Scientists studying sharks in the Caribbean have discovered something alarming: traces of human drugs, including caffeine, painkillers, and even cocaine, circulating in their blood.

A Troubling Discovery Beneath the Surface

In a recent study, researchers analyzed blood samples from dozens of sharks living near Eleuthera Island in the Bahamas. What they found was striking. Over a third of the sharks tested had detectable levels of substances like caffeine, acetaminophen, and anti-inflammatory drugs. Some even carried multiple compounds at once.

Perhaps most surprising was the presence of cocaine in a juvenile shark — evidence of very recent exposure. Unlike muscle tissue, where substances can linger for long periods, blood reflects more immediate contamination. This suggests that these animals are actively encountering pollutants in their environment.

How Do Drugs End Up in Sharks?

Coastal waters, especially near areas with tourism or human settlement, often receive untreated or partially treated sewage. Everyday human activities such as swimming, boating, and waste disposal, introduce a cocktail of chemicals into the ocean.

Even something as simple as urinating in the water can contribute trace pharmaceuticals. Add to that runoff, discarded materials, and, in rare cases, drug trafficking residues, and you get a complex pollution problem that marine animals can’t escape.

Sharks, being curious predators, may also ingest contaminated objects or prey, further increasing their exposure.

What Does This Mean for Sharks?

While the long-term effects are still unclear, researchers have already observed changes in metabolic markers in contaminated sharks. These include shifts in substances linked to stress, energy use, and overall physiological balance.

There’s reason to be concerned. Studies in other fish species suggest that compounds like caffeine can alter behavior, making animals more active or alert. In sharks, such changes could affect hunting patterns, migration, or interactions with other species.

Even subtle disruptions can ripple through the ecosystem, especially when they affect apex predators.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cocaine-sharks-drugs-bahamas-eleuthera

The change comes as NASA continues to face technical setbacks with Artemis II, the mission intended to send astronauts around the moon for the first time since 1972. Recent fueling tests of the Space Launch System rocket revealed leaks and other mechanical issues, forcing the rocket back into the Vehicle Assembly Building for repairs. Artemis II, which had once targeted an early February launch, is now aiming for no earlier than April, depending on whether repairs proceed smoothly.

Under the revised plan, Artemis III will launch in 2027 but will not attempt a lunar landing. Instead, astronauts will rendezvous in low Earth orbit with commercial lunar landers being developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin. The crew will also test next-generation spacesuits built by Axiom Space. These steps are meant to reduce risk by validating hardware before committing to a surface mission.

If all goes as planned, Artemis IV and Artemis V could attempt lunar landings in 2028. NASA has also decided not to upgrade its Space Launch System rocket between Artemis II and III, streamlining development. Ultimately, the agency hopes to increase the frequency of lunar missions and lay the groundwork for a sustained human presence on the moon, shifting attention back to engineering progress rather than political and budgetary delays.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nasa-moon-landing-artemis-ii

Published February 9, 2026, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, the study followed more than 130,000 participants from the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, tracking dietary habits from the 1980s through early 2023. Researchers found that people who drank about two to three cups of caffeinated coffee per day, or one to two cups of tea, had the lowest risk of dementia compared with non-drinkers. Drinking more than that did not provide additional protection, and decaffeinated coffee showed no benefit.

The difference was not subtle. Among non–coffee drinkers, there were about 330 new dementia cases per 100,000 people each year. Among moderate coffee drinkers, that number dropped to 229. After adjusting for factors such as age and smoking, both moderate and high caffeine consumption were associated with roughly an 18 to 19 percent lower risk of dementia. Tea drinkers showed a similar trend, though researchers could not confirm whether the tea consumed contained caffeine.

The study does not claim coffee or tea prevents dementia outright, and the researchers are careful not to oversell the results. Dementia is influenced by many factors, including genetics, overall health, and lifestyle. Still, caffeine’s known effects on inflammation and oxidative stress may help explain the association. The takeaway is not that coffee is medicine, but that moderate consumption appears safe and possibly beneficial for brain health.

In other words, your morning cup is not a cure-all. But science is no longer glaring at it suspiciously, which feels like progress.

Sources:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/daily-coffee-tea-lower-dementia-risk

The first study, led by Lindsay Zanno and James Napoli, examined an exceptionally preserved fossil from Montana’s Hell Creek Formation, part of the famous “Dueling Dinosaurs” discovery. This fossil shows a small tyrannosaur locked in combat with a plant-eating dinosaur, frozen in time for 67 million years. Detailed analysis of its bones revealed features that do not change with age, such as nerve pathways, sinus structures, and proportions of the arms and tail. These traits clearly distinguished it from T. rex and showed that the animal was fully grown.

A second research team reached the same conclusion using a different fossil previously believed to be a young T. rex. By studying growth rings in throat bones called hyoids, they determined that the specimen had stopped growing and therefore belonged to an adult Nanotyrannus. The agreement between two teams using different fossils and methods strengthened the case that Nanotyrannus was a distinct species rather than a growth stage of T. rex.

The findings also reopened questions about another debated fossil nicknamed “Jane.” Zanno and Napoli now argue that Jane was a juvenile Nanotyrannus, possibly even a second species, which they named Nanotyrannus lethaeus. While some paleontologists remain skeptical, the idea suggests that multiple tyrannosaur species lived side by side in late Cretaceous North America, each filling a different ecological role.

Sources
https://www.snexplores.org/article/fossil-new-tyrannosaur-not-t-rex

​

The latest image was taken on 26 November 2025 after the comet reemerged from behind the Sun following its closest approach. Unlike typical comets that orbit the Sun repeatedly, 3I/ATLAS is traveling on a one-way path. After passing through our Solar System, it will continue back into interstellar space, disappearing from view forever.

The Gemini North telescope, located atop Maunakea in Hawaii, captured the image using its Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph. Astronomers used multiple color filters to observe changes in the comet’s appearance as it warmed. Because the comet moves quickly relative to background stars, the telescope had to track its motion precisely, which initially caused stars in the image to appear as streaks. Scientists later processed the data to restore the stars to their normal positions.

One of the most surprising features in the new image is the comet’s bright green glow. Earlier observations from the Gemini South telescope showed 3I/ATLAS with a reddish tint, but the latest images reveal a dramatic color shift. Scientists explain that this green color comes from gases released as the comet heats up. As frozen material near the surface evaporates, it forms a glowing cloud, or coma, around the nucleus. One of the gases responsible is diatomic carbon, which emits light at green wavelengths when energized by sunlight.

As 3I/ATLAS continues its journey away from the Sun, researchers expect the comet to cool down. However, some comets experience delayed reactions to solar heating, meaning trapped heat could still trigger sudden bursts of gas even as the comet moves farther away. For this reason, astronomers plan to continue monitoring the object as long as it remains observable.

Beyond its scientific importance, the observations are also part of a public outreach effort aimed at sharing real astronomical data with the public. By releasing these images, scientists hope to give people a closer look at how astronomers study rare cosmic objects and better understand the tools and techniques used to explore the universe. As one researcher involved in the project noted, allowing the public to witness these observations helps make science more transparent and brings people closer to a once-in-a-lifetime interstellar encounter.

Sources

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/comet-3i-atlas-gemini-north-november-2025

In a recent article, (https://hai.stanford.edu/news/stanford-ai-experts-predict-what-will-happen-in-2026), AI experts at Stanford predicted what will happen with AI in 2026. Here are some predictions:

1. One expert predicted an increase in AI sovereignty, meaning that more countries will begin to create their own LLMs (large language models).
2. Another expert believes that there will be more failed AI projects that won’t increase productivity for companies. Hopefully they’ll learn from these mistakes and develop stronger AI models.
3. While larger AI models also succeed, it’s possible that there will be smaller models of higher quality on the rise.
4. There will likely be more predictions in science and medicine. Normally in these fields, people use early fusion (where all the data types are in one model) or late fusion (there are separate models). There’s a debate of whether early fusion or late fusion is better when there are mistakes in data. We’ll probably be able to figure that out after some experimentation using both models.
5. In science research, we must understand AI’s process of getting to an output as well as the output itself. It’s likely that we’ll focus more on figuring out how the AI gets to the output, since finding the output is significantly easier.
6. We may start integrating AI into hospitals and learn how to make it a more efficient process by developing ways to evaluate AI and what features to include. Medical AI model development used to require the input and knowledge of a medical expert, but now we can use self-supervised machine learning to lower the cost of creating medical AIs because hiring an expert is no longer necessary. In the future, the accuracy and implementation of medical AIs could be improved.
7. Hopefully we’ll be able to find a way to make AI have more long term benefits, which needs to be implemented during the creation of AI models.

For example, other NSF-funded projects have focused on understanding how the genes responsible for regeneration work in both axolotls and fish that can regrow their fins. Scientists are also studying how cells detect and respond to various signals during regeneration, such as how they turn environmental or chemical stimuli into electrical and biochemical activity that promotes tissue growth.

Together, these findings are helping researchers understand the complex genetic and molecular systems that allow some animals to regrow body parts completely. By learning how regeneration works at the cellular level, scientists hope to apply these lessons to new methods for repairing or replacing damaged human tissues in the future. Although the idea of humans regrowing entire limbs is still far from reality, the axolotl continues to serve as an important model for discovering how regeneration occurs. Each new discovery, such as the role of retinoic acid in guiding limb formation, adds to scientists’ understanding and brings them closer to major advances in regenerative medicine and healing.

Liu and his team finally figured it out when they introduced a microRNA to create iPSCs. After confirming that they created the correct stem cells, they tried to increase the efficiency of iPSC creation. They were able to multiply the efficiency by 5.

As a child, Jane dreamed of traveling to Africa to study animals and write about them. Her dream came true when she was able to save enough money to travel to Kenya, where she met well-respected paleontologist Louis Leakey. She worked as a secretary of the National Museum and worked to find fossils with Louis Leakey. After that, Louis suggested that she go study chimpanzees in the Gombe Forest in Tanzania.

While there, she discovered that chimpanzees were more human-like than scientists thought. Chimpanzees can use tools, have complex social lives, and exhibit behaviors like compassion and warfare. She also discovered that chimpanzees are omnivores, not herbivores like we previously believed. This study of chimpanzees was intended to last a few months, but it turned into a 65 year research project that’s still ongoing today.

Her work was so important because we used to think that having complex social lives and using tools was uniquely human, so her research blurred the line between humans and primates. This discovery challenged the idea that humans were separate from the rest of the animal kingdom and redefined our understanding of what it means to be human.

While Jane is most known for her research on chimpanzees, she was also a conservationist in her later life. She founded the Jane Goodall Institute in 1991. Its original purpose was to support her research in Gombe, but it now includes multiple environmental programs. For example, Jane started the Roots & Shoots environmental program for young people, which is active in 75 countries.

Sadly, Jane Goodall passed away in her sleep on October 1, 2025. Her legacy continues through the Jane Goodall Institute’s programs, her lasting impact on primatology, and the inspiration that she gave to generations of scientists. To continue her legacy and conserve the planet, you can donate to the Jane Goodall Institute or join Roots & Shoots.

“We have the choice to use the gift of our life to make the world a better place — or not to bother.” — Jane Goodall

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is confirming your own beliefs by interpreting new evidence as that confirmation. This happens because people tend to ignore evidence that doesn’t align with their existing beliefs. For example, if a student thinks they’re bad at studying, they’ll look at every bad grade and confirm their belief with that. They’re likely to brush off a good grade as luck and not a result of their studying because it doesn’t confirm their existing beliefs. In science research, we can incorrectly analyze data based on our own biases, which can cause us to come to incorrect conclusions about the data.

To avoid confirmation bias, you can look at various perspectives, especially on social media. You should search for things instead of just looking for what’s on your feed because your feed is adjusted based on the content that you agree with. In addition, you should consider all of the evidence equally instead of only the evidence that backs up your claims.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

The sunk cost fallacy is when we tend to continue something because we’ve spent so much time, energy, effort, money, or something else on it, even when giving up is a better idea. For example, if you spend money on a gym membership, you’ll be more likely to go to the gym than if you just worked out at home because you’ve already invested some money. In science research, we may not discontinue or finish a project even if we should because we’ve invested something in it already.

To avoid the sunk cost fallacy, you should think more about what the result of continuing whatever you’re doing is rather than what you invested in the past. While sometimes you should continue things, at other times stopping is the better decision.

Halo Effect

The halo effect is when someone or something has a positive trait, so we assume that they have other positive traits too. For example, you’re more likely to date someone if they look attractive because you’re positively biased to them from the first impression. An attractive person is perceived as more likeable than an unattractive person even though looks don’t say much about your personality. In science research, funding of certain projects and interpretation of data can be affected.

To avoid the halo effect, always remember that one positive aspect of something does not mean that all other aspects of it are positive.