science reblogs

In the sunfish’s defense!!!!!

To eat or to breathe? - Andean leaf-eared mouse, the world’s highest-dwelling mammal

In highland mice, the responses to low oxygen and toxins compete for a shared molecular regulator

Life at high altitude presents many challenges to mammals. Solar radiation is high, food and water are scarce, temperatures are persistently low, and decreased oxygen severely limits aerobic life. For example, at 5000 m above sea level, the partial pressure of oxygen (a measure of the availability of oxygen in air) is just half that at sea level. A mammal from sea level transported to this altitude would need to breathe at a much higher rate to achieve similar blood concentrations of oxygen. However, this would result in excessive loss of carbon dioxide (CO2) and make body fluids overly basic (alkalosis). Several mammals, including humans, evolved to overcome these challenges. On page 165 of this issue, Liphardt et al. (1) report that low oxygen (hypoxia) and dietary toxins are altituderelated stressors in the Andean leaf-eared mouse (Phyllotis vaccarum), and they reveal how this species has adapted to these threats...

Read more: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aei7713

Excerpt from this story from Smithsonian Magazine:

In low-lying Singapore, electrochemical engineer Li Hong has found a creative way to displace some of the city-state’s dependence on planet-warming natural gas. Using a new, multistep process, Li and his colleagues have figured out how to perform a surprising bit of climate-helping alchemy by transforming carbon-rich organic trash like shrimp shells into products the island nation needs, including hydrogen gas, food and biogenic calcium carbonate—a white salt used in products ranging from cement to antacids.

Li and his team at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University report that by diverting waste from the landfill, and by processing it in just the right way, their laboratory proof-of-concept system can produce carbon-negative hydrogen gas. “Carbon negative” means that, overall, the process removes more heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it produces.

To help reach that carbon-negative status, the chemical process also makes cultured protein—the sort of grown-by-microbes product that fake-meat companies are experimenting with—which can be fed back to farmed seafood, including farmed shrimp. The process “closes the loop from the waste to the food,” says Li, and it employs a waste-to-wealth mind-set.

"With genetic test results back from U.C. Davis Laboratories of toe-hair samples from each side of his body, I am excited to share that this sheep

🌟 IS INDEED a CHIMERA 🌟

His black mouflon side is a genetically different individual from his black gray side. The lab ran the test twice just to be sure!

Oh but wait, THERE IS MORE!

He is ALSO a she!

The black mouflon side is male.

The black gray side is female!

What I can tell you beyond these test results, is that this beautiful creature successfully bred four solid patterned ewes this winter that produced a total of 9 lambs, of which all were either solid pattern or mouflon pattern; 5 rams and 4 ewes. "

BF Skinner’s research with rats and pigeons underlies all modern behavioral control. He graphed “reinforcement schedules” to determine how various patterns of allotting rewards would impact behavior. His research on reinforcement schedules is predictable across species. Ie, the pattern of reinforcement that causes a rat to work very hard and compulsively is the same that will impact us. This is why companies like Meta, and slot machines as a concept, exploit the concepts he illuminated. They can manipulate and control our behavior by arranging the conditions of our circumstances

We know vaccines painful, and by comparing horses at rest with horses getting vaccinated, we've been able to determine how they express pain visually. By looking at horses with disorders like colic, broken bones, wounds, and so on, we can determine their facial expressions during more severe pain.

At zookeeper school we were drilled through the pain faces of the most common lab animals and livestock. Nowadays I believe this has become a routine lesson in all animal related fields, but the general public still doesn't know that this is a thing that exists.

Here are all the pain face/grimace scales I've been able to find. Please study them if you interact with any of these animals on a regular basis:

As effective as fasting can be for weight loss, it's often thought that depriving the body of sustenance might have a negative impact on brainpower. But is an impact on cognitive performance really an inevitable part of the fasting experience? According to a huge, recently published review, it's not always the case.

Amelia Lewis (Author) (2021)

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the way humans interact with domestic companion animals, with a focus on 'positive reward-based training' methods, particularly for dogs. From a biosemiotic perspective, I discuss the role of animal training in today's society and examine what binary reward- based reinforcement schedules communicate, semiotically. I also examine the extent to which reward-based training methods promote better welfare, when compared to the more traditional methods which rely on aversive stimuli and punishment, if and when they are relied upon excessively. I conclude that when used as the primary means of communication, they have the potential to be detrimental to animal welfare, because the underlying social signal is control and resource dominance. As an alternative view to behaviourist-based learning theory and conditioning, I outline how enactivist theories of cognition support a semiotic approach to interspecific human-animal communication. I therefore propose a move toward a dynamic semiosis and mutual understanding based upon Peirce's phenomenology, resulting in a more balanced merging of Umwelten. The aim is to create rich and more complex semiospheres around humans and domestic animals, which allow for individual agency and autonomy.

Conclusion

Whilst undeniably, basic training using lures and rewards is necessary, the focus on "positive reward-based' training paradigms when interacting with domestic animal species gives little, if any, room for more complex communication or signaling to take place. Moreover, they reduce individuals of other species to little more than automata, responding to binary inputs. In these circumstances, how can the animal's human companion, or the animals themselves, achieve a true bond and interspecific relationship? The most logically unsound argument commonly proposed to support these paradigms is that because physical force is not used, they are 'humane' and 'kinder'. However, the comparisons with coercive control and psychological manipulation are striking. A more innate, complex, and dynamic interspecific means of communication should not be supplanted by repetitive conditioning and 'commands', which are fast becoming a widespread misapplication of a genuine, but misunderstood and overutilized, biological principle. Nor is it possible to quantify and 'proscribe' communication, as though it were a simple recipe which can be reduced to pre-determined steps. Thus, positive reward- based training has a place as a technique in animal management, but it is not without risks, and it should be understood as what it is; manipulation and coercion (with threat of loss of resources or social interaction) focused on maintaining control. Substantive arguments that as a training technique, it is preferable to fear-based methods and physically aggressive practices, do not alter this statement. As a means of communication, it should not be relied upon as the primary modality, and consideration should be given to more appropriate interactions alongside methods such as 'clicker training', which should not be used without vocal or tactile communication and guidance from the trainer, as described by Fugazza and Miklósi (2015). Perhaps, in moving away from "The Five Freedoms' model of animal welfare, toward a quality-of-life based assessment scale which emphasizes positive welfare rather than the absence of poor welfare (Mellor, 2016), we should begin to change our thinking about how we interact and communicate with domestic and captive animals. This may ultimately lead toward an acceptance that training is not the most enlightened way of communicating with other species, alongside an accompanying paradigm shift toward complex dynamic semiosis, mutual understanding, 'Total Umwelten', and ultimately, a more balanced semiosphere.

Glossary:

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

A recent analysis conducted by the AI startup Oumi at the behest of The New York Times found that the AI-generated summaries, which appear above Google search results, are accurate around 91 percent of the time.  In a sense, that may sound like an impressive figure. But here’s an even more impressive one: five trillion. That’s roughly the number of search queries that Google processes every year, translating to tens of millions of wrong answers that the AI Overviews are providing every hour — and hundreds of thousands every minute, the analysis calculated. In other words, Google has created a misinformation crisis. Studies have shown that people tend to trust what an AI tells them without question, with one report finding that only 8 percent of users actually double checked an AI’s answer. Another experiment found that users still listened to AI when it gave them the wrong answer nearly 80 percent of the time — a grim trend the researchers dubbed “cognitive surrender.” Large language models adopt an authoritative tone and can confidently present fabricated information as fact when it can’t immediately glean a straight answer. Add the convenience that Google’s AI Overviews offer, and it’s easy to imagine untold numbers of users taking its summaries at their word.

Multiple emails released by the Justice Department show Jeffrey Epstein and prominent scientists making derogatory comments about women’s intelligence and inclusion in elite academic spaces. (Emily Scherer for The 19th; Getty Images)

By Jessica Kutz Climate Reporter

February 23, 2026

In 2018, an elite group of academics and scientists planned to gather for an exclusive retreat at a luxury farm in the woods of Connecticut. The guests had been hand-picked by prominent New York literary agent John Brockman, who frequently hosted similar salons for luminaries in science, technology and media. 

The problem? Brockman had included two women on the list, and his staunch supporter and biggest funder wanted them out. 

“John, the old conferences did not care about diversity. I suggest you not either,” Jeffrey Epstein wrote in response to an email about the programming. “The women are all weak, and a distraction sorry.” 

In reply, Brockman justified the women’s inclusion, and says they’d been a part of a related book about AI, which needed to be inclusive to sell. “Today, it’s impossible to get a publisher to buy such a book with essays by 25 men and no women,” he wrote. 

Brockman concludes the email by citing #MeToo and mentioning the news of another scientist, whose book he had tried to publish, coming under fire for sexual harassment allegations. He wonders whether it might be best for optics if the disgraced financier — the biggest financial backer to Brockman’s nonprofit Edge Foundation — didn’t attend after all. 

“Me-Too is not going away; it’s growing, it’s all-pervasive and we’re now in a McCarthy-ism moment on steroids.” 

Brockman did not respond to a request for comment.

The 2018 exchange, which was revealed as part of a trove of files released by the Department of Justice, illuminates Epstein’s deep interest and entrenchment in the scientific community. He was well connected to scientists at top universities who continued to associate with him after a 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. But the files also underscore how he used his power and money in ways that kept women out of places where they might succeed. 

“I think we all had a sense that the system wasn’t super fair, right?” said Nicole Baran, a member of 500 Women Scientists, a grassroots organization that started in 2016 to combat racism and misogyny in STEM — or science, technology, engineering and mathematics. “Seeing some of these emails — and peering behind the curtains of the rooms that we were never invited into, I think has really laid bare, I don’t know, just truly how broken and corrupt the system is.”

The emails are a reminder to women like Baran that the profession, at its highest levels, still operates under the gaze of men. And in a field where funding is scarce — and climbing the career ladder is often only possible through a combination of luck, mentorship and networking — the files reveal the ways sexism and misogyny still hold women back. 

For the boys in the club, the arrangement worked to their benefit. Epstein donated millions of dollars to their research, hosted them at networking dinners at his home, invited them to visit his island or his ranch in Santa Fe, and connected them to potential funders to further their work. 

As a result, these men were able to establish their own well-funded labs to pursue their work, land lucrative book deals and make connections to other prominent men, particularly those in Silicon Valley who were working on technological advancements like AI.

But as the emails reveal, these same men did not see women as intellectual equals.

Take Roger Schank, an AI researcher and theorist who died in 2023. He suggested in one email that “intelligence comes about in part from real focus” and that it is rare for a woman to not be “first and foremost focused on what others are thinking and feeling about her.” 

“Hard to be brilliant if you are worrying if you look fat or why another woman hates you or why you don’t own a kelly bag,” he wrote. To which Epstein responded: “It’s the tail of distribution , no really smart women – none.” 

(Epstein’s emails and those of his correspondents often contained typos; The 19th is reproducing the text as it appears in the files released by the Justice Department.)

Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard University, who emailed with Epstein hundreds of times, made a joke in one email about how “half the IQ In world was possessed by women without mentioning they are more than 51 percent of population.” 

The email was sent in 2017, more than a decade after Summers came under fire for a speech he gave at a conference for women and underrepresented groups in STEM, where he suggested that there weren’t as many women smart enough to be in these professions due to higher variability in men’s intelligence. During his time as president he was also scrutinized for the lack of women in tenured positions. The Guardian reported that under his reign the share of tenured positions offered to women fell from 36 percent to 13 percent. 

In another exchange, Epstein and Jeremy Rubin, a bitcoin developer and MIT researcher, went back and forth over whether there are any games that women are actually better at than men. It would be “interesting to attempt to make an intellectually stimulating game where women outperform men,” Rubin wrote in 2016. “Unless women are inherently inferior to the maximally talented man at all tasks ;).” 

For women like Lauren Aulet, a neuroscientist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, the files revealed conversations that were more brash than she expected. “I think what was most shocking was simply how blatant and explicit the misogyny was.” 

“We have this narrative that explicit misogyny is something from the ’50s and ’60s, and what we have now is like implicit bias and microaggressions,” she said, adding: “I think this made clear that explicit misogyny is still out there in science and in academia, it’s just perhaps behind closed doors.”

Importantly, she says, the ways in which women are talked about, and also excluded from the connections these men had, have professional repercussions

“Women scientists aren’t necessarily the people that come to mind for certain men when they’re thinking about who they’re inviting to dinner or who they’re inviting to a conference,” she said. 

Not having that visibility can matter when it comes to achievements like being offered a tenured position — the height of stability in academia. “Often the tenure board will reach out for letters of recommendation from other people at other institutions in the field. Certainly, the more you’re known broadly, the better it is for your career in terms of tenure.”

Other scientists, like Alison Twelvetrees, a neurobiologist based in the United Kingdom, said she was not as surprised by the contents of the emails. “You just feel that it’s happening, even if you’re not privy to the exact contents of the conversations.” 

In her career, she said she’s often been the only woman in the room. “You become very aware of the — I mean a very British way of putting this — blokey banter that you’re not a part of and you kind of feel that exclusion.” 

For Twelvetrees, the emails also showed how these scientists would let things slide in their interactions with Epstein. “A lot of men who get to the top, they’re cowards,” she said. “So even if they’re aware that they’re not supposed to condone the way people are speaking, or they shouldn’t be that way in those environments, they will condone it,” she said. “It’s that sort of cowardice to [not] be an active bystander and not call it out. It’s still the majority.”

She sees a connection between the ways women are talked about in the files and the response to a recent push to strip Elon Musk of his fellow title at the Royal Society, the U.K.’s premier scientific institution, after his AI tool, Grok, was given the capability to undress women and girls. 

So far, the head of the institute has said the only reasons to strip fellows of their titles is if they’ve conducted scientific misconduct, things like falsifying data, Twelvetrees said. “[Elon’s] used the products of science to make his personal AI assistant Grok a mass engine of misogyny and white supremacy. I don’t understand how that isn’t scientific misconduct.”

In January, X, formerly known as Twitter, announced it had limited image generation to paid users and added additional safety guardrails. However, reporting has shown Grok can still generate explicit images despite these changes.

For her, it’s just another example of men not being allies to women. “It’s these people at the top just sort of being pretty casual about stuff they should be standing up to,” she said. 

Outside of quipping about women’s intelligence, some of the emails show men talking about young women in their profession in ways that are degrading. David Gelernter, a computer scientist at Yale University who corresponded with Epstein many times, recommending an undergrad student for a possible job, describing her to Epstein as a “v small good-looking blonde.” Yale has since placed Gelernter on leave, while they review his conduct.  

In another series of exchanges, Epstein and Summers discuss a woman whom Summers said he was mentoring, but who he implied he wanted to sleep with. He has since clarified to the Harvard Crimson the woman was not a student. In November, he told the student newspaper that he was deeply ashamed of his actions and takes full responsibility “for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein.” He has stepped down from public positions including at the Center for American Progress and on the board of OpenAI. 

The interactions revealed in the files are “very dehumanizing” for women, according to Baran, an assistant professor of biology at Davidson College. “I think especially when you think about like, these are men who had colleagues [and] mentees that were women,” she said. “And I think what was so clear is the way in which women in particular were just not spoken about as people with equal intellectual capacity and power.”  

The revelations also made her question some of the work produced by some of the men scientists connected to Epstein, including researchers she teaches in her own classes. “It’s really hard to separate the science that these people created from the theories that are considered sort of foundational,” she said. “Especially in this area of  psychology and evolution in particular, where I’m finding it just really hard to disentangle [from their] behavior in their personal life that seems so egregious and horrific.” 

their (live!) young gestate for. wait for it. eight to eighteen (??) YEARS. can have up to 10 at a time. good grief.

longest lifespan of any vertebrate, up to five hundred years

toxic flesh

has giant eyes but is usually blind because of a weird little crustacean that's evolved to live on and eat their eyes. this doesn't seem to bother them much.

lives in deep cold water and has the lowest swim speed and tail-beat frequency for its size across all fish species. just generally lives life in extreme slow motion

largest genome of any shark

eats everything including moose and polar bears

Camera Traps Reveal Iberian Lynxes Soaking Their Prey, a First-Ever Discovery Among Carnivores

Scientists speculate that the wild cats are trying to improve hydration or ease their cubs’ transition to solid food. The finding points to resilience in one of the world’s most endangered felines

A camera trap in Spain recorded a wild female Iberian lynx carrying a dead rabbit to a water trough and dunking it, researchers were shocked. Then, they spotted the behavior several more times. In a study published in March in Ecology, scientists detailed these findings, which they say are the first-ever observations of a carnivore soaking its dead prey in water. The unusual phenomenon has raised questions about how predatory species adapt to changing environments—and it hints at resilience in one of the world’s most endangered felines. “This is very interesting and genuinely a surprising observation,” says Wai-Ming Wong, the director of small-cat conservation science for Panthera, who was not associated with the study. “Wild cats are typically thought of as highly efficient, instinct-driven hunters, so seeing an individual modify how it handles prey in this way is quite remarkable.”...