Home

Isaiah 59:9-15

11 Comments

.

This sounds just like today’s World although it was written about Israel in Babylonian captivity.

History repeats itself

Isaiah 59:9-15

New Living Translation

9 

So there is no justice among us,
and we know nothing about right living.
We look for light but find only darkness.
We look for bright skies but walk in gloom.
10 We grope like the blind along a wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
Even at brightest noontime,
we stumble as though it were dark.
Among the living,
we are like the dead.
11 We growl like hungry bears;
we moan like mournful doves.
We look for justice, but it never comes.
We look for rescue, but it is far away from us.
12 For our sins are piled up before God
and testify against us.
Yes, we know what sinners we are.
13 We know we have rebelled and have denied the Lord.
We have turned our backs on our God.
We know how unfair and oppressive we have been,
carefully planning our deceitful lies.
14 Our courts oppose the righteous,
and justice is nowhere to be found.
Truth stumbles in the streets,
and honesty has been outlawed.
15 Yes, truth is gone,
and anyone who renounces evil is attacked.

The Lord looked and was displeased
    to find there was no justice.

.

__________________________________________

Words From a Follower of Christ

8 Comments

Click the link below the picture

.

You might find these videos enlightening!

.

A. R. Bernard: one of many

.

.

Click the link below for the videos:

https://www.youtube.com

.

__________________________________________

These tattoos can magically disappear—here’s how they work

Leave a comment

Click the link below the picture

.

How handy would it be if you could make your tattoos invisible for a job interview in the morning, and reveal them again for a party in the evening? This sounds like science fiction, but it may soon be reality.

Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder have developed invisible tattoo ink than can be revealed with a UV torch and stays visible until switched off with white light. They have published their research in the journal Matter & Light.

They created different motifs with this ink ranging from a lantern that reveals its light when activated, to multicolored scales like those in the much-loved children’s book The Rainbow Fish.

The pigments used in these inks are so-called photochromic dyes(from the Greek “photos”, which means “light” and “chroma”, which means “color”). In other words, they are compounds that change colour when exposed to light. These dyes have been used for years in color-changing sunglasses.

Light carries energy, and photochromic compounds are designed in such a way that this energy is enough to cause a chemical change that alters the shape and therefore the properties of the molecule.

In the case of the “invisible” tattoo ink, two or three seconds of bright ultraviolet (UV) light is enough to form a new ring in the dye molecule, which switches a colorless pigment to a colored one. A variety of colors are available depending on the exact structure of the molecule.

A blast of bright white light reverses the reaction, breaking the ring and turning the colour off again. For a long time, the challenge with this chemistry was that the colored form of the dye was relatively unstable and quickly reverted to the more stable, colorless form—especially at higher temperatures.

Another issue was fatigue: after a certain number of on-off cycles, the dyes degraded and took on a permanent coloured hue. Have you ever bought transition lens sunglasses and noticed that they became less effective over time? This is due to the same deterioration of photochromic compounds in the lenses. But thanks to recent research efforts, remarkably stable dyes have been designed that reliably hold their colour for months and can undergo over 10,000 activation and deactivation cycles without degrading.

Carson Bruns’ team at the University of Colorado Boulder showed that these pigments could be formulated into tattoo inks by encapsulating them in poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), a polymer approved for medical use in bone cement, dentures and intraocular lenses. This family of inks is known as PhotoTat.

Time to market

So, when will you be able to get one of these switchable tattoos? A red pigment was already launched in 2024 under the name Magic Ink by Colorado-based biotech company Hyprskn. A 2 millilitre (ml) vial will set you back £77, which is about 100 times more expensive than regular tattoo ink due to the specialised dyes and formulation process required. The ink is fully compliant with the EU’s Reach (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) safety regulations.

Now, Bruns’ research team has developed three more PhotoTat inks – blue, magenta and yellow – that can combine into 16 other colours. “So far,” Bruns says, “the only person who’s tested this ink is me. I actually have hundreds of these tattoos on my legs now and they’ve all gone really well.”

Some challenges remain though: direct sunlight contains enough UV radiation to activate the tattoos unless they are protected by sunscreen. Indoor light will slowly switch them off over a period of several days.

In addition, the blue ink currently degrades after only 10–100 activations, leaving a permanent, purple-coloured mark. Most importantly, the inks need to undergo thorough toxicity and safety testing before they can be rolled out to tattoo shops for general use, which will likely take several years. Don’t get your hopes up just yet about your new “business during the day, party at night” look.

When Hyprskn launched Magic Ink, the reception in the tattoo community was mixed. While some tattoo enthusiasts viewed it as a revolutionary creative tool, others thought it was an overpriced gimmick. Bruns does not only see his photochromic tattoo inks as fashion accessories, however.

He also envisages medical applications, for example for patients who need permanent skin markings to guide radiation therapy or identify sites for biopsies. Bruns argues that these markings “become a permanent reminder of a traumatic experience” which can be mitigated by making the tattoo invisible once it is no longer needed in a clinical setting.

.

https://static.scientificamerican.com/dam/asset/e6cd783d-3103-4c5a-81cb-4a0040596f03/UV-tattoos.jpg?m=1793391494.117&w=900

PhotoTat is combined with conventional tattoo ink to add elements that colorize when exposed to ultraviolet light and decolorize under white light. Bruns et al., Matter & Light (CC BY-SA)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/these-tattoos-can-magically-disappear-heres-how-they-work/

.

__________________________________________

MIT scientists create nanoparticles to deliver cancer vaccines tailored to each patient

Leave a comment

Click the link below the picture

.

Take Aways

  • MIT researchers engineered M13 bacteriophage particles to control how densely they display antigens, strengthening targeted immune responses in mice.
  • Higher-density vaccines improved protection in melanoma and colorectal tumor-cell challenge experiments, with a roughly sevenfold higher fraction of neoantigen-specific T cells in the colorectal model.
  • The platform could support personalized cancer vaccines, but this study vaccinated mice before tumor-cell injections and did not establish effectiveness in people.

 

Packing more cancer targets onto a tiny viral scaffold helped mice mount a stronger defense against injected tumor cells. The finding points to a controllable feature of vaccine design: how densely a delivery particle displays the molecular markers that immune cells learn to recognize. It could help researchers refine personalized cancer vaccines.

The MIT study, published in Advanced Healthcare Materials, uses an engineered bacteriophage called M13. Shengnan Huang, a research scientist at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, led the work. Senior author Angela Belcher is MIT’s James Mason Crafts Professor of Biological Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering.

The results come from laboratory experiments and small mouse studies, not clinical trials. The work focused on improving the design of a vaccine formulation. Mice received vaccines before researchers injected tumor cells, testing protection against a later challenge. Whether the same density adjustments improve treatment of established tumors requires further testing.

Turning a bacterial virus into a vaccine carrier

M13 is a bacteriophage, a virus that infects bacteria rather than human cells. Its single-stranded DNA sits inside a long protein shell, or capsid. The engineered particles in this study measured approximately 200 nanometers in length.

The researchers attached antigens, molecular targets recognized by immune cells, to a major capsid protein called pVIII. Each particle contained a mixture of ordinary pVIII and antigen-bearing versions. Altering that mixture changed the density of antigen displayed along the particle’s surface.

The viral DNA also supplies an immune-stimulating signal through Toll-like receptor 9, or TLR9. That gives M13 its own adjuvant activity, helping amplify the response to its antigen cargo. Combining the target and this immune activation signal within one scaffold is part of the platform’s appeal.

Making antigen density adjustable

Huang first worked with SIINFEKL, a short peptide commonly used as a model antigen in mouse immunology. Adding negatively charged amino acids alongside it helped antigen-bearing proteins assemble into the capsid. Changing where the proteins were produced in the genetic system further altered their relative abundance.

The team also introduced a regulatory mutation that reduced production of the antigen-bearing protein. Together, these methods adjusted its proportion from about 6% to 70.4% of the major coat proteins. That corresponds to roughly 36 to 420 antigen-bearing copies per 200-nanometer particle.

The highest density came with a manufacturing drawback: particle yield fell substantially. A mutation lowered display to approximately 34.7% while improving production. The work therefore identified a trade-off between maximizing antigen display and producing enough stable particles for further development.

“The antigen is the specific target we want to initiate the immune response against, which means we have to ensure the right dose of antigen to make sure that we can have a strong immune response,” Huang says. Her explanation highlights why the team investigated both particle design and the resulting immune activity.

How immune cells handled the particles

The researchers compared particles carrying approximately 6% and 34.7% antigen-bearing coat proteins. In laboratory tests, dendritic cells took up the higher-density particles about 2.8 times more efficiently. These antigen-presenting cells help teach T cells which molecular targets to recognize.

Higher-density particles also improved antigen presentation, the display of processed peptide fragments on the immune cell’s surface. Comparable presentation required roughly half as much particle uptake with the denser version. This suggests that changing surface display affected more than the number of particles reaching a cell.

Not every immune measurement increased. The two versions produced similar results for a dendritic-cell activation marker and TLR9 activation, consistent with their identical DNA cargo. The precise reasons for the uptake and presentation differences remain unresolved, including possible effects on surface charge and intracellular processing.

The particles also remained structurally stable in the reported tests. Blood measurements in mice showed little induction of two inflammatory signals, IL-6 and TNF-alpha. Those limited findings support further development but cannot establish a vaccine’s safety in people or rule out other adverse effects.

Testing protection against later tumor challenges

Mice received equal numbers of the two particle types on days zero and seven. On day 15, researchers injected melanoma cells engineered to express SIINFEKL. The higher-density vaccine produced stronger protection, slower tumor progression and a larger fraction of antigen-specific CD8 T cells, which can attack matching tumor cells.

That T-cell fraction rose from approximately 7.4% to 17.5%. The reported melanoma experiments included five to six mice per group for key immune and tumor measurements. These findings add to research investigating how nanoparticle vaccines can prepare an immune response before tumor exposure.

The researchers then switched to a mutated ADPGK peptide found in the mouse colorectal cancer model MC-38. Such tumor-specific targets are called neoantigens. Increasing their display raised the neoantigen-specific CD8 T-cell fraction from approximately 1.1% to 7.4%, a roughly sevenfold increase.

After MC-38 cells were injected under the skin, the denser vaccine slowed tumor growth and prolonged survival. Median survival reached 38 days, compared with 28 days for the lower-density vaccine and 25.5 days without vaccination. Key analyses used six to eight mice per group; this was a colorectal cancer cell model, not spontaneous cancer prevention.

.

https://www.thebrighterside.news/uploads/2026/11/antigen-main.png?format=auto&optimize=high&width=1920Artist’s illustration of antigen-coated M13 particles interacting with an immune cell. MIT researchers found that denser antigen displays strengthened targeted immune responses and improved tumor protection in mice vaccinated before exposure to cancer cells. (CREDIT: The Brighter Side of News)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/mit-scientists-create-nanoparticles-to-deliver-cancer-vaccines-tailored-to-each-patient/

.

__________________________________________

Judge Rejects Trump Officials’ Move to Challenge Alaska Senate Election

Leave a comment

Click the link below the picture

.

A federal judge in Alaska has dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit that pre-emptively challenged the results in a U.S. Senate race featuring two candidates with the same name — a Republican incumbent and another man who could be a spoiler.

The ruling is the latest in a series of court defeats for the Trump administration, which has been seeking to intervene in state-administered elections.

On Friday, the U.S. District Court in California blocked the administration from threatening to prosecute state and local election officials who do not comply with the department’s directives on handling ballots.

Also on Friday, a federal appeals court panel denied a request to order California officials to set aside about 20,000 mail-in ballots that the administration claimed had been sent to possible noncitizens.

In Alaska, the Justice Department filed its lawsuit last month at President Trump’s direction, asking the judge to block certification of the state’s U.S. Senate election results if Senator Daniel S. Sullivan loses but would have won had votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan, a retired teacher, gone to the incumbent instead.

In that scenario, the suit also demands an investigation into whether voters who selected the retired teacher actually intended to vote for the senator.

Federal officials have not made clear how an investigation into anonymous ballots would be conducted.

In her Sunday ruling, Chief Judge Sharon Gleason of U.S. District Court in Alaska wrote that she did not see how the federal government’s proposed solution to any confusion would solve the problem if it even existed — or how the approach could work given the right to a secret ballot is a core principle of American democracy.

The federal government, she wrote, “offers no rebuttal to the concerns regarding preservation of the secrecy of voting and provides no explanation of how its request for ballot segregation and a court-ordered investigation by law enforcement officers into certain voters’ intent could be implemented while preserving the secrecy of the ballot.”

Kiersten Pels, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, said the administration plans to appeal the dismissal and noted that the judge didn’t not address “the argument of the United States that Daniel J. Sullivan (a/k/a Decoy Dan) entered the race as a frivolous candidate to confuse voters.”

The administration’s lawsuit accuses Daniel J. Sulivan of trying to “dupe Alaska’s voters into believing that he is Senator Sullivan.” Daniel J. Sullivan has said he voted for Democrats in the last three presidential races and for Mary Peltola, the current Democratic Senate nominee on the ballot, in her 2022 and 2024 campaigns for Congress.

The suit also notes that he switched his party affiliation from Independent to Republican only when he filed to run, and that his campaign website uses the same dark blue and yellow color scheme as the incumbent’s.

A New York Times investigation revealed that a Democratic operative connected to Ms. Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee enlisted Daniel J. Sullivan to run as part of a broader effort to recruit independent and third-party candidates who might peel votes away from the incumbent.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, has ordered a criminal investigation into the Peltola campaign even as the state elections division, overseen by his lieutenant governor, also a Republican, fought the Trump administration’s civil lawsuit.

Ms. Peltola and national Democrats have denied any connection to Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy, and they joined the civil case as additional defendants along with national Democrats, the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, a self-described nonpartisan government watchdog organization.

Daniel S. Sullivan, the incumbent senator, promised in an interview with CNN Sunday to support any election results but also suggested, without offering explanation or details, that the election could be “stolen.”

In its defense in the Justice Department’s lawsuit, lawyers with the state of Alaska noted that state courts had already rejected an attempt by the state’s elections agency to take Daniel J. Sullivan off the ballot and that the final ballot was designed to differentiate between the two men: It lists the senator as “Dan S. Sullivan” and notes his party affiliation and incumbency, and the other man is “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” with no party affiliation included.

Alaska also uses ranked choice voting in state and federal general elections, meaning voters are familiar with the system. Any voter confused by the existence of two Dan Sullivans could simply rank both candidates.

Judge Gleason had already expressed skepticism of the Trump administration’s case in a ruling last month agreeing to a speedy hearing. In that order, she pointed out that the federal lawsuit came after Alaskans had already begun casting ballots for November and nearly four months after the Alaska Supreme Court directed the state Division of Elections to include Daniel J. Sullivan on the ballot.

In Sunday’s dismissal ruling, she noted that federal lawyers, in their filings, said they were not attempting to interfere in the time, place and manner of Alaskan elections — matters the U.S. Constitution leaves in the hands of states.

But, Judge Gleason said, the federal government’s proposed answers to any voter confusion were “a court order preventing the State from certifying the election if certain circumstances occur; a court order requiring the State to segregate and preserve certain ballots; and a court order permitting the United States to conduct an investigation into the intent of those voters who cast ballots for Daniel J. Sullivan.

“These requests certainly involve the time, place, and manner of Alaska’s election,” she wrote.

If anything, the judge added, such federal intervention amid an ongoing election would cause the precise sort of voter confusion the administration says it is trying to prevent.

.

Sullivan, left, a candidate in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race, and incumbent U.S. Senator Dan S. Sullivan, right.Becky Bohrer/Associated Press, Doug Mills/The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/11/01/us/alaska-senate-election-lawsuit.html

.

__________________________________________

Your brain’s unexpected ability to regenerate and how to harness it

Leave a comment

Click the link below the picture

.

For seven years, molecular biologist Ionut Dumitru and his colleagues played what felt like the world’s most exhausting game of hide-and-seek.

Yet instead of peeking around doors or under beds, they were examining brain tissue in a lab at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, looking for something that had long evaded neuroscientists: concrete proof that the adult brain can form new neurons via a process called neurogenesis. Scientists have spent decades debating whether this is possible. As soon as one paper turned up positive clues, another would yield nothing at all.

But it seems the search may finally be over. A slew of new findings, including those from Dumitru and his team, have revealed near-certain evidence that adult neurogenesis occurs in the human hippocampus, part of the brain central to learning and memory. The discovery is forcing us to rethink long-held assumptions about our most indispensable organ, from how it functions to how it changes with age.

Even more exciting is the potential neurogenesis holds for brain regeneration. Some of our most devastating medical conditions, including Alzheimer’s, stroke and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), involve neurons dying at massive scale. If the brain is capable of replacing some of those lost neurons, we may be able to harness and enhance that ability, stimulating neurogenesis to help treat neurological conditions that are currently incurable.

“To many of us, we think the question is no longer whether it exists or not,” says neuroscientist Hongjun Song at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s, how can we take advantage of that?”

Neurons are the brain’s key messengers, transmitting the signals that underpin our most basic functions, from moving and talking to thinking and dreaming. They form when a stem cell – which can morph into other cell types – transforms into a “parent” progenitor cell, which then births an immature neuron that eventually matures.

Scientists long believed this process played out only during development in the womb and, to a lesser degree, during childhood and adolescence. In other words, humans were born with essentially all the neurons they would ever have. The brain would change in many ways over one’s lifetime – forming new connections between neurons and pruning away those that were no longer necessary – but it wasn’t going to get a windfall of new neurons. Or at least, so we thought.

In the early 1960s, Joseph Altman, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, went against the grain by looking for signs of neurogenesis in adult rats. He injected the animals with a radioactive tracer used to track cell division, then identified cells bearing it in the rodents’ brains, revealing what appeared to be freshly generated neurons.

But the finding was widely panned by the neuroscience community. The idea that adult neurogenesis was impossible “had really been embedded within the scientific literature”, says Fred “Rusty” Gage, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California.

Altman was apparently undeterred, replicating his findings in the brains of additional rats and then cats. Other researchers eventually joined in, finding adult neurogenesis in species such as canaries and monkeys, and discovering that it seemed to play a role in learning and memory – helping birds learn new songs, for instance.

But whether human brains also pump out new neurons remained an open question. You can’t ethically crack open a living person’s skull and dig around in their brain tissue.

Gage and his colleagues found an ingenious workaround to that problem. In the 1990s, some people being treated for cancer received injections of a chemical called BrdU, which flagged dividing cells so that doctors could monitor disease spread. When five such patients had died, Gage and his colleagues were able to autopsy their brains. Lo and behold, they found BrdU in hippocampal cells – a sign of neurogenesis.

The trouble is that BrdU can sometimes flag cells undergoing repair, not necessarily division. And subsequent studies that used different markers yielded results all over the map. Some showed next to no neurogenesis in the adult brain; others, that the adult hippocampus adds 700 new neurons every single day, on a par with that of a much younger brain.

So, Song and his colleagues pioneered a different approach. Instead of looking for immature neurons with just one or two markers, they analysed the full genetic profile of individual brain cells, searching for the genetic characteristics of freshly generated cells. They discovered immature neurons in people who had died across all stages of life, even up to age 92.

But spotting a young neuron still isn’t enough to prove the adult brain is generating new ones. Neurons can linger in an immature state for a long time, perhaps even an entire lifespan. These Peter Pans of the brain aren’t necessarily created in adulthood; they just aren’t growing up.

The real challenge in proving adult neurogenesis occurs was to capture each stage of the process – and one remained elusive. “Nobody had identified the proliferating progenitors,” says Dumitru. “They could identify immature neurons, they could identify maybe stem cells – so the cells that are at the beginning and end of the trajectory – but nobody identified the proliferating ones.”

To identify these cells, which actually birth new neurons, Dumitru and his colleagues genetically analysed roughly 400,000 brain cells from the hippocampi of people who had died between infancy and adulthood. They used a machine learning model – a type of artificial intelligence – to pinpoint genetic patterns that resembled those seen in progenitors from animals and developing infants.

The researchers almost couldn’t believe it when they spotted the first few progenitors. “It was so difficult to convince ourselves,” says team member Marta Paterlini, a molecular biologist also at the Karolinska Institute.

But after years of testing and re-testing, they finally felt confident their search was over. They found only about 350 progenitor cells – and they weren’t present in all the brains sampled. But by finding any at all, “we showed that there is active neurogenesis” in the hippocampus, says Dumitru. “That cannot be contested.”

Except that, well, some scientists still do. Developmental neurobiologist Arturo Alvarez-Buylla at the University of California, San Francisco, isn’t convinced that machine learning models can reliably categorise cell types. He says the only way to know for certain that adult neurogenesis happens would be to track a stem cell as it transforms into a neuron – a nearly impossible task to do in a living human.

But sceptics like Alvarez-Buylla are increasingly finding themselves outside a coalescing consensus. At least 38 clinical trials related to adult neurogenesis are now under way. “It’s there,” says Sandrine Thuret, a neuroscientist at King’s College London. “The new debate is, what is it for?”

One of the first clues to answering that question comes from the fact that adult neurogenesis appears almost exclusive to the hippocampus, the brain’s headquarters of learning and memory. This region is highly plastic, meaning it can easily reorganise itself and form new connections, helping us to take in and remember new information.

In a study from earlier this year, neuroscientist Orly Lazarov at the University of Illinois College of Medicine and her colleagues found that neurogenesis may play a role in this process. They examined post-mortem hippocampus samples from adults who had Alzheimer’s and adults without cognitive impairments, including “superagers” – people in their eighties or older who had outperformed younger adults on a memory test. On average, superagers had roughly twice as many immature neurons in their hippocampus as adults without cognitive impairments. People with Alzheimer’s had almost none at all.

.

https://www.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/SEI_317347078.jpg?w=840Joey Guidone

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2594221-your-brains-unexpected-ability-to-regenerate-and-how-to-harness-it/

.

__________________________________________

New study finds an evolutionary link between leadership and risk-taking behavior

Leave a comment

Click the link below the picture

.

Take Aways

  • Workplace leadership in humans and higher social rank in chimpanzees were associated with greater reported willingness to take risks.

  • Researchers compared German survey records from more than 40,000 people with caregiver assessments of 86 sanctuary chimpanzees.

  • The parallels suggest possible evolutionary continuity, but different measures and observational data prevent conclusions about causation or leadership quality

 

People with leadership responsibilities rated themselves as more willing to take risks than people without those roles. A similar association appeared among chimpanzees, whose higher-ranking group members received higher risk-taking ratings from caregivers. The parallel raises a question about whether an appetite for uncertainty has long influenced who gains social standing.

A team led by Lou Marie Haux at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development examined that possibility in The Leadership Quarterly. The study combined German household survey records with assessments from chimpanzee sanctuaries in Uganda and Kenya. It found associations across species, without establishing that risk-taking causes individuals to become leaders.

A large survey captures everyday risk preferences

The human analysis drew on 40,127 participants in Germany’s Socio-Economic Panel, a long-running household study. Together, they contributed 153,430 annual observations between 2015 and 2020. Participants ranged from 18 to 105 years old, and 20,904 were women. Forty-four respondents without a valid risk-preference response were excluded from the outcome models.

Respondents rated their general willingness to take risks on a scale from zero to 10. They also reported whether they currently held a leadership position and provided information about earned income. These were reports of general attitudes and occupational circumstances, rather than observations of particular risky workplace decisions.

Researchers grouped people according to whether they never reported leadership, reported it during some years or held a role throughout all six years. The last group averaged 6.2 on the risk scale, compared with 4.96 among those who never reported leadership. This comparison describes differences between groups, not a change caused by promotion.

The analysis accounted for age and gender when examining the human associations. People with higher average income also reported greater risk tolerance, although income was analyzed separately from leadership status. More than a third of annual income observations were missing. People with no usable income record were grouped with those reporting zero income.

Caregivers assess risk in chimpanzee groups

The chimpanzee sample included 49 animals at Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda and 37 at Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Kenya. The animals ranged from two to 40 years old, and 47 were female. They lived in three mixed-sex social groups across the two sanctuaries.

Seventeen caregivers rated the animals’ willingness to take risks. Their experience with the chimpanzees typically extended across many years, providing familiarity with behavior beyond a single encounter. Ratings covered foraging, encounters with snakes, leaving territory, competition for rank, interactions with human strangers and overall risk-taking.

The researchers combined these assessments into risk-preference scores. Ten caregivers also assessed the chimpanzees’ positions within their group hierarchies, using group discussion or pooled individual rankings. Agreement among caregivers was high, supporting consistency in the assessments without making them direct measurements of every animal’s behavior.

Higher-ranking chimpanzees received higher risk-taking ratings, and the pattern appeared across most assessed domains. Willingness to trust strangers was an exception. The distinction suggests that social trust should not automatically be treated as interchangeable with other forms of risk tolerance.

This part of the analysis relied on ratings rather than experimentally altering the risks the animals faced. Such assessments can summarize behavior across many situations, although caregivers’ impressions may influence the scores. High agreement among observers therefore supports reliability without settling every question about what the ratings measure.

Similar patterns do not make the measures identical

The association between status and risk preference appeared stronger among chimpanzees than among humans. Researchers standardized risk scores within each species to express differences relative to each sample. That procedure helps compare statistical patterns, but it does not make the underlying questionnaires or social roles equivalent.

Humans described their own risk preferences, while caregivers described the chimpanzees. Workplace leadership and monthly earnings also differ from dominance rank in an animal group. The authors explicitly treat these measures as species-appropriate proxies for leadership-related social position, rather than identical measures of leadership itself.

Average risk preference was higher among males than females in both samples. However, the models did not detect evidence that the association between leadership-related status and risk preference differed by sex or gender. This distinction concerns the relationship between two measures, not a finding that all groups had the same average attitudes.

The study also did not test whether risk-tolerant individuals made better decisions or led more effectively. Holding a position, influencing group movements and producing good outcomes are different questions. An association with status therefore cannot establish the value of taking a particular risk.

Following people over time leaves causation unresolved

The repeated human observations allowed a closer look at people whose leadership status changed. An exploratory analysis included 1,300 participants who reported both leadership and non-leadership periods. They contributed 6,611 annual observations, enabling comparisons within the same individuals rather than only between different people.

Their reported risk preferences did not clearly shift with leadership status. The estimated association was close to zero, with uncertainty spanning a small negative to a small positive effect. This pattern fits relatively stable individual differences better than a clear increase in general risk tolerance after entering leadership.

However, stability does not prove that risk-taking selected people into those positions. The analysis was not an experiment assigning leadership roles, nor did it establish a causal effect of earlier risk preference on later appointment. Other characteristics could influence both an individual’s reported risk tolerance and their opportunities to gain status.

.

https://www.thebrighterside.news/uploads/2026/10/leadership-main.png?format=auto&optimize=high&width=1920Human leaders and higher-ranking chimpanzees show greater reported risk tolerance, but the study cannot establish cause and effect. (CREDIT: The Brighter Side of News)

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/new-study-finds-an-evolutionary-link-between-leadership-and-risk-taking-behavior/

.

__________________________________________

How Trump Is Dismantling America’s Scientific Research Machine

Leave a comment

Hmmmm … The Trump Administration  has made us second rate in the world!

Click the link below the picture

.

The warning, buried in an obscure government report this summer, was unflinching.

The Defense Department’s vaunted network of research laboratories — whose scientists helped develop satellite communication, radar technology, and even the computer mouse — was in trouble.

The labs lost a significant share of their staff last year, largely in response to the Trump administration’s efforts to thin the federal work force, the report found. Refilling critical positions was proving difficult due in part to President Trump’s demand that new hires be screened for their loyalty to his goals. The report, issued by the Pentagon, pointed to “potentially grave consequences for the future of national defense.”

The turmoil inside scientific research has extended beyond the Pentagon. The Energy Department, a key hub of nuclear and quantum research, has lost more than 1,000 scientists and technical staff. The National Science Foundation, for decades a primary backer of long-term, foundational research, has withheld more than $1 billion in funding. And at the National Institutes of Health, the biggest funder of medical research, officials delayed or canceled more than 2,000 grants to biomedical researchers focused on topics such as Alzheimer’s, cancer and other diseases.

Under Mr. Trump, the federal government is still spending roughly as much on research — about $200 billion this year — as the administrations that came before. Scientists across the country are still receiving grants; universities are still being funded. But beneath the surface, the system of federally funded science that helped make the United States a global superpower is under intense strain from Trump policies, jeopardizing the nation’s advantages in defense, medicine and technology, a New York Times examination has found.

The White House regularly proclaims that it is advancing American interests. Yet its actions are eroding the country’s scientific edge as global rivals challenge U.S. dominance in fields that will help define the 21st century, according to interviews with scientists, university leaders, government officials and analysts and a review of documents and budgets.

The damage is the byproduct of three pillars of Mr. Trump’s broader agenda.

One is the sweeping job cuts and grant cancellations engineered last year by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk-led effort that viewed much of federal spending as wasteful and whose effects are still reverberating across the bureaucracy.

A second is the administration’s continued pressure on research universities, in which the White House used funding cuts to push schools into adhering to its demands for ideologically driven policy shifts.

The third is a campaign by Mr. Trump’s budget director, Russell T. Vought, to impose more political control over how the government spends money appropriated by Congress, further infusing politics into decisions around scientific research.

If not for the courts curbing the administration’s campaign against universities and lawmakers in both parties rejecting cuts to research funding, the impact on science would have been far deeper. Still, the effects of the broader agenda have rippled through nearly every facet of the nation’s research machine.

Aspiring scientists have seen their career paths thwarted, with fewer available spots for Ph.D. students. The number of Ph.D. applications from foreign students, typically a significant share of U.S. science programs, shrank by 21 percent this year at leading universities, according to data gathered for the Association of American Universities. Total Ph.D. admissions at those schools have dropped as universities try to make do with less resources.

Even the agencies working on topics that Mr. Trump and his aides have called priorities — including national defense, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and nuclear energy — have been depleted.

Taken together, the changes underscore how Mr. Trump’s policies have disrupted scientific research beyond the areas the administration has targeted more directly, such as vaccines and climate science, endangering U.S. power and pre-eminence.

By many measures, China is closing the gap with the United States as the world’s research leader. Some organizations that rank global universities show China’s best schools increasingly displacing American universities at the top. And the impact of Chinese research papers, as measured by citations from other scientists, has caught up with the United States, according to Clarivate, a data and analytics company.

By the time the full consequences of the administration’s actions become apparent, experts warn, it could be too late to fix. That’s because basic research funded by federal grants often takes decades to mature into the technology, medical treatments and consumer products that change American life.

Federally funded work on atomic clocks starting in the late 1940s, for example, paved the way for GPS technology. In 1976, federally funded research yielded a major discovery about the origins of cancer-causing genes, which led to a Nobel Prize and, two decades later, lifesaving cancer drugs. Some of the early precursors to artificial intelligence date to U.S.-backed research in the 1980s, which used an algorithm to teach neural networks to learn from mistakes.

“Science is the long game,” said Marcia McNutt, who was president of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s top scientific advisory body, until this summer. “By the time we no longer win any Nobel Prizes, we will have lost the capacity to ever recover.”

In response to The Times’ reporting, officials from the White House, Pentagon and other science agencies disputed that administration policies were hampering science. Rather, said White House spokeswoman Liz Huston, the administration is reinvigorating American science by transforming organizations in need of change.

“President Trump is ushering in a new golden age of American science by modernizing our research institutions, refocusing on ambitious national missions, and fully leveraging super intelligence for scientific discovery,” Ms. Huston said in a statement, using Mr. Trump’s preferred term for artificial intelligence. “Revitalizing our national scientific enterprise requires supporting the best American scientists and funding the best research based on merit.”

.

President Harry S. Truman, seated center, congratulating scientists for their work in the Office of Scientific Research and Development, including director Vannevar Bush, rear third from left, author of the landmark report “Science: The Endless Frontier.” Credit…Byron Rollins/Associated Press

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/31/science/how-trump-is-dismantling-americas-scientific-research-machine.html

.

__________________________________________

AI is letting anyone reverse engineer anything. We talked to the developer at the center of it

Leave a comment

Click the link below the picture

.

Buy a new car, and you’re free to repaint the exterior or add new wheels. But you aren’t supposed to edit the code controlling the dash display and other electronics. Once software is packaged up and shipped, it’s meant to stay the way the manufacturer intended it.

Morluto, a software engineer who spoke with Scientific American on the condition that he remain pseudonymous, took that as a challenge. His tool, Reverse Engineer Anything, or REA, lets artificial intelligence agents pull apart programs and reconstitute them to their users’ liking.

His interest began with game decompilation, a corner of reverse engineering in which fans painstakingly rebuild the code of video games. Such work has taken years without AI assistance. Now Morluto—whose name comes from an old video gaming alias—sees much broader uses. REA’s Discord community includes examples of people modifying everything from printers to televisions. The project has more than 400,000 stars on GitHub, a rough gauge of its popularity.

“We’ve gotten used to the fact that software is all around us, but none of it is anything that we can influence,” he says. He hopes AI-enabled reverse engineering could fix this: “If code is magic, then we are all capable of it,” Morluto says.

For decades, software makers have enjoyed a sense of security through tedium: taking apart a compiled program was such a grind that few people bothered. But the packaging also kept us out of the guts of our own gadgets. If anyone with a ChatGPT subscription or an open-weight model can hand off that work, control over a device tilts toward whoever’s curious to look inside—no matter their intentions. “This is going to pose a crisis for trade secret and copyright law,” says James Grimmelmann, a law professor at Cornell Tech.

Morluto sees this as a natural progression in the relationship between people and the technology they use. Throughout our conversation, he kept invoking tech founders who shaped his work—Apple’s Steve Jobs, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, Y Combinator’s Paul Graham. “A lot of the creators in the past,” he says, “were all hackers and tinkerers, experimenters growing up.” He believes REA can turn its users into that kind of creator. “You are capable not just of magic but of creating beautiful things,” Morluto says.

In his view, tech has become an industry full of walled gardens, and thanks to AI, “their walls were not as robust as they had thought.”

Those walls come from the way software is bundled into executable programs. Before a program can run, the code people write in a programming language such as Python has to be translated, or compiled, into binary, a sequence of 1’s and 0’s that actually tells the computer what to do. Reverse engineering software involves running that translation backward, turning binary back into code a person can read in the process of decompilation.

Reverse engineers have long done this with tools such as Ghidra, a program the U.S. National Security Agency developed as part of its cybersecurity efforts. REA provides the pipelines that let an AI agent orchestrate Ghidra and other programs on its own.”Reverse engineering is a little bit like pattern matching,” says Morluto. “AI has extremely strong reasoning and pattern matching skills.”Before 2026 decompilation was the domain of a select few experts, according to Zion Basque, an assistant professor at the University of Georgia, who studies reverse engineering. Now, he says, nearly anyone can play. His research group developed Kuna, one of the decompilers REA can equip AI agents with. The kinds of reverse engineering he sees people doing with REA could have been done before, just never at this scale. “I haven’t seen what the limits of this are yet,” he says.

Done by hand, that kind of work would take experts months, if they managed it at all, according to Grimmelmann. Now the limit, he says, is what you can afford. “If you have the tokens, you can set it loose on almost any piece of software,” he says.

For some corners of the software industry, that’s an existential problem that the law cannot easily patch. Copyright protects a program’s code, Grimmelmann says, but not the algorithms and ideas the code implements. “This opens up a whole world of mods and remixes and interoperable new clients that really reduce the lead time people get from deploying software,” he says.

REA isn’t the only thing eating into that head start. In early October Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5.5 helped a developer build open-source clones of Adobe’s Creative Cloud programs, which are known for their tight controls and steep prices.

Joey Castillo, an open-source developer and technologist in residence at Cornell Tech, went after something smaller. He has reverse engineered various tools in the past, but his first brush with using AI to do it came when he tried to modify a smart ring he had bought in Shenzhen, China. He was impressed that the AI model could reverse engineer the ring and teach him at the same time. “I learned a lot just by watching Claude work,” he says.

The desire to tinker comes from wanting to take control of the things you buy, according to Castillo. “I bought this object, and it’s being gatekept from me,” he says. “Now I’m going to have the power to make it do what I want.”

Some of those gates serve an important purpose, though. Much as AI is proving adept at breaking into security systems, it is also very good at breaking things like digital rights management and the protected firmware baked into devices.

Projects like REA may also make it too easy for amateurs to gain a sort of synthetic expertise. Castillo and his open-source friends worry about people digging around in devices they don’t fully understand. “This is all going to be very fun and games until someone vibe codes firmware and it causes the battery to catch fire midflight,” Castillo says. He doubts AI models have the foresight that reverse engineering experts bring to deciding which modifications to make because AI “can only ‘yes, and.’ It can’t ‘no, but.’”

Since our first conversation with Morluto, some social media users have reported OpenAI and Anthropic banning or blocking their use of REA. In a reply on X, an OpenAI researcher called the block on reverse engineering “mostly accidental.”

Morluto isn’t worried. If anything, he says, the “fiasco” just brings more attention to the project and to the kind of discovery he was aiming for. “That’s the core of Reverse Engineer Anything,” he says. “It’s a road that leads you to question what it is that you want.”

Accidental or not, such obstacles are unlikely to stop people who really want to reverse engineer their devices. Castillo already has a fallback in GLM-5.3, an open-weight model from the Chinese company Z.ai. Once it’s downloaded, no one can take it away. “If Anthropic and OpenAI decide they’re going to ban my account for reverse engineering, I’m going to fire up GLM-5.3 and reverse engineer the smart ring,” he says, “because I think it’s really cool to make this thing do what I wanted.”

.

https://static.scientificamerican.com/dam/asset/0d00b657-4e17-4972-a4bf-a57cc0e4ca1b/reverseengineeredcomputer.jpg?m=1793285097.344&w=900

A dissasembled laptop is displayed on a table. Software reverse engineering like REA involves dissasembling programs to understand how they work. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-exclusive-conversation-with-the-developer-of-rea-the-viral-ai-reverse-engineering-tool/

.

__________________________________________

Fall Foliage Photo Walk

Leave a comment

Click the link below the picture

.

Take a fall photography walk through the landscape surrounding the Pool near the West 100th Street entrance.

Led by Art in the Park, participants will explore composition and perspective while photographing some of Central Park’s best fall foliage viewing, with red maples, sweetgums, and willows along the shoreline displaying spectacular color.

A Central Park Conservancy Tour Guide will share context about the landscape, wildlife, and history of the area.

Cost

Free

Type of Activity

Nature, Events

Tags

Fall, Nature Lovers, Parkwide

Location

West 100th Street and Central Park West

.

https://d2wsrtli9cxkek.cloudfront.net/media/images/Landscapes-Pool-Fall-DSC_8477.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&h=767.44186046512&q=80&w=1650&s=e51acd2c219f190866e2fb0f02d700a0Take a fall photography walk

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.centralparknyc.org/activities/events/fall-foliage-photo-walk

.

__________________________________________

Older Entries Newer Entries