Latest news with #scientificResearch
Times
5 days ago
- General
- Times
Chimps ‘catch' yawns from a robot — and think it's time for a rest
When robots attain sentience and rise up to take over the world, the chances are that chimpanzees will find the whole thing rather boring. Or at least, this is how it could appear, after scientists found new proof that yawning can be contagious — and believe they may have finally figured out why. They did this via the unusual method of showing that chimps can 'catch' yawns from robots that have been programmed to mimic human facial expressions. Scientists remain puzzled by the contagious nature of yawning and are unsure how or why it evolved in a number of animal species that live in social groups, including mammals and even some fish. The chimpanzee study provided new proof that yawning could be contagious ALAMY Studies have found that more than two thirds of humans end up yawning after seeing someone else do the same, and that yawns can even be contagious between species, for example when a dog yawns after seeing its owner do the same. Some theories suggest that seeing a yawn triggers wiring in the brain known as mirror neurons, which not only fire when the body carries out a particular action but also when you witness someone else performing that action. Catching yawns from others may therefore play a role in a phenomenon known as 'social mirroring', used as a tool to display empathy with your companions. Scientists now think, however, that the brain may see someone else yawning and interpret it as a sign to take a rest, after their study found that chimps not only yawn when seeing a robot do the same, but also then lie down. • King of the swingers: chimps drum like jazz musicians Researchers from City St George's university in London programmed a humanoid robotic head with lifelike skin and facial features to yawn as humans do. They exposed 14 adult chimps aged between 10 and 33 at a sanctuary in Spain to the 'yawnbot', showing them a range of expressions including yawning, 'gaping' and a neutral face, with each lasting ten seconds. The 'yawnbot' used in the study CITY ST GEORGE'S, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON The study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that 'chimpanzees will both yawn and lie down in response to yawns made by an android, suggesting that it may act as a cue to rest rather than simply triggering an automatic response'. After a large yawn, the chimps tended to yawn too and would then 'gather bedding materials before lying down'. It is the first time that yawning has been shown to be contagious from an inanimate object and shows just how susceptible non-human primates are to such triggers. They found that yawning not only prompts someone to mimic the action, but sends the message that it is time for bed, suggesting that yawning had 'rest-related inferences for the chimpanzees'. It is possible that yawning can help a social group to co-ordinate their sleep cycles.
South China Morning Post
01-06-2025
- General
- South China Morning Post
Spark Study Buddy (Challenger): Antifungal resistance emerges as a global health threat
Content provided by British Council [1] Antifungal resistance is not talked about as much as antimicrobial resistance. However, it is growing and making people more at risk of serious infections. These fungal infections, or mycoses, are quite different from the brain-controlling fungus that causes the zombie apocalypse in the popular series and video game The Last of Us. Nonetheless, experts have warned that these infections are becoming more dangerous. [2] Mycoses resistance to antifungal drugs is on the rise, according to the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). The centre has linked the growing resistance to the overuse and misuse of antifungal treatments. [3] Antimicrobial resistance occurs when bacterial infections are no longer effectively treated by antibiotics. The excessive use of antibiotics has worsened this issue. [4] 'Treatments against pathogenic fungi are used in agriculture as well as in human and animal health,' the CNRS said, pointing out the 'identical resistance mechanisms' shared by antifungals and antibiotics. 'As is the case with overprescribed antibiotics, to which bacteria have become resistant, the massive use of antifungals is leading to a gradual decline in their effectiveness,' the CNRS warned. [5] It noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) did not draw up a list of 19 particularly dangerous fungi until 2022. 'The incidence and geographical range of fungal diseases are expanding worldwide,' the WHO stated. [6] The CNRS warned of infections caused by a common mould found in soil called Aspergillus. The infection can cause a lung disease that is dangerous for people with weak immune systems. 'Antimicrobial resistance is emerging in Aspergillus fumigatus,' said the US government's Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC). [7] Other common fungus-caused diseases include blastomycosis, which also affects the lungs, and Candida auris infection, caused by Candida auris. The CDC described it as 'a type of yeast that can cause severe illness and spreads easily among patients in healthcare facilities'. Source: dpa, May 8 Questions 1. In paragraph 1, what does the fungus in The Last of Us do? 2. Antifungal drugs are becoming … on mycoses, according to paragraph 2. A. less resistant B. more resistant C. more effective D. less effective 3. According to paragraph 3, what has been identified as a factor in the spread of antimicrobial resistance? 4. What does the list mentioned in paragraph 5 consist of? 5. Find a word in paragraph 5 that has a similar meaning to 'increasing'. 6. Complete the following summary using the grammatically correct form of the words 'affect' or 'effect'. (4 marks) Here are the (i) ___________ of two diseases and how they (ii) ___________ people's health. Blastomycosis has a negative (iv) ___________ on a person's lungs. A common mould in soil called Aspergillus also (iii) ___________ the lungs, causing a dangerous lung disease, especially for people with weak immune systems. The overuse of antifungals in agriculture and medicine is fuelling the threat of resistance, warned the CNRS and WHO. Photo: Shutterstock Answers 1. They control human brains and turn people into zombies. (accept all similar answers) 2. D 3. overuse of antibiotics, both as medication and as ingredients in animal feed on farms 4. particularly dangerous fungi 5. expanding 6. (i) effects; (ii) affect; (iii) effect; (iv) affects
Forbes
26-05-2025
- Science
- Forbes
Is Science Slowing Down?
Basic scientific research is a key contributor to economic productivity. Is science running out of steam? A growing body of research suggests that disruptive breakthroughs—the kind that fundamentally redefine entire fields—may be occurring less frequently. A 2023 article in Nature reported that scientific papers and patents are, on average, less 'disruptive' than they were in the mid-20th century. The study sparked intense interest and considerable controversy, covered in a recent news feature provocatively titled 'Are Groundbreaking Science Discoveries Becoming Harder To Find?' Before weighing in, however, it is worth interrogating a more fundamental question: What do we mean when we call science 'disruptive'? And is that, in fact, the appropriate benchmark for progress? The study in question, led by entrepreneurship scholar Russell Funk, employs a citation-based metric known as the Consolidation–Disruption (CD) index. The tool attempts to quantify whether new research displaces prior work—a signal of disruption—or builds directly upon it, thereby reinforcing existing paradigms. It represents a noteworthy contribution to our understanding of scientific change. Their conclusion, that disruption has declined across disciplines even as the volume of scientific output has expanded, has ignited debate among scientists, scholars and policymakers. At a structural level, science becomes more complex as it matures. In some sense it has to slow down. The simplest questions are often the first to be answered, and what remains are challenges that are more subtle, more interdependent, and more difficult to resolve. The law of diminishing marginal returns, long familiar in economics, finds a natural corollary in research: at some point the intellectual 'low-hanging fruit' has largely been harvested. Yet this does not necessarily imply stagnation. In fact, science itself is evolving. I think that apparent declines in disruption reflect not an impoverishment of ideas, but a transformation in the conduct and culture of research itself. Citation practices have shifted. Publication incentives have changed. The sheer availability of data and digital resources has exploded. Comparing contemporary citation behavior to that of earlier decades is not simply apples to oranges; it's more like comparing ecosystems separated by tectonic time. More profoundly, we might ask whether paradigm shifts—particularly those in the Kuhnian sense—are truly the milestones we should prize above all others. Much of the innovation that drives societal progress and economic productivity does not emerge from revolutions in thought, but from the subtle extension and application of existing knowledge. In fields as varied as biomedicine, agriculture, and climate science, incremental refinement has yielded results of transformative impact. Brighter green hybrid rice plants (left) help increase yields at this Filipino farm. (Photo by ... More) Scientists are publishing more today than ever. Critics of contemporary science attribute this to metric-driven culture of 'salami slicing,' in which ideas are fragmented into the 'minimum publishable unit' so that scientists can accrue an ever-growing publication count to secure career viability in a publish-or-perish environment. But such critiques overlook the extraordinary gains in research efficiency that have occurred in the past few decades, which I think are a far more compelling explanation for the massive output of scientific research today. Since the 1980s, personal computing has transformed nearly every dimension of the scientific process. Manuscript preparation, once the province of typewriters and retyped drafts, has become seamless. Data acquisition now involves automated sensors and real-time monitoring. Analytical tools like Python and R allow researchers to conduct sophisticated modeling and statistics with unprecedented speed. Communication is instantaneous. Knowledge-sharing platforms and open-access journals have dismantled many of the old barriers to entry. Advances in microcomputer technology in the 1980s and 1990s dramatically accelerated scientific ... More research. Indeed, one wonders whether critics have recently read a research paper from the 1930s or 1970s. The methodological rigor, analytical depth, and interdisciplinary scope of modern research are, by nearly any standard, vastly more advanced. In biology alone, high-throughput technologies—part of the broader 'omics' revolution catalyzed by innovations like the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which enabled rapid DNA amplification and supported the eventual success of the Human Genome Project—continue to propel discovery at an astonishing pace. Nobel Prize laureate James D. Watson speaks at a press conference to announce that a six-country ... More consortium has successfully drawn up a complete map of the human genome, completing one of the most ambitious scientific projects ever and offering a major opportunity for medical advances, 14 April 2003 at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. The announcement coincides with the 50th anniversary of the publication of the landmark paper describing DNA's double helix by Watson and Francis Crick. AFP PHOTO / Robyn BECK (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images) When critics lament the apparent decline of Nobel-caliber 'blockbusters' they overlook that the frontier of science has expanded—not narrowed. If we consider scientific knowledge as a volume, then it is bounded by an outer edge where discovery occurs. In Euclidean geometry, as the radius of a sphere increases, the surface area (scaling with the square of the radius) grows more slowly than the volume (which scales with the cube). While the volume of knowledge grows more rapidly—encompassing established theories and tools that continue to yield applications—the surface area also expands, and it is along this widening frontier, where the known meets the unknown, that innovation arises. The modern belief that science must deliver measurable economic returns is, historically speaking, a relatively recent development. Before the Second World War, scientific research was not broadly viewed as a driver of productivity. Economist Daniel Susskind has argued that even the concept of economic growth as a central policy goal is a mid-20th century invention. After the war, that changed dramatically. Governments began to see research as critical to national development, security, and public health. Yet even as expectations have grown, relative public investment in science has, paradoxically, diminished, despite the fact that basic scientific research is a massive accelerant of economic productivity and effectively self-financing. While absolute funding has increased, government spending on science as a share of GDP has declined in the US and many other countries. Given the scale and complexity of the challenges we now face, we may be underinvesting in the very enterprise that could deliver solutions. Recent proposals to cut funding for NIH and NSF could, by some estimates, cost the U.S. tens of billions in lost productivity. There is compelling evidence to suggest that significantly increasing R&D expenditures—doubling or even tripling them—would yield strong and sustained returns. Looking to the future, artificial intelligence offers the potential to not only streamline research but also to augment the process of innovation itself. AI tools—from large language models like ChatGPT to specialized engines for data mining and synthesis—enable researchers to traverse disciplines, identify patterns, and generate new hypotheses with remarkable speed. The ability to navigate vast bodies of scientific literature—once reserved for those with access to elite research libraries and ample time for reading—has been radically democratized. Scientists today can access digitized repositories, annotate papers with precision tools, manage bibliographies with software, and instantly trace the intellectual lineage of ideas. AI-powered tools support researchers in sifting through and synthesizing material across disciplines, helping to identify patterns, highlight connections, and bring under-explored ideas into view. For researchers like myself—an ecologist who often draws inspiration from nonlinear dynamics, statistical physics, and cognitive psychology—these technologies function as accelerators of thought rather than substitutes for it. They support the process of discovering latent analogies and assembling novel constellations of insight, the kind of cognitive recombination that underlies true creativity. While deep understanding still demands sustained intellectual engagement—reading, interpretation, and critical analysis—these tools lower the barrier to discovery and expand the range of intellectual possibilities. By enhancing cross-disciplinary thinking and reducing the latency between idea and investigation, AI may well reignite the kind of scientific innovation that some believe is slipping from reach. Finally, it bears emphasizing that the value of science is not solely, or even primarily, economic. Like the arts, literature, or philosophy, science is a cultural and intellectual enterprise. It is an expression of curiosity, a vehicle for collective self-understanding, and a means of situating ourselves within the universe. From my vantage point, and that of many colleagues, the current landscape of discovery feels more fertile than ever. The questions we pose are more ambitious, the tools at our disposal more refined, and the connections we are able to make more multidimensional. If the signal of disruption appears to be dimming, perhaps it is only because the spectrum of science has grown too broad for any single wavelength to dominate. Rather than lament an apparent slowdown, we might ask a more constructive question: Are we measuring the right things? And are we creating the conditions that allow the most vital forms of science—creative, integrative, and with the potential to transform human society for the better—to flourish?
Bloomberg
06-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Ackman Refutes Harvard's Assertion About Funding Cuts
Pershing Square Capital Management founder Bill Ackman refutes Harvard University's claim that government funding cuts hurts scientific research. He speaks at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California. (Source: Bloomberg)
