For one of the biggest and most ferocious predators to ever live, Tyrannosaurus rex sure had puny arms, not much longer than our own. Several other members of its lineage—the diverse group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods—had similarly wimpy appendages, and new analyses of the beasts now suggest why.
Learn more: https://t.co/64bx0ef24m
Understanding how the first patient became infected may shed new light on the Andes virus’ transmission patterns and incubation period. https://t.co/RCV86gndS8
After decades of warnings, new data suggest the Atlantic’s vital circulation may withstand climate warming better than feared. #LongReads https://t.co/Vd6sfanZVH
A new study finds that in 2025, the numbers of Black and Hispanic researchers receiving U.S. National Institutes of Health grants and fellowships dropped markedly compared with previous fiscal years. https://t.co/V7Ojy2NF3l
A week after President Donald Trump issued an executive order converting thousands of job titles at federal agencies from protected civil service status to employees who serve at the White House’s pleasure, science policy wonks are still trying to make sense of it. https://t.co/Oa30lpoNCW
On 4 June, The New York Times posted an online story with a dramatic headline: “In a First, Scientists Precisely Edit Human Embryo Genes.” Others quickly echoed the claim, reigniting a simmering debate over whether it’s safe, ethical, and worthwhile to create gene-edited babies. But the reality of the reported advance, an effort to improve the use in embryos of an approach called base editing, is more subtle than many stories suggested. (The New York Times changed its online headline by the next day to eliminate the “first” claim.)
Even the stem cell scientist who led the new work acknowledges the tool still has major limitations and says it shouldn’t yet be used to make a baby. “I think it [our findings] will shift the conversation but it won’t change the landscape of use anytime soon,” he says.
Science delves behind the headlines to look closer at his group’s research, posted as a preprint on 1 June: https://t.co/Zx7jwTM2z6
Novelty is often called a key ingredient for high-quality research, but it is notoriously thorny to define or measure. A new tool that puts numbers to how novel a paper is could help—and might be used to more efficiently evaluate the growing flood of scientific manuscripts. https://t.co/DCah63DGfF
A survey showed fewer than 7% of astrobiologists believed scientists had found signs of extraterrestrial life on exoplanet K2-18b. https://t.co/E66kExs0pq
Remotely tracking animals in their natural habitats has become a central pillar of wildlife research. But on land, the process often involves fitting a collar around an animal’s neck that contains a GPS tracker and various sensors. This requires capturing the animal, which isn’t just expensive—it’s also stressful and dangerous for everyone involved.
But a biologist sees a better way forward for this field of study, known as wildlife telemetry.
He’s now building and experimenting with devices, described in a recent preprint, that would allow researchers to apply collars on animals without needing to capture them.
Rethinking how we put collars on animals, he argues, could bring many benefits to wildlife research, such as improving animal welfare and the quantity and quality of data collected at the same time.
Learn more: https://t.co/JopJYqYVkI
With the FIFA World Cup kicking off in Mexico City, the arrival of soccer fans from around the world to the United States may lead to additional cases of some infectious diseases, including COVID-19 and influenza.
However, upon further study, researchers say the event doesn’t pose major public health risks. Learn more: https://t.co/ZLlPafPqJ0
Just as humans can be right-handed or left-handed, our canine companions often show a distinct preference for one paw over the other.
In dogs, this asymmetry—known as laterality—doesn’t stop at paws: They even use different nostrils to sniff out different scents.
Dogs are an appealing animal model for scientists seeking clues into our own laterality. But our canine pals make tricky subjects because their preferences may change depending on the task at hand.
Science chats with researchers about a new method of assessing canine “handedness” and what it reveals about your pup’s health and personality.
Learn more: https://t.co/xaE6l1tLyK
In a new interview, @ScienceInsider speaks with @Chikwe_I about the current Ebola situation in the DRC, how to build trust with the local community, and why he misses U.S. colleagues who helped fight past outbreaks and became friends. https://t.co/uF9a24poCF
Brown bears can be terrifying meat eaters, tearing into salmon, elk, and other prey. But an extinct subspecies from Africa was a strict vegetarian, researchers report.
In fact, the diet of this “Atlas bear” was remarkably similar to the elk its modern relatives hunt.
The animal’s unusual eating habits may have helped it avoid competition with hypercarnivores such as lions and leopards. Learn more: https://t.co/9muI9Pf2Zq
U.S. health agencies are moving to launch new research—and potentially pass regulations—on a food category that industry and some scientists have long dismissed as misleading: ultraprocessed foods (UPFs).
NIH’s Council of Councils has endorsed a $150 million initiative, yet to be publicly launched, to investigate how diets dominated by UPFs harm children’s health and how to help children avoid those foods. FDA, meanwhile, is drafting a legal definition of UPFs as a step toward regulating them.
Some scientists criticize the label as ambiguous and confusing, while others call it a valuable lens on diet. Learn more: https://t.co/xQDHJcZ5SA
Along many coasts, sinking ground is amplifying the impact of rising seas. But satellite radar, a popular tool for identifying fast-sinking, vulnerable shorelines, may be leading scientists astray, according to a comparison of two influential studies of subsidence along the U.S. Gulf Coast. https://t.co/gPVHtaaYBP
Hundreds of scientists who study cancer and aging have made an easily avoidable but significant mistake, deploying the wrong antibody to test for a key protein, according to a researcher who exposes errors in the biomedical literature.
Instead of antibodies that recognize p16INK4a, a tumor suppressing protein that may also promote aging, these researchers used antibodies that tag the similarly named protein p16-ARC, which helps shape the cell’s molecular skeleton.
Learn more: https://t.co/VwidSK0FBa