SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Biologist " 100 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
SDSU@Comic-Con: Brain science suggests Baby Yoda might not be a baby a
Neurobiologist Elena Blanco-Suárez applies her expertise on brain development and repair to "The Mandalorian" series. See our complete list of other SDSU participants.
Clemson biologist leads global study on how flowers beat the heat
The research funded by a grant from the Human Frontier Science Program focuses on the flowering stage, one of the most vulnerable stages in a plant's life cycle.
Stunned scientists discover new wild cat species after a century—see the photos - Futura-Sciences
A Mysterious Cat in the Clouds High in the Andean forests—almost always wrapped in mist—a pint-sized cat was living its life unnoticed by the scientific community, although locals might have crossed its path many times. The story kicked off in 2016, when a Bolivian animal shelter contacted biologist Paola Nogales-Ascarrunz...
Alice Henderson’s “Storm Warning” Is a Wild Ride of Survival Science and Savage Threats
Storm Warning is Alice Henderson’s fifth wild and wooly, storm-tossed, action-packed suspense novel featuring protagonist wildlife biologist and environmentalist adventurer Alex Carter. Her current assignment to study and protect imperiled hawksbill turtles in tropical Hawai’i seemed like an idyllic vacation of sun, surf, swimming and snorkeling. The intensive military survival training taught to her by
‘To advance science, I think it’s important to blur the boundaries between the disciplines’
Stanford chemical biologist Carolyn Bertozzi studies sugars on the surface of cells to better understand their involvement in diseases, including cancer. This work aims to add to our fundamental knowledge of biology while also informing new medical treatments.
Panama looks to science, fishers, and the law to protect its sharks and rays
PUERTO CAIMITO, Panama — It’s a late April morning and the Tabor, an industrial fishing boat, is sailing around Chepillo Island in Panama Bay. Under the eyes of the crew, Yehudi Rodríguez, a marine biologist specializing in sharks, and sailor Joel Cordoba free a large black devil ray from a purse seine net and launch […]
Biologists discover why snake embryos always coil to the right
A 'pillar of gut' is the key.
Wildlife science demands effective communication
Wildlife management has come a long way from the days of Aldo Leopold traversing the New Mexico mountains on horseback and the Wisconsin River Valley by canoe. Back then, most decisions were based primarily on observation and experience. Today, highly trained wildlife biologists use sophisticated research, technology and mountains of data to understand everything from population dynamics and habitat needs to disease transmission and predator-prey relationships.
Now scientists can hear when plants are saying ‘Ouch!’
Using AI, biologists have begun to decipher electrical distress signals that are emitted when pests strike
The genetic secret helping bats survive a deadly epidemic
We’re easing you into Halloween season with an episode about bats. There’s a silent serial killer decimating little brown bats as they hibernate. White nose syndrome has driven populations across the U.S. to almost the brink of extinction over the last decade. But recently, conservation biologist Giorgia Auteri and her team noticed several genetic mutations in the survivors. These mutations could explain how natural selection has shifted the existing population – and inform conservation efforts in the future.Interested in more animal science? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.
These digital games are teaching players about the world's most fragile ecosystems
As Earth Day highlights the importance of protecting the planet, a pair of digital learning games from Arizona State University’s Ask A Biologist is helping people move from awareness to action in their everyday lives.
Scientists and fishermen celebrate return of bluefin tuna
Marine biologists and fisherman reflect on the increasing numbers of bluefin tuna in UK waters.
Art and science blend at Murie Ranch Art Festival
During his years as a wildlife biologist in Canada, Alaska and Wyoming, Olaus Murie generated volumes of notes and sketches of the creatures he encountered and the specimens he collected
Career Chat: A Science Communicator Uses Video to Bring Research to Life
Plant biologist Molly Edwards started a science communication business called Science IRL to showcase the exciting and curious side of science.
Young parrot rescued from grips of invasive boa snake
A biologist came upon the scene in Puerto Rico.
This USGS grizzly bear expert focuses on data, not politics
A Q&A with a biologist on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team.
Biologists discover gene that may determine ‘good’ and ‘bad’ dads
Social cues and surprising genetics may affect mammal fathers.
Scientists split gentoo penguins into four species, one totally new to science. Three of them are already threatened.
Biologists argue that gentoo penguins should be divided into four separate species, including a newly recognized “cryptic” species. The habitats of three of them are imperiled by climate change.
Scientists Are Taking Improv Classes So People Will Trust Them More
What does it look like when biologists and physicists do comedy? We sat in on a session.
Scientists thought ravens followed wolves for food. A 2.5-year GPS study told a different story.
For decades, biologists believed ravens found their next meal by shadowing wolves across the landscape until the predators made a kill. A new study in and around Yellowstone National Park suggests the birds are using a far more sophisticated strategy.
Unusual creatures are more appealing: What guppies teach us about evolution
Spanish biologist Ignacio Paulin became fascinated by the behavior of these fish, in a project that could now disappear due to budget cuts by the Trump administration
Welcome to post-Darwinism: AI fires silver bullet for creating new life
In a breakthrough experiment, molecular biologists and tech entrepreneurs have teamed up to write the genetic code of a virus that destroys killer bacteria
Janelia’s Two Big Bets: Decoding the Brain and Reinventing How Science is Done
HHMI’s Janelia Research Campus is launching a decade-long scientific effort to pursue two coequal goals: understanding how the brain generates complex behavior, and developing a new mode of scientific discovery in which biologists and AI work together as partners in discovery.
The 2011 Japan Tsunami Created Hybrid Fish, But They Almost Completely Disappeared
A changing world is pushing species boundaries in unusual ways, and the tsunami gave marine biologists a view of the process vastly sped up
Biologist speaks at Science Café
Davis Science Café is back Wednesday, April 8, from 5:30 to 7 p.m. at G Street WunderBar, 228 G St. in downtown Davis.
'Plants get sick!': WashU scientists, U. City students research plants together
Biologist Rachel Penczykowski, in WashU Arts & Sciences, is an expert in infectious disease in plants. She conducts much of her research in the field — rural farmland, urban parks and, on this sunny day, a garden bed at Jackson Park Elementary School in the University City School District.
Today on Texas Standard: Scientists identify jellyfish species previously unknown to science
If you think one jellyfish looks like another, marine biologists at Texas A&M University Galveston would disagree. Researchers have identified a jellyfish species previously unknown to science.
(Rescheduled from Jan 26) Behind the Science: Herbivores That Chewed Through Time: How Insects and Pathogens Responded to Earth’s Biggest Events
Announcing a new After-Hours series at the National Museum of Natural History: Behind the Science A monthly after-hours series featuring NMNH scientists and researchers Each month, join the National Museum of Natural History for the new series, Behind the Science, where NMNH researchers share insights into their latest discoveries and explore the fascinating questions driving their work—from the origins of life to the future of our planet. Come learn what’s happening behind the scenes and how science shapes our understanding of the natural world. Programs take place in Q?rius, the Coralyn W. Whitney Science Education Center. Topics and speakers announced on a rolling basis, but save the dates now! February 10 (RESCHEDULED FROM JAN 26): Conrad Labandeira, Paleobiology The leaves of plants are everywhere. They provide the primary documentation of insect and pathogen feeding styles – or herbivory – on plants in the modern and fossil records. Leaves also are the most abundant, macroscopic item in the fossil record during the past 400 or so million years. During the past 25 years, studies of insect and pathogen damage on fossil and modern leaves have addressed the response of herbivores to major events of the fossil record. These events include, in chronological order, the origin of herbivory itself, the appearance of seed plants, the profound ecological crisis at the end of the Paleozoic, the appearance of flowering plants, the profound ecological crisis at the end of the Mesozoic, and a major change in the global climate 56 million years ago. Let’s put damaged, fossil leaves to work in helping us to understand how insect and pathogen herbivores have historically transformed the world we live in. Upcoming Dates: Jan. 26: Feb. 10: Conrad Labandeira, Paleobiologist Mar. 10: Briana Pobiner, Anthropologist Apr. 14 May 11 Jun. 9 Jul. 14 Aug. 11 Sep. 15 Oct. 13 Nov. 10 Dec. 8
'Big Science, Small Pod' podcast: What makes seizures start?
Neurobiologist Matthew Weston explains what happens in the brain during seizures and how his lab is researching their genetic roots to help develop new treatments for children.
Philly squid biologist combines science & art with new mural in Kensington
When she's not driving 'The Squidmobile,' Sarah McAnulty is installing vivid murals about other critters that live in Philadelphia.
50 million pounds of invasive fish removed from Illinois River
Carp can grow over four feet-long and gobble up resources.
Video: Scientists watch orcas ram a sunfish so hard it explodes
Marine biologists off of Baja California recorded one orca teeing up another to smash a sunfish into pieces. Scientists say there could be a reason for this behavior — or it could be just for entertainment.
Scientists Discover Soil Bacteria Enzyme that Breaks Down Both Plastic and Antibiotics
Biologists studying how bacteria break down a new generation of plant-based bioplastics -- long-chain aliphatic polyesters -- have discovered an enzyme that can dismantle both plastic and antibiotics.
Swamp King: The Young Biologist Keeping Science Accessible on TikTok
His chameleon, Krome, is pretty cool, too.
How Gender Stereotypes Got Written Into Evolution
Feminist biologists have been challenging a flawed fruit-fly experiment that helped harden Victorian stereotypes about sex.
This common mouth bacteria could be linked to Alzheimer’s—here’s what experts have found - Futura-Sciences
Physician Stephen Dominy and microbiologist Jan Potempa led the landmark effort, discovering Porphyromonas gingivalis in the brains of deceased Alzheimer’s patients. Normally confined to the mouth, where it causes chronic gum disease, the pathogen’s presence in brain tissue proved it could breach the blood-brain barrier and take root in central...
Tiny ocean life helps scientists estimate whale prevalence off the California coast
A new approach to better assessing whale population data has emerged, led by a research team of marine biologists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego and statisticians from Cal Poly. ...
Hot ticket: Rodeo kicks off and Fleet Week takes flight
Pretty Fly for a Smart Guy: Dexter Holland, lead singer of The Offspring and a molecular biologist, will headline an upcoming installment of Space Center Houston‘s Thought Leader Series.
Scientists Resurrect 160-Million-Year-Old Molecules With Surprising Power Against Superbugs
Ancient mammalian antimicrobial peptides revealed stronger bacteria-killing activity in some cases, offering clues for designing future treatments against resistant infections. Some proteins that vanished millions of years ago may still have something to teach scientists about fighting modern infections. University of Oregon biologists have reconstructed antimicrobial molecules dating back as far as 160 million years,
AstroSara – training with Spain’s first female astronaut
In Spain she’s a media star. Known as AstroSara on YouTube, Sara García Alonso is a science communicator, author, molecular biologist – and future ESA reserve astronaut. We accompany her as she prepares for the job.
Celebrating worm science
MIT-affiliated biologists including Robert Horvitz discuss the history of Nobel Prize-winning advances made through scientific research in the microscopic roundworm C. elegans.
Tybee Island Marine Science Center releases loggerhead sea turtle ‘Ossie’ back into ocean
Biologists at the Tybee Island Marine Science Center released resident loggerhead sea turtle “Ossie” into the Atlantic Ocean on Saturday morning.
Temple biologist and deep-ocean expert Erik Cordes named AAAS Fellow
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has elected Erik Cordes an AAAS Fellow for his research, exploration and conservation efforts in the deep ocean.
In 1926, a Russian biologist tried to create a human-chimpanzee hybrid
Luckily, the cruel experiment never happened.
'Jeff Corwin’s Southern Wild' episode features Pamlico County
The second episode of biologist Jeff Corwin's new television series "Jeff Corwin's Southern Wild," titled "Wildlife After Dark," features a segment on red drum research, a protected game fish and
Wildlife biologist launches bear-proofing business to help LA County homeowners
This evolutionary biologist fuses art into her science
Victoria Glynn is studying how high temperatures are affecting ocean plankton. She also makes art to help communicate science to the public.
Teeth are the key for biologists to understand the health of Vermont’s deer population
Hidden inside the microscopic structure of the roots of a deer’s front incisors is a record of that deer's life.
The world’s oldest wild bird has a new grandchick
Biologists have been tracking Wisdom, the roughly 75-year-old Laysan albatross, since the 1950s.
Noted neurobiologist and ex-taekwondo captain Chih-Ying Su leaves US for China
As former faculty vice dean swaps San Diego for Shenzhen, her lab offers jobs, training to researchers interested in sensory signalling.
Have we found alien life? Hundreds of scientists weigh in
Two major alien-life announcements in 2025 generated enormous excitement, but most astrobiologists remained unconvinced. Only 6.6% of surveyed experts thought possible biological molecules on K2-18b probably represented extraterrestrial life, while 15.1% said the same about intriguing mineral patterns in a Martian rock.
February 13, 2026
An evolutionary biologist weighs in on mating and dating in the age of apps. Is pair bonding passé? Is single the new married? Plus, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, or RHIC, has ceased operation. What’s next for particle physics? Add, researchers are homing in on how kids reap long-term health benefits from getting dirty, whether cuddling furry pets or playing with friends.
Large dog breeds die younger. Biologists think they finally know why.
'Jumping genes' may explain shorter lifespans.
Wildlife science demands effective communication
Wildlife management has come a long way from the days of Aldo Leopold traversing the New Mexico mountains on horseback and the Wisconsin River Valley by canoe. Back then, most decisions were based primarily on observation and experience. Today, highly trained wildlife biologists use sophisticated research, technology and mountains of data to understand everything from population dynamics and habitat needs to disease transmission and predator-prey relationships.
Large dog breeds die younger. Biologists think they finally know why.
'Jumping genes' may explain shorter lifespans.
The sludge in your shower drain? That could be scientists’ next big find : Short Wave
Microbes are little alchemists that perform all manner of chemical reactions. A team of microbiologists co-founded a non-profit to try to harness those abilities to solve some of the world’s big problems — from carbon capture to helping coral reefs to cleaning up waste. Recently, the team turned their attention to the microbes living in people’s homes — on and in shower heads, drip pans, and hot water heaters. These rather extreme environments may have pressured microorganisms into surviving in ways that could be advantageous to humans. Science reporter Ari Daniel takes us on a treasure hunt in miniature.This episode was produced by Hannah Chinn. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez. Tyler Jones checked the facts. The audio engineer was Robert Rodriguez.Interested in learning more about the weird and wonderful world of microbes? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.
The science behind the beauty business
Some of Europe’s industrial champions may be in retreat, but its cosmetics sector remains a global leader, buoyed by healthy demand, recognised brands and a reputation for innovation."The fact is, the science in cosmetics is better here in Europe than anywhere else in the world,” says Pierre Morvan, CEO of Technature, a private label cosmetics manufacturer located near Brest in France’s northwestern Brittany region. “You have to have good science in order to make the difference, and that is why we invest so much in research and innovation.”Across Europe, the beauty and skincare products sector supports an estimated 3.6 million jobs, including 265,000 employed directly in the industry, according to the Cosmetics Europe trade group.. Cosmetics production contributes an estimated €11 billion to the EU economy, and generated €30 billion in export revenue last year, a €400 million rise from 2024.Technature itself has a global footprint, supplying products for 1,500 brands in 65 countries. Its range of skin gels, facial masks, nail treatments and other products include natural ingredients and extracts derived from plants, such as seaweed, that are developed and refined through science-based analysis and testing.While industry projections point to sustained growth for the foreseeable future, driven by emerging economies and wider availability of exclusive brands that were once chiefly sold by high street retailers, the sector is not immune to the impact of geopolitics and trade wars. The Trump Administration’s tariff threats have dented cosmetics exports to the EU industry's largest overseas market. After the European Parliament approved the EU-US Turnberry Agreement in June, setting a 15% levy on many EU goods, the French Federation of Beauty Companies warned that “exports are falling sharply” and urged the EU to negotiate an opt-out for cosmetics.Technature’s CEO flags South Korea as an emerging competitor, partly due to its assertive marketing efforts. “I would have to say I am a little bit scared,” Morvan says, regarding the growth potential of the South Korean cosmetics industry. “This is why science and innovation are so important if Europe is to remain the leader.”With a workforce of 200, including biologists, chemists and other scientists, around 15% of Technature’s staff work in three research and development (R&D) labs. A similar number work in four quality control and assurance facilities, where science plays a crucial in ensuring product safety in a sector that is subject to the European Cosmetics Regulation.Educational exchange between industry and academiaIn recognition of Technature’s research and innovation, Morvan was selected as one of Brest’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), a European initiative to strengthen communications and understanding between science and society. Brest is one of three coastal cities in the EU-funded programme, alongside Split (in Croatia) and Kiel (in Germany). From 7-11 September, Brest will host the EU TalentOn contest featuring 100 early-career researchers from across Europe.Morvan appreciates the value of engagement with educational and scientific institutions as well as the home community. For instance, Technature collaborates closely with university partners to enhance its in-house R&D. In addition, it invites students to its labs and sends its own researchers to local institutions. "We absolutely want the students to know what the industry is all about,” Morvan says, noting that seeing science in action can help young people “understand that they can do something real with science, to create something with what they are learning.” He says another important benefit: encouraging new generations of young people to consider a career in cosmetics.Community involvement also raises awareness about Technature and the skincare industry as a whole. “The public gains recognition of the innovative company that we are, and this is important for getting new customers,” Morvan says. One of its recent innovations — tiny, colourful cosmetic pearls that release skin moisturisers on application — was showcased at this year’s VivaTech event in Paris.Morvan holds a master's degree from the Brest Business School and studied animal production and biology in Brest at the University of Western Brittany (UBO), an SCTT partner, and at the University of Tours. He got his start in business in 2002, initially working on using seaweed as a raw material in the food industry before transitioning to cosmetics. Morvan has always been interested in connecting science and business, reflecting one the goals of SCTT to enhance public-private collaboration.The invitation to participate in SCTT was unexpected. “It was a surprise to get a call from the city of Brest saying that they wanted me on this programme,” Morvan recalls, adding that officials were drawn by his company’s R&D. “It's not only theory and science fundamentals. Our science is something that is applicable to the global market — and important for the community.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Curious Kids: USU Interpreter and Scientist Team to Create Science-Learning Magic for Children
Translator and interpreter Elsa Pérez and biologist Justin James provided expertise for the
Let’s do science: Share your wild turkey sightings
MAINE—All good wildlife management starts with science, and all good science starts with data. That’s where you come in. Maine’s Wild Turkey August Production Survey invites community scientists to play a direct role in monitoring our state’s wild turkey population. Whether you enjoy watching wildlife from your window, spend time hiking, hunting, or exploring the outdoors, or just need an excuse to get outside, you can help. Each summer, Maine’s wild turkey hens are busy raising the next generation of birds. By reporting your sightings and observations, you’ll help our biologists monitor annual reproduction rates, track population trends, and make informed management decisions that support healthy, sustainable turkey populations for generations to come. The information collected helps ensure there are abundant opportunities for both wildlife watchers and hunters to enjoy Maine’s wild turkeys. It’s easy to participate! Whenever you see wild turkeys anywhere in Maine during August, simply report: Date and location of your observation Number of adult females (hens) Number of adult males (gobblers) Number of poults (young turkeys) Estimated poult size relative to the adult hens Every observation counts, even if you don’t see poults. Together, these reports provide a clearer picture of turkey productivity across the state and are an important part of Maine’s wildlife management. Ready to help? Report your turkey sightings online using the Wild Turkey August Production Survey. Submit an Observation Subscribe Share Leave a comment
Biologists drove 19 burrowing owls evicted by a Phoenix housing project 50 miles into a 10,000-acre solar complex and lowered them into 40 plastic burrows — every female laid eggs within a month, and 29 chicks fledged the first summer, because open ground under panels hides no predator from an owl
A solar farm designed to fight climate change became an unexpected refuge for an endangered owl when scientists discovered that panels cast the perfect shadow for ground-nesting predators to hunt.
Author Margaret Merritt underscores value of science and history by highlighting people in her works
The longtime Alaska biologist’s recent book follows the life of Tilly Keilitz, who became an internal refugee in Germany in the years immediately following World War II.
Scientists Find a Never-Before-Seen Animal Living in the Great Salt Lake
Utah biologists have characterized D. woaabi, the first of two nematode species recently discovered in the lake’s microbialites.
CASCADES: A Journey Along Greenland’s Coast Where Ocean Meets Ice
CASCADES is an international, multidisciplinary expedition bringing together glaciologists, marine-mammal observers, microbiologists, geologists, and biogeochemists.
Rag Tag Team of Biologists Who Lost Funding Because of Trump Turned a Motel Room into Makeshift Lab and Made a Groundbreaking Discovery
A team of biologists brought together by Trump's funding cuts continued their research in a motel room and made a significant discovery.
Two Salk scientists elected as 2025 AAAS Fellows - Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Highlights Salk scientists Gerald Shadel and Tatyana Sharpee elected as American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2025 Fellows AAAS Fellows are distinguished scientists, engineers, and innovators who have made significant contributions to their fields LA JOLLA—Salk molecular biologist Gerald Shadel, PhD, and neuroscientist Tatyana Sharpee, PhD, have been elected as American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2025 Fellows. The honor recognizes scientists with distinguished scientific and social accomplishments, and AAAS Fellows become national and global science spokespersons for the rest of their lives.
My 2014 Talk at the University of Chicago
After it had been announced on campus, Jerry Coyne, a prominent Darwinian biologist at the University of Chicago, tried to talk Leo into disinviting me.
Brandon Butler column: Wildlife science demands effective communication
Wildlife management has come a long way from the days of Aldo Leopold traversing the New Mexico mountains on horseback and the Wisconsin River Valley by canoe. Back then, most decisions were based primarily on observation and experience. Today, highly trained wildlife biologists use sophisticated research, technology and mountains of data to understand everything from population dynamics and habitat needs to disease transmission and predator-prey relationships.
Peter H. Duesberg, 89, Renowned Biologist Turned H.I.V. Denialist, Dies
His pioneering work on the origins of cancer was later overshadowed by his contrarian views, notably his rejection of the established theory that H.I.V. causes AIDS.
Young parrot rescued from grips of invasive boa snake
A biologist came upon the scene in Puerto Rico.
A Microbiologist Dissects the Science of Infection in Movies
An infection control scientist binge-watches decades of outbreaks, pathogens, and pandemic drama to find out which shows and films hit the mark with infections.
Robert Trivers, Eccentric Scientist Who Probed Human Nature, Dies at 83
A visionary evolutionary biologist, he drew comparisons to Charles Darwin with his theories on the genetic roots of seemingly detrimental behaviors like self-deception.
China’s rare earth weakness, new rocket to rival SpaceX: 7 science highlights
From China unveiling microwave weapons to top neurobiologist leaving US, here are some highlights from SCMP’s recent science reporting.
Nancy Lane Perham obituary
Other lives: Electron microscopist, cell biologist and champion of women in science
Science Vs on the 49ers Substation: Anatomy of a Hatchet Job
In August, Pablo Torre Finds Out and Science Vs released an episode about my theory that electromagnetic fields from the electrical substation beside the 49ers facility may be contributing to the team’s run of soft-tissue injuries. As the originator of the theory, I was also a subject of the episode. I sat was interviewed by Wendy Zukerman and Rose Rimler of Sciene Vs. I sent them research, connected them with scientists, and spent hours digging through the City of Santa Clara’s and Silicon Valley Power’s records to help clarify critical details. Both Wendy and Rose came off as affable and professional, showing curiosity during the interviews, with Wendy going out of her way to question the “conspiracy theory” framing itself. Then they titled the episode We Solve the 49ers Viral Conspiracy Theory. I was familiar enough with their catalog that I never expected them to agree with my theory, but I did expect them to give it a fair hearing and to deliver their findings honestly. On both counts they came up short. They were not directly dishonest in anything they said, but rather in what they left out, in how what remained was cut, and in the picture painted by those two things in combination. They asked me to recorded the interview on my phone for better audio quality, and I held on to my copy for reference later. That turned out to be a fortuitous decision. Here is the raw audio of my first interview, unedited*. Only my side was recorded, so their questions aren’t on it, but you can generally infer them from the answers, and every claim I make below about what I said can be checked against my statements in this clip. (Note: Wendy had connection trouble at the beginning of the interview and was cutting in and out, which accounts for the false starts.) 0:00 -1:19:13 Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. Science Vs is a fun show. It is pitched at roughly a high-school understanding of science, for an audience that is skeptical, Snopes-oriented, and worried about misinformation. Take a claim circulating online, interview a supporter of the claim, interview consensus scientists, and then tell people which side of the line it lands on. I have listened to their episodes on raw milk, seed oils, 5G and other contested issues in the wellness space. I have problems with all of them, but each at least made an honest attempt to represent the actual range of scientific opinion by talking to credentialed scientists with differing perspectives. Dissenting researchers were heard from, answered, and often given a chance to respond. This episode did not do that. This article is not a relitigation of the science. I have written extensively about that already. This post is for the record. It is simply an accounting of what was wrong with their episode. Contents Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? — the clearest single example of getting something objectively wrong For the record — a high-level overview of all of the problems with their investigation Draw your own conclusions — why they had to make this episode at all What they left out about childhood leukemia — the exposure threshold, and playing games with statistics to minimize sick children What they left out about the mechanism — the body of literature they refused to cover, and evidence for the mechanism used against it The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air — four credential scientists who support myhe theory, recorded and cut, or not even called How they misrepresented me and my case — an answer severed from its question, and three telling edits How you would actually study the injuries — it doesn’t actually matter which team is the most injured, overall The theory: magnetic fields, oxidative stress, and collagen Since the episode never states my theory, here it is below. Those who are familiar with my work can skip this section. Electrical equipment produces magnetic fields, and those fields induce faint electrical currents in anything that passes through them, including people. My argument goes further than induced current. Mitochondria — the structures that generate a cell’s energy — run on continuous flows of electrons and protons, and those flows carry faint electromagnetic fields of their own. Maxwell’s principle of superposition shows that when two fields share the same space, they add together. An external field does not need to be strong to alter an internal field, it only needs to be present. The electron transport chain inside the mitochondria leaks a small fraction of its electrons by design, and those become reactive oxygen species — free radicals, which healthy cells use as signals. External magnetic fields cause the rate of leakage to change, increasing free radicals. When free radicals accumulate faster than the cell’s antioxidant systems can clear them, the result is oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is a recognized driver of chronic illness, including cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, diabetes and cancer, and it is in every medical school curriculum. One of its ordinary effects in connective tissue is that it switches on matrix metalloproteinases — MMPs, the enzymes that break collagen apart — while suppressing new collagen synthesis. Tendons are made of collagen. An athlete loading his soft tissue heavily six days a week is already creating oxidative stress in the tendons, so the addition of magnetic field exposure compounds the damage and inhibits repair, making him more susceptible to injury when enormous force lands on a tendon in a fraction of a second. That is the theory. We know that EMF causes oxidative stress, and we know that oxidative stress degrades collagen. The only thing missing is a study showing that direct connection. I have never claimed certainty that the substation is contributing to the elevated injury rate. I do believe it is likely, and I believe it warrants caution, and that a revenue machine like a major NFL team can easily afford to remove the exposure out of precaution. Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? Here is the clearest single instance of the problem with this episode. It requires no knowledge of electromagnetic fields at all. This story first came to me through Jon Feliciano, a former 49er, in an interview on Willard & Dibs on 95.7 The Game. Asked about why the 49ers are always injured, he said players used to joke that it was the power plant behind the practice fields. Wendy Zukerman corrects him on air. “It’s important to say that it’s not a power plant near the 49ers site.” Torre then asks her to explain the difference between a substation and a power plant. Her answer: a power plant generates electricity and transmits it to a substation, which converts the voltage into something your house can use and sends it on to your home or your business. There are two problems with that. The first is that there is a power plant on that site. The Gianera Generating Station is a natural-gas-fired peaker plant owned by Silicon Valley Power, and it has been there since 1986. I have published aerial photographs of the location from 1987 in which the gas plant is the only thing standing, before the practice facility was even there. I even mentioned the gas plant in my first interview. (Feliciano has since gone on record about this issue, and it is clear he had the substation in mind rather than the gas plant.) The second is that her definition describes a distribution substation, and the facility beside the 49ers is not that. It is the Northern Receiving Station, which takes in bulk power from outside the city’s grid and delivers it to distribution substations. Silicon Valley Power’s own map distinguishes receiving stations from substations, and Rose Rimler even reads the label out loud in the episode when she walks through that map on air. A few minutes before the map segment, Zukerman tells Torre: “like I said, we fact check everything.” Well, maybe not everything. I made a mistake On the morning of July 6th, at 10:20, I sent Rose and Wendy two studies. During the interview I had been asked which human studies show oxidative stress from electromagnetic fields, and I had not been able to name one on the spot. Rose emailed asking for the studies, I quickly searched for a couple, and I wrote that I thought these were the most relevant from that search. Unfortunately, I was busy and did not read either one closely at first. I picked them because they were topically relevant — one on substation workers, one on power plant workers. Neither were great studies, and their problems go past the ones raised in the episode. That was careless on my part. There is context that did not make the episode, though. Before that email I had been on a Zoom call with Rose talking about EMF and oxidative stress, and I pointed her to Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington, who has spent years aggregating the literature on this question. His tallies show that roughly 90% of studies since the late 1990s find oxidative effects from electromagnetic field exposure — hundreds of studies, systematically counted. Rose told me she was already aware of his work. So when she asked for studies, I understood her to have the aggregate view already and that she would report anything within that context. Not reading those two carefully was still a mistake, but the larger mistake was assuming the episode would be based on a thorough review of the actual body of literature, rather than on whatever I happened to send that morning. The second email At 1:49 that same afternoon — three hours and twenty-nine minutes after the first — I sent them a second email that I had been preparing for a while. It was a structured document in six numbered sections, written in response to a request they had made two weeks earlier, laying out my entire argument with citations attached to every link in the chain. The episode aired on August 13th, five weeks later, and not a single item from the second email is in it. Here is how it opens: The full email is included at the bottom of this post in Appendix B. Nearly 1,500 words in total. It contains two named mechanisms with the physics behind them. Occupational studies in humans. The literature on oxidative stress and collagen. A section addressing the strongest counter-evidence against my own theory, which I raised myself. And a closing section stating plainly what the theory cannot yet show. My entire argument, in writing, with detailed citations for every claim, provided to them five weeks before broadcast, and none of it made it into the episode. That is the single largest omission, but it is not an isolated one. The whole episode is riddled with similar problems, and the conclusion they came to is not merely a difference of opinion about the scientific evidence. Through omission and through strategic editing, Science Vs misinformed its audience — about what the evidence shows, about what I argued, and about who they spoke to. That is a notable outcome for a show whose stated purpose is correcting misinformation. For the record I am not going to tell you that Science Vs set out to discredit me, or that they had come to their conclusion before they reported the story, or that they used misleading editing to make me look like a man retreating from his own theory. I cannot know what was in anyone’s head, and I am not going to pretend otherwise, either. What I can tell you is what is on the record. They asked me for evidence and aired the weakest thing I sent. They interviewed three scientists who supported my theory and aired none of them. They discussed childhood leukemia without ever saying the exposure level at which it appears. And they took an answer I gave weeks before Ken Karipidis, the one EMF scientist who was put on air, was interviewed, and placed it directly after his critique, where it comes off as a major concession. A friend of mine who has worked as a journalist for thirty years read that last one and called it sleazy. I agree with her. Those are just the four issues that are impossible to defend as pure editorial decision, but they are not the only issues. The most glaring issues stem from what they left out: The exposure level at which the childhood leukemia association actually appears — three to four milligauss, a number the episode never states despite it being much lower than what I measured. The mechanism itself: The episode gets as far as “oxidative stress could weaken collagen,” which leaves it sounding like speculation, rather than a known pathway. The second email, and all the studies in it. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill, whose work my proposed mechanism rests on, whose contact details I supplied, and who was never called. Dr. Beatrice Golomb at UC San Diego, who runs a research group on oxidative stress and mitochondrial function and has specific expdertice in collagen, interviewed and not aired. Dr. David Carpenter at Albany, the most prominent academic voice on the harm from magnetic field exposure, interviewed and not aired. Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley, interviewed and not even credited. The specific, testable condition I put in writing that would make me abandon the theory. My own unprompted statement of the theory’s evidentiary gap. My caveats about my own measurements. My ranking of EMF as one factor among several rather than the only one. The new equipment installed at those facilities between 2010 and 2014, and the sharp rise in system load from 2013 onward. But that is not all. What they kept, they selectively edited to serve a narrative that was not served by the raw transcripts of the interviews. A description of thousands of commercial routers in a workplace, reduced to the Wi-Fi in your house. My own acknowledgment, multiple times, that "I'm not a scientist" clipped in an episode that spends considerable energy pointing out that I am not a scientist. And a qualification I volunteered about my own measurements, cut from my answer and delivered later by their EMF expert as a correction. Together their edit produce a portrait of a wellness guy with Wi-Fi phobia and two bad studies, backing away from his theory the moment a “real” scientist looked at it. A practice facility where nothing changed because no new substation was built. Injuries written off as random because the 49ers were not quite the single most injured team in the league over the period in question. That portrait is false even though almost no individual statement made in the episode is. Draw your own conclusions At the top of the episode, Pablo Torre says his show had been flooded with requests to investigate the substation — that it was the thing they were asked to look into over and over again. Neither show went hunting for this story. It arrived from their own audience, in volume, and it could not be waved off. A thread I posted on X reached twenty-two million people. A guy with a gaussmeter and a brand-new Substack obligated a Pultizer prize winning program to spend an hour on a question about player health, that is considered fringe enough that most media operations won’t touch it. Pablo Torre Finds Out could not ignore it. So Science Vs came in and ran a “debunking” operation instead of an investigation. Everything below is what had to be left on the cutting room floor to deliver the “debunking”. They could not ignore it. So they tried debunked it instead. The demand was strong enough to force an episode, and since the episodes release the 49ers have sustained more injuries, including season ending ones, and interest has only grown. Demand from fans and playets is strong enough to force a better investigation from someone else. An omission is not a lie until you find out what was omitted. What follows is the detailed record so you can see the full picture. Draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine. I am going to keep publishing. A note about Pablo Torre Finds Out After the episode aired I posted publicly, calling out Pablo Torre Finds Out for concerns I had about the integrity of their investigation, and about an interview directly with Pablo Torre which had been offered but never happened. I have since spoken with a producer at PTFO. The offer had rested on a misunderstanding about where things stood between us, and it fell away as the Science Vs part of the production widened past the science. He apologized for the miscommunication and I accepted. The producer also confirmed to me that they did essentially hand off the entire investigation to Science Vs for narrative purposes — so Pablo would be genuinely curious or potentially surprised by their findings — while still taking responsibility for what went out under their name. I appreciated the candor and the accountability, and I am comfortable with where we left things. So this post is not about PTFO. My disagreement is with Science Vs. What they left out about childhood leukemia Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They gave no number at all. 1. They built an EMF ruler, then discussed childhood cancer without it. The sequence on air went like this: First I measured almost 9 mG, then I measured up to 50 milligauss. Torre reacts with concern — “that sounds high.” Cut to Karipidis: the public limit is 2,000 milligauss. Torre reacts again — “What happens at 2,000?” Karipidis explains that nothing happens at 2,000, that safety factors are built in. Then: at more than 50,000 milligauss you get flickers of light in the retina, and higher still, nerve stimulation. The listener now has a ruler (their ruler) to measure these numbers with. Fifty is nothing by their ruler. Then the episode turns to childhood leukemia and states, accurately, that there is a real association — but tellingly, they never give the exposure level at which that association appears. Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They conveniently left that out. The pooled analyses that produced the World Health Organization’s carcinogen classification found roughly a doubling of childhood leukemia risk above three to four milligauss. That is the number that belongs in that segment, and it is more than ten times below the reading that had just been dismissed as trivial. I gave them that number myself, on tape, in the interview. Describing my own threshold, I said my comfort level for long-term chronic exposure is three to four milligauss, but preferably one. 2. Six children in thirteen million. The episode reports that these fields might explain one to four percent of childhood leukemias, then reframes it as a German estimate of perhaps six cases among thirteen million children. Torre, to his credit, is uncomfortable. What never gets explained is why that number is small. Almost no children lives above three milligauss in Europe. Fewer than two children in a hundred, in the Italian data. So even if the risk to those children doubles, the number of additional cases across an entire country stays small — not because the hazard is small, but because hardly anyone is exposed to it. Count the whole population and the few who are exposed disappear. And the reason hardly anyone is exposed is that siting rules keep housing away from transmission lines. In Europe, at least. The Dutch government has a standing precautionary policy against building new homes in any zone where the annual average magnetic field exceeds 4 milligauss — the same number the episode never mentioned. Denmark and Norway treat 4 milligauss as the level that triggers a look at mitigation. That is five hundred times below the ICNIRP figure quoted on air. The United States has no federal equivalent. That is evidence of infrastructure siting policy working. It is not evidence that there is no hazard. It is evidence that we already act as though there is one. If you listen to the raw audio you will hear that my proposed solution is EMF exposure is to build better infrastructure. What they left out about the mechanism 3. They accused me of cherry-picking, and then cherry-picked themselves. On air, Zukerman tells Torre that people who worry about electromagnetic fields dismiss the studies showing null results and collect the ones showing harm, and that this is why you have to be careful not to cherry-pick. They had two papers I had rattled off in a hurry, and a second email containing a carefully chosen set. They ran the two weakest, graded them on air, and presented the result as the state of the evidence for not only my theory, but the whole question of oxidative stress from magnetic fields. That is cherry-picking from my emails. The bigger picture is what they did with the literature as a whole. Zukerman acknowledges it exists, dismisses it, and disposes of it in a single stroke. You can go online right now, she tells Torre, and find scores of studies showing these fields increase oxidative stress. The issue, she says, is that they are not studies in people. Many of them are in people. The occupational studies in my second email are in people. That email had been in her inbox for five weeks. She waved off the literature on a factual claim that the documents in her possession contradict. (I have written separately about the evidentiary standard at work here). The effect was that they essentially baited me: ask the subject to supply the evidence, take the weakest thing he sends, and let that stand as a proxy for the whole argument. Wendy has been doing this show for ten years and clearly knows how to extract what she needs for her desired narrative. 4. They presented the collagen-improvement research as a gotcha, but I had already addressed it. The episode treats the existence of studies showing that EMF can improve collagen as a surprise that undercuts me, but I had pre-emptively addressed that five weeks earlier in the email they ignored. Those studies use measured, high-intensity pulsed dosing. The mechanism by which they work is oxidative signalling. The cell reads a controlled rise in reactive oxygen species as a warning, upregulates its antioxidant defenses, mounts a repair response, and the therapy stops before the system is overwhelmed. The key point is that it induces an oxidative response, which means those studies are actually evidence for my proposed mechanism, not against it. A field that produces a therapeutic effect cannot be biologically inert (which is the implication when they say “Nothing happens at 2,000 milligauss). Chronic ambient exposure is the same pathway with no off switch, and it is most consequential during the evening and while sleeping, when the body is in repair mode and the exposure does not stop. Section 5 of my email is titled What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis. I raised the counter-evidence myself, explained why I did not think it refuted the theory, and wrote that I was disappointed the question had not come up in the interview. That is worth holding against the cherry-picking charge in the item above: the studies they presented as inconvenient for me were studies I had gone out of my way to put in front of them. 5. Section 1 of my email stated a critical argument that was never put to the expert directly responsible for it. My email says the exposure limits exist to prevent acute effects and do not address chronic exposure at all, and that my dispute is with the entire framework. Zukerman gestures at this once. After Karipidis gives the 2,000 milligauss figure, she tells Torre that I would object because those levels do not capture “more subtle effects.” That is not my argument, and “subtle” is doing a lot of work here. My argument is that the limits are built to prevent acute effects — nerves firing, muscles twitching, etc — and were not designed to address chronic exposure at all. In fact, ICNIRP’s own documents state as much themselves. Mine is a structural objection to what the standard measures, reduced as a concern about subtlety, it becomes a matter of degree, rather than a categorical difference. They interviewed Ken Karipidis, vice chair of ICNIRP — the body that writes those limits. He was asked what the limit is, but he was never asked how it applies to chronic exposure. The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air 6. They interviewed four officials of the standards body. The episode credits roughly a dozen researchers. Four of them are associated with ICNIRP. Ken Karipidis is the vice chair. Rodney Croft chaired ICNIRP from 2020 to 2024 and led the development of its current guidelines. Dan Baaken is ICNIRP’s scientific secretary. Frank de Vocht sits on the Main Commission. One of them speaks in the episode. Their institution’s position is more than adequately represented — the 2,000 milligauss figure, the safety factors, the assurance that nothing happens below the line. 7. The four who were left out. Dr. Beatrice Golomb is Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego — a physics undergraduate degree, a PhD in biology, an MD. She directs a research group whose stated focus is the relationship between oxidative stress, mitochondrial function and health. That is the mechanism the episode spent its first half dismissing. Her published work includes the fluoroquinolone case series behind the FDA’s black box warning on an antibiotic class that ruptures tendons, where the accepted mechanism is oxidative stress and mitochondrial toxicity — the back half of my chain, already on a drug label. She is in the credits. She is not in the episode. She has told me she finds my theory biologically plausible, and that she has a recording of her interview. Dr. David Carpenter directed the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany for decades and is the most prominent academic voice arguing these fields cause harm. Childhood leukemia is the reason these fields carry a WHO classification at all, and Carpenter is the person you call if you want that case made by someone who has spent a career on it. He is in the credits. He is not in the episode. He has told me that when he was interviewed they could not have been less interested in what he had to say. Dr. Joel Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. He told me directly that they interviewed him and that he thought it went well. He does not appear in the episode, and unlike Golomb and Carpenter, he does not even appear in the credits. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill is the researcher whose work provides the foundation for the oxidative stress mechanism my theory rests on. I gave Rose his email address and phone number. He was never interviewed. They never even called him. 8. “He’s not a scientist.” The episode leans hard on the fact that I am not a credentialed scientist. Zukerman says it. Torre repeats it. “At all.” Having built a segment on that, they then left out the physicist-biologist-physician, the professor of public health, the director of a university environmental health institute, and the McGill researcher whose work the primary mechanism comes from. They spent the episode telling their audience I am not a scientist, and then kept four actual scientists who support the theory off because their argument does not survive otherwise. How they misrepresented me and my case 9. They played my words as a response to an interview I had never heard. Near the end of the hour, Zukerman says she went to me and told me the evidence was lacking. Then she plays me saying I am not wedded to it being an EMF, that I have staked my reputation on it needing more study, and that I am not certain of anything. That segment was placed immediately after Karipidis had finished taking the cherry-picked papers apart. It plays as a man folding under expert scrutiny. Commenters have used it against me since, but it is incorrect. Here is the sequence as it happened. I was interviewed. Karipidis was interviewed weeks later. I was never told what he said, or even who he was. I was never asked to respond to it. I did not know his name until the episode aired. That is not a simple editing decision. That is a quote from one interview, moved to follow a critique from a different interview it was not a response to, so that it would land as a concession. A friend of mine who has spent thirty years as a journalist read that sequence and called it sleazy. She is right. The full passage is reproduced in Appendix A, and it is worth reading. What airs is the preamble. Four paragraphs later I say “to directly answer your question” — and that answer, about what would change my mind if the team relocated, is not in the episode. Neither is the sentence two paragraphs on, where I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. I will say the underlying point again, though, because I meant it and I still do. I am not wedded to my theory that magnetic fields from the substation are contributing to the 49ers injuries. I could be wrong. What I am wedded to is the process of scientific inquiry, and the fact that we should be cautious around these exposures and we need more independently funded studies. 10. Three telling edits. They cut “I’m not a scientist” mid-sentence. What I said: “...and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS...” What aired: “...and that I am not certain of anything. I’m not.” The clip ends on the first two words of the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist, in an episode that spends considerable energy establishing that I am not a scientist. The full sequence is in Appendix A. They cut my own description of my work. Asked what I do, I said I run a wellness business, that I am focused on writing software to help people navigate environmental stressors, that environmental health is my focus, and that I also do independent journalism and research. What aired is the wellness business and the environmental health, with the software and the journalism removed from my own answer. The software engineering does come up later — narrated by them, as a hacker who grew up to write firmware — but my current work, in my own words, arrives as “wellness guy.” Thousands of commercial routers became home Wi-Fi. What I described: working at a wireless networking company surrounded by thousands of Wi-Fi routers, and a stress-induced health collapse afterward that working in that environment contributed to. What aired: Wi-Fi, the kind you have at home — reinforced by a clip of Christian McCaffrey talking about turning his router off at night. Three cuts, and every one of them makes me seem less credible. That is not a coincidence. 11. I gave them my own caveats and the test that would disprove me. In the first email I wrote that a well-designed chronic, ambient-level exposure study in tendon showing no collagen degradation, run over many months, would undercut my confidence in the theory. That is a specific, testable condition, stated in advance and in writing. There was a second interview, weeks later, which was not used in the episode, but in that I asked again for the falsification criterion to be included. What the episode presents instead is a man saying “we need more study,” which reads as a hedge, an open-ended request for the benefit of the doubt. It is the opposite of a hedge. Section 6 of my second email says, unprompted, that as far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human in vivo or in human tendon in a lab. I wrote that because it is true and because it is the first thing anyone should check. Under their standard it becomes the hinge of the entire first half, framed as something they had to surface without my cooperation. I had handed it to them five weeks earlier. And in the interview I said that my 25 to 50 milligauss readings were taken at knee level, and that these fields attenuate quickly, so by the time it reaches your head it is not that high anymore. That did not air either. The qualification arrives later, from Karipidis, as a correction. How you would actually study the injuries 12. They measured the wrong thing. The episode spends its final act on whether the 49ers are the most injured team in the NFL, finds no clean ranking, and lands on “injuries are random”. That is the wrong test. You would define the exposure — measured field levels at the facility — and the outcome narrowly: soft-tissue injuries, not a single MSK injury count that a broken finger and a ruptured Achilles both land in. Then you would compare the 49ers to themselves before and after the exposure changed, and compare that change against every other team over the same window. That controls for league-wide shifts in rules, turf and training load. It is a difference-in-differences design, and it is standard. I sent them that argument on July 28th, in writing, along with the fact that in eleven of the past twelve seasons the 49ers had finished top ten in Adjusted Games Lost. And by the episode’s own reporting, the 49ers are second in games lost to injury over the past decade, with FTN’s Aaron Schatz confirming that once you adjust for starters they come out second worst in the league — after having been one of the healthiest teams for years before that. A finding like that is where an investigation starts, not where it stops. 13. I did a lot of substation research for the episode that was never aired. I had reported that the substation next to the facility was expanded in 2014. That was wrong, and Rose Rimler and I sorted it out together. They gave me credit on air, which I appreciated, but framed it as a concession on my part to something they had found. In fact I had been investigating it myself, was uncertain before they asked, but was waiting for clarification from Silicon Valley Power. The uncertainty centered around a substation named “Esparanca” that was proposed right behind the facilities as part of the stadium construction, but now appears to never have been built. I spent days in Silicon Valley Power’s records, and did eventually reach Silicon Valley Power for confirmation and indentified the mistake myself. I also gave them highly detailed documents on what we do know about those facilities: new equipment installed between 2010 and 2014, and load growth across the system with an inflection around 2013–2014, with the Northern Receiving Station carrying the highest capacity in the system and sitting closest to the data center corridor. None of that is in the episode. I have a separate piece about it coming out soon. *I cut 2 seconds from the raw audio to remove personal information that had no connection to anything in the episode. Appendix A: the passage the clip was taken from This is the sequence from my first interview, in full. The episode uses one fragment of it. It’s tricky because my understanding is that there’s something like a 15-year half-life on collagen remodeling issues. They’re going to get a new crop of players. What I really need, though, is for the injuries to be broken down so we can see the soft tissue injuries. Right now, they’re categorized as MSK injuries, but let’s say we can actually identify them more specifically. Is that right? He was able to do that? Oh, cool. I wasn’t able to find that information. Interesting — I didn’t know that data existed. I tried so hard to get it, and I didn’t know it was available. Maybe you could connect me with that person. That would be amazing. I’m not wedded to it being an EMF, honestly. I’m not. I would say that, to a certain extent, I’ve staked my reputation on the fact that it needs more study. It’s important to look into it, and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a tendon hypermobility issue. This condition is documented to be partially caused by oxidative stress. I’ve worked with them to mitigate their EMF exposure and have seen people improve. I think it’s a bigger story. In a way, the 49ers represent an occupational cluster with specific exposure risks. If someone would conduct a study on this, I believe we could learn a lot. Perhaps we would discover that it’s like, okay, maybe it’s 10% of the problem. I don’t know the exact number, but I think either way, conducting the study would provide valuable insights. To directly answer your question, it’s challenging for me because it’s part of a bigger story. If the 49ers move and stop having injuries, I might conclude that it was related to the substation. However, if they move and still experience injuries, I would want to analyze the nature of those injuries. Are they primarily soft tissue injuries? I don’t think it’s necessarily a case closed, but the story might lose traction at that point regardless. Three things are worth noting. The aired fragment stops immediately before the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist — the cut described in item 10. It also stops four paragraphs before the words “to directly answer your question.” What the episode plays is the throat-clearing. The actual answer, about what would change my mind, never airs. And two paragraphs in, I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. That is the ranking the episode says I never gave. Appendix B: the full email, July 6th, 1:39 PM Hi Rose, You asked me to send you some studies a couple of weeks ago. I apologize for the delay. I have been incredibly busy. I also wanted to give you a chance to dig in yourself, and get your own perspective before I influenced you too much with mine. That said, I do want to make sure that the actual argument is abundantly clear, so here it is! One note before I begin, there are really two separate questions here: Does the substation cause the soft-tissue injuries? That was my specific claim, and what the podcast is about. Is the theory biologically sound? Can 50/60 Hz fields at these levels do anything biological below the safety limits? Question two is why people have been calling me a conspiracy theorist. The regulatory and advisory bodies (ICNIRP, etc) maintain that anything below their exposure limits is biologically inert, and that position is broadly accepted within the mainstream, but the actual science paints a different picture. To defend my theory I’ve had to defend a much larger claim: that the advisory bodies have the biology wrong. I can’t honestly answer question 1 without first addressing that. Here’s is a simplified outline of my theory, with links to studies: 1. Advisory body thresholds for biological effects The ELF magnetic-field limits (ICNIRP’s ~2,000 mG public / 10,000 mG occupational) exist to prevent acute effects from exposure. If a magnetic field is strong enough, it makes nerves fire and muscles contract. Muscles twitch. You can see faint flashes of light in your vision. People can even feel tingling or even a shock. That happens due to Faraday’s law, which states that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field inside the body via the creation of Eddy currents.The standards assume that those currents do nothing below the twitch threshold. They do not consider chronic effects at all. My argument is that they are biologically active and do have chronic effects. 2. There are multipe ELF-EMF mechanisms for inducing oxidative stress. This is basic biophysics. Below are the two primary mechanisms. Simplest first. Dr. Paul Héroux of McGill has the most intuitive explanation, which rests on Maxwell’s principle of superposition: because Maxwell’s equations are linear, two sets of electromagnetic waves sharing the same space simply add together. In the interview I pictured a pebble dropped into a pond, sending out clean ripples. Then a boat motors past at distance, sending larger waves, and where they meet the ripples, the two add together and the original pattern gets distorted. In our cells, the mitochondria run on continuous currents of electrons and protons that carry their own faint electromagnetic fields. An external field from a substation, by the principle of superposition, adds to those internal currents and shifts the pattern. The electron transport chain in the mitochondria leaks a fraction of its electrons by design as reactive oxygen species (ROS), which act as signalling molecules in a healthy cell. Distorting that field increases that electron leakage, creating oxidative stress. A tiny electromagnetic interference results in a large downstream effect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025006474 The more complex pathway is Dimitris Panagopoulos’s Ion Forced-Oscillation / Voltage-Gated Ion Channel (IFO-VGIC) mechanism. Weak, polarized, low-frequency fields force the ions (calcium, potassium, sodium) next to an ion channel’s voltage sensor to oscillate; because that force scales with the inverse cube of the distance involved, fields far below the stimulation threshold can still force the channel open, disrupting the cell’s ion balance and driving ROS overproduction (Nitric oxide and superoxide interact and produce peroxynitrite, a highly unstable cytotoxin that breaks down into free radicals). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366088934 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/18/10041 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3772193/ 3. Evidence of oxidative stress, in vivo, in humans from ELF-EMF There are many studies, and the strongest are occupational, which applies to the 49ers situation. 115 power-plant workers vs. 145 office controls. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA, the standard lipid-peroxidation marker), superoxide dismutase, and catalase were all significantly higher in the exposed group, and the markers rose with increasing field exposure. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/WOR-203244 A follow-up where they reversed the oxidative stress in power plant workers. A double-blind randomized controlled trial: 91 power-plant workers given vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or placebo for 90 days. The antioxidant groups showed reduced lipid peroxidation and raised antioxidant capacity versus controls. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191586/ A spot-welder study: 46 welders occupationally exposed at 50 Hz, showed significantly altered red-blood-cell antioxidant enzyme activity and concluded ELF-MF “might act as an oxidative stressor… even at the recommended levels of exposure.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18504600/ A substation-specific study found oxidative stress and DNA damage https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24460415/ 4. Oxidative stress degrades collagen This half isn’t controversial at all. Oxidative stress activates the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that break collagen down and suppresses its synthesis. Here are three example studies: Siwik et al. 2001: Oxidative stress raises MMPs and lowers collagen synthesis in cardiac fibroblasts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11121376/ Fisher et al. 2009: Collagen fragmentation drives oxidative stress and elevates MMP-1 in aged human skin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2631323/ Varani et al. 2006: Decreased collagen production in oxidatively aged skin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16723701/ 5. What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis I’m glad you asked this question, and I’m bummed we didn’t get to it in the interview because it is a great question, and very important to understand. Superficially it may appear to be a refutation of my theory, but I would argue that it actually supports the underlying argument. That study used a short, high-intensity pulsed dose: therapeutic-PEMF, the same type of field used clinically to stimulate bone and tissue healing. The reason this works is because it triggers the very same biological pathways that can lead to oxidative stress. The exposure still stimulates ROS production, but done at a controlled dosage, for a limited duration it has a different effect. The cell reads the ROS as a warning signal and it upregulates its antioxidant defenses, and mounts a repair/proliferation response. The therapy is then stopped before the cell gets overwhelmed. That is essentially a hormetic response: a small dose of a stressor producing a beneficial adaptation. Two things follow: At the very least, this means the field is biologically active, which by itself undercuts the regulatory claim that these fields are inert below their thresholds. There is a wealth of literature on PEMF (pulsed EMF) bone regeneration and calcium channel signalling (which is the second mechanims in section one). Here is one. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13856 At best, it leads us straight to my actual concern, which is that under chronic, chaotic and unregulated exposure, the cell’s antioxidant capacity gets overwhelmed, resulting in oxidative stress. There are plentiful examples of things that are beneficial at controlled doses, but harmful at uncontrolled doses. Excecise is one obvious, uncontroversial example. Botox is perhaps a more interesting example. 6. What about a study that shows EMF causing collagen degradation in humans? As far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human, in vivo, or in human tendon in a lab. There are studies involving isolated fibroblasts though, which secrete collagen. The most relevant one showed that human fetal scleral fibroblasts exposed to 50 Hz ELF-EMF showed a significant decrease in collagen synthesis and that MMP-2 expression was upregulated, which is the exact mechanism I described in section 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3626379/ That’s it! Thanks again for the interview. Best, Peter Anthony Cowan Environmental Health · Wellness Tech · Researcher & Journalist Publisher & Editor, Living Energy Bio: petercowan.comSocial: X · Instagram · TikTokApp: sunlightis.lifePhone: [redacted]
From Lab to Video Feed: A Biologist Distills Science in 60 Seconds
Julia Bauman creates engaging short-form TikTok videos that make science topics accessible to a broad audience.
We must support 'strange' science, RNA biologist Jeff Coller writes in The New York Times
Without federal funding, American researchers can't chase scientific questions that may lead to lifesaving cures, Hopkins RNA biologist Jeff Coller writes in 'The New York Times'
Science, Society, and Culture: Brandon Ogbunu’s Case for a More Creative Scientific Enterprise
Computational biologist Brandon Ogbunu explores and writes about the intersection of science, society, and culture. We spoke to this 2024 winner of an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications about his recent work, including his explanation of why science communication is central to the practice of science, arguing that explaining and defending knowledge is as essential to the scientific enterprise as publishing research.
Michigan State biologist to discuss science behind bird color
Discover why bird feathers, bills and skin evolve different colors at a public presentation scheduled for Nov. 6.
USC Dornsife professor Moh El-Naggar named director at Carnegie
Biophysicist and microbiologist will lead Carnegie’s Biosphere Sciences and Engineering, maintains appointment and research at USC Dornsife
EU’s tech ban; China’s mysterious Nantianmen project: 7 science highlights
From a leading biologist leaving US for China to a semiconductor breakthrough, here are some highlights from SCMP’s recent science reporting.
Ten bucks says you’ll love this community science project
Today marks the first day of Rut Watch 2026 With another season of Deer Spy in the books thanks to community scientists like you, biologists are now on a mission to pinpoint the peak of the white-tailed deer breeding season in Maine. Every observation of deer breeding behavior and sign helps define the timing of the rut, and this project uses the power of community science to collect deer data all fall long. Hunters, hikers, and wildlife watchers - Rut Watch pairs well with any outdoor adventure you have planned this season. It’s a perfect excuse to slow down and connect with nature as you look for clues. So get outside, rack up that deer data and submit rut reports from now through December 1. The online form is science made simple: Location Date and time Breeding behavior observed Submit a Rut Report What to watch for Active Breeding The most obvious breeding behavior to observe is a buck mounting a doe, but that is a rare sight as it only lasts a moment. You are more likely to witness a buck “tending” a doe, following closely, chasing, nuzzling, or pawing at her rump until she is receptive. Sparring After bucks shed their velvet, sparring helps sort out who is who in the dominance hierarchy. Early season matches are often less intense than later season matches between similar sized bucks. Most sparring is complete by the time breeding begins. Rubs Don’t just look for deer, pay attention to the trees. Rubs are marks made by bucks when they rub their antlers on trees, removing bark and leaving their scent calling card in the process. Scrapes Look to the forest floor for this sign of breeding season behavior. Scrapes consist of two parts - a licking branch, and a patch of cleared earth. Bucks break a low branch around head height, then paw at the leaves below to expose the dirt. Covered in scent, a scrape tells does and other bucks, “I’m here!” Learn More More information What’s next for deer community science: Northern Maine Wintering Deer Survey Other active community science projects: Fish Tag Reporting Maine Golden Eagle Study Maine Amphibian & Reptile Atlas Project Maine Deer Management: Maine’s Big Game Management Plan Game Species Conservation & Management Report The Benefits of Hunting: Supporting Wildlife, Conservation, and Community Subscribe Share Leave a comment
Neuroscience launches seminar series with talk on brain circuitry by renowned neurobiologist Peter Strick P’98
The Bates Program in Neuroscience kicked off its new Neuroscience Seminar Series with a talk from Peter Strick P’98, Thomas Detre Professor and Chair of Neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh.
Wildlife biologist creates bear-proofing business to help SoCal residents
The National Academy of Sciences Elects Two Berkeley Lab Researchers
Two Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) scientists have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. They are part of a cohort of 120 new members and 25 international members. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit institution that was established under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It recognizes achievement in science by election to membership, and — alongside the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Medicine — provides science, engineering, and health policy advice to the federal government and other organizations. The 2026 electees bring the total number of active members to 2,705 with 557 international members. Gary Karpen is a biologist senior faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Biological Systems and Engineering Division and a Professor of Cell and Developmental Physiology in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at UC Berkeley. Karpen studies how the structure, organization, and maintenance of genetic material impact inheritance and cell function. His lab focuses on chromatin — a packaged form of DNA strands wrapped around proteins that comprises our chromosomes — with a particular emphasis on centromeres, rarely expressed sequences called heterochromatin, DNA repair, and regulatory RNAs. His research reveals insights into fundamental aspects of nuclear organization and genome regulation that are shared across the tree of life, broadening our understanding of cancer and other diseases, birth defects, and aging. Kam-Biu Luk is a Professor Emeritus of physics at UC Berkeley and a retired senior faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division. He is an experimental particle physicist whose research has focused on neutrinos: nearly massless, electrically neutral elementary particles that can pass through matter virtually undetected. Neutrinos are created during radioactive decay processes, including the fusion process occurring in stars and the fission process that powers nuclear reactors. Luk initiated and co-led the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment, a project based in China with more than 200 international collaborators. In 2012, the Daya Bay experiment discovered a new form of a phenomenon called “neutrino oscillation” in which neutrinos change from one type to another. For this discovery, Luk and his collaborator Yifan Wang received the 2014 American Physical Society Division of Particles and Fields W.K.H. Panofsky Prize for outstanding work in experimental particle physics, and he was also the co-recipient of the 2016 Breakthrough Prize. Luk is currently participating in the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) hosted by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, which will investigate any potential difference in behavior between neutrinos and antineutrinos that may shed light on the evolution of the universe, especially why antimatter is absent in the present universe. ### Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) is committed to groundbreaking research focused on discovery science and solutions for abundant and reliable energy supplies. The lab’s expertise spans materials, chemistry, physics, biology, earth and environmental science, mathematics, and computing. Researchers from around the world rely on the lab’s world-class scientific facilities for their own pioneering research. Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest problems are best addressed by teams, Berkeley Lab and its scientists have been recognized with 17 Nobel Prizes. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science.
Montana wildlife commission overhauls recommended wolf quota, questioning state-backed science
The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission set a quota of 300 wolves for the 2026-2027 hunting and trapping season, eschewing the recommendation of state biologists while also significantly lowering the number of tags available from last year.
Art and science must come together for coral reef conservation, biologists argue
Art and science can work together to raise public awareness and propel conservation efforts needed to safeguard coral reef ecosystems, a group of coral scientists argues in a new research article published in Science Advances. Coral reefs are among Earth’s most threatened ecosystems amid climate change, coral bleaching and threats from mining. However, most people […]
Student science
Kim Sager, a wildlife biologist for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, listens to Audrey Rice, right, and Cora Powless talk about the moisture in the soil of the former Lake Aldwell site at the Port Angeles High School library.
A staunch voice in support of science
Jeff Coller, a pioneering RNA biologist, has spent the past year vehemently advocating for the lifesaving promise of research in the face of federal cuts
What Ovaries Reveal About the Secret Ways Women Age, According to Francesca Duncan
“Pretty much every organ system you can think of is touched by the ovaries,” says Francesca Duncan, a reproductive biologist at Northwestern University and Buck Institute for Research on Aging
Biologists move unprecedented Orange County sea turtle eggs to protect them from hurricane-driven waves
The olive ridley sea turtle eggs will incubate at the Aquarium of the Pacific
New issue: Mirrorlife | BBC Science Focus Magazine
Mirror life could end all life on Earth. That sounds dramatic, but senior biologists have raised the alarm about experiments happening all around the world. It sounds like something in a Doctor Who plot, but no – mirror life is a real possibility. So why do scientists want to create something that’s potentially apocalyptic? Well, it could also have huge benefits (think back to splitting the atom). The first thing to say, however, is that mirror organisms are still a little way away yet – but only decades, not centuries. So far, scientists have only made mirror molecules, one of life’s building blocks. What for? Life works because its building blocks fit together. Imagine drilling a screw into a piece of wood. The screw cuts a hole with a thread that snugly matches its own. If, for some reason, the Doctor showed up and handed you a mirror version of the screw, its thread would be in reverse. It wouldn’t twist into the hole you’d just made as the threads wouldn’t match. That said, the mirror screw would still work; you’d just have to create a mirror hole for it. Mirror molecules, including DNA, work a bit like that. They follow the same principles as the biology around us, but they’re entirely incompatible with traditional biological functions. In medical terms, this means they’re effectively invisible to your body’s systems. Our biology doesn’t have the tools to recognise these molecules and break them apart. And if someone took these mirror molecules and put them together to make a cell and then an organism… you’d have mirror life. But we don't have any way of breaking it down. If it escaped the lab, we’d just have to hope it didn’t have an appetite.
Life science research in extreme environments: a conversation with astronaut Jessica Meir
Communications Biology - Jessica Meir is a NASA astronaut, marine biologist, and physiologist. She flew for the first time to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2019 where she served as a...
Dive into the deep with marine biologist Helen Scales
Join SciFri Book Club's free livestream on September 25.
The sludge in your shower drain? That could be scientists’ next big find : Short Wave
Microbes are little alchemists that perform all manner of chemical reactions. A team of microbiologists co-founded a non-profit to try to harness those abilities to solve some of the world’s big problems — from carbon capture to helping coral reefs to cleaning up waste. Recently, the team turned their attention to the microbes living in people’s homes — on and in shower heads, drip pans, and hot water heaters. These rather extreme environments may have pressured microorganisms into surviving in ways that could be advantageous to humans. Science reporter Ari Daniel takes us on a treasure hunt in miniature.This episode was produced by Hannah Chinn. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez. Tyler Jones checked the facts. The audio engineer was Robert Rodriguez.Interested in learning more about the weird and wonderful world of microbes? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.
Marine biologists discover 28 new deep sea species—and an old VHS tape
The level of ocean biodiversity near Argentina staggered researchers.
Dritwood Outdoors: Wildlife science demands effective communication
Wildlife management has come a long way from the days of Aldo Leopold traversing the New Mexico mountains on horseback and the Wisconsin River Valley by canoe. Back then, most decisions were based primarily on observation and experience. Today, highly trained wildlife biologists use sophisticated research, technology and mountains of data to understand everything from population dynamics and habitat needs to disease transmission and predator-prey relationships.
This Weird Toad Drove a Brilliant Scientist to His Death. What If He Was Framed?
Paul Kammerer was one of the premier biologists of his generation. But his ideas made him some enemies.
Art and science exhibit relays plight of amphibians, fishes
Flagler College welcomes interdisciplinary artist, biologist, environmental researcher and educator Dr. Brandon Ballengée as the Crisp-Ellert Art Museum’s (CEAM) Artist-in-Residence now through …
Could a whale really swallow a human? We asked a biologist.
The new thriller ‘Whalefall’ depicts a diver trapped inside of a sperm whale.
Do Human Pheromones Actually Exist? We Asked A Biologist
And why the nipple might be our best bet.