Research

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ancient Calendar, Recently Discovered, May Document a Long-Ago Disaster

      by

      The markings on a pillar in southern Turkey are more than decorations on the stone, a researcher at the University of Edinburgh says. They may memorialize a time when comet fragments struck Earth.A researcher at the University of Edinburgh has discovered what he believes is the earliest calendar of its kind at Gobekli Tepe, an archaeological excavation site in what is now southern Turkey that used to be an ancient complex of temple-like enclosures.The researcher, Martin Sweatman, a scientist at the University of Edinburgh, said in research published last month that V-shaped markings on the lunisolar calendar, which combines the movements of the moon and sun, recorded a major astronomical event that had a huge impact on Earth — making the ancient pillar part of an ancient version of a memorial.Dr. Sweatman said that the intricate carvings at Gobekli Tepe tell the story and document the date when fragments of a comet — which came from a meteor stream — hit Earth roughly 13,000 years ago. The comet strike, which the latest research has placed in the year 10,850 B.C., has long been a source of disagreement among academics and researchers.This is not the first time that Dr. Sweatman has been able to connect the impact of the comet to the site in Turkey, he said. In 2017, he linked the two in an academic paper in which he contended that the carvings at Gobekli Tepe were memorialized in the pillars, and that the site was used as a place to observe space.At the time, a group of excavators at Gobekli Tepe challenged those findings. Jens Notroff, an archaeologist who wrote the post on the excavators’ website, was not immediately convinced about the new findings and questioned whether the markings had a deeper meaning. He said on the social media platform X that there was an “an obsession with the idea that there *must* be a secret, a hidden code which needs to and can be decoded — while it’s really just about past humans living their lives.”Dr. Sweatman said the recent discovery that one of the pillars also depicts a lunisolar calendar — and thus marks the day of the impact — lined up with his prior research. “We can be very confident indeed that it’s a date,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      FDA Declines to Approve MDMA Therapy, and Seeks Further Study

      by

      The agency said there was insufficient data to allow the use of a treatment for PTSD that involves the drug known as Ecstasy.The Food and Drug Administration on Friday declined to approve MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, dealing a serious blow to the nascent field of psychedelic medicine and dashing the hopes of many Americans who are desperate for new treatments.The F.D.A. said there was insufficient data to allow its use, and it asked the company seeking approval for the treatment, Lykos Therapeutics, to conduct an additional clinical trial to assess whether the drug, commonly known as Ecstasy or molly, would be safe and effective.An additional clinical trial could add years, and millions of dollars, to the approval process.If approved, MDMA would have become the first psychedelic compound to be regulated by federal health authorities. Supporters of psychedelic medicine were deeply disappointed, and some said they were stunned, having assumed the therapy’s promising data would overcome flaws in the company’s clinical trials, which had been designed in consultation with F.D.A. scientists.“This is an earthquake for those in the field who thought F.D.A. approval would be a cinch,” said Michael Pollan, the best-selling author and co-founder of the UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics. His book, “How to Change Your Mind,” helped catalyze public interest in the therapeutic potential of psychoactive compounds, demonized during the nation’s long war on drugs.But the agency’s decision had not been entirely unexpected, after a group of independent experts convened by the F.D.A. to evaluate Lykos’s data met in June and did not recommend the treatment. On two central questions, the experts voted overwhelmingly that the company had not proven the treatment was effective, and that the drug therapy’s benefits did not outweigh the risks.The agency generally follows the recommendations of its outside panels. Critics, however, have questioned the panel’s expertise, noting that only one of its 11 members had experience in psychedelic medicine.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Heat Raises Fears of ‘Demise’ for Great Barrier Reef Within a Generation

      by

      A new study found that temperatures in the Coral Sea have reached their highest levels in at least four centuries.This generation will probably see the demise of the Great Barrier Reef unless humanity acts with far more urgency to rein in climate change, according to scientists in Australia who released new research on heat in the surrounding ocean.The Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef system in the world and is often called the largest living structure on Earth. The study, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, found that recent extreme temperatures in the Coral Sea are at their highest in at least 400 years, as far back as their analysis could reach.It included modeling that showed what has been driving those extremes: Greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans burning fossil fuels and destroying natural places that store carbon, like forests.“The heat extremes are occurring too often for those corals to effectively adapt and evolve,” said Ben Henley, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Melbourne and an author of the new study. “If we don’t divert from our current course, our generation will likely witness the demise of one of Earth’s great natural wonders, the Great Barrier Reef.”The study’s scientific prose put it this way: “The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem from anthropogenic climate change is now realized.”Tanya Plibersek, Australia’s environment minister, said in a statement that the government understood its responsibility to act on climate change and safeguard the reef. She pointed to a recent law that calls for a 43 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 and to $1.2 billion in measures to protect the reef.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How a Crisis for Vultures Led to a Human Disaster: Half a Million Deaths

      by

      The birds were accidentally poisoned in India. New research on what happened next shows how wildlife collapse can be deadly for people.To say that vultures are underappreciated would be putting it mildly. With their diet of carrion and their featherless heads, the birds are often viewed with disgust. But they have long provided a critical cleaning service by devouring the dead.Now, economists have put an excruciating figure on just how vital they can be: The sudden near-disappearance of vultures in India about two decades ago led to more than half a million excess human deaths over five years, according to a forthcoming study in the American Economic Review.Rotting livestock carcasses, no longer picked to the bones by vultures, polluted waterways and fed an increase in feral dogs, which can carry rabies. It was “a really huge negative sanitation shock,” said Anant Sudarshan, one of the study’s authors and an economics professor at the University of Warwick in England.The findings reveal the unintended consequences that can occur from the collapse of wildlife, especially animals known as keystone species for the outsize roles they play in their ecosystems. Increasingly, economists are seeking to measure such impacts.A study looking at the United States, for example, has suggested that the loss of ash trees to the invasive emerald ash borer increased deaths related to cardiovascular and respiratory illness. And in Wisconsin, researchers found that the presence of wolves reduced vehicle collisions with deer by about a quarter, creating an economic benefit that was 63 times greater than the cost of wolves killing livestock.“Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning do matter to human beings,” said Eyal Frank, an economist at the University of Chicago and one of the authors of the new vulture study. “And it’s not always the charismatic and fuzzy species.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A Blood Test Accurately Diagnosed Alzheimer’s 90% of the Time, Study Finds

      by

      It was much more accurate than primary care doctors using cognitive tests and CT scans. The findings could speed the quest for an affordable and accessible way to diagnose patients with memory problems.Scientists have made another major stride toward the long-sought goal of diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease with a simple blood test. On Sunday, a team of researchers reported that a blood test was significantly more accurate than doctors’ interpretation of cognitive tests and CT scans in signaling the condition.The study, published Sunday in the journal JAMA, found that about 90 percent of the time the blood test correctly identified whether patients with memory problems had Alzheimer’s. Dementia specialists using standard methods that did not include expensive PET scans or invasive spinal taps were accurate 73 percent of the time, while primary care doctors using those methods got it right only 61 percent of the time.“Not too long ago measuring pathology in the brain of a living human was considered just impossible,” said Dr. Jason Karlawish, a co-director of the Penn Memory Center at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved in the research. “This study adds to the revolution that has occurred in our ability to measure what’s going on in the brain of living humans.”The results, presented Sunday at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Philadelphia, are the latest milestone in the search for affordable and accessible ways to diagnose Alzheimer’s, a disease that afflicts nearly seven million Americans and over 32 million people worldwide. Medical experts say the findings bring the field closer to a day when people might receive routine blood tests for cognitive impairment as part of primary care checkups, similar to the way they receive cholesterol tests.“Now, we screen people with mammograms and PSA or prostate exams and other things to look for very early signs of cancer,” said Dr. Adam Boxer, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. “And I think we’re going to be doing the same thing for Alzheimer’s disease and hopefully other forms of neurodegeneration.”In recent years, several blood tests have been developed for Alzheimer’s. They are currently used mostly to screen participants in clinical trials and by some specialists like Dr. Boxer to help pinpoint if a patient’s dementia is caused by Alzheimer’s or another condition.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Breast Cancer Survival Not Boosted by Double Mastectomy, Study Says

      by

      A large study showed that for most patients, having both breasts removed after cancer was detected in one made no difference.For the more than 310,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer every year, no matter how well the treatment goes, there is always a lingering fear. Could the disease come back, even years later? And what if it comes back in the other breast? Could they protect themselves today by having a double mastectomy?A study has concluded that there is no survival advantage to having the other breast removed. Women who had a lumpectomy or a mastectomy and kept their other breast did just as well as women who had a double mastectomy, Dr. Steven Narod of Women’s College Hospital in Toronto and his colleagues reported, using U.S. data from more than 661,000 women with breast cancer on one side.In the study, published in JAMA Oncology on Thursday, the researchers added that most women did very well — the chance of cancer in the other breast was about 7 percent over 20 years.But the study’s results may not apply to women who have a gene variant, BRCA1 or BRCA2, which greatly increases their cancer risk. For the 1 in 500 American women with this variant, cancer researchers agree that it’s worth considering a double mastectomy.The finding that a double mastectomy is not protective against death for many breast cancers seems counterintuitive, Dr. Narod admitted. An accompanying editorial, by Dr. Seema Ahsan Khan, a breast cancer surgeon at Northwestern University, and Masha Kocherginsky, a biostatistician also at Northwestern, called it a conundrum.Previous smaller studies have come to the same conclusion. But, Dr. Narod said, some doctors have questioned the methods in earlier research. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Fewer U.S. Adults Say They Will Have Children, Study Finds

      by

      A new study breaks down the reasons more U.S. adults say they are unlikely to have children.When Jurnee McKay, 25, imagines having children, a series of scary scenarios pop into her mind: the “horrors” of childbirth, risks associated with pregnancy, a flighty potential partner, exorbitant child care costs.Abortion care restrictions are also on her list of fears. So Ms. McKay, a nursing student in Orlando, decided to eliminate the possibility of an accidental pregnancy. But the first doctor she consulted refused to remove her fallopian tubes, she said, insisting that she might change her mind after meeting her “soul mate.”“For some reason,” she said, “society looks at women who choose not to make life harder for themselves as crazy.”Next week, she will speak with another doctor about sterilization.Like Ms. McKay, a growing number of U.S. adults say they are unlikely to raise children, according to a study released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center. When the survey was conducted in 2023, 47 percent of those younger than 50 without children said they were unlikely ever to have children, an increase of 10 percentage points since 2018.When asked why kids were not in their future, 57 percent said they simply didn’t want to have them. Women were more likely to respond this way than men (64 percent vs. 50 percent). Further reasons included the desire to focus on other things, like their career or interests; concerns about the state of the world; worries about the costs involved in raising a child; concerns about the environment, including climate change; and not having found the right partner.The results echo a 2023 Pew study that found that only 26 percent of adults said having children was extremely or very important to live a fulfilling life. The U.S. fertility rate has been falling over the last decade, dipping to about 1.6 births per woman in 2023. This is the lowest number on record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it is less than what would be required for the population to replace itself from one generation to the next.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Planet Sets Record for Hottest Day Twice in a Row

      by

      Researchers with the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service said Sunday was Earth’s hottest day. Then it happened again on Monday.Monday was most likely the hottest day ever recorded on Earth, with a global average of about 62.87 degrees Fahrenheit, or 17.15 degrees Celsius, preliminary data showed — beating a record that had been set just one day before.The data, released on Wednesday by the Copernicus Climate Change Service, a European Union institution that provides information about the past, present and future climate, caused alarm among some experts.Earlier this week, the service announced that Sunday had set a record, with a global average of about 62.76 degrees Fahrenheit, or 17.09 degrees Celsius. A day later it announced that Monday was the hottest day since at least 1940, when records began.Before this week’s back-to-back records, the previous record, 62.74 degrees Fahrenheit, or 17.08 degrees Celsius, was set last year, on July 6, besting a record that stood since 2016.Since Sunday’s and Monday’s temperatures were averages, some portions of the globe felt that extra heat more strongly, like parts of the Western United States where an excessive heat warning has been in place for days and is expected to continue for much of the week.“What is truly staggering is how large the difference is between the temperature of the last 13 months and the previous temperature records,” Carlo Buontempo, the director of the service, said in a news release announcing Sunday’s record. “We are now in truly uncharted territory and as the climate keeps warming, we are bound to see new records being broken in future months and years.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More