The evolution of science and technology: How humanity evolved with it?

Photo Courtesy: Image by Syed Ali Mehdi from Pixabay | For representational purpose only

Saanvi Singh

Was it a moment or a day or perhaps a bright morning once upon a time, or a fine evening in the past? How do we trace the origins of science and technology? It is an ongoing journey that started even before the beginning of our own species and is seen to be constantly developing and becoming more efficient over time.

Do we start with the prehistoric and early human era? Somewhat 2 million years ago, when people used stone tools for survival. The era when clothing was invented, and people could then live in cool climates. Then came the ancient civilizations, where humanity explored through the ideas of betterment in agriculture and medicine. The discovery of metallurgy led to stronger and more versatile tools and weapons. Post this came the classical period of history of science and technology.

Famous scientists like Archimedes proposed his principle of buoyancy. Europe and the Middle East saw watermills and windmills being used for power. The 13th century brought with it the Late Medieval Period, where mechanical clocks regulated time, and printing presses helped in mass communication. Modern science instruments like the microscope and barometer were invented in the 1600s – 1700s. Then in the 1750s, the world saw an industrial revolution.

The period before the Industrial Revolution was all about survival, discovery, and laid the base for the foundations of scientific thought. The transformation of the traditional approach and the adoption of more efficient solutions helped in several ways. The introduction of fire, somewhat 1.5 million years ago, led to the betterment of necessities of life like cooking, protection. The introduction of the concept of wheel revolutionized transportation, made it easier, helped in the easy flow of goods and people, and helped new industries such as pottery, spinning, and weaving flourish. The innovation of the printing press enhanced the ways knowledge was spread back then, prepared people and society for the large-scale exchange of knowledge.

In Greek mythology, the Titan Prometheus, God of fire, is often portrayed as a champion of humanity, considering fire a divine gift to mankind, which symbolized knowledge and progress. At the same time, another god, named Zeus in Greek Mythology, punished him, fearing that fire would make humans rebellious. Fire was seen as a double-edged sword; on one hand, it improved the way of living, but at the same time, it was capable of uncontrollable destruction. Martin Luther praised the printing press as “the latest and greatest gift, by which God intends the work of true religion to be known throughout the world and translated into every tongue". He called it God’s highest and most extreme act of grace. But, at the same time, a 20th-century thinker, Marshall McLuhan, thought that the press gave way to propaganda, censorship, and misinformation.

The early 18th and 19th centuries saw the rise of the Industrial Revolution with the introduction of machines and mass production that brought major changes in people’s lives. This period observed a shift from traditional economic practices and became more centered on mass production and the machine system. Mechanization, implying the invention of new machines like the steam engine and power looms, resulted in a faster pace at which work was being done than before. Industries like iron and steel and textiles saw major hikes in their production rates with the introduction of these machines into the market.

For instance, with the adoption of machinery in the iron and steel industry, coal production in the UK boosted from 100 million tons to 265 million tons during 1870 – 1910. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution, some were sparked with happiness, while others had deep concerns about the situation.

People like Dadabhai Naoroji were in favor of the usage of modern machinery and technology; however, they had concerns about the ‘drain of wealth’ to Britain during the colonization period that affected India’s economic growth. Jawaharlal Nehru believed that industrialization was an essential factor that contributed to the building of an independent nation and a beneficial economy. However, people like Rabindranath Tagore laid his belief in the fact that true progress can be achieved with nature, culture, and rural life, not with modernization techniques. People like R.C Dutt and Bal Gangadhar Tilak believed that industrialization was exploitative for India as it impacted the Indian economy under colonial control and turned India into a raw material supplier.

Post this, the 20th and 21st centuries brought with them the scientific revolutions and a digital era.

The early 1900s saw Max Planck, a German Physicist, come up with his Quantum Theory, followed by Albert Einstein, the renowned scientist, bringing up the theory of relativity. The mid-1900s saw advances in medicine with the mass production of vaccines, and the invention of transistors, computers sparked the field of electronics and computing. The late 1900s brought with it the era of the internet. From 2000 onwards, the world saw a rapid rise in technological advancements across fields. People from diverse backgrounds, fell under the huge umbrella of science and technology.

The journey of mobile communication from 1G to 5G expanded global communication, enhancing speed and efficiency. With the introduction of platforms like Linkedin in 2003, Facebook in 2004, YouTube in 2005, and Twitter in 2006, the world was taken over by this hike in social media services and impacted people across the globe.

Anand Mahindra, Chairman of the Mahindra Group, sees social media as “an amazing business tool”. In his words, “I get feedback from 11 million people.” Famous actress Priyanka Chopra Jonas believes that social media is a way to connect and support. At the same time, Lily Allen, a Pop Star, despite building her career through the social networking site Myspace where her vocal recordings got published, confessed that the internet felt “damaging on mental health, actual health and our relationships.”

Followed by this, multiple developments were observed in fascinating areas like space and astronomy, physics and energy and then came the masters of all, “Computing and Artificial Intelligence”. It changed the way the world operated, it changed the way humans processed material. The concepts, for example, machine learning, artificial intelligence, robotics, not only made the digital world turn into a reality but also made it smarter and more intelligent than humankind.

Among some people, it changed their lifestyles, brought comfort in daily lives, improved health, education, and business. However, among others, it turned into a nightmare and made people face challenges like loss of jobs in a flash, privacy issues, and other ethical concerns.

At a developer conference in Bengaluru, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella advocated for the utilization of AI tools to empower millions of Indian developers across the nation. Nicolas Cage, a renowned Hollywood actor, addressing his own field, asserted that AI could assist filmmakers in visual effects, cost reduction, and the better portrayal of ideas. However, he simultaneously expressed his concerns regarding the excessive dependency on AI in films that threatened the idea of emotional authenticity.

Kamal Haasan, a famous film star, in 2025 said, “I like AI, but not sure if AI will like me.” He drew attention to the plight of deceased musicians and emphasized his preference for authentic human expression over digital replicas of human art and creativity. Similarly, another celebrated actor, Tom Cruise, highlighted AI’s potential to undermine originality and emotional authenticity.

The evolution of science and technology reflects humanity’s constant search to survive, adapt, and progress—from stone tools and fire to telescopes and electricity. Each breakthrough reshaped societies, improved lifestyle, and expanded human imagination far beyond. Today, artificial intelligence is writing destinies much like past revolutions did, influencing jobs, education, health, and connections, while continuing to guide humans into an ever-unfolding future. This era of AI is never ending and will continue to bring inevitable changes and introduce even smarter and newer ideologies to the world. Saanvi Singh is a first year student at Plaksha University The evolution of science and technology: How humanity evolved with it? | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Read More........→September 10, 2026

Fruit and honey fuelled the early evolution of the human brain

Jennie Brand-Miller, University of Sydney; David Raubenheimer, University of Sydney, and Les Copeland, University of Sydney

Intelligence is an energetically expensive luxury – as the rise of artificial intelligence has reminded us. The human brain is no exception.

Comprising roughly 2% of the body weight, it uses one fifth the body’s energy in the resting state – compared with less than half of this in non-human primates. A five-year-old child devotes 66% of the energy they need to stay alive to their brain.

How did our ancestors foot the energy bill to run their uniquely large brains? Eating more meat is often considered to be the answer. But there’s a catch. The brain relies on a form of fuel that is not present in meat: glucose.

Our new study, published today in Science, shows that carbohydrates contributed more than half our total energy requirements over four million years of evolution. It holds important clues for why we crave sweet foods today – and how we can eat more healthily.

The matter of meat

Many anthropologists have credited meat eating as the stimulus to produce a large brain. After all, it required tools to butcher the carcass and access the fat-rich marrow inside bones.

Protein and fat in fruit and leaves are dilute, requiring hours of chewing, while animal foods are dense sources that can be devoured quickly. Bone marrow is a rich source of essential fats.

In truth, humans do not require more protein as a proportion of energy than other primates.

Our increasingly large brains and high reproductive rate demanded carbohydrate calories (found in plants but not meat), while our taller and heavier bodies needed fat calories to move those big muscles.

Although the body can synthesise glucose from precursors such as amino acids, the process is finite and energetically inefficient. Furthermore, there are limits on using just protein as fuel. For example, it can lead to a type of poisoning known as “rabbit starvation”.

A minimum amount of dietary carbohydrate was necessary. Our new study shows that, for much of evolution, the sugars in fruit and honey were the source.

Modelling ancient diets

We modelled the diets of hominins – the group consisting of humans and our immediate ancestors – over four million years of evolution.

First, we calculated overall demand for glucose by the organs and tissues which use it as their primary source of energy. Apart from the brain, red blood cells and the kidneys require glucose.

We then accounted for reproductive needs. The fetus and placenta use glucose not just as an energy source but as a structural component of growing tissues. Synthesis of DNA, RNA and nerve cell membranes requires glucose. During lactation, women use about 80g of glucose each day to produce the sugars in human milk.

Then we modelled the availability of macronutrients – carbohydrates, fats and proteins – from foods, starting with the diminutive ancient ape known as Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis).

This early ancestor of ours walked on two legs, and was likely to be a ripe fruit specialist like chimpanzees today. Over two thirds of her energy came from naturally-occurring sugars.

Indeed, some scientists think frugivory – a feeding strategy primarily characterised by eating fruit – kick-started the evolution of large brains because, living in tropical forests, our ancestors required good cognition to remember when and where the best fruits were ripening. They needed strategic thinking to beat the birds and other competitors.

We finished up with the known diet composition of contemporary human foragers in warm climates. In six incremental steps, we incorporated increasing proportions of animal-based food, starting with 5% of calories and finishing with 35–50%.

Around one million years ago, mastery of fire allowed cooked starch, which unlike raw starch can be easily digested to provide glucose, to replace some of the sugars. Relatively recently, about 100,000 years ago, grinding stones and hearths indicate that the starch inside cereal grains became more accessible.

Lessons for modern diets

Did early hominins consume sufficient carbohydrate to cover the obligatory demands of the brain and other tissues? Yes, if you were a male, but only just if you were a pregnant female.

As we ventured out of tropical environments into cold and arid territory, the intake of carbohydrates would have become limiting. Plants would be plentiful, along with protein and marrow fat, but fruit and honey would be seasonal.

We speculate that limited amounts of dietary carbohydrate selected for genes that result in higher blood glucose levels. This would improve the growth and future survival of the fetus.

Today, the same genes likely predispose us to type two diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Low carbohydrate diets may therefore be helpful in specific clinical contexts.

But our findings provide an evolutionary explanation why healthy humans require about half their energy as carbohydrates. They also give us insight into why humans crave sweetness – a pleasurable signal on the tongue that encouraged foods that fuelled the mind and body millions of years ago.

Intrinsically, sugars are highly reactive molecules that are bundled in nature with antioxidants and other natural compounds that reduce harm within the cell.

Ideally, we consume them in that form – as fruit – rather than refined sugars.

Jennie Brand-Miller, Emeritus Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Sydney; David Raubenheimer, Leonard P. Ullman Chair in Nutritional Ecology, Nutrition Theme Leader Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, and Les Copeland, Professor of Agriculture, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→August 07, 2026

Brain scans provide world‑first evidence dogs can distinguish between human fear and sadness

Mia Cobb, The University of Melbourne

What causes a dog to slink away from a cranky person, when they will quietly approach and lean against someone who is weeping? We’ve all seen it – they can respond to our feelings. And science agrees dogs have emotions too.

These social skills could underpin dogs’ success in living with us. But do you think your dog could tell an angry person’s face from a sad or fearful one?

New research published in the journal iScience explored that question, and revealed interesting findings from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of dogs’ brains.

Scanning dogs’ brains

Dogs are sensitive to human faces. They look longer in response to our emotional expressions and sounds compared with neutral ones.

Scientists weren’t sure whether dogs were just differentiating “good mood” (happy) from “bad mood” (angry, fearful or sad), or treating these expressions as genuine indicators of different emotions.

The new study, by Raúl Hernández-Pérez, a neuroscientist at the University of Vienna, and colleagues, explored this gap using MRI to scan pet dogs’ brains while they were viewing photos of human faces.

Building on their earlier work, the researchers found evidence that dogs do process images of our distinct emotional expressions differently.

The researchers used machine learning and showed that when looking at a dog’s whole brain, a different brain region was activated to distinguish between fear and sadness (the right rostral suprasylvian gyrus, to be precise), than between fear and anger (this was in the right mid ectosylvian gyrus and left splenial gyrus).

The analysis didn’t detect a difference in the brain areas activated when dogs were shown images of human anger and sadness. Fear stood out from the other negative emotions.

This raises the question: why?

It might be that fear and anger are simply more attention-grabbing than sadness.

Other research has found dogs react to fear and anger faster, and with a bigger physical response, such as a raised heart rate. This is likely because they’re the expressions most likely to call for a quick response from dogs to stay safe.

Sadness is less likely to pose a direct threat to dogs living with people, so they experience less urgency to respond to it. We know some dogs don’t respond with the heroic Lassie behaviour we might like when we are in distress.

Although the numbers in this new research were small (eight and twelve dogs across the two parts of the study), this is the first MRI-based proof-of-concept evidence that dog brains can distinguish between two human facial expressions of distinct negative emotions. It indicates dogs’ neural representation of our emotion goes beyond a simple valence (good/bad) split.

This shows us that perceiving emotion in others (even across species) isn’t handled by one single “emotion centre” in the brain – in dogs, in humans, or in other animal species. It’s spread across a network of regions working together as part of living socially.

A sense-ational result

The authors of this study point out that using still images of humans is a very people-centred way to explore how dogs interpret our emotional states.

We know dogs live in rich sensory worlds where the scent and sound of our speech also convey emotions, shaping how dogs respond to us.

In fact, even wolves who have grown up around people show the same kind of response to the odour of human fear as dogs. This highlights the important role of learning, as distinct from evolutionary differences in canid bodies or how they respond to people. Dogs (and wolves) are learning about us in every interaction we have with them.

Dogs are adept at watching, smelling, and listening to our emotions, learning how these signals predict our behaviours toward them, and using this information to live with people harmoniously.

Returning the favour, learning more about how dogs express their emotions seems like the least we can do.

Mia Cobb, Research Fellow, Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→August 06, 2026

Human vision: what we actually see – and don’t see – tells us a lot about consciousness

Henry Taylor, University of Birmingham

What can you see right now? This might seem like a silly question, but what enters your consciousness is not the whole story when it comes to vision. A great deal of visual processing in the brain goes on well below our conscious awareness.

Some studies have probed the unconscious depths of vision. One source of evidence comes from the neurological condition known as blindsight, which is caused by damage to areas of the brain involved in processing visual information. People with blindsight report that they are unable to see, either entirely or in a portion of their visual field. However, when asked to guess what is there, they can often do so with remarkable accuracy.

For example, in an experiment published in 2004 on someone with blindsight, a black bar was displayed in the portion of the visual field to which the person was blind. The person was asked to “guess” whether the bar was vertical or horizontal.

Despite denying any conscious awareness of the bar, the participant could answer correctly at a level well above chance. The participant even showed evidence of being able to pay attention to the bar – they were faster to respond when an arrow (placed in a healthy area of their visual field) correctly indicated the location of the bar.

The most popular interpretation (though not the only one) is that people with blindsight can see these objects, but not see them consciously. They see what is there, but it all goes on unconsciously, below their awareness.

The phenomenon of inattentional blindness seems to show you can see without the information crossing into your consciousness. Anyone can experience inattentional blindness. The phenomenon has been known about for a long time, but we can most easily get a handle on it by looking at a well-known experiment reported in 1999.

In this experiment, participants are shown a video of people playing basketball, and told to count the number of passes between the players wearing a white shirt. If you’ve never done this before, I urge to you stop reading now and watch the video.

In many cases, people are so busy counting the passes that they completely miss a large gorilla walking across the middle of the scene and beating its chest, then walking off. The gorilla’s right there, in the centre of your visual field. Light from the gorilla enters your eyes, and is processed in the visual system, but somehow you missed it, because you weren’t paying attention to it.

The gorilla has more to teach us. In another experiment reported in 2013, radiologists were given a series of lung scans. They were told to look for nodules (which show up as small light coloured circles) on each scan. In one of the scans, a large picture of a dancing gorilla was superimposed on top of the lung scan. In this study, 83% of the radiologists failed to spot it, even though it was 48 times bigger than the average nodule they were looking for. Some of them even looked directly at the gorilla and still didn’t notice it!

The interpretation of these experiments is controversial. Some scientists suggest that in these kinds of cases, you consciously see the gorilla, but immediately forget it (although a dancing gorilla in someone’s lung doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you’d forget). Others argue that you see the gorilla, but the information never made its way into consciousness. You saw the gorilla, but unconsciously.

Let’s assume that in the case of blindsight, and inattentional blindness, the information is seen, but didn’t make it all the way to consciousness. Then, the question is: what makes some information conscious, rather than the information that stays unconscious? This is one of the central questions for consciousness studies in philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

The brain’s loudspeaker

There’s no agreement on which is the best theory of consciousness, but in my opinion, the strongest contender is the global neuronal workspace theory.

According to this theory, consciousness is all to do with a particular area of the brain which is the seat of the “workspace”. The workspace is a system with a small capacity, so it can’t hold a lot of information at any one time. The job of the workspace is to take unconscious information and broadcast it to lots of different networks all across the brain. Global neuronal workspace theorists say that broadcasting the information in this way is what makes it conscious.

The job of the workspace is to act like the brain’s loudspeaker, and consciousness is the information that gets broadcast. The workspace takes unconscious information and boosts it so that many of the different systems in the brain hear about it and can use that information in their own processes. The late philosopher Daniel Dennett used to call consciousness “fame in the brain”. The workspace idea is similar.

One of the most striking implications of the global neuronal workspace theory is how little information makes it to consciousness. Since the workspace has quite a small capacity, it follows that we can only ever be conscious of a little at a time. We might think there’s a rich visual world in front of us, full of details, all of which we’re conscious of, but really – according to the theory – we’re only ever conscious of a small portion of that.

Some philosophers and scientists have objected to the theory on these grounds. They suggest that consciousness “overflows” the workspace: we are conscious of more information than can “fit” into the workspace at any one time. Even with these debates still ongoing, I think the global neuronal workspace theory gives us a reasonably clear answer to the question of what consciousness is for, and how it interacts with other systems in the brain.

In our brains, consciousness is only the tip of a very large iceberg. But the global neuronal workspace theory might give us insight into what makes that tip so special.

Henry Taylor, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→March 18, 2026

First Human Cornea Transplant Using 3D Printed, Lab-Grown Tissue Restores Sight in a ‘Game Changer’ for Millions Who are Blind

File photo – credit: Maria Maximova

The first successful human implant of a 3D-printed cornea made from human eye cells cultured in a laboratory has restored a patient’s sight.

The North Carolina-based company that developed the cornea described the procedure as a ‘world first’—and a major milestone toward its goal of alleviating the lack of available donor tissue and long wait-times for people seeking transplants.

According to Precise Bio, its robotic bio-fabrication approach could potentially turn a single donated cornea into hundreds of lab-grown grafts, at a time when there’s currently only one available for an estimated 70 patients who need one to see.

“This achievement marks a turning point for regenerative ophthalmology—a moment of real hope for millions living with corneal blindness,” Aryeh Batt, Precise Bio’s co-founder and CEO, said in a statement.

“For the first time, a corneal implant manufactured entirely in the lab from cultured human corneal cells, rather than direct donor tissue, has been successfully implanted in a patient.”

The company said the transplant was performed Oct. 29 in one eye of a patient who was considered legally blind.

“This is a game changer. We’ve witnessed a cornea created in the lab, from living human cells, bring sight back to a human being,” said Dr. Michael Mimouni, director of the cornea unit at Rambam Medical Center in Israel, who performed the procedure.

“It was an unforgettable moment—a glimpse into a future where no one will have to live in darkness because of a shortage of donor tissue.”

Dubbed PB-001, the implant is designed to match the optical clarity, transparency and bio-mechanical properties of a native cornea. Previously tested in animal models, the company said its graft is capable of integrating with a patient’s own tissue.

The outer layer of the eye—covering the iris and pupil—can end up clouding a person’s vision following injuries, infections, scarring and other conditions. PB-001 is currently being tested in a single-arm phase 1 trial in Israel, which aims to enroll between 10 and 15 participants with excess fluid buildups in the cornea due to dysfunction within its inner cell layers.

Precise Bio said it plans to announce top-line results from the study in the second half of 2026, tracking six-month efficacy outcomes.

The corneas are designed to be compatible with current surgery hardware and workflows. Shipped under long-term cryopreservation, it is delivered preloaded on standard delivery devices and unrolls during implantation to form a natural corneal shape.

“PB-001 has the potential to offer a new, standardized solution to one of ophthalmology’s most urgent needs—reliable, safe, and effective corneal replacement,” said Anthony Atala, M.D., co-founder of Precise Bio and director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine.


“The ability to produce patient-ready tissue on demand could lead the way towards reshaping transplant medicine as we know it.”(Edited from original article by Conor Hale) First Human Cornea Transplant Using 3D Printed, Lab-Grown Tissue Restores Sight in a ‘Game Changer’ for Millions Who are Blind

Read More........→December 17, 2025

The science of weight loss – and why your brain is wired to keep you fat

When you lose weight, your body reacts as if it were a threat to survival. pexels/pavel danilyuk, CC BY

Valdemar Brimnes Ingemann Johansen, University of Copenhagen and Christoffer Clemmensen, University of Copenhagen

For decades, we’ve been told that weight loss is a matter of willpower: eat less, move more. But modern science has proven this isn’t actually the case.

More on that in a moment. But first, let’s go back a few hundred thousand years to examine our early human ancestors. Because we can blame a lot of the difficulty we have with weight loss today on our predecessors of the past – maybe the ultimate case of blame the parents.

For our early ancestors, body fat was a lifeline: too little could mean starvation, too much could slow you down. Over time, the human body became remarkably good at guarding its energy reserves through complex biological defences wired into the brain. But in a world where food is everywhere and movement is optional, those same systems that once helped us survive uncertainty now make it difficult to lose weight.

When someone loses weight, the body reacts as if it were a threat to survival. Hunger hormones surge, food cravings intensify and energy expenditure drops. These adaptations evolved to optimise energy storage and usage in environments with fluctuating food availability. But today, with our easy access to cheap, calorie-dense junk food and sedentary routines, those same adaptations that once helped us to survive can cause us a few issues.

As we found in our recent research, our brains also have powerful mechanisms for defending body weight – and can sort of “remember” what that weight used to be. For our ancient ancestors, this meant that if weight was lost in hard times, their bodies would be able to “get back” to their usual weight during better times.

But for us modern humans, it means that our brains and bodies remember any excess weight gain as though our survival and lives depend upon it. So in effect, once the body has been heavier, the brain comes to treat that higher weight as the new normal – a level it feels compelled to defend.

The fact that our bodies have this capacity to “remember” our previous heavier weight helps to explain why so many people regain weight after dieting. But as the science shows, this weight regain is not due to a lack of discipline; rather, our biology is doing exactly what it evolved to do: defend against weight loss.

Hacking biology

This is where weight-loss medications such as Wegovy and Mounjaro have offered fresh hope. They work by mimicking gut hormones that tell the brain to curb appetite.

But not everyone responds well to such drugs. For some, the side effects can make them difficult to stick with, and for others, the drugs don’t seem to lead to weight loss at all. It’s also often the case that once treatment stops, biology reasserts itself – and the lost weight returns.

Advances in obesity and metabolism research may mean that it’s possible for future therapies to be able to turn down these signals that drive the body back to its original weight, even beyond the treatment period.

Research is also showing that good health isn’t the same thing as “a good weight”. As in, exercise, good sleep, balanced nutrition, and mental wellbeing can all improve heart and metabolic health, even if the number on the scales barely moves.

A whole society approach

Of course, obesity isn’t just an individual problem – it takes a society-wide approach to truly tackle the root causes. And research suggests that a number of preventative measures might make a difference – things such as investing in healthier school meals, reducing the marketing of junk food to children, designing neighbourhoods where walking and cycling are prioritised over cars, and restaurants having standardised food portions.

Scientists are also paying close attention to key early-life stages – from pregnancy to around the age of seven – when a child’s weight regulation system is particularly malleable.

Indeed, research has found that things like what parents eat, how infants are fed, and early lifestyle habits can all shape how the brain controls appetite and fat storage for years to come.

If you’re looking to lose weight, there are still things you can do – mainly by focusing less on crash diets and more on sustainable habits that support overall wellbeing. Prioritising sleep helps regulate appetite, for example, while regular activity – even walking – can improve your blood sugar levels and heart health.

The bottom line though is that obesity is not a personal failure, but rather a biological condition shaped by our brains, our genes, and the environments we live in. The good news is that advances in neuroscience and pharmacology are offering new opportunities in terms of treatments, while prevention strategies can shift the landscape for future generations.

So if you’ve struggled to lose weight and keep it off, know that you’re not alone, and it’s not your fault. The brain is a formidable opponent. But with science, medicine and smarter policies, we’re beginning to change the rules of the game.

---

This article was commissioned as part of a partnership collaboration between Videnskab.dk and The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article, here.

Valdemar Brimnes Ingemann Johansen, PhD Fellow in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen and Christoffer Clemmensen, Associate Professor and Group Leader, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→December 16, 2025

Australia leads first human trial of one-time gene editing therapy to halve bad cholesterol

IANS Photo

Melbourne, November 10 (IANS): Researchers in Australia have led a first-in-human trial for a breakthrough gene-editing therapy that halves bad cholesterol and triglycerides in people with difficult-to-treat lipid disorders.

The trial tested CTX310, a one-time CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing therapy that uses fat-based particles to carry CRISPR editing tools into the liver, switching off the ANGPTL3 gene. Turning off this gene lowers LDL (bad) cholesterol and triglycerides, two blood fats linked to heart disease, according to a statement released Monday by Australia's Monash University.

The Victorian Heart Hospital, operated by Monash Health in partnership with Monash University, treated three of 15 patients aged 18-75 years with difficult-to-treat lipid disorders in phase 1 of the global trial conducted across Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, the statement said, Xinhua news agency reported.

At the highest dose, a single-course treatment with CTX310 resulted in a mean reduction of LDL cholesterol by 50 per cent and triglycerides by 55 per cent, remaining low for at least 60 days after two weeks of treatment, it said, adding LDL cholesterol and triglycerides were reduced by nearly 60 per cent among all participants with various doses, with only mild, short-term side effects reported.

Importantly, CTX310 is the first therapy to achieve large reductions in both LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at the same time, marking a potential breakthrough for people with mixed lipid disorders who have elevations in both, according to the trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"The possibility of a single-course treatment with lasting effects could be a major step in how we prevent heart disease," said Stephen Nicholls, Director of the Victorian Heart Hospital, and study lead investigator."It makes treatment easier, reduces ongoing costs, relieves pressure on the health system, all while improving a person's quality of life," Nicholls said, emphasising plans to focus on larger and more diverse patient populations in future trials of CTX310. Australia leads first human trial of one-time gene editing therapy to halve bad cholesterol | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Read More........→December 04, 2025

Scientists Regrow Retina Cells to Tackle Leading Cause of Blindness Using Nanotechnology

Macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in developed countries, but regrowing the human cells lost to this condition was the feature of a new successful treatment that took advantage of advances in nanotechnology.

Regrowing the cells of the human retina on a scaffold of synthetic, tissue-like material showed substantial improvements over previously used materials such as cellulose, and the scientists hope they can move on to testing their method in the already blind.

Macular degeneration is increasing in prevalence in the developed world. It’s the leading cause of blindness and is caused by the loss of cells in a key part of the eye called the retina.

Humans have no ability to regrow retinal pigment cells, but scientists have determined how to do it in vitro using pluripotent stem cells. However as the study authors describe, previous examples of this procedure saw scientists growing the cells on flat surfaces rather than one resembling the retinal membrane.

This, they state, limits the effectiveness of transplanted cells.

In a study at the UK’s Nottingham Trent University, biomedical scientist Biola Egbowon and colleagues fabricated 3D scaffolds with polymer nanofibers and coated them with a steroid to reduce inflammation.

The method by which the nanofibers were made was pretty darn cool. The team would squirt polyacrylonitrile and Jeffamine polymers in molten form through an electrical current in a technique known as “electrospinning.” The high voltage caused molecular changes in the polymers that saw them become solid again, resembling a scaffold of tiny fibers that attracted water yet maintained mechanical strength.

After the scaffolding was made, it was treated with an anti-inflammatory steroid.

This unique pairing of materials mixed with the electrospinning created a unique scaffold that kept the retinal pigment cells viable for 150 days outside of any potential human patient, all while showing the phenotype of biomarkers critical for maintaining retinal physiological characteristics.“While this may indicate the potential of such cellularized scaffolds in regenerative medicine, it does not address the question of biocompatibility with human tissue,” Egbowon and colleagues caution in their paper, urging more research to be conducted, specifically regarding the orientation of the cells and whether they can maintain good blood supply. Scientists Regrow Retina Cells to Tackle Leading Cause of Blindness Using Nanotechnology

Read More........→September 26, 2025

Blue, green, brown, or something in between – the science of eye colour explained

Pouya Hajiebrahimi/Unsplash Davinia Beaver, Bond University

You’re introduced to someone and your attention catches on their eyes. They might be a rich, earthy brown, a pale blue, or the rare green that shifts with every flicker of light. Eyes have a way of holding us, of sparking recognition or curiosity before a single word is spoken. They are often the first thing we notice about someone, and sometimes the feature we remember most.

Across the world, human eyes span a wide palette. Brown is by far the most common shade, especially in Africa and Asia, while blue is most often seen in northern and eastern Europe. Green is the rarest of all, found in only about 2% of the global population. Hazel eyes add even more diversity, often appearing to shift between green and brown depending on the light.

So, what lies behind these differences?

It’s all in the melanin

The answer rests in the iris, the coloured ring of tissue that surrounds the pupil. Here, a pigment called melanin does most of the work.

Brown eyes contain a high concentration of melanin, which absorbs light and creates their darker appearance. Blue eyes contain very little melanin. Their colour doesn’t come from pigment at all but from the scattering of light within the iris, a physical effect known as the Tyndall effect, a bit like the effect that makes the sky look blue.

In blue eyes, the shorter wavelengths of light (such as blue) are scattered more effectively than longer wavelengths like red or yellow. Due to the low concentration of melanin, less light is absorbed, allowing the scattered blue light to dominate what we perceive. This blue hue results not from pigment but from the way light interacts with the eye’s structure.

Green eyes result from a balance, a moderate amount of melanin layered with light scattering. Hazel eyes are more complex still. Uneven melanin distribution in the iris creates a mosaic of colour that can shift depending on the surrounding ambient light.

What have genes got to do with it?

The genetics of eye colour is just as fascinating.

For a long time, scientists believed a simple “brown beats blue” model, controlled by a single gene. Research now shows the reality is much more complex. Many genes contribute to determining eye colour. This explains why children in the same family can have dramatically different eye colours, and why two blue-eyed parents can sometimes have a child with green or even light brown eyes.

Eye colour also changes over time. Many babies of European ancestry are born with blue or grey eyes because their melanin levels are still low. As pigment gradually builds up over the first few years of life, those blue eyes may shift to green or brown.

In adulthood, eye colour tends to be more stable, though small changes in appearance are common depending on lighting, clothing, or pupil size. For example, blue-grey eyes can appear very blue, very grey or even a little green depending on ambient light. More permanent shifts are rarer but can occur as people age, or in response to certain medical conditions that affect melanin in the iris.

The real curiosities

Then there are the real curiosities.

Heterochromia, where one eye is a different colour from the other, or one iris contains two distinct colours, is rare but striking. It can be genetic, the result of injury, or linked to specific health conditions. Celebrities such as Kate Bosworth and Mila Kunis are well-known examples. Musician David Bowie’s eyes appeared as different colours because of a permanently dilated pupil after an accident, giving the illusion of heterochromia.

In the end, eye colour is more than just a quirk of genetics and physics. It’s a reminder of how biology and beauty intertwine. Each iris is like a tiny universe, rings of pigment, flecks of gold, or pools of deep brown that catch the light differently every time you look.

Eyes don’t just let us see the world, they also connect us to one another. Whether blue, green, brown, or something in-between, every pair tells a story that’s utterly unique, one of heritage, individuality, and the quiet wonder of being human.

Davinia Beaver, Postdoctoral research fellow, Clem Jones Centre for Regenerative Medicine, Bond University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→September 17, 2025

Scientists Define a Color Never Before Seen by Human Eyes, Called 'Olo'–a Blue-Green of Intense Saturation

Photo by Hamish on Unsplash

An experiment in human photoreceptors allowed scientists to recently define a new color, imperceptible by the human eye, that lies along the blue-green spectrum but is different from the two.

The team, who experimented on themselves and others, hope their findings could one day help improve tools for studying color blindness or lead to new technologies for creating colors in digital imagery.

“Theoretically, novel colors are possible through bypassing the constraints set by the cone spectral sensitivities…” the authors write in their abstract. “In practice, we confirm a partial expansion of colorspace toward that theoretical ideal.”

The team from University of California, Berkeley and the University of Washington used pioneering laser technology which they called “Oz” to “directly control the human eye’s photoreceptor activity via cell-by-cell light delivery.”

Color is generated in our vision through the transmission of light in cells called photoreceptors. Eye tissue contain a series of cones for this task, and the cones are labeled as L, S, or M cones.

In normal color vision, the authors explain, any light that stimulates an M cone cell must also stimulate its neighboring L and/or S cones because the M cone spectral response function lies between that of the L and S cones.

“However, Oz stimulation can by definition target light to only M cones and not L or S, which in principle would send a color signal to the brain that never occurs in natural vision,” they add.

Described as a kind of blue-green with “unprecedented saturation” the new color, which the researchers named “olo” was confirmed as being beyond the normal blue-green spectrum by each participant who saw it, as they needed to add substantial amounts of white for olo to fit somewhere within that spectrum.

“The Oz system represents a new experimental platform in vision science, aiming to control photo receptor activation with great precision,” the study says.

Although the authors are confidant that olo has never been seen before by humans, the spectrum of blue-green has received international attention before as a field of vision discovery.

A groundbreaking study of the Himba people in Namibia conducted in 2005 and published in journal of the American Psychological Association demonstrated that these traditional landowners seemed to perceive various colors as the same because they used the same word for them. A grouping of colors we in the West would separate into pink, red, and orange, is all serandu to them.

That was only half of the cause for fascination with the study. The other half came from the Himba people’s unbelievable sensitivity to the blue-green spectrum, such that they could reliably pick out the fainest differences in green that Western viewers by comparison missed.

This also corresponded with more words for shades of green which Westerners would never bother specifying, and in fact, the Himba had a harder time pointing out that a blue square was different from green squares when shown a chart, but could reliably select the square of a slightly different shade of green to the rest.But then it got even stranger. Further studies in the following years included genetic testing on the Himba, and it showed they possess an increased number of cone cells in their eyes. This higher density of cones enables them to perceive more shades and nuances of color than the average person, according to the lead author of the genetic research. Scientists Define a Color Never Before Seen by Human Eyes, Called 'Olo'–a Blue-Green of Intense Saturation

Read More........→August 13, 2025

Discovery of Genetically-Varied Worms in Chernobyl Could Help Human Cancer Research

Worms collected in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone – SWNS / New York University

The 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant transformed the surrounding area into the most radioactive landscape on Earth, and now the discovery of a worm that seems to be right at home in the rads is believed to be a boon for human cancer research.

Though humans were evacuated after the meltdown of Reactor 4, many plants and animals continued to live in the region, despite the high levels of radiation that have persisted to our time.

In recent years, researchers have found that some animals living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone are physically and genetically different from their counterparts elsewhere, raising questions about the impact of chronic radiation on DNA.

In particular, a new study led by researchers at New York University finds that exposure to chronic radiation from Chernobyl has not damaged the genomes of microscopic worms living there today, and the team suggests the invertebrates have become exceptionally resilient.

The finding could offer clues as to why humans with a genetic predisposition to cancer develop the disease, while others do not.

“Chernobyl was a tragedy of incomprehensible scale, but we still don’t have a great grasp on the effects of the disaster on local populations,” said Sophia Tintori, a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Biology at NYU and the first author of the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Did the sudden environmental shift select for species, or even individuals within a species, that are naturally more resistant to ionizing radiation?”

Tintori and her colleagues turned to nematodes, tiny worms with simple genomes and rapid reproduction, which makes them particularly useful for understanding basic biological phenomena.

“These worms live everywhere, and they live quickly, so they go through dozens of generations of evolution while a typical vertebrate is still putting on its shoes,” said Matthew Rockman, a professor of biology at NYU and the study’s senior author.

“I had seen footage of the Exclusion Zone and was surprised by how lush and overgrown it looked—I’d never thought of it as teeming with life,” added Tintori. “If I want to find worms that are particularly tolerant to radiation exposure, this is a landscape that might have already selected for that.”

In collaboration with scientists in Ukraine and U.S. colleagues, including biologist Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina, who studies the effects of radiation from the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, Tintori and Rockman visited the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone in 2019 to see if chronic radiation has had a detectable impact on the region’s worms.

With Geiger counters in hand to measure local levels of radiation and personal protective gear to guard against radioactive dust, they gathered worms from samples of soil, rotting fruit, and other organic material.

The ruins of Reactor 4, Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. credit Matt Shalvatis – CC BY-4.0. SA

Worms were collected from locations throughout the zone with different amounts of radiation, ranging from low levels on par with New York City (negligibly radioactive) to high-radiation sites on par with outer space (dangerous for humans, but of unclear if it would be dangerous to worms).

After collecting samples in the field, the team brought them to Mousseau’s field lab in a former residential home in Chernobyl, where they separated hundreds of nematodes from the soil or fruit. From there, they headed to a Kyiv hotel where, using travel microscopes, they isolated and established cultures from each worm.

Back in the lab at NYU, the researchers continued studying the worms by freezing them.

“We can cryopreserve worms, and then thaw them for study later. That means that we can stop evolution from happening in the lab, something impossible with most other animal models, and very valuable when we want to compare animals that have experienced different evolutionary histories,” said Rockman.

They focused their analyses on 15 worms of a nematode species called Oscheius tipulae, which has been used in genetic and evolutionary studies. They sequenced the genomes of the 15 O. tipulae worms from Chernobyl and compared them with the genomes of five O. tipulae from other parts of the world.

The researchers were surprised to find that, using several different analyses, they could not detect a signature of radiation damage on the genomes of the worms from Chernobyl.

“This doesn’t mean that Chernobyl is safe—it more likely means that nematodes are really resilient animals and can withstand extreme conditions,” noted Tintori. “We also don’t know how long each of the worms we collected was in the Zone, so we can’t be sure exactly what level of exposure each worm and its ancestors received over the past four decades.”

Wondering whether the lack of genetic signature was because the worms living in Chernobyl are unusually effective at protecting or repairing their DNA, the researchers designed a system to compare how quickly populations of worms grow and used it to measure how sensitive the descendants of each of the 20 genetically distinct worms were to different types of DNA damage.

The surprise in this story is that while the lineages of worms were different from each other in how well they tolerated DNA damage, these differences didn’t correspond to the levels of radiation at each collection site, meaning that unlike the origin stories of several superheroes, radiation exposure doesn’t seem to create super worms just as much as it can’t turn you or I into Spiderman or the Hulk.

Instead, the teams’ findings suggest that worms from Chernobyl are not necessarily more tolerant of radiation and the radioactive landscape has not forced them to evolve.

The results give researchers clues into how DNA repair can vary from individual to individual—and despite the genetic simplicity of O. tipulae, could lead to a better understanding of natural variation in humans.

“Now that we know which strains of O. tipulae are more sensitive or more tolerant to DNA damage, we can use these strains to study why different individuals are more likely than others to suffer the effects of carcinogens,” said Tintori.

How different individuals in a species respond to DNA damage is top of mind for cancer researchers seeking to understand why some humans with a genetic predisposition to cancer develop the disease, while others do not.

“Thinking about how individuals respond differently to DNA-damaging agents in the environment is something that will help us have a clear vision of our own risk factors,” added Tintori. Discovery of Genetically-Varied Worms in Chernobyl Could Help Human Cancer Research

Read More........→August 11, 2025

Scientists Regrow Retina Cells to Tackle Leading Cause of Blindness Using Nanotechnology

Macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in developed countries, but regrowing the human cells lost to this condition was the feature of a new successful treatment that took advantage of advances in nanotechnology.

Regrowing the cells of the human retina on a scaffold of synthetic, tissue-like material showed substantial improvements over previously used materials such as cellulose, and the scientists hope they can move on to testing their method in the already blind.

Macular degeneration is increasing in prevalence in the developed world. It’s the leading cause of blindness and is caused by the loss of cells in a key part of the eye called the retina.

Humans have no ability to regrow retinal pigment cells, but scientists have determined how to do it in vitro using pluripotent stem cells. However as the study authors describe, previous examples of this procedure saw scientists growing the cells on flat surfaces rather than one resembling the retinal membrane.

This, they state, limits the effectiveness of transplanted cells.

In a study at the UK’s Nottingham Trent University, biomedical scientist Biola Egbowon and colleagues fabricated 3D scaffolds with polymer nanofibers and coated them with a steroid to reduce inflammation.

The method by which the nanofibers were made was pretty darn cool. The team would squirt polyacrylonitrile and Jeffamine polymers in molten form through an electrical current in a technique known as “electrospinning.” The high voltage caused molecular changes in the polymers that saw them become solid again, resembling a scaffold of tiny fibers that attracted water yet maintained mechanical strength.

After the scaffolding was made, it was treated with an anti-inflammatory steroid.

This unique pairing of materials mixed with the electrospinning created a unique scaffold that kept the retinal pigment cells viable for 150 days outside of any potential human patient, all while showing the phenotype of biomarkers critical for maintaining retinal physiological characteristics.“While this may indicate the potential of such cellularized scaffolds in regenerative medicine, it does not address the question of biocompatibility with human tissue,” Egbowon and colleagues caution in their paper, urging more research to be conducted, specifically regarding the orientation of the cells and whether they can maintain good blood supply. Scientists Regrow Retina Cells to Tackle Leading Cause of Blindness Using Nanotechnology

Read More........→August 07, 2025

This Common Fungus Found on Human Skin Wipes Out Deadly Superbug Staph Infections

University of Oregon researchers have uncovered a molecule produced by yeast living on human skin that showed potent antimicrobial properties against a pathogen responsible for a half-million hospitalizations annually in the US.

It’s a unique approach to tackling the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. With the global threat of drug-resistant infections, fungi inhabiting human skin are an untapped resource for identifying new antibiotics, said Caitlin Kowalski, a postdoctoral researcher at the UO who led the study.

Described in a paper published last month in Current Biology, the common skin fungus Malassezia gobbles up oil and fats on human skin to produce fatty acids that selectively eliminate Staphylococcus aureus.

One out of every three people have Staphylococcus aureus harmlessly dwelling in their nose, but the bacteria are a risk factor for serious infections when given the opportunity: open wounds, abrasions and cuts. They’re the primary cause of skin and soft tissue infections known as staph infections.

Staphylococcus aureus is also a hospital superbug notorious for being resistant to current antibiotics, elevating the pressing need for new medicines.

There are lots of studies that identify new antibiotic structures, Kowalski said, “but what was fun and interesting about ours is that we identified (a compound) that is well-known and that people have studied before.”

The compound is not toxic in normal lab conditions, but it can be potent in conditions that replicate the acidic environment of healthy skin. “I think that’s why in some cases we may have missed these kinds of antimicrobial mechanisms,” Kowalski added, “because the pH in the lab wasn’t low enough. But human skin is really acidic.”

Humans play host to a colossal array of microorganisms, known as the microbiome, but we know little about our resident fungi and their contributions to human health, Kowalski said. The skin microbiome is of special interest to her because while other body parts crowd dozens of different fungi, the skin is dominantly colonized by one kind known as Malassezia.

Malassezia can be associated with cases of dandruff and eczema, but it’s considered relatively harmless and a normal part of skin flora. The yeast has evolved to live on mammalian skin, so much so that it can’t make fatty acids without the lipids—oils and fats—secreted by skin.

Despite the abundance of Malassezia found on us, they remain understudied, Kowalski said.

“The skin is a parallel system to what’s happening in the gut, which is really well-studied,” she said in a media release. “We know that the intestinal microbiome can modify host compounds and make their own unique compounds that have new functions. Skin is lipid-rich, and the skin microbiome processes these lipids to also produce bioactive compounds. So what does this mean for skin health and diseases?”

Looking at human skin samples from healthy donors and experiments done with skin cells in the lab, Kowalski found that the fungal species Malassezia sympodialis transformed host lipids into antibacterial hydroxy fatty acids. Fatty acids have various functions in cells but are notably the building blocks for cell membranes.

The hydroxy fatty acids synthesized by Malassezia sympodialis were detergent-like, destroying the membranes of Staphylococcus aureus and causing its internal contents to leak away. The attack prevented the colonization of Staphylococcus aureus on the skin and ultimately killed the bacteria in as little as 15 minutes, Kowalski said.

But the fungus isn’t a magic bullet. After enough exposure, the staph bacteria eventually became tolerant to the fungus, as they do when clinical antibiotics are overused.

Looking at their genetics, the researchers found that the bacteria evolved a mutation in the Rel gene, which activates the bacterial stress response. Similar mutations have been previously identified in patients with Staphylococcus aureus infections.

The findings show that a bacteria’s host environment and interactions with other microbes can influence its susceptibility to antibiotics.

“There’s growing interest in applying microbes as a therapeutic, such as adding bacteria to prevent the growth of a pathogen,” Kowalski said. “But it can have consequences that we have not yet fully understood. Even though we know antibiotics lead to the evolution of resistance, it hasn’t been considered when we think about the application of microbes as a therapeutic.”

While the discovery adds a layer of complexity for drug discovery, Kowalski said she is excited about the potential of resident fungi as a new source for future antibiotics.

Identifying the antimicrobial fatty acids took three years and a cross-disciplinary effort. Kowalski collaborated with chemical microbiologists at McMaster University to track down the compound.

“It was like finding a needle in a haystack but with molecules you can’t see,” said Kowalski’s adviser, Matthew Barber, an associate professor of biology in the College of Arts and Sciences at the UO.

Kowalski is working on a follow-up study that goes deeper into the genetic mechanisms that led to the antibiotic tolerance. She is also preparing to launch her own lab to further investigate the overlooked role of the skin microbiome, parting from Barber’s lab after bringing fungi into focus.

“Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections are a major human health threat and one that, in some ways, is getting worse,” Barber said. “We still have a lot of work to do in understanding the microorganisms but also finding new ways that we can possibly treat or prevent those infections.”[Source: By Leila Okahata, University of Oregon] This Common Fungus Found on Human Skin Wipes Out Deadly Superbug Staph Infections

Read More........→June 06, 2025

Scientists use AI to reveal the neural dynamics of human conversation

New York, (IANS): By combining artificial intelligence (AI) with electrical recordings of brain activity, researchers have been able to track the language exchanged during conversations and the corresponding neural activity in different brain regions, according to a new study.

The team from Department of Neurosurgery at Massachusetts General Hospital in the US investigated how our brains process language during real-life conversations.

“Specifically, we wanted to understand which brain regions become active when we're speaking and listening, and how these patterns relate to the specific words and context of the conversation,” said lead author Jing Cai in a paper published in Nature Communications.

They employed AI to take a closer look at how our brains handle the back-and-forth of real conversations. The team combined advanced AI, specifically language models like those behind ChatGPT, with neural recordings using electrodes placed within the brain.

This allowed them to simultaneously track the linguistic features of conversations and the corresponding neural activity in different brain regions.

“By analysing these synchronised data streams, we could map how specific aspects of language–like the words being spoken and the conversational context–were represented in the dynamic patterns of brain activity during conversation,” said Cai.

They found that both speaking and listening during a conversation engage a widespread network of brain areas in the frontal and temporal lobes.

What's interesting is that these brain activity patterns are highly specific, changing depending on the exact words being used, the context and order of those words.

“We also observed that some brain regions are active during both speaking and listening, suggesting a partially shared neural basis for these processes. Finally, we identified specific shifts in brain activity that occur when people switch from listening to speaking during a conversation,” said the authors.The findings offer significant insights into how the brain pulls off the seemingly effortless feat of conversation. Scientists use AI to reveal the neural dynamics of human conversation | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Read More........→April 23, 2025

An AI system has reached human level on a test for ‘general intelligence’. Here’s what that means

Michael Timothy Bennett, Australian National University and Elija Perrier, Stanford University

A new artificial intelligence (AI) model has just achieved human-level results on a test designed to measure “general intelligence”.

On December 20, OpenAI’s o3 system scored 85% on the ARC-AGI benchmark, well above the previous AI best score of 55% and on par with the average human score. It also scored well on a very difficult mathematics test.

Creating artificial general intelligence, or AGI, is the stated goal of all the major AI research labs. At first glance, OpenAI appears to have at least made a significant step towards this goal.

While scepticism remains, many AI researchers and developers feel something just changed. For many, the prospect of AGI now seems more real, urgent and closer than anticipated. Are they right?

Generalisation and intelligence

To understand what the o3 result means, you need to understand what the ARC-AGI test is all about. In technical terms, it’s a test of an AI system’s “sample efficiency” in adapting to something new – how many examples of a novel situation the system needs to see to figure out how it works.

An AI system like ChatGPT (GPT-4) is not very sample efficient. It was “trained” on millions of examples of human text, constructing probabilistic “rules” about which combinations of words are most likely.

The result is pretty good at common tasks. It is bad at uncommon tasks, because it has less data (fewer samples) about those tasks.

Until AI systems can learn from small numbers of examples and adapt with more sample efficiency, they will only be used for very repetitive jobs and ones where the occasional failure is tolerable.

The ability to accurately solve previously unknown or novel problems from limited samples of data is known as the capacity to generalise. It is widely considered a necessary, even fundamental, element of intelligence.

Grids and patterns

The ARC-AGI benchmark tests for sample efficient adaptation using little grid square problems like the one below. The AI needs to figure out the pattern that turns the grid on the left into the grid on the right.

Each question gives three examples to learn from. The AI system then needs to figure out the rules that “generalise” from the three examples to the fourth.

These are a lot like the IQ tests sometimes you might remember from school.

Weak rules and adaptation

We don’t know exactly how OpenAI has done it, but the results suggest the o3 model is highly adaptable. From just a few examples, it finds rules that can be generalised.

To figure out a pattern, we shouldn’t make any unnecessary assumptions, or be more specific than we really have to be. In theory, if you can identify the “weakest” rules that do what you want, then you have maximised your ability to adapt to new situations.

What do we mean by the weakest rules? The technical definition is complicated, but weaker rules are usually ones that can be described in simpler statements.

In the example above, a plain English expression of the rule might be something like: “Any shape with a protruding line will move to the end of that line and ‘cover up’ any other shapes it overlaps with.”

Searching chains of thought?

While we don’t know how OpenAI achieved this result just yet, it seems unlikely they deliberately optimised the o3 system to find weak rules. However, to succeed at the ARC-AGI tasks it must be finding them.

We do know that OpenAI started with a general-purpose version of the o3 model (which differs from most other models, because it can spend more time “thinking” about difficult questions) and then trained it specifically for the ARC-AGI test.

French AI researcher Francois Chollet, who designed the benchmark, believes o3 searches through different “chains of thought” describing steps to solve the task. It would then choose the “best” according to some loosely defined rule, or “heuristic”.

This would be “not dissimilar” to how Google’s AlphaGo system searched through different possible sequences of moves to beat the world Go champion.

You can think of these chains of thought like programs that fit the examples. Of course, if it is like the Go-playing AI, then it needs a heuristic, or loose rule, to decide which program is best.

There could be thousands of different seemingly equally valid programs generated. That heuristic could be “choose the weakest” or “choose the simplest”.

However, if it is like AlphaGo then they simply had an AI create a heuristic. This was the process for AlphaGo. Google trained a model to rate different sequences of moves as better or worse than others.

What we still don’t know

The question then is, is this really closer to AGI? If that is how o3 works, then the underlying model might not be much better than previous models.

The concepts the model learns from language might not be any more suitable for generalisation than before. Instead, we may just be seeing a more generalisable “chain of thought” found through the extra steps of training a heuristic specialised to this test. The proof, as always, will be in the pudding.

Almost everything about o3 remains unknown. OpenAI has limited disclosure to a few media presentations and early testing to a handful of researchers, laboratories and AI safety institutions.

Truly understanding the potential of o3 will require extensive work, including evaluations, an understanding of the distribution of its capacities, how often it fails and how often it succeeds.

When o3 is finally released, we’ll have a much better idea of whether it is approximately as adaptable as an average human.

If so, it could have a huge, revolutionary, economic impact, ushering in a new era of self-improving accelerated intelligence. We will require new benchmarks for AGI itself and serious consideration of how it ought to be governed.

If not, then this will still be an impressive result. However, everyday life will remain much the same.

Michael Timothy Bennett, PhD Student, School of Computing, Australian National University and Elija Perrier, Research Fellow, Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, Stanford University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........→February 19, 2025