SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " knowledge " 850 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
With CIA strike, signs Trump is 'shaping the battlespace' in Venezuela
Trump acknowledged a covert U.S. strike on Venezuelan territory in an interview with a local news outlet on the day after Christmas, setting off a scramble to clarify which target he was talking about.
2025 Sports Business Quiz: Test Your Knowledge!
Try your hand at Sportico's 2025 sports business quiz.
Traditional Knowledge Meets Science in Northern California Tribe's Environmental Planning
Here are the morning's top stories for Monday, December 29th, 2025: The Karuk Tribe in Northern California is crafting an environmental policy that unites traditional knowledge with more contemporary environmental sciences--pushing back against years of bias dismissing tribal knowledge of the Karuk's ancestral lands. A federal judge in the Bay Area has halted ICE from making arrests at immigration courthouses in the region. California's Minimum Wage is increasing next year. A new
Were you paying attention to the big scientific discoveries of 2025?
From dire wolves to dementia risk, this quiz will test your knowledge on some of the biggest science news stories of the year.
New research into Cookiecutter shark bridges Hawai‘i knowledge with modern science
The study analyzed a larger dataset than previous research, examining bite patterns recorded across Hawaiʻi’s longline fisheries over many years.
New research into Cookiecutter shark bridges Hawai‘i knowledge with modern science
The study analyzed a larger dataset than previous research, examining bite patterns recorded across Hawaiʻi’s longline fisheries over many years.
Atlus Looks Forward To Persona's 30th Anniversary In 2026, Acknowledges Support For Persona 4 Revival
It can’t wait to make “another announcement”
Think you know 2025 entertainment news? Test your knowledge with The...
Warriors coach Steve Kerr honestly acknowledges the team's grim reality as a 'fading dynasty'
Steve Kerr shared an honest outlook on the Golden State Warriors' reality as a "fading dynasty."
Waymo is testing Gemini as an in-car AI assistant in its robotaxis
Waymo is testing a Gemini-powered in-car AI assistant, per findings from a 1,200-line system prompt. The assistant can answer general knowledge questions, control certain in-cabin features, and more.
How Trump’s attacks on ‘climate alarmism’ have already transformed U.S. science
Experts say the cuts to the federal workforce and climate science funding could cause decades of loss in human knowledge and discovery.
Check your physics knowledge with our bumper end-of-year quiz
Try our new interactive end-of-year quiz compiled by Colin White
The top Smithsonian science stories of 2025
The Smithsonian advanced our knowledge of the universe on scales big and small in 2025.
Blending Science and Indigenous Knowledge to Tell an Estuary’s Story
A new study of nutrient levels in soil cores supports oral Indigenous history, informing future estuary restoration efforts.
The disunity of science is a feature, not a bug
Mathematical models wield miraculous power, but mistaking them for reality has trapped science in a destructive quest for a “Theory of Everything.” Physicist and philosopher Ragner Fjelland argues that this leads to bloated, Frankenstein theories kept alive by clumsy, ad-hoc amendments, which reduce rather than boost science’s power. Fjelland calls for a radical shift in our attitude: we must reorientate towards creating entirely new theories, celebrating rather than lamenting disunity and diversity in science. Science, from the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century to the present day, has more or less developed in a “reductionist” way. The fundamental assumption is that all sciences may be ordered in a hierarchy that can be represented as an upside-down pyramid. At the top we find the human sciences, and at the bottom physics. Strong (or “ontological”) reductionism maintains that all theories at one level can be completely reduced to the lower level, all the way down to theories of atoms and elementary particles, or whatever is “at the bottom.” In the end, all diversity in the world can be unified in one fundamental theory. Hence it is called a final theory, or a Theory of Everything.One of the central figures in developing the idea of a Theory of Everything is the Dutch theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1999 for his work. He emphasizes the non-empirical status of the theory:There exists no closely resembling alternative theory. This means that any slight change brought about in the rules would make the theory unlikely or inelegant. The theory will be a "package deal": take it, or leave it. This should hold both for the local laws and for the boundary conditions.This endeavor is not new. On the contrary, it goes all the way back to the birth of Western philosophy 2,500 years ago. The Babylonians made regular astronomical observations during a period of 600 years, from 747 BCE until 150 ACE. They developed mathematical techniques to predict astronomical phenomena, but they made no attempts at explaining them. However, the Greeks developed models, both material and theoretical, to explain the observed phenomena.The best example is Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. Here he introduces a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who has constructed the universe according to an original plan. Plato seems to have thought that the original plan is what is actually real, while the material world is merely an imperfect realization of it. He therefore does not, in the Timaeus, reconstruct the material universe, but the original plan, which can then be used to explain the material universe.Plato’s aim in producing a theoretical model is to reconstruct the original plan. That is what he carries out in Timaeus—and some modern physicists have embarked on the same project. For example, Einstein’s basic attitude is reflected in the title of Abraham Pais’ biography: “Subtle is the Lord...,” echoing Einstein’s comment, “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” In an interview Einstein compared our situation to a child who enters a huge library. The child knows that someone has written the books, but he does not know the languages in which they are written. He suspects that there is a mysterious order, but he does not know what it is.___“We have all been working in what Husserl called the Galilean style; that is, we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensation.”Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)___This Platonist view is contrary to a widespread impression of science, symbolized by the picture of the “father” of modern science, Galileo Galilei, with his telescope. According to this impression, Galileo liberated himself from the dominating metaphysics of his day—basically Aristotelian philosophy—and constructed a telescope that he directed towards the sky, showing that Jupiter has four moons. He also performed experiments with bronze balls rolling down inclined planes and found the law of freely falling bodies.However, in other cases Galileo emphasized the unreliability of our senses. It is easy to see why. He defended Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, we are not at rest at the center of the universe, but moving at a tremendous speed through space. Why don’t we observe this motion? Galileo praises Copernicus because “with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict.” In other places he directly refers to Plato. SUGGESTED VIEWING The quest for a final theory With Michio Kaku Galileo’s Platonism goes back to his early writings. In The Assayer, published as early as 1623, Galileo compared the universe to a grand book that is written in the language of mathematics, and “its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.” Therefore, things that cannot be described by mathematics—for example, colors, smells and odors—are not real. They are merely subjective.This division into subjective and objective, advocated by Galileo and his younger contemporary René Descartes, is normally associated with a mechanistic world view, which is regarded as the opposite of Platonism. When we reduce something to, for example, molecules and atoms, we move “downwards.” In contrast, the Platonist moves “upwards,” to abstract entities. However, it only shows that when we address fundamental questions, we should be careful in applying everyday spatial metaphors like “up” and “down.”___Nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world.___The endeavor of finding a Theory of Everything has been heavily criticized. In 2006, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin published “The Crisis in Fundamental Physics.” He argued that one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we should only regard theories as scientific if we have the possibility to show that they are false by experiments. Although he did not refer to Karl Popper, other critics have referred to Popper and argued that a theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (see for example Ellis & Silk 2014).These were not the first physicists to be anti-reductionists. In 1972, the journal Science published an article by the physicist Philip Anderson with the title “More Is Different.” This is the kind of article a scientist would normally write only after he has won a Nobel Prize. However, Anderson won the Nobel Prize for physics five years later, in 1977. The article is amazing, not primarily because it argues in favor of anti-reductionism in general, but because it argues for anti-reductionism within physics itself. Anderson’s conclusion was:At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.We may say that Plato started the “unity of science movement,” based on Euclidean geometry as the model of all knowledge. A distinguishing mark of geometry is that all possible constructions can be reduced to a few fundamental principles. We have to acknowledge that this approach has limitations. In general, we can easily model technological systems. In addition, we may construct simplified and idealized models that capture important aspects of systems, from various perspectives and for various purposes. But nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world. In a complex system, each level has its distinct, emergent, properties that are characteristic of this level. Therefore, a complex system should be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Instead of exclusively pursuing a scientific ideal based on the unity of science, we should acknowledge the diversity—or even the disunity—of science.
Vance refuses to set red lines over bigotry at Turning Point USA's convention
Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the controversies that dominated the Turning Point conference, but he did not define any boundaries for the conservative movement besides patriotism.
Science Quiz: Sea Turtle Sex and Fruit-Shaped Planets
Put your science knowledge to the test with this week’s news quiz. Play now.
Reeves to Ryanair: Take the Guardian’s Christmas business quiz
Do you know your Tesla from your Jaguar? Test your 2025 business knowledge here with our annual quiz …
This Week in Sports Trivia: December 18, 2025
How closely were you following the sports news this week? Find out and test your knowledge by taking The Athletic's weekly quiz.
Harvard Medical School’s Top Science News of 2025
10 biomedical discoveries that expand knowledge, may improve health
A new era for sports communication at UNC Hussman | UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media
As director of UNC Hussman’s Sports Communication Focus Program, Distinguished Associate Professor of Sports Communication Livis Freeman is building on the work of the school’s legendary Distinguished Professor for Sports Communication John Sweeney. Sweeney, who retired last year, developed one of the most respected sports communication programs in the country. Freeman, now in his 12th year at the school, is launching an ambitious expansion of the program that is transforming how UNC prepares students for careers in sports media. The most visible change came this fall with a reimagining of “MEJO 377: Sports Communication.” Previously offered as two sections with 30 students each, the course expanded to 96 students and welcomed former UNC basketball star and NBA veteran Tyler Hansbrough as the co-instructor with Freeman, bringing real world professional experience directly into the classroom every week. The course has been a huge success. Students have participated in recording a podcast with Hansbrough and learned from an impressive lineup of guest speakers. Steve Kirschner, UNC’s senior associate director of athletics for communications, was the first in the course’s guest speaker series, followed by UNC Hussman alumni including Kaitlyn Schmidt ’23 from Bleacher Report, Deaton Bell ’90 from Turner Sports and Becca Royer ’19 from the Philadelphia 76ers. Travis Tygart, CEO of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, also shared his insights with the class. The highlight of the semester came when Roy Williams, who coached Hansbrough and the Tar Heels to a national championship in 2009, visited the classroom. Former UNC men’s basketball players Luke Maye and Marcus Ginyard showed up to support their former coach and Hansbrough, creating an unforgettable experience as Williams entertained students with stories and insights that captivated the room. Student demand has been overwhelming. The course reached capacity within two days of registration opening, with more than 40 students on the waitlist. “Students want to learn from people who have actually lived these experiences,” Freeman said. “Tyler shares insights into media relations, broadcast production and athlete communications that you simply can’t get from a textbook.” The model proved so successful that the school secured funding to continue it for the next five years, with a different former professional athlete co-teaching each fall. The school’s curriculum committee approved a proposal to expand the course to 150 to 200 students starting in fall 2026. This change will make it an introductory course accessible to students from across the University, transforming it into a showcase course for the entire campus. The course redesign represents just one piece of a broader sports communication program overhaul. This fall, the curriculum committee approved “MEJO 390: Sports Play by Play,” the first course of its kind at UNC. Limited to 10 advanced students, the course will be taught by Matt Krause, the current voice of UNC women’s basketball and an ACC Network broadcaster. Students will call actual games across multiple sports including women’s softball, soccer, volleyball, field hockey and lacrosse, as well as men’s soccer and lacrosse. They will also shadow broadcasts of men’s and women’s basketball games. “The sports broadcasting industry is exploding with streaming platforms and conference networks creating unprecedented demand,” Freeman said. The course emerged directly from student advocacy, led by Anna Laible ’26 and others who pushed for hands-on broadcasting experience. Professional equipment has been acquired, partnerships with UNC Athletics are in place and a soft launch began this semester with three experienced students calling games to test the system. The program’s growth extends into other specialized areas as well. Last spring, Stembler Professor Charlie Tuggle launched a new sports event management and hospitality course in partnership with On Location, a company that manages major sporting event experiences. The course provided students with opportunities to travel to the Super Bowl and NFL Draft, and Tuggle plans to take a group to the 2026 Milan Olympics this spring. Looking ahead to spring 2026, Associate Professor Ryan Thornburg will debut a sports data visualization course, adding another dimension to the program’s skill-building offerings. The curriculum expansion reflects the increasingly diverse career paths available in sports media, from traditional journalism and broadcasting to digital analytics and strategic communication. The program is also diving into one of college athletics’ most transformative developments: Name, Image and Likeness rights. Freeman’s “MEJO 466: Sports Marketing” class collaborated last spring with Associate Professor Gary Kayye’s “MEJO 371: Advertising Creative” class on a project with UNC’s Carolina NIL group to help rebrand their organization. That same semester, Kayye’s class envisioned Chapel Thrill, UNC football’s new pregame concert and entertainment experience. And Shaun Anderson, the school’s Knight Chair in Sports, Race and Media, continues to explore the broader implications of NIL through his research and teaching. These NIL-focused initiatives give students direct exposure to the business side of college athletics at a moment when the landscape is rapidly evolving. “Our students aren’t just learning about these changes,” Freeman said. “They’re actively helping shape how schools and athletes navigate them.” The transformation of UNC Hussman’s sports communication program reflects a broader philosophy about how to prepare students for careers in a rapidly changing industry. By bringing in professional practitioners like Hansbrough and Krause, partnering with industry leaders like On Location and ACC Network, and engaging with current issues like NIL, the program ensures students graduate with both theoretical knowledge and practical experience. For alumni who remember the foundations John Sweeney built, the expansion represents an evolution rather than a departure. The program still emphasizes strong reporting, strategic communication, ethical communication and critical thinking. But now it also offers students the chance to call live games, work on real NIL campaigns and learn directly from former professional athletes. “We’re not just teaching students about sports media,” Freeman said. “We’re giving them the tools, experiences and connections to actually build careers in it.” With new courses launching, professional partnerships deepening and enrollment expanding, UNC Hussman’s sports communication program is positioning itself as a national leader in preparing the next generation of sports media professionals. For current students, the message is clear: if you’re interested in sports communication, there’s never been a better time to be at UNC Hussman. And for the hundreds of students trying to get off waitlists and into these new courses, the school is working to create more opportunities. The program John Sweeney built is growing in ways that honor his legacy while meeting the demands of a new era in sports media.
Musk’s doubts about DOGE spotlight political risks for U.S. Rep. Jen Kiggans
Republican U.S. Rep. Jen Kiggans of Virginia Beach is heading into the 2026 election cycle with one of the most precarious political balancing acts in the country, as her strong support for the Department of Government Efficiency collides with new doubts about the program — and the realities of representing a district heavily reliant on federal jobs.The challenge sharpened last week when Elon Musk, the billionaire tech executive who helped architect DOGE, told GOP podcaster Katie Miller that the initiative had been only “somewhat successful” and said bluntly that he would not do it again. In the interview, Musk acknowledged the political and practical blowback from DOGE, which was launched early in President Donald Trump’s second term with the stated goal of slashing government spending and reshaping the federal workforce.
Students apply their knowledge at Britton Science Fair | Morgan Hill Times | Morgan Hill, San Martin, CA
Eighth-graders at Britton Middle School transformed their gymnasium into a showcase of scientific inquiry Dec. 11, presenting projects ranging from lemon-powered batteries to studies on caffeine’s effects on heart rate.
Susie Wiles Acknowledges Trump’s ‘Score Settling’ Behind Prosecutions
In interviews with Vanity Fair, Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, called JD Vance a “conspiracy theorist” and said Pam Bondi “completely whiffed” the early handling of the Epstein files.
“The faces of CERN” at the Globe of Science and Innovation
Originally created for the Cité des métiers, the exhibition “The Faces of CERN: People Advancing Science” will be displayed in CERN's Globe of Science and Innovation from December 17, 2025 to March 1, 2026. From 25 to 30 November, CERN was the guest of honour at the Cité des métiers, held at Geneva’s Palexpo. During the fair more than 112,000 visitors had the opportunity to discover the CERN stand and exhibition, talk to those who advance science on a daily basis and explore the world of CERN through a range of immersive activities. Designed by interior design students from IPAC Design Geneva, the exhibition was inspired by the birth of the World Wide Web at CERN. Woven together from reusable ribbons and modular structures, symbolises a living network where ideas, knowledge, and collaboration come together. Come and immerse yourself in this network, where each thread tells a story of curious collaboration and showcases your talents. Free admission | Tuesday to Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m
WHO highlights health risks and opportunities in the global waste crisis
A new World Health Organization (WHO) report, Throwing away our health: the impacts of solid waste on human health – evidence, knowledge gaps and health sector responses, warns that poorly managed solid waste is driving a public health crisis and calls for urgent action to protect people and the environments they live in.Globally, the volume of municipal solid waste is growing at an unprecedented rate. Yet, many countries still lack the systems and resources to manage this waste safely. “Solid waste reflects how our societies produce and consume, and how we treat people and the environment in the process,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director a.i., Department of Environment, Climate Change, One Health & Migration at the World Health Organization. “If we continue to treat waste as an afterthought, we will lock in avoidable disease, climate pollution and deep social inequities. This report is a clear call to put health and equity at the centre of how we design, manage and ultimately reduce waste.”The report summarizes evidence on how solid waste – especially municipal solid waste – affects health through polluted air, water, soil and food. When waste is not collected, or is dumped, burned or not poorly treated, it can release hazardous chemicals, contaminate drinking-water sources and create breeding grounds for insects and rodents.Communities underserved by waste management services, those living near dumpsites and poorly managed landfills and incinerators, children and pregnant women, as well as waste workers – particularly those working informally – face the greatest risks. For the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) community, the report underlines that safe management of municipal and health care waste is integral to safely managed, climate-resilient systems.A large share of municipal solid waste is still not collected or is disposed of in uncontrolled conditions, including open dumpsites and open burning. These practices damage ecosystems, contribute to climate change and undermine efforts to build healthy cities. When waste is properly managed, however, it can become a resource – generating energy and creating green jobs. The report calls for a coordinated, multisectoral response grounded in the waste hierarchy: preventing waste where possible, then reducing, reusing and recycling, with safe recovery and disposal.Key actions for governments and partners include reducing waste generation at source; expanding affordable and reliable waste collection services, especially in underserved communities; improving control at recovery and disposal facilities; and eliminating open dumping and burning, including hazardous waste. The new report identifies a central role for the health sector in addressing solid waste as a public health threat. The health sector can prevent and minimize health-care waste at source, improve segregation and safe treatment, invest in cleaner climate-resilient technologies, and advocate for health-protective policies and standards. The report also encourages more surveillance, research and biomonitoring to strengthen the evidence base, and promotes social protection and inclusion of informal waste workers.“This report gives countries and health authorities a very practical agenda,” said Mr Bruce Gordon, Head, Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Health Unit, WHO. “Health ministries can start now by ensuring safe management of health-care waste, developing strong occupational health programmes for waste workers, and working with municipalities to reduce health risks from solid waste by closing open dumps and burn sites and gradually improving towards safe services. These concrete steps save lives today and will make cities cleaner and healthier in the future.
Lawsuit: Spurs icon David Robinson accuses business partner of diverting more than $34 million
San Antonio Spurs legend David Robinson filed a lawsuit last week alleging his business partner diverted tens of millions of dollars to fund a new venture without his knowledge.
Shooting at Elba business leaves one wounded
The shooting occurred at Dorsey Trailers after a dispute erupted, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.
Science Quiz: Sneaky Parasites and Productive Pizza
Put your science knowledge to the test with this week’s news quiz. Play now.
This Week in Sports Trivia: December 11, 2025
How closely were you following the sports news this week? Find out and test your knowledge by taking The Athletic's weekly quiz.
The New WHO Pandemic Treaty and Global Health Governance: Incorporating Common but Differentiated Responsibilities into PABS - Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
On May 20, 2025, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, an international treaty designed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The product of three years of arduous negotiations, the treaty marks a new era of global cooperation in public health. However, core aspects of the agreement remain unresolved—notably the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System, which is intended to ensure equitable access to pandemic-related materials and benefits. To support the successful implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Introduction For the first time, an international treaty has enshrined the principle of “One Health,” the compelling idea that the health of animals, humans, and the environment all contribute to pandemic risks. SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009–10), Ebola (2014–16), and COVID-19 all emerged through zoonotic spillover from animal hosts—respectively, civets, hogs, and bats. Together, they underscore the need for a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach. The Pandemic Agreement responds to this call, requiring state parties to acknowledge the ecological interplay and commit to a comprehensive “One Health” strategy. Specifically, Article 5 charges governments to address “the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious disease at the human-animal-environment interface,” including wild animal markets, deforestation, and antibiotic overuse. Yet the effectiveness of this “One Health” vision depends equally on the free flow of scientific information and data among countries and institutions. Just as environmental and animal health factors have been neglected in past global frameworks, so too has data sharing been marginalized, despite its centrality to timely detection and response. The Pandemic Agreement takes an important step by requiring governments to enhance data collection and cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these provisions will remain aspirational without a robust Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex. The PABS system will determine whether countries and researchers can rapidly exchange pathogen samples and genetic data while ensuring equitable access to resulting research and development, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Without such mechanisms, the treaty’s promise to operationalize “One Health” and strengthen global preparedness will risk becoming largely symbolic, echoing earlier failures to translate shared principles into coordinated action. Equity Concerns When the 2025 Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement, it left the difficult question of access to pathogens and the sharing of resulting benefits to be addressed in a separate agreement. Negotiations on this separate agreement, PABS, are now underway in Geneva. Yet governments remain divided over fundamental questions of equity between the countries that primarily contribute to the system and those that primarily draw from it—and consequently benefit. For example, wildlife in countries bordering the equator is likely to produce PABS materials, but companies in Europe are likely to use them to develop lucrative products. The most likely contributor countries are likely to be those biodiverse countries around the equator, such as Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia, where the number of human-mammalian viral host interactions is large. Conversely, countries most likely to benefit from this material are those with the technology, investors, and infrastructure to capitalize on genomic data, such as the United States, EU member states, and Japan. This imbalance reflects a broader pattern seen in prior international frameworks. Now, as in the past, the wealthiest countries in the world (a useful heuristic is membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) disproportionately benefit from systems in which pathogens and genomic sequencing data are contributed to a common source. Under the International Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the “Plant Treaty” or “Seed Treaty”) and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, companies from Europe and North America disproportionately withdraw biological samples and data for development into lucrative medical products. Their governments and companies have both statutory and contractual claims to the products that those companies correspondingly produce. PABS appears poised to follow the same pattern. The text calls for strong language on access to pathogens and associated data, but the corresponding benefits that should flow to poorer countries are couched in equivocal or non-binding language. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities To address these inequities, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Common but differentiated responsibilities are often a feature of climate change negotiations. The basic principle is that, even though all countries should reduce carbon emissions, governments that became rich and powerful through massive carbon emissions (e.g., France, the United Kingdom, the United States) should have a greater obligation to address the resulting crises. Applied to PABS, it would require that governments hosting and supporting companies developing lucrative products carry greater obligations toward the cost of running the PABS system; share benefits or final medical products; and transfer technology to help countries worldwide develop their own capacities to innovate and manufacture vaccines during an emergency. For example, an annex could mandate that any company based in an OECD country that withdraws PABS material would be obligated to donate the resulting diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccines to the WHO during a public health emergency or pandemic. Questions remain about how robust those donations would be, but the principle is that they should deliver highly significant lifesaving benefits to be equitably shared. Theoretically, this approach mirrors the PIP Framework, in which companies withdrawing influenza samples are required to pay half of the operating costs. In practice, however, the framework has fallen short. The PIP Framework Secretariat has struggled to secure payments from companies, with companies often disagreeing over how much is owed. Additionally, without another pandemic influenza to test the strength of the agreement during a public health emergency, corporate compliance with sharing mechanisms remains unknown. Even if these limitations did not characterize the PIP Framework, partially paying for operating expenses does not address the inequity in access to genetic data and pathogen samples that left less developed countries last in line for COVID-19 vaccines (and, before them, H1N1). Common but differentiated responsibilities would go further, addressing governments’ legitimate grievances regarding information sharing. It would make withdrawals of PABS material and resulting products more transparent, building trust across the board. Enforcement and Enduring Success A key implication of this approach is that the governing mechanism of the PABS must have real enforcement authority. The WHO Pandemic Agreement delegates its core governance responsibilities to a Conference of the Parties (COP)—a governing body composed of one representative from each participating government, similar to those established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement COP is charged with oversight functions but ultimately possesses no real authority to compel a government to take any action it does not wish to take. The text does not give the COP the ability to, for example, sanction a party that does not comply with either textual obligations or PABS provisions. In other words, there are no effective mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Perhaps just as significant, establishing a meaningful enforcement mechanism within the PABS system would strengthen the WHO’s credibility and its ability to ensure compliance across global health governance. By setting a precedent for accountability, such a mechanism could enhance the organization’s authority not only within the Pandemic Agreement but also in enforcing the revised International Health Regulations and other frameworks for public health emergencies. Conclusion The PABS annex can—and should—be different. It should establish clear responsibilities for funding as well as for sharing the diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that result from contributions to the system. The system, in turn, must include a dedicated body empowered to hold governments and the corporations they sponsor accountable for their responsibilities before, during, and after pandemics. Doing so would restore trust in the broader agreement, which was eroded as commitments were repeatedly diluted while parties scrambled to meet their own self-imposed deadlines during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. A robust PABS Annex would cement a grand social bargain. Wealthier countries and their corporations would gain unimpeded access to scientific information essential for developing and manufacturing lifesaving medical products. As such, they would stand to gain considerable economic benefit. Yet that privilege must be matched with responsibility. The grand bargain must include not only the right to innovate, but also the duty to ensure that innovation serves all. As medical products are developed and produced through collective contributions, every person must have equal access. All human beings deserve an equitable chance to survive—to save their own life, the lives of their families, and the well-being of their communities. … Sam Halabi, JD, MPhil, is the Bette Jacobs Endowed Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Health and the Director of the Center for Transformational Health Law at Georgetown Law. He serves as the co-lead for the WHO’s Working Group on Regulatory Consideration on AI and Health’s training workstream. He earned his JD from Harvard, his MPhil from Oxford, and undergraduate degrees from Kansas State University. Lawrence Gostin, LLD (Hon.), JD, BA, is University Distinguished Professor and Founding Director and Timothy and Linda O’Neill Professor of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is the author of Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future (Harvard University Press, 2021); Global Health Law (Harvard University Press, 2014); Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2016); Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2018); Law and the Health System (Foundation Press, 2014); Principles of Mental Health Law & Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010). He also directs the WHO Collaborating Center at Georgetown University. Image Credit: United States Mission Geneva, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Pebble's founder introduces a $75 AI smart ring for recording brief notes with a press of a button
After rebooting the Pebble smartwatch, founder Eric Migicovsky is expanding his company's device lineup with a new smart wearable: an AI-powered smart ring known as Index 01. Named for the finger where the ring is meant to be worn, the new $75 ring is not meant to be a competitor to the always-on, always-listening AI devices, like the AI pendant Friend, but instead offers a way to record quick notes and reminders with a press of a button on the ring's side. AI only comes into play via the open source, speech-to-text, and AI models that run locally on your smartphone, via the open source Pebble mobile app. That is, if the Ring's button is not being pressed, it's not recording. (And this is a press-and-hold gesture, too, which means you can't start the ring's recording and then let go to surreptitiously record a conversation.) You can wear the stainless steel ring while in the shower, washing hands, doing dishes, or in the rain, but you would have to take it off for other water-related activities, like swimming. At launch, it's water-resistant to 1 meter. The ring is also not a fitness tracker or sleep monitor. It doesn't record details about your heart rate or health. And it's not there to be your AI friend. "I'm not trying to build some AI assistant thing," Migicovsky told TechCrunch in an interview. "I build things that solve one main problem, and they solve it really well," he explains. "I think of as external memory for my brain...that's what this is. It's always with you." Plus, the ring has been designed to be highly reliable and privacy-preserving, he says, as all your thoughts are stored on your phone, not in the cloud. There is no subscription. Migicovsky has been wearing the ring for three months now and says he cannot imagine going back to a world where he doesn't always have a memory device with him. "The problem is that, during the day, I get ideas or I remember something, and if I don't write it down that second, I forget it," he says. The ring solves this problem, he adds, without becoming another device you need to charge. "The battery lasts for years," Migicovsky claims. Technically, the ring is said to support roughly 12 to 14 hours of recording. On average, the founder says he uses it 10-20 times per day to record 3-6 second thoughts. At that rate, he'll get about two years of usage. When the ring's battery dies, you can ship it back to the company for recycling. When using Index, you can record up to five minutes of audio, which can be saved to the ring and synced to your phone later. This makes sense for recording briefer, personal thoughts and notes, even when you don't have your phone handy, but it wouldn't work for recording a longer chat, like a presentation, meeting, or in-person interview of some kind. The ring also supports 99+ languages and has a bit of on-device memory, in case you're not in Bluetooth range of your device, where the recording is ultimately saved and transcribed. (The raw audio is retained, too, in case the speech-to-text is garbled due to loud background noise). If you own a Pebble smartwatch or one from another brand, your recorded thought can even appear on the watch's screen so you can verify it's correct. The ring works with Pebble's mobile app, which offers notes and reminders, but can optionally integrate with your phone's calendaring system, too, or other apps, like Notion. And the ring's software is open source, which makes it hackable by the community, the founder points out. Because of its open nature, the ring's button is already programmable. In addition to the press-and-hold gesture, you can program the ring to do other things with a single or double press, like play or pause your music or control the shutter on your phone's camera. You could use it to send a message through the universal chat app Beeper, which Migicovsky also created, or you could add your own voice actions via MCP. A new approach to hardware Migicovsky acknowledges that hardware can be difficult to get right -- as the previous exit of Pebble to Fitbit showed. (Fitbit, too, was later acquired by Google in 2021). "I didn't earn any money during Pebble -- we exited, but it was not a great exit," Migicovsky admits. This year, however, he decided to reboot the Pebble project after Google open sourced the PebbleOS, which opened up the door to new hardware. With his new company, Core Devices, Migicovsky plans to do things differently. Still, the founder doesn't regret his previous choices, he clarifies. "I wouldn't have gone back and changed anything. I loved what we built. I loved what we did. I love the company that we built, but it's not the only way to build a company," he told TechCrunch. " And, speaking as an ex-YC partner, there are -- there's a time and a place for building a venture-backed startup. Some companies are phenomenal when they raise money and build a big team, and I tried that...I think what I'm doing now is trying an alternative path, which is start from profitability," he says. The new company is a small team of five, self-funded, and focused on sustainability. So far, Core Devices has shipped the Pebble 2 Duo smartwatch with a black-and-white display. Its first run sold out, and the company is now preparing to ship the upgraded version, the Pebble Time 2. The newer device, which has seen 25,000 pre-orders, is a stainless steel watch with a larger, color e-ink screen. As for the Index 01, the ring's pre-order offer ends in March 2026. After that, the price increases to $99. It currently comes in silver, polished gold, and matte black and works with iOS and Android devices. Customers can select from eight ring sizes and three colors.
Fossil science owes a debt to indigenous knowledge: Lesotho missionary’s notes tell the story
Long ago, people identified fossils in their environment and explained them within their own cultural framework. This was early citizen science.
From Antarctica to AI: India International Science Festival 2025 brings science enthusiasts under one roof
The festival features over 150 technical and thematic sessions spanning science, technology, innovation, and industry. Key focus areas include artificial intelligence (AI), bio-economy, space, quantum technology, and the integration of traditional knowledge with modern science, alongside sessions on deep-tech entrepreneurship and the blue economy.
YSU Students Earn Certified Global Business Professional Credential
Two YSU students earned a national certification recognizing comprehensive knowledge in international business.
KFF Health Tracking Poll: Knowledge and Views of Medication Abortion
This KFF Health Tracking Poll finds that many, including women of reproductive age, remain unfamiliar with key facts about mifepristone. Fewer than half of all adults say they believe abortion pills are safe now, compared to over half of all adults two years ago. This poll explores awareness and perception of the recent FDA review of the medication, and support for policies aimed at restricting it.
Science Quiz: Strange Weather and Desert Planets
Put your science knowledge to the test with this week’s news quiz. Play now.
Temasek-Backed Fullerton Winds Down China Hedge Fund Business as Global Managers Struggle
Fullerton Fund Management Co., controlled by Temasek Holdings Pte, is winding down its China private fund businesses including an eight-year-old hedge fund unit, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
Women’s Health Is Chronically Understudied and Underfunded. It’s Time for a Change
For millions of women, TikTok has become a doctor's office: Scroll through the app and you'll see endless videos about menopause, joint pain, hormone therapy – featuring no small amount of pseudoscience. Though misguided, this digital quest for medical knowledge is only a symptom of a larger issue:
The Chicago Bears are winning for the first time in years. Their shirtless coach is a big reason why.
Chicago Bears head coach Ben Johnson acknowledged his burgeoning reputation as, according to his quarterback, a “man of the people” on Monday.
This Week in Sports Trivia: December 4, 2025
How closely were you following the sports news this week? Find out and test your knowledge by taking The Athletic's weekly quiz.
Uncommon Knowledge: Exhaustion, not rage, is America’s political currency
Donald Trump, and increasingly his opponents, think they are cashing in, but the public is tired of being tired.
Leak reveals Apple Health app might soon connect to ChatGPT
A new leak reveals that ChatGPT might soon be able to integrate your Apple Health app data to guide its health-related knowledge.
Indiana maps drawn 'purely for political performance' of GOP, bill author says
The author of Indiana's new congressional redistricting bill acknowledged the maps are "politically gerrymandered" but defended them against accusations of illegal racial gerrymandering.
AFTD Grantee Leads Basic Science Study Exploring Role of Protein in Tau-Based Disorders like CBD
A recent study examines chromogranin A in tau protein disorders, expanding our foundational knowledge of these forms of FTD.
Indigenous knowledge and science join forces to save the choro mussel in Chile
Huellelhue means “place for swimming” in Mapudungun. It’s also the name of one of the rivers that flow through the Lafken Mapu Lahual Multiple-Use Conservation Area, established in 2005 in southern Chile’s Los Lagos region. The name of this area is more than just a grouping of words, says Eduardo Vargas, president of the Nirehue […]
Science must move from materialism to mystery
Theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that modern science has become trapped in a framework that mistakes matter for the whole of reality. In this wide-ranging interview, Gómez-Marín challenges the foundations of materialism, defends the scientific study of near-death experiences, and calls for a new type of science grounded in mystery and a renewed sense of the sacred. He suggests that abandoning materialism could open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness, death, and the purpose of human existence. Simon Custer: You are both a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you have also been fiercely critical of materialist theories of mind and consciousness. What do you think the ultimate nature of reality is?Àlex Gómez-Marín: I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether the stories that they [mainstream science] have told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other alternatives. That's why I've been a fierce critic of materialism. As a scientist, I realized that they had sold us this idea that to be a good scientist you also had to subscribe to many other -isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism. And so first I think one needs to unmount these -isms, and then, as is happening today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn't only one game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists. But because we are studying the hard problem of consciousness, it may be the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other theories like dual aspect monism... these are philosophical ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously. How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism? What is materialism in the first place?Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really ‘real’ thing in the universe. And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago and Galileo made that split, I call it the foundational wound. It was a great business move.He said, let's start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more easily to mathematization and measurement. So, for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves very well to this foundational idea of science. But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which is what really matters.What really matters is pain, is love, is feelings, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard to define, but very intimate. We all know what it is. It's that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning. SUGGESTED VIEWING On the edges of knowledge With Michael Shermer, Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor It's what it is like to be, as Nagel said. It's the feeling of being alive. So, materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology and then is dressed like science, now it's preventing us from understanding these key questions that are really that everybody wants to know.Why are we here? Why do we feel reality? Where do we go when we die? And so we need other ways. We need pluralism. I'm only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously. Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness? For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being. What do you say to someone who might think that materialism adequately explains the mind?Well, here we could speak about different things. We could talk about physics or about neuroscience. I happen to have training with both.For instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I'm not included in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ. It's an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges. It's like a lamp. And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.That's the position you need to be if you're a materialist because if the only really ‘real’ thing is matter, then you need to say, just give us some more time and money and we'll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter. There are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.Now there's another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ. This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.Now then the brain wouldn't be like this machine, like for instance, a heat engine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model, the productive model. But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter. And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn't be a productive role.It would be permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism which would receive light. And - I'm speaking metaphorically - it would receive the light of the mind and then it could reflect it and refract it.Now, with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that many people have, but we don't talk about enough, like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities. These experiences are very important for humans and they have a place in the permissive hypothesis and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis. So that's yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism. There may be anecdotal evidence for near-death experiences, but is there robust evidence that would be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method?Sure. And the plural of anecdotes, someone said, is data.And there's a lot of data. Actually, this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Dr. Raymond Moody realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his patients had to say about their experiences while they were clinically dead.The heart had stopped, breathing had stopped in these patients. These patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyper-real, like seeing light at the end of the tunnels, seeing deceased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.___I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain.___And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing their accounts down. And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have. Now, on the more objective side, more recently people have started to measure what's going on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back. This has opened a proper field of study, which is near-death studies.Evidence is a difficult word, because sometimes people think that when you say evidence, this is just the final proof. Evidence is like in a jury. You bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one direction or another.I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain. When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on. And that's revolutionary.That would entail that when we die, it's not game over, which, by the way, is the thesis of materialism. If consciousness survives, materialism dies. It's game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die. Do you think that there is mental continuity after death?Well, I think so, and I believe so, and I could also say I may have experienced it myself, because four years ago I had a near-death experience. I was in the hospital, I lost a lot of blood, and I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light. I was in a well, I was looking upwards, and I hadn't read about NDEs by then, but when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also in my professional life. Not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life as a physicist and as a neuroscientist. So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be, and I'm not ashamed to say it in this way, and then one can do science of it, and then one can do philosophy of it.One can think about what -isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences to be really ‘real,’ as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken, it must have been a hallucination. Do you have a view about whether individuality or “the ego” persists after death, or whether we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness instead?I don't know, but my view would be along those lines you're suggesting. I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind, and then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more holistic consciousness into these individual eddies and then when we die, this kind of dissipates.But I'm not sure. For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after these eddies just vanish and become again the big Consciousness, I'm not sure what that would be. I don't know for sure, but I would tell you I believe something of us survives.And there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address this really hard question of survival. For instance, there are children who remember previous lives. This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.___Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.___It's amazing research. He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies, all these stories. In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that then he could go and verify.There was no internet. There was really no way the kid could know. Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that's how my house would look like or that's how I would die, right? Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there's evidence not only that something weird and interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.Scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there's stigma. There's usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate. And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot be possible. What is wrong with the politics of science such that they have generated this stigma?So many things. Science is a human activity to begin with.So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed. That's one thing. Science is a job for the good and for the bad.You need to get a salary. You need to get grants. Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.And then, we didn't have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled, as I was suggesting before, to other -isms, materialism, secularism. So anything that smells like the afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they freak out.Anything that suggests that there's something about the mind that may not need a physical material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism. So, all these -isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research, and then there are all these sociopolitical constraints as to what should be studied and what shouldn't be studied.I call it the backstage of science. Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing that matters. We say, well, data and theory.But then there's a third leg of this stool, which is all the politics that goes behind the scenes. And we often don't speak about this, and it's quite vicious and petty, and it's very real. Why is materialism so attractive to most scientists?Well, an easy answer is because we've grown up with it.It's what the educational system promotes, and that's what you hear when you go to university. So it's like growing in a culture. It feels like the air in which you breathe.So it's very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there's another alternative. Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science. That's one reason.And other reasons maybe are more profound, and I'm not qualified to explain them, but I could say, looking at this 400-year history of science, since it started around 1623 with Galileo's book The Assayer, that science went and coupled with all what's going on in the West.And so the fall of religion, you could say, and science presented us this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with other -isms, and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which was philosophy. There's a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying technology, and then marrying other social systems.From that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose. There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science. But no, the idea prevailed, like Francis Bacon said: You should pursue nature through all her corners, he said, and make her spill her secrets.Our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force and then dominate it. How is materialism related to the notions of growth and progress? What's wrong with having a productive citizenry?This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer.But there's this recent book coming out by Paul Kingsnorth. In it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress. And this, again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature. But because we don't have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have? We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.It's kind of the story of the Promethean fire. We will just build anything to make ourselves God.A good example today is transhumanism. Transhumanism is this pseudo-religion dressed in technoscientific language whose goal is very religious. They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire natural world, but it's done by human means through technology. Are you suggesting that we can't have ethics without religion?Well, we should have ethics with or without religion. That's another pruning that has happened in science. We say, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful means probably true, and forget about politics. We pretend there's no backstage of science, and even let's forget about ethics.___Science needs to be in the service of mankind.___Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they're just thinking how to make things work so that they can go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but they don't think whether that's a good idea.And also consider metaphysics. Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms, that really one doesn't need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the metaphysics running the system.You see, it's not just ethics. It's the pruning of all of these, you could say, five main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that doesn't really know what it's doing. It's doing it very well locally, but it just doesn't know what it's doing globally. Do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be effective or for it to be meaningful and transformative?Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind. And it hasn't been that. And we can see it through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom, and all of a sudden, the Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons.And now we're trying to crack how machines may think, and now we're creating this mess, right? So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want to make more money or just dominate upon nature. What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine? Hasn't science served mankind by helping us develop those technologies?Yes and no. I see where you're going, and it's fair.I came here by plane, and it's a blessing. When I almost died, the surgeons did their job, and they saved my life. But these two forced choices between Luddites and Silicon Valley types, I think, of course, it's a false dichotomy.Progress, in a way, it's good, but we often don't speak about the dark side of the moon. We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don't speak about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise new technologies. We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time because we don't need to write letters and send them anymore.Is that true? I spend so many hours a week writing emails. Let's just say there are great things about it and bad things about it. People like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argue that we've made moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment. Do you think that's totally wrong-headed?I think he's emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find tons of plots where there's a slope going up and say it's great. But I think he should also tell the not-so-friendly story.But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that the Enlightenment is the best thing ever and reason is the best thing ever… this feels to me like you're worshipping these abstractions.I'm very critical of it and also of these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, Oh, science says, in the name of science, experts say. It's like, come on, let's be careful because we can shoot ourselves in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not really true. Recently there's been a resurgence of spirituality and of people who say that they're spiritual but not religious, especially in the United States. If materialism is going away, what is going to fill that gap? Are we going to return to traditional religion? Do you see that being connected with the rise of the political right?I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't know what's going to happen. But, yeah, we could say we're in this post-materialist age and even post-secular age. One cannot come back to the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.What do I mean by that? I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method. We need to do so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there's this idea that the sacred has to be removed.Now, how do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion? I don't know. I'm from a Catholic country.Here we are in England, so there are differences and interreligious dialogue has always been a challenge. But I think maybe a way of putting it is: after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy and then also from religion, now there's a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something higher than both poles. We need science to talk to religious people and it's interesting when people say they're spiritual and not religious.I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. But at the end of the day, religions have offered us practices and grounding that we now desperately need. Everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do whatever they want, but we're in a crisis and it's time for reconciliation. What do you say to critics that say you are merely projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?Yeah, I know that the typical science communicator says something like this. But we're not projecting. Human beings feed on meaning.It's the other way around. If you're a materialist, because the only thing that there is is matter, all that comes next, free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that we need to explain.They're just craving for meaning, but there isn't really for them. I would also like to remind my materialist friends that for decades, if not centuries, they've said in the name of science, we know that this and this and this doesn't really exist. I think now they sense they're forced to say, well, actually, we don't know. We've been saying, for instance, that there's nothing after you die, and now probably they need to admit that they don't know the answer.___We need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method.___So it's a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these claims that I think harm society. If you say in the name of science, get on with it, when your father dies, you'll never see him again. Well, what the F do you know about it? You haven't studied the literature, you haven't had any of those experiences, and basically what you're doing is you're just doing marketing on ideology. This needs to stop. Do you think that it's scarier for some people to entertain the thought that there might be life after death, compared to a materialist worldview where you just die, given that there might be consequences for unsavory behaviour?Well, death and dying is scary. It's maybe the ultimate ending. It's a limit on life, and when we're in this conquest mode, we don't like limits.And it also has, there's a shockwave backwards, so I think if you change your notion of what death is or may be, you live differently. It also has consequences, as you're saying, for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form. And again, different religions would say different things. I the East, they are more happy with the idea of reincarnation, and here in the West, there are other preferences. But in any case, it changes how we live, and that's really what matters.It's not about just projecting or imagining what we'll be after, but how we live now and also how we treat those who are dying. So it goes from the individual to the families, to the hospitals.Now in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all these levels, all the way to society.But our society is thanatophobic. It has a phobia of death. We don't want to hear about death, and this is another thing we need to put on the table and be willing to talk about it. Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like why is there anything at all if we jettison materialism?That’s an excellent question, Simon. Two things: we should stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with intelligence, money, and time that we will crack and instead treat reality more like a mystery. And what you do for in front of a mystery is not to be the clever guy in a class and say “I’ll solve you” but more like “I will bow and you will transform me.”I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic. But I think this reorientation is needed. In the end, we won’t crack the big questions, but they will transform us. If we free ourselves from this prison of materialism, the way we will explore these questions will be freer, more creative, and in service of mankind. Do you think exploring mystery is the reason why we are here?I think we are here because, and this pseudo-theological argument I’m making off the cuff, But the One, the Absolute, if there is such a thing, had everything except limitation. We are that absolute experiencing that contingency. It’s like an act of divine proprioception. It’s a wonderful adventure, it’s just incredible to be alive. Perhaps we have forgotten why we are here and the whole point is to experience the flesh.Let me end by saying this. I criticize materialism harshly. I bang on this dead horse, because I think it’s dead. But matter is a great mystery. So maybe my invitation is as follows: hey materialist friends, come here, let’s work on materialism 2.0! Consciousness is a mystery, but matter is also a mystery. The fact that we can have an intersubjective experience consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics, that we can measure things... the physical world we take for granted, but it is a great mystery too.Maybe that’s related to your last question: why are we here? Why did spirit decide to incarnate? Being in the flesh may be a great thing if spirit decided to do so.Àlex Gómez-Marín, thank you very much.My pleasure.
YSU business students earn certified global business professional credential
Two students from Youngstown State University’s Williamson College of Business Administration have earned the Certified Global Business Professional (CGBP) credential, a national certification recognizing comprehensive knowledge in international business.
Cities put science in the spotlight
When three European cities launch an initiative next year to boost scientific excellence and collaboration, much of the action is likely to take place in public spaces rather than in the laboratory.That is welcome news for Ana Marušić. A medical doctor and professor at the University of Split Medical School in Croatia, Marušić champions close connections between “town and gown” to encourage citizen involvement in research, raise public health awareness and ignite young people’s interest in science. “Responsible research and innovation cannot be done in an ivory tower, answering only the questions that are relevant for scientists,” explains Marušić, who chairs the Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health and leads the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. “The role of the university is to be a medium for transferring new discoveries in science to society, but also to listen to society about what is important and what is needed.”Three cities united by scienceMarušić’s efforts stand to gain traction through Science Comes to Town (SCTT), a new European project to highlight science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. With funding from the European Commission, three cities—Split, Brest (in France) and Kiel (in Germany)—plan more than 1,000 public events, workshops and competitions for citizens of all ages, researchers, businesses and policymakers. The year-long project kicks off in Spilt on 20 January with a conference involving partner institutions, community representatives and European policymakers. The three cities may be geographically far apart, but they share much in common. All are located on coasts and are home to top regional research institutions that are part of SCTT. Among the project's partners, the University of Western Brittany in Brest, Kiel University and the University of Split belong to the SEA-EU university alliance, uniting nine European coastal academic institutions to advance research, student exchanges and sustainable development. “These universities have a very strong connection between gown and town,” explains Marušić, who is one of Split’s SCTT ambassadors. “It's very important that these universities are there for the community so that we can learn from each other and grow together.”Tackling Europe’s STEM shortagesSCTT will also reinforce efforts to address Europe’s widening gap in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Studies show that nearly eight out of ten small- and medium-sized businesses cannot find enough workers with the skills required in advanced computing and artificial intelligence (AI)—hindering initiatives to boost European innovation and competitiveness. In healthcare, the European Commission has estimated a shortfall in medical professionals of 1.2 million, due to fewer young people joining the field and an ageing population that needs more care.Strengthening knowledge and dialogue can also help build trust between scientists and the public at time when disruptive technologies are reshaping research and clinical practice, but are also sparking questions about ethics and accuracy. With experience in the classroom and in clinical epidemiology—a discipline involving monitoring and controlling public health problems—Marušić sees the potential risks of over-reliance on AI and chatbot answers for both research and learning. “AI is a very good tool, but one has to be very critical about it,” she adds. “Delegating brain activities will definitely diminish your neural capacities because you are not developing the circuitry that is important for higher-level cognitive engagement.” She stresses the importance of critical thinking and encourages students to use AI as a researcher’s tool to reinforce rather than supplant human discretion and brainpower.The power of outreachSplit’s experience in bringing scientists and the public together has provided a platform for discussing research ethics and explaining science in simple terms. Local efforts to expand health literacy and awareness have helped reduce cardiovascular disease among women, according to Marušić’s research. The city’s university also hosts events to introduce schoolchildren to science, using hands-on experiments to spark curiosity.Marušić’s own love of science began with an interest in studying molecular biology. “But my parents told me, why don't you study medicine?” she recalls. “I said, OK, why not? And that was the best decision that I made.” Marušić is not a practicing physician, but teaches anatomy and public health. She also co-edits ST-OPEN, an overlay university journal that works on capacity building for research publishing among students and their supervisors. Balancing teaching, research and editorial work, she is a strong advocate for medical studies, urging high school students to consider medicine “because later on it gives you a really wide perspective about human life and about society” as well as many career opportunities.As SCTT prepares to bring science into daily life in 2026, Marušić hopes that it will build permanent bridges between scientists and citizens across Europe. “We can be a showcase for making collaboration with the community stronger to share knowledge, attract young talent and integrate critical and scientific thinking into everyday life,” she explains, adding that "collaborating with businesses to improve cities and communities is also an important aspect of this project."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
UnitedHealth agrees to sell South American business to private equity firm Patria for $1 billion, sources say
UnitedHealth Group has agreed to sell its South American business Banmedica to a Brazilian private equity group, two sources with knowledge of the matter said.