic field was much weaker than usual during this period. According to the authors of the new study, it was running at something like 10 percent of its current strength. Given that Earth's magnetic field helps protect us from cosmic radiation, it's likely that people were exposed to more UV light as a result.
During this time Homo sapiens seem to have started using the naturally occurring pigment ochre more often, according to the study. Ochre has been shown to provide sun protection. The researchers also saw an uptick in humans' use of caves in times and places that solar radiation would have posed more of a threat.
Speaking of cosmic happenings: another study from last week's Science Advances describes a planet with an unprecedented orbit.
The story starts with a pair of rare 'failed stars' about 120 light-years away. They're both brown dwarfs, which sit somewhere between gas giants and small stars on the planet-to-star spectrum. Brown dwarfs interest scientists because they seem to form the way stars do, but they don't actually manage the hydrogen fusion that gives stars their light. Back in 2020 this couple made the news because scientists caught one of them eclipsing the other. Eclipsing brown dwarf pairs are really rare, and the passage of one star in front of the other helps scientists make certain observations to calculate their masses.
Now this binary system is proving to be even more rare than we thought: it features a planet that orbits perpendicularly around them, instead of orbiting roughly along the same plane on which the brown dwarfs themselves orbit. That's never been seen in a binary star system before.
Still in space, but much closer to home, scientists have found new evidence that Mars once had a carbon cycle. In a study published last Thursday in Science, researchers report that the Curiosity rover dug up a mineral called siderite when drilling the Gale crater. This mineral is made of iron and carbonate, and it indicates that carbon once moved through the Red Planet's environment similarly to how it does on Earth. That supports the idea that Mars once had a thicker atmosphere that could support liquid water.
And speaking of making a splash, we'll end on a fun note with a very, very tiny colossal squid. The species, which was first discovered a century ago, has never been caught on camera in its natural habitat. Now, using a remote-controlled vessel at 1,968 feet [600 meters] below the surface, scientists have finally spotted a colossal squid in the comfort of its deep-sea home. This one is young, so it's only about a foot [30 centimeters] long. But it could grow to be as long as 23 feet [seven meters] in adulthood and might weigh as much as 1,100 pounds [500 pounds]. You can check out the footage for yourself on our YouTube channel. You'll find a link in our show notes.
That's all for this week's science news roundup. We'll be back on Wednesday.
Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
If we don't listen to young men about their mental health, this is the cost
Behind stoic expressions and casual small talk, too many young men are quietly drowning. They're your classmates, brothers, coworkers, and sons — fighting internal battles with depression, anxiety, and isolation, often with no one to tell and nowhere to turn. The time to confront the mental health crisis among young men is now. Despite growing awareness around mental health, men — especially younger men — continue to slip through the cracks. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), suicide remains one of the leading causes of death among males aged 15–24, with a rate of 21.1 per 100,000 — nearly four times higher than their female peers. In 2021, only 18% of men aged 18–44 received any form of mental health treatment, compared to nearly 29% of women. Letters: Wake up, Floridians: Our politicians don't respect or represent us These aren't just statistics; they are a collective alarm bell. Here in South Florida, our rich cultural diversity adds another layer, often reinforcing the message that vulnerability is weakness — that men must 'tough it out.' The results are devastating — silence, self-medication, and in worst cases, suicide. We must work together to end this stigma immediately. Mental health is not a character flaw or a gendered issue — it's a public health imperative. And for young men, that means rewriting outdated narratives that equate stoicism with strength. Real strength is admitting you need help. It's having the courage to talk about anxiety, loneliness, or trauma — and seeking support. This transformation has to start early and happen everywhere: in homes, schools, sports teams, places of worship, workplaces, and digital spaces. Normalize therapy. Encourage mental health days. Train educators and coaches to recognize red flags. And most importantly, let boys and young men know that their feelings are not only valid — they're human. Opinion: Florida seniors shouldn't have to deal with homelessness. They need our support. To the young men reading this: you're not broken. You're not alone. And asking for help is one of the bravest things you'll ever do. Let's stop asking men to suffer in silence. Let's start building a culture where mental health is strength, not shame. Brian McSwain is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor and serves as Program Director for Beachway Therapy Center in West Palm Beach. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Men's mental health is worth talking about | Opinion
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
New England voters strongly disapprove of Kennedy's performance and polices as health secretary, according to new Globe/Suffolk poll
On one front, Kennedy does draw wide support from across the spectrum with his move to phase out artificial food dyes. But his most recent move this week served to underscore how polarizing his agenda can be: On Monday, Kennedy Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The move stunned and alarmed many in the medical community — as well as New Englanders who participated in the Suffolk/Globe survey, which was conducted before Kennedy fired the officials. Advertisement Logan Snierson, a 26-year old aircraft mechanic and registered Democrat from Rochester, N.H., spoke to the Globe having just seen the news that Kennedy had gutted the CDC vaccine board and was disturbed by the implications. Advertisement 'I mean, it just feels like we're regressing as a country in health care,' he said. Related : His poll numbers probably shouldn't come as much of a surprise. New England is not only more liberal than the country as a whole but has a high concentration of well-educated professionals who work in the region's nation-leading universities and hospitals, and the local economy is heavily dependent on the medical, pharmaceutical, and health care industries — all of which have been hit hard by federal budget cuts and the administration's oressure campaign on elite schools. A national survey conducted by Pew Research in April and May found more favorable results for Kennedy: 43 percent of those polled disapproved of his performance, while 36 percent approved and 21 percent were not sure. The opposition to Kennedy here is deeply felt. The single largest group of respondents, by far, were those who said they strongly disapproved of the job he's doing. By contrast, only 14 percent of those surveyed strongly approved. In the Globe poll, Kennedy's popularity broke along familiar partisan lines. Ninety-one percent of Democrats disapproved of Kennedy; 80 percent of them strongly disapproved. While just 15 percent of Republicans approve of Kennedy, that was a larger share than the 4 percent of Democrats who did. Seventy-six percent of Republicans favor Kennedy overall. The splits among independent voters closely mirrored the overall results. Sixty-two percent disapprove of Kennedy while 29 percent approve. Many of those displeased with Kennedy's performance said they haven't been surprised by his actions, given his Advertisement 'I was shocked by his appointment and therefore everything has been concordant with that,' said Craig Franz, a 72-year old retiree and registered Democrat from Narragansett, R.I. 'It's a terrible time for health in the country and for science and research.' Related : Clear majorities disagreed with several of Kennedy's most significant policy decisions and views. Sixty percent disagreed with his belief that fluoride should be removed from public water supplies, for instance, compared to 31 percent who agreed. Kennedy's most unpopular move, the survey found, was the decision of his Food and Drug Administration to limit COVID-19 booster shots to those over 65 years old or at risk of serious illness. Sixty-two percent disagreed — almost all strongly so — while 32 percent agreed. The survey did underscore the broad appeal of one staple of Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' platform: his push to Kennedy has not pursued any ban just yet, but in April, he announced a suite of actions designed to curb use of the dyes, which have been increasingly linked to health risks like cancer. The secretary's focus on food dyes and addressing food safety in general united poll respondents who otherwise expressed a wide range of views on Kennedy. Anna Morrison, a 44-year old barber and independent voter from Falmouth, said Kennedy was 'doing a very good job' overall and pointed first to his steps on tackling chemicals in food; she agrees with Kennedy that those chemicals are contributing to a chronic disease epidemic in the country. Advertisement On the other end of the spectrum, Margot Critchfield, a 69-year old retired Episcopal priest and Democrat from Cape Cod, believes Kennedy is unqualified for the job and that his views are 'dangerous,' especially when it comes to vaccination. But she agreed with his stance on food dyes, though she noted it was not an endorsement of his leadership in any way. 'I agreed with that but I felt like it was almost like a trick question, because it was hard to believe I'd agree with him on anything,' she said. David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, said the results show there's only one issue Kennedy should be talking about — 'mandating the removal of synthetic dyes from the food supply.' 'If he leads with that and he goes aggressively on that issue, even among the people who hate him, even in the most liberal areas of the nation, people overwhelmingly agree,' Paleologos said. 'That's a gift-wrapped issue for him. And for Trump, too.' Though Kennedy is polarizing in New England, some voters are still conflicted about his overall impact. Ellen, a 71-year old retiree and independent voter from Sturbridge, who declined to give her last name, approves of Kennedy's moves on food additives and fluoride but disagrees with him on vaccines. She said that he wouldn't have been her first choice as health secretary but said 'he means well' even if 'he's misguided in a lot of ways.' 'I think personally, he's a bit out there,' she said. 'But isn't everybody in this administration?' Sam Brodey can be reached at
Scientific American
3 hours ago
- Scientific American
Animal Lifespans Offer Clues about the Science of Aging
Could the spectrum of animal lifespans hold clues about the science of aging? By , Fonda Mwangi & Alex Sugiura Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. In the animal kingdom lifespans can stretch from mere hours to entire centuries, but that's just the start. Some creatures deteriorate so slowly that we've never actually caught them dying of old age. Others don't seem to age at all. And some can apparently reset their biological clocks and bounce back to infancy to start all over again. Plenty of humans would like to figure out how that works—and potentially harness the ability for our own use. But science has a long way to go. The truth is that we barely understand why or how we age in the first place—let alone how we might stop it. 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. My guest today is João Pedro de Magalhães. He's the chair of molecular biogerontology at the University of Birmingham in England, and he's here to tell us all about the nascent science of aging. Thank you so much for coming on to chat today. João Pedro de Magalhães: My pleasure. Thank you for the invitation. Feltman: So I'm sure that all of our listeners know that different species have different lifespans, but could you start by giving us a sense of some of the extremes that are out there? Magalhães: Absolutely. It's been a mystery of biology for a very long time, ever since Aristotle noticed [these] differences in lifespan across species. And we know that some animals have very short lifespans; others have very long lifespans. And this happens even amongst closely related species like mammals. For example, hamsters live about two years; mice and rats can live up to three or four years; and, you know, of course, humans, we can live over 100 years. And then at the other end of the spectrum we have certain species of whales that have been estimated to live over 200 years ... Feltman: Mm. Magalhães: So it is quite remarkable how much of a variation in longevity there is. Feltman: Yeah, and then, besides mammals, I would assume that things get even more extreme when you're talking about less closely related species. Magalhães: Well, there's some very unusual animals. There's this type of jellyfish which appears to be immortal, or it appears to have the ability to rejuvenate, to go back in biological time, so adults can go back to earlier stages of development and start again their own lives. So it's not that they're immortal [in] that you can't kill them, but they are biologically immortal in the sense that biological time, for them, doesn't roll in one direction, like it happens for us. Feltman: Mm. Magalhães: So there's very unusual animals—again, we're talking invertebrates like rotifers or very simple animals—whose adults don't have mouths. Feltman: Mm. Magalhães: They don't have a way of feeding. So they're very clear examples of mechanical limitations that will result in the demise of organisms. So you have a very big variety in terms of not just longevity and paces of aging but even in aging phenotypes and how species degenerate and die. Feltman: And fundamentally, what is aging? Magalhães: So aging, we are all familiar with it—I tend to have a very broad definition of aging as a, a progressive and inevitable physiological degeneration, an increase in vulnerability and decrease in viability. Now, of course, there's many facets to aging. I mean, it involves physiological degeneration. I mean, our bodies get weaker. We become frailer with age. But there's also, of course, many cellular, molecular changes that occur as well. And then, of course, there's increased incidence of diseases: cancer, cardiovascular diseases, neurological diseases, and so on. So one of the hallmarks of aging is that once you reach about age 30 your chance of dying [doubles] roughly every eight years, and that's very consistent across populations. And that happens as well in animals, only in animals like mice, it varies a bit between strains, but it'll be something like every few months the chance of dying doubles. Feltman: Hmm, and what do we know about what causes aging? You know, why is it inevitable for most species, but then, you know, for some, like those jellyfish, it doesn't seem to be? Magalhães: Well, that's a big question, and we don't have a good answer yet. We don't have a good understanding why some species age very fast. So for example, mice and rats, as I mentioned, they only live up to three or four years, but they also age much faster than human beings. No matter how you take care of them, a mouse will age about 20, 25, 30 times faster than a human being. So we know there's a very big diversity, also, in rates of aging, but what's behind it is not well-understood. We know there must be genetic differences, again, because no matter how well you take care of your mouse or hamster or rat, it will age a lot faster than a human being. So, you know, you can let it watch Netflix all it wants, it will still age much faster than human beings, right? So there has to be genetic differences. It's not environment, it's not the diet; it has to be genetically determined—it has to be encoded in our genomes how fast we age. But then, of course, the question is, 'Okay, but what [are] the biochemical, molecular, cellular determinants?' That's something we don't understand well yet. Having said that, there are some hypotheses. For example, one idea that's been around for decades is the idea that damage to the DNA and mutations in the DNA accumulate gradually with age and then cause aging. And the hypothesis being that in mice, for example, [this] accumulation of mutations occurs much faster—for which there is some experimental evidence. So that is one hypothesis. And at the moment, however, it's still unproven or unknown, really, why human beings age. Feltman: Hmm, and are there any factors that long-living organisms have in common? Magalhães: There are multiple factors associated with long lifespans. I mean, the important point is that we are a product of our evolutionary history. Of course, we now have technology, and we have medicine, but we didn't evolve in these conditions; we evolved as, as [cavemen], you know, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. And the same for every other species. And so the major determinant of whether a species evolves a short lifespan or a long lifespan is extrinsic mortality, so how much they die of—in particular, predation. So if you have animals like—short-lived animals like mice, I mean, mice in the wild very rarely live more than one year, not just because of diseases but primarily because of predators ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Magalhães: And because they have very short lifespans, even in the wild, then, you know, they have to grow very quickly, they have to develop very quickly, and they have to reproduce very quickly, and so everything happens very quickly. So it's a very fast life history, a very fast life that they live. On the other hand, humans or the Galápagos tortoise would be an example or big whales or underground, subterranean animals like mole rats, they're protected from predators. I mean, we are protected from predators, one, because we're relatively big for primates and, of course, because of our intelligence, which [allowed] us to escape predators when we were, of course, in the time of cavemen and when we were evolving. And that means that because we have fewer predators, we are top of the food chain, that means that we have more time to grow, to develop, and then, of course, that leads to a longer lifespan as well. So across species there's this pattern, of course, of, you know, we are a product of our evolution, and we have the life history and the longevity that fits our evolutionary history. Feltman: What kinds of tools are researchers using to try to answer all of these questions we have about aging and lifespan? Magalhães: So there's different types of tools we can use. I mean, one big technological breakthrough was DNA sequencing. We can sequence DNA relatively cheaply and relatively rapidly nowadays. I mean, the human genome sequencing cost billions of dollars, but nowadays you can sequence your own genome, anyone can sequence their genomes for [a] few hundred dollars. So it's relatively cheap to sequence genomes, which means we can also sequence the genomes of different species, species with different lifespans. So for example, our lab, we sequenced the genome of the bowhead whale, which is the longest-lived mammal, [which has] been estimated to live over 200 years, as well as naked mole rats and other long-lived, disease-resistant species. And there's now hundreds of genome [sequences] from many different species with different lifespans. And so what you can do with that trove of information is analyze it for patterns associated with the evolution of longevity. You can ask questions—so for example, you know, 'Do species that live a longer lifespan, do they have more DNA repair genes?' So you can use that information on the DNA to study the evolution of longevity, then try to find specific genes and pathways associated with it. Feltman: Mm. Magalhães: Now, the other approach we use to study aging, of course, is in model systems. I mean, unfortunately we cannot really study aging in human beings—or we can, but it's very difficult and time-consuming—and so we tend to use short-lived model systems like mice or fruit flies or worms. [Some] worms live a few weeks. We tend to use fruit flies, Drosophila, that live a few months. Mice can live up to three, four years. So we can study these animals to try to gather insights into the mechanisms of aging, hoping that some of these will be applicable to humans. I mean, there's some rationale for it because we know the basic biochemistry of life in a mouse is quite similar to humans. We can also manipulate aging to some degree in animal models, particularly at the genetic level. We can tweak genes in animals, including in mice, and extend their lifespan. In mice [it's] up to about 50 percent. But for example, in worms we can tweak a single gene in worms and extend by about 10 times ... Feltman: Mm. Magalhães: Which is quite remarkable. So we can do a lot of studies in animal models: we can manipulate aging to some degree in animals, and then we can do mechanistic studies. We can look at their molecules, we can look at their cells, we can look at their hormones and try to test mechanistic [hypotheses] of aging. Feltman: What do you think are the biggest questions that we should be tackling about human aging and human lifespans? Magalhães: Well, I suppose the big question is still why we age. I mean, why do human beings age? As I said, there's hypotheses like DNA damage and mutations, like oxidative damage, like loss of protein, homeostasis. There's different hypothesis, but we still don't know why we age, and I think that remains the big question in the field. There's other questions, of course: Can we manipulate human aging? Because although we can manipulate, to some degree, aging in animal models, we don't know if that's possible or not in human beings. We can manipulate, to some degree, our longevity by exercise, eating healthy, not smoking, not drinking too much alcohol, and so on. But whether, for example, can we develop a longevity drug? And there's a number of companies and labs trying to develop longevity pills, and—but whether they're gonna be effective in humans, that's still something that's up to discussion and will require, for example, clinical trials. Feltman: Mm. Magalhães: So one aspect that's quite fundamental and important in, in aging is that there are complex species—like some species of reptiles like the Galápagos tortoise; some species of fishes, like rockfishes; some species in salamanders, like the olm—that appear not to age at all. There's no mammals in this category, but there are complex vertebrates that, in studies spanning decades, do not exhibit increased mortality, do not exhibit increased physiological degeneration. So that is quite a fascinating observation, that some species—I mean, maybe they do age after a very long time, but at the very least they age much, much, much slower than human beings ... Feltman: Hmm. Magalhães: Which I think is a great inspiration as well. Because, so, for example, just like the Wright brothers took inspiration from birds: they saw birds—'Well, birds are heavier than air, and yet they can fly, so there's no reason to think we cannot build a machine that's heavier than air and can make us fly.' We can take inspiration [from] these animals. There's no physical limit that [holds] that every organism has to age. And so we can take [inspiration] from the species that appear not to age and think, 'Well, maybe with technology and, and therapeutics we can, at the very least, slow our aging process.' Feltman: Thank you so much for coming on to talk today. This has been great. Magalhães: Well, thank you. My pleasure. Feltman: That's all for today's episode. We'll be back on Friday. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
