Latest news with #UniversityofMassachusettsChanMedicalSchool
Yomiuri Shimbun
12-08-2025
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Inside Science Labs Trying to Survive in the Trump Era
WORCESTER, Mass. – Anastasia Khvorova is perched at the edge of a massive scientific opportunity. Her laboratory at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School deploys cutting-edge RNA biology with one aim: to solve diseases – the ones that rob people of their memories or endanger pregnant women. Lately, she sees peril all around her. In the hallway, she bumps into one world-class chemist, then another, whose salaries are supported by federal funding the Trump administration has proposed to drastically slash. Many are immigrants like herself, who can no longer be sure America is the best country in the world to do science – or that they are welcome. Khvorova built her career by thinking boldly, but if slowdowns and cuts to federal science funding continue, she'll be forced to winnow her ambitions. 'What is happening right now is absolutely suicidal,' said Khvorova, speaking softly in Russian-accented English. 'I will stop making drugs. I will reduce my lab from 30 people to five. I will stop training scientists.' With stunning speed, the Trump administration has over the past six months cut research dollars, terminated grants and hit the brakes on federal funding, destabilizing an 80-year-old partnership between the government and universities that has made the United States a scientific superpower. The policy twists may sound arcane, but to researchers, everything is at stake. Day-to-day, Khvorova's lab is bright and buzzing. Scientists are trying to develop cures for Huntington's disease or halt the muscle loss that comes with aging. Longer term? 'I have no clue,' Khvorova said. The Trump administration portrays its changes as a targeted correction. Officials say grants are being terminated because they touch on topics with which the administration disagrees, such as increasing diversity in science. Funding to specific universities has been frozen because they haven't protected Jewish students, according to the administration. Fundamental research, Trump officials vow, will thrive. 'The money that goes to basic and blue-sky science must be used for that purpose, not to feed the red tape that so often goes along with funded research,' Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy, said in a speech at the National Academy of Sciences in May. In contrast, a recent report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that President Donald Trump's budget request for 2026 – including a 40 percent cut to the National Institutes of Health – would cut the nation's basic research portfolio by about a third. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office found that a 10 percent cut to the NIH budget would result in two fewer drugs invented per year, a gradual decline that would go into full effect in 30 years. The Trump administration's science agenda is getting pushback in courts, in Congress and at the state level, but the impacts are being felt in research institutions across the country. As of Aug. 1, the Chan Medical School had a $37 million shortfall in funding due to long delays at the National Institutes of Health. Khvorova is no stranger to doing science under challenging conditions. She trained at Moscow State University in the waning days of the Soviet Union, when there was sometimes no hot water, no reagents for experiments, no salaries. But even that has not prepared her for the abrupt policy swings that threaten the unique American research system. 'We are working on developing cures, which are not politically oriented,' Khvorova said. 'Democrats age, and Republicans age.' Disruptions will ripple over decades, since no one can predict what science breakthroughs in the lab will turn into world-changing innovations. Khvorova's work built off years of federally funded research into soil-dwelling microscopic roundworms that revealed short strands of RNA perform like symphony conductors, controlling the activity of genes and turning their volume down. Worcester, a gritty former mill city in Central Massachusetts, is home to two Nobel laureates and an RNA Therapeutics Institute that has spawned 12 start-ups. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, a company based on the phenomenon originally discovered in roundworms in labs at Chan Medical School and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, has discovered six drugs now approved for diseases that include rare genetic conditions and high cholesterol. The company's market capitalization has soared to more than $50 billion, and it has 2,200 employees. Basic research 'is almost like the starter when you bake sourdough bread. You can't make the bread without it,' said John Maraganore, who led Alnylam for nearly two decades before he stepped down in 2021. 'Girls just wanna have (NIH) funding' In the labyrinthine, slightly cluttered labs at Chan Medical School, scientists tend to high-end instruments with geeky names like 'Dr. Oligo,' using them to synthesize strands of RNA aimed at treating fatal forms of dementia or diseases that cause muscles to waste away. Under sterile hoods, they grow millions of mouse liver cells for experiments. In a small room called the 'wormhole,' decorated with colorful worms hanging from the door jamb like icicles, Victor Ambros, a Nobel Prize-winning worm biologist, zooms in on mutant roundworms wriggling across a yellowish agar gel. Unlike Harvard University, which has had billions of dollars in funding choked off by the Trump administration, Chan hasn't been targeted. But it is not untouched. Like hundreds of other institutions across America, it has been thrown off stride day-to-day and week-to-week by the Trump administration's unprecedented efforts to downsize and reshape the agencies that support science. Uncertainty looms over nearly every experiment and conversation. Slogans, not scientific sketches, are scrawled on the frosted glass wall of one office: 'We want scientific data, not alternative facts!' 'Girls just wanna have (NIH) funding' 'Science Not Silence!' More than a dozen NIH grants, out of several hundred, have been terminated, though they are tangled up in lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's actions. About 200 employees have been laid off or furloughed, about 3 percent of the medical school's 6,500 employees. A hiring freeze has been in place since March. Graduate school offers to nearly 90 young biomedical scientists were rescinded, though 13 spots were salvaged for next year's class. 'We have this feeling of extreme uncertainty, in a context where, previously, we could depend upon a robust system, a merit-based system that was predictable for the right reasons – the best science will get funded,' said Ambros, who shared the Nobel in medicine last year. Jesse Lehman, a graduate student who focuses on understanding the speed and dynamics of immune defenses against pathogens, became hooked on science when he first felt the rush of discovering things no one else knew. There are no guarantees in this career – the contest for federal funding is exceptionally competitive. But what has fueled the system is its reliability. The federal government funds the best research, year after year, and scientists chase grants without worrying that the funder may lose interest in neuroscience or immunology and decide instead to buy a sports team. But now, federal funding may be there one moment and gone the next. 'I have this fear that the career that I've worked 10 years on developing just may not be viable,' Lehman said. – The 20-year path to success In textbooks, science is a steady march of progress. In the lab, it's an iterative process – filled with detours and dead ends that sometimes turn out to be surprises that push the field forward. In 2006, Chan biologist Craig Mello shared the Nobel Prize with Stanford University biologist Andrew Fire for the discovery of a phenomenon called RNA interference: Short double strands of RNA could silence genes. It is a profound biological mechanism shared not just by tiny worms, but by humans. Other scientists built on the work, capturing the interest of venture capitalists and pharma companies. Many human diseases are caused by errant genes. What if, instead of treating patients' symptoms, doctors could give their patients drugs that just shut off the problematic ones? More than a billion dollars flowed into start-ups, but biology turned out to be a bit more complicated. Investor ebullience evaporated. Alnylam, an RNAi company, began trading below the amount of cash it had on hand, meaning investors thought its stock was less valuable than the money it had in the bank. Years of science – including a lot of chemistry – eventually turned a profound biological mechanism into a new class of safe effective drugs. 'Sickness doesn't have political boundaries,' said Phillip Zamore, a co-founder of Alnylam and a professor of biomedical sciences. 'Everyone deserves a better treatment for their disease, and I just want to make that possible. And I can't do that if my lab, my university, my colleagues' ability to do science is destroyed.' In the past few years, several biotech companies have spun out of Chan, including Comanche Biopharma, which is focused on a treatment for preeclampsia – a complication of pregnancy – and Atalanta Therapeutics, which is searching for cures for neurodegenerative diseases. Khvorova, a co-founder of both companies, came to the United States with very little money in the mid-1990s, intending to check a box on her résumé and stay a year or two. Instead, she became a 'typical example of the American Dream,' as she puts it. She's an inventor named on nearly 250 patents. She just scooped up one of the most prestigious prizes in biomedical research, with a $2.7 million award. She should be on top of the world. But as she walked to her lab on a recent Tuesday, she gestured sadly at a collection of empty champagne bottles sitting high up above the cabinets in the lounge outside. Each bottle, she noted, is a trained graduate student – a reminder that most of next year's class was turned away.
22-05-2025
- Science
Nanotech contact lenses give humans 'super vision,' even in total darkness with eyes shut: Study
Humans can now see in the dark -- and even with their eyes closed -- using nanotechnology contact lenses that turn invisible infrared light into visible images, according to a new study published in the journal Cell. After first testing in mice, scientists from China and the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School created contact lenses for humans infused with specialized "nanoparticles," thousands of times smaller than a grain of sand, that let people see in the dark and in foggy conditions. These nanoparticles are scattered throughout the soft lens material, where they absorb infrared light and convert it into images the human eye normally can't see. Gang Han, the study's lead author and a Ph.D.-level nanoparticle researcher at UMass Chan Medical School, told ABC News the lenses enhance how someone sees color. "When wearing them, you still see everything normally," Hans said. "The lenses simply add the ability to see infrared images on top of what we already normally see." Wearing the lenses, participants were able to recognize coded flashes of infrared light — similar to Morse code — identify basic shapes and patterns, and even distinguish colors in the infrared range, effectively adding a new dimension to human vision, Han explained. They could even perceive the images with their eyes closed, thanks to the ability of infrared light to pass through eyelids, he said. Humans can naturally see only visible light, a small slice of the full light spectrum that includes invisible wavelengths like ultraviolet and infrared. Night vision goggles can detect infrared light, but they're bulky, often need a power source, and usually show images in green or black and white, Han said. "What's special about our contact lenses is that they let you see infrared light in color — like red, green and blue — so you can tell different things apart more easily," Han emphasized. So far, the lenses have only been tested on a small group of individuals in China, all with normal vision. Han said the researchers now need to test them in a more diverse population, including people with different vision capabilities. "While we haven't specifically studied these lenses for people with vision impairments or eye diseases, this is an important area we hope to explore in the future," he said, adding that there needs to be further assessment to test their safety and spot any long-term effects to the eye. Advances in nanotechnology could bring everyday benefits, especially for first responders. "Our lenses help rescuers see clearly and navigate safely in dangerous environments like fires or dense fog," he said. Doctors already use infrared technology to highlight tumors treated with special dyes visible to infrared cameras. Han noted that the new lenses could enhance this approach by allowing surgeons to see near-infrared signals directly in their line of sight, without needing to glance at separate monitors. "This study opens the door to many exciting applications of wearable technology, potentially transforming how we see and interact with our environment, especially in challenging conditions," he said. The study was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program and included collaboration with U.S. scientists.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Nanotech contact lenses give humans 'super vision,' even in total darkness with eyes shut: Study
Humans can now see in the dark -- and even with their eyes closed -- using nanotechnology contact lenses that turn invisible infrared light into visible images, according to a new study published in the journal Cell. After first testing in mice, scientists from China and the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School created contact lenses for humans infused with specialized "nanoparticles," thousands of times smaller than a grain of sand, that let people see in the dark and in foggy conditions. These nanoparticles are scattered throughout the soft lens material, where they absorb infrared light and convert it into images the human eye normally can't see. Gang Han, the study's lead author and a Ph.D.-level nanoparticle researcher at UMass Chan Medical School, told ABC News the lenses enhance how someone sees color. "When wearing them, you still see everything normally," Hans said. "The lenses simply add the ability to see infrared images on top of what we already normally see." Wearing the lenses, participants were able to recognize coded flashes of infrared light — similar to Morse code — identify basic shapes and patterns, and even distinguish colors in the infrared range, effectively adding a new dimension to human vision, Han explained. They could even perceive the images with their eyes closed, thanks to the ability of infrared light to pass through eyelids, he said. MORE: FDA plans to limit COVID shots to those over 65 or with high-risk conditions Humans can naturally see only visible light, a small slice of the full light spectrum that includes invisible wavelengths like ultraviolet and infrared. Night vision goggles can detect infrared light, but they're bulky, often need a power source, and usually show images in green or black and white, Han said. "What's special about our contact lenses is that they let you see infrared light in color — like red, green and blue — so you can tell different things apart more easily," Han emphasized. So far, the lenses have only been tested on a small group of individuals in China, all with normal vision. Han said the researchers now need to test them in a more diverse population, including people with different vision capabilities. "While we haven't specifically studied these lenses for people with vision impairments or eye diseases, this is an important area we hope to explore in the future," he said, adding that there needs to be further assessment to test their safety and spot any long-term effects to the eye. MORE: Tropical cyclones may be linked to infant mortality in at-risk low- and middle-income countries, new research suggests Advances in nanotechnology could bring everyday benefits, especially for first responders. "Our lenses help rescuers see clearly and navigate safely in dangerous environments like fires or dense fog," he said. Doctors already use infrared technology to highlight tumors treated with special dyes visible to infrared cameras. Han noted that the new lenses could enhance this approach by allowing surgeons to see near-infrared signals directly in their line of sight, without needing to glance at separate monitors. "This study opens the door to many exciting applications of wearable technology, potentially transforming how we see and interact with our environment, especially in challenging conditions," he said. The study was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program and included collaboration with U.S. scientists. Dr. Karen Tachi Udoh is an internal medicine resident at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a member of the ABC News Medical Unit. Nanotech contact lenses give humans 'super vision,' even in total darkness with eyes shut: Study originally appeared on
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Dogs. Bedbugs. Corn. They all have this one thing in common.
Your pet pug is without a doubt a domestic dog. A cow on a farm seems domestic, too. But what about an indoor/outdoor cat, that brings home unwelcome gifts? What about animals that live in our homes to our chagrin, like a rat or a bedbug? Even among scientists, there is no universally agreed upon definition of what domestication looks like or what makes an animal 'domestic.' Elinor Karlsson and Kathryn Lord faced this problem head on when they were publishing a paper on the genetics of farmed foxes—a famous experiment where Russian scientists selected foxes for tameness. The animals were tame, but were they domestic? By what definition? 'We do not have one that is agreed upon,' says Lord, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School in Worchester, MA. 'So when we say we're studying domestication, we don't have anything that we're actually all talking about.' Now, Lord, Karlsson, and their colleagues have attempted to define domestication anew in a way they hope the scientific world can get behind. In their definition, 'domestic' would apply to a population of non-human organisms that have evolved in response to a niche or role associated with humans, and that population can't thrive outside of that human context. By this logic, populations of dogs, corn, sewer rats, and bedbugs are all in; while others that people commonly consider domestic—such as horses or honeybees—are out. Lord and Karlsson hope this new definition will allow scientists to study domestication more systematically—all starting from the same, agreed-upon definition. But while other researchers see some benefits, they also see drawbacks. And some question whether a new definition is really needed at all. 'Domestic' comes from the Latin for 'of the house or the home.' But what counts as domestic and what doesn't has always been a bit up for debate. Where the organism lives matters, and how much control humans have seems to matter too. But humans can control one crop of blackberries, only to find other populations running rampant without any human effort. What is 'domestic' ends up a bit like art—or porn. We know it when we see it. 'I see domestication as human directed,' says Chris Schell, an urban ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In his definition, humans select populations of a species with traits that make them desirable. But some scientists want to emphasize that the domestic population is truly, genetically different. 'In my definition, it's a population that has come under some form of human influence…that has become genetically differentiated,' says Carlos Driscoll, a biologist at Hood College in Frederick, MD. 'There's a genetic change, that's the key for me.' Others want to take the human control part out of the equation, giving more power to the other species involved. 'I would talk about domestication as a relationship between species, and that it was a term coined specifically to situate relationships involving people,' says Amy Bogaard, an archaeobotanist at the University of Oxford in England. Animals can adapt to bring them closer to humans, but humans can also change their ways to better live with animals. (Maybe dogs didn't need us at all to domesticate themselves.) In Lord and Karlsson's definition, human control over the domestication process has little place. Lots of 'domestic' populations of animals, after all, aren't always under human control—like rampant blackberries or feral hogs or dogs. (That's why they exclusively use the term 'domestic' rather than 'domesticated,' which implies humans did something on purpose.) In most cases, the domestication process happens in a population or a group of animals of the same species that inhabit the same area, not in an entire species—though Lord, Karlsson and their colleagues carve out exceptions. Cats and dogs, they argue, are unable to truly thrive without humans—whether that's though pet food or trash. And bedbugs require a human host—or a bat living near a human. (Ancient DNA shows cats domesticated themselves.) The researchers settled on a spectrum of ways that organisms can tolerate humans. A 'domestic' population is adapted to a human-associated niche. And it could be any organism—from microbe to animal. The lactic acid bacteria Lactococcus lactis, is adapted to produce cheese—a thoroughly human invention. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) 'actually do so well with humans that they no longer have any populations that are outside of the human niche,' Lord explains. But to be 'domestic,' the population must not be able to thrive away from those human niches. Without cheese-making, that particular lactic acid bacteria is toast, and big bulky ears of corn wouldn't have a chance. But horses and cows do all right away from people, as do carp, blackberries, or yeast. Instead, the scientists place these species as 'human exploiters,' using our world—but not needing it. Lord, Karlsson and their colleagues published their new definition May 12 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 'It's useful in one regard, because domestication is not one simple thing,' Driscoll says.'You know, it's like cancer. Cancer is not all one thing. It's just that all cancers end up looking kind of the same, right? So they have different pathways to becoming cancerous.' Similarly, there are different pathways to associating with people—and the result, domestic organisms, have a lot in common. The emphasis on populations—allowing some groups of animals to be domesticate while others are not—is useful, says Eban Gering, an evolutionary biologist at Nova Southeastern University in Davie, Florida. 'I think thinking about things at a population level is important,' he says. 'Trying to put a species in one column or another actually throws a wrench in.' Just as Lord and Karlsson found other definitions unsatisfying, other scientists aren't content with the new definition either. 'Obviously people get upset when we reclassify things differently than what they believe them to be,' says Karlsson, a computational geneticist at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School. But this new definition of 'domestic,' Gering notes, is basically the same as 'obligate synanthrope'—the scientific term for an animal that depends fully on humans and their environments. 'They're defining domestic as obligately synanthropic, which is already a definition that exists,' he says. 'I'm not sure what utility it adds.' Making 'domestic' the same as 'obligate synanthrope,' is, to Lord, the point. 'We argue that the fundamental process of domestication is the evolution of a nonhuman population to the point where it requires an anthropogenic niche to sustain itself.' This, she says, takes out the human-centered role of other definitions, and takes it down to the bare-bones evolution of it all. 'I think you do need a definition,' Driscoll says. An agreed-on definition is important for conversation efforts. But this one 'doesn't it seem like an improvement to me on what's out there to begin with.' A new definition could just muddy things, Gering notes. 'If we suddenly reclassify 'domestic' such that bed bugs are considered domestic, then all of this existing literature becomes very confusing.' It is possible that no definition will satisfy everyone. 'Nature is wet, and squiggly, and doesn't easily fit into boxes,' Driscoll says. But the debate highlights just how much of a role humans play in the lives of other organisms on this planet. 'As a simple definition, I think that's fine,' Bogaard says. But it begs an important question, she notes: What is a human-associated niche? A house, yes. A farmer's field, yes. But if animals that thrive on our trash are 'domestic' because they are in a human-altered niche, she notes, what about ecosystems altered by human-caused climate change? If we continue as we have, after all, soon all animals that thrive will be doing so under human effects. Schell also has questions about how far a human niche can go. He notes that many organisms are doing well in Chernobyl, where humans no longer set foot, but which is, without question, very human-affected. 'The wolves are adapting in that environment,' he says. 'Would we call them domesticated? They're alive. They're thriving.' Under this definition, that is something scientists would have to face, Lord agrees. 'Continued human encroachment on less disturbed environments could lead to a future dominated by domestic species,' she explains. Not only that, as we tear down natural environments, species 'currently capable of surviving outside human-dominated areas might lose their natural habitats. Consequently, they would become reliant on human-created environments.' They would die—or they would evolve and become domestic. 'We don't think domestication is really special at all,' Lord says. 'It is just plain old evolution. And the only reason it is of any interest is because we're interested in us, and we are actually having an outside impact right now on our environments.' What every definition of domestication can agree on is that something is evolving. It's evolving near us. Everything else, it seems, is up for debate.
National Geographic
13-05-2025
- Science
- National Geographic
Dogs. Bedbugs. Corn. They all have this one thing in common.
You might think you know which animals and plants are considered "domesticated" or 'domestic' and which ones aren't—but a new definition has launched a big debate among scientists. Scientists are trying to define the situationship between domestic animals and humans. Under a new definition, populations of dogs and bedbugs are in, while horses and pigs are out. Photograph by Mark Stone, Nat Geo Image Collection Your pet pug is without a doubt a domestic dog. A cow on a farm seems domestic, too. But what about an indoor/outdoor cat, that brings home unwelcome gifts? What about animals that live in our homes to our chagrin, like a rat or a bedbug? Even among scientists, there is no universally agreed upon definition of what domestication looks like or what makes an animal 'domestic.' Elinor Karlsson and Kathryn Lord faced this problem head on when they were publishing a paper on the genetics of farmed foxes—a famous experiment where Russian scientists selected foxes for tameness. The animals were tame, but were they domestic? By what definition? 'We do not have one that is agreed upon,' says Lord, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School in Worchester, MA. 'So when we say we're studying domestication, we don't have anything that we're actually all talking about.' Now, Lord, Karlsson, and their colleagues have attempted to define domestication anew in a way they hope the scientific world can get behind. In their definition, 'domestic' would apply to a population of non-human organisms that have evolved in response to a niche or role associated with humans, and that population can't thrive outside of that human context. By this logic, populations of dogs, corn, sewer rats, and bedbugs are all in; while others that people commonly consider domestic—such as horses or honeybees—are out. Lord and Karlsson hope this new definition will allow scientists to study domestication more systematically—all starting from the same, agreed-upon definition. But while other researchers see some benefits, they also see drawbacks. And some question whether a new definition is really needed at all. From scuba diving to set-jetting Ask three scientists, get three answers 'Domestic' comes from the Latin for 'of the house or the home.' But what counts as domestic and what doesn't has always been a bit up for debate. Where the organism lives matters, and how much control humans have seems to matter too. But humans can control one crop of blackberries, only to find other populations running rampant without any human effort. What is 'domestic' ends up a bit like art—or porn. We know it when we see it. 'I see domestication as human directed,' says Chris Schell, an urban ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In his definition, humans select populations of a species with traits that make them desirable. But some scientists want to emphasize that the domestic population is truly, genetically different. 'In my definition, it's a population that has come under some form of human influence…that has become genetically differentiated,' says Carlos Driscoll, a biologist at Hood College in Frederick, MD. 'There's a genetic change, that's the key for me.' Others want to take the human control part out of the equation, giving more power to the other species involved. 'I would talk about domestication as a relationship between species, and that it was a term coined specifically to situate relationships involving people,' says Amy Bogaard, an archaeobotanist at the University of Oxford in England. Animals can adapt to bring them closer to humans, but humans can also change their ways to better live with animals. (Maybe dogs didn't need us at all to domesticate themselves.) You're either with us, or you're wild In Lord and Karlsson's definition, human control over the domestication process has little place. Lots of 'domestic' populations of animals, after all, aren't always under human control—like rampant blackberries or feral hogs or dogs. (That's why they exclusively use the term 'domestic' rather than 'domesticated,' which implies humans did something on purpose.) In most cases, the domestication process happens in a population or a group of animals of the same species that inhabit the same area, not in an entire species—though Lord, Karlsson and their colleagues carve out exceptions. Cats and dogs, they argue, are unable to truly thrive without humans—whether that's though pet food or trash. And bedbugs require a human host—or a bat living near a human. (Ancient DNA shows cats domesticated themselves.) The researchers settled on a spectrum of ways that organisms can tolerate humans. A 'domestic' population is adapted to a human-associated niche. And it could be any organism—from microbe to animal. The lactic acid bacteria Lactococcus lactis, is adapted to produce cheese—a thoroughly human invention. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) 'actually do so well with humans that they no longer have any populations that are outside of the human niche,' Lord explains. But to be 'domestic,' the population must not be able to thrive away from those human niches. Without cheese-making, that particular lactic acid bacteria is toast, and big bulky ears of corn wouldn't have a chance. But horses and cows do all right away from people, as do carp, blackberries, or yeast. Instead, the scientists place these species as 'human exploiters,' using our world—but not needing it. Lord, Karlsson and their colleagues published their new definition May 12 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 'It's useful in one regard, because domestication is not one simple thing,' Driscoll says. 'You know, it's like cancer. Cancer is not all one thing. It's just that all cancers end up looking kind of the same, right? So they have different pathways to becoming cancerous.' Similarly, there are different pathways to associating with people—and the result, domestic organisms, have a lot in common. The emphasis on populations—allowing some groups of animals to be domesticate while others are not—is useful, says Eban Gering, an evolutionary biologist at Nova Southeastern University in Davie, Florida. 'I think thinking about things at a population level is important,' he says. 'Trying to put a species in one column or another actually throws a wrench in.' Hold your horses Just as Lord and Karlsson found other definitions unsatisfying, other scientists aren't content with the new definition either. 'Obviously people get upset when we reclassify things differently than what they believe them to be,' says Karlsson, a computational geneticist at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School. But this new definition of 'domestic,' Gering notes, is basically the same as 'obligate synanthrope'—the scientific term for an animal that depends fully on humans and their environments. 'They're defining domestic as obligately synanthropic, which is already a definition that exists,' he says. 'I'm not sure what utility it adds.' Making 'domestic' the same as 'obligate synanthrope,' is, to Lord, the point. 'We argue that the fundamental process of domestication is the evolution of a nonhuman population to the point where it requires an anthropogenic niche to sustain itself.' This, she says, takes out the human-centered role of other definitions, and takes it down to the bare-bones evolution of it all. 'I think you do need a definition,' Driscoll says. An agreed-on definition is important for conversation efforts. But this one 'doesn't it seem like an improvement to me on what's out there to begin with.' A new definition could just muddy things, Gering notes. 'If we suddenly reclassify 'domestic' such that bed bugs are considered domestic, then all of this existing literature becomes very confusing.' A domestic world It is possible that no definition will satisfy everyone. 'Nature is wet, and squiggly, and doesn't easily fit into boxes,' Driscoll says. But the debate highlights just how much of a role humans play in the lives of other organisms on this planet. 'As a simple definition, I think that's fine,' Bogaard says. But it begs an important question, she notes: What is a human-associated niche? A house, yes. A farmer's field, yes. But if animals that thrive on our trash are 'domestic' because they are in a human-altered niche, she notes, what about ecosystems altered by human-caused climate change? If we continue as we have, after all, soon all animals that thrive will be doing so under human effects. Schell also has questions about how far a human niche can go. He notes that many organisms are doing well in Chernobyl, where humans no longer set foot, but which is, without question, very human-affected. 'The wolves are adapting in that environment,' he says. 'Would we call them domesticated? They're alive. They're thriving.' Under this definition, that is something scientists would have to face, Lord agrees. 'Continued human encroachment on less disturbed environments could lead to a future dominated by domestic species,' she explains. Not only that, as we tear down natural environments, species 'currently capable of surviving outside human-dominated areas might lose their natural habitats. Consequently, they would become reliant on human-created environments.' They would die—or they would evolve and become domestic. 'We don't think domestication is really special at all,' Lord says. 'It is just plain old evolution. And the only reason it is of any interest is because we're interested in us, and we are actually having an outside impact right now on our environments.' What every definition of domestication can agree on is that something is evolving. It's evolving near us. Everything else, it seems, is up for debate.
