Scientists built a swallowable paper battery that can power medical devices inside the body and then gradually break down after its job is done.

So far, the battery has been tested only in pigs, in which it powered devices for up to three days. If proven safe and effective in people, the battery could someday power temporary devices inside the gut while avoiding surgery to retrieve a conventional battery from the body when the device is no longer needed.

"I'm very excited about this work," said Reza Ghodssi, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Maryland who was not involved in the study. "The battery is one component that takes up most of the space in an ingestible device, so anything that can provide the required power while reducing the size of the capsule is very promising."

Examples of ingestible medical devices include those that detect bleeding, dispense medicines, or stimulate specific tissues or organs.

How does the battery work?
Conventional batteries used in ingestible devices are not only large; they also need to stay sealed to prevent their internal materials from leaking into surrounding tissue and causing damage. The new battery, described Monday (Sept. 21) in the journal Nature Chemical Engineering, is made from materials that gradually dissolve in the acidic gastrointestinal tract and can then be safely absorbed without leaving behind harmful fragments or toxic byproducts...

Two decades ago, scientists seemed on the verge of understanding biology in a new, quantum way.

Life unfolds over an incomprehensible span of scales, from our planet-enveloping biosphere at one end, to individual cell-building biomolecules at the other. Even at its most microscopic, though, biology doesn’t really reach down to the quantum realm, in which particles act like waves, become entangled with one another, and exist in superpositions of multiple states at once. But scientists in the field of quantum biology are searching for ways that organisms might be able to push quantumness into the space, time, and temperature domains relevant to life, to make use of its strange properties.

In photosynthesis, for example, organisms use specialized pigments and proteins to harvest light with nearly perfect quantum efficiency; they convert almost every incoming photon into useful chemical energy. In 2007, new evidence suggested that life might accomplish this feat by taking advantage of a quantum effect called coherence. The result buoyed the controversial idea that, despite being a warm, wet, and decidedly classical environment, a living cell could maintain — and even exploit — fragile quantum states.

Gregory Scholes, a chemist at Princeton University, was initially enthusiastic about the result. He and colleagues followed up with experiments on photosynthesizing proteins and pigments and came away with similar conclusions. But today, Scholes is skeptical that quantum effects play a role in life. In fact, he’s convinced that the way forward for quantum biology might not be quantum at all. Rather than taking advantage of genuine quantum effects, Scholes proposes, life might be imitating them instead. In several papers published over the past three years, Scholes and colleagues have shown that complex networks of classical objects can conspire to produce phenomena that mathematically mimic quantum objects.

Don’t be fooled: The states that these networks produce are not truly quantum; they’re only “quantumlike.” They arise when many interacting, oscillating parts add up to a collective whole whose behavior obeys the same mathematics that makes predictions about the quantum world.

Fusion-powered space travel has long held the promise of rapid trips across the solar system: Mars in weeks, Saturn in months, Pluto in years.

For decades, such possibilities have remained theoretical, like something plucked out of a science fiction novel. But several companies are now working to build practical nuclear fusion propulsion engines, with significant milestones being hit.

Pulsar Fusion, a U.K.-based startup, hopes to launch a demonstration mission to space in 2027, while Princeton University and Helicity Space in the U.S. are continuing their own work on fusion drives.

If any of these efforts prove successful, missions across the solar system for robots and humans could be unlocked like never before, turning us into a true spacefaring species.

"If we continue on the current trajectory, everything we know about space travel is going to change within a decade," Stephane Lintner, CEO and co-founder of Helicity Space, told Live Science.

But is it too good to be true? Can the dream of nuclear fusion propulsion ever be fully realized, or will it remain a sketchbook fantasy? After decades of dreaming, we might be on the cusp of finding out...

In the early 1960s, a worker extracting minerals at Jebel Irhoud, in Morocco, uncovered a skull with strikingly human features.

Named Irhoud 1, the fossil was initially identified as an African Neanderthal variant about 40,000 years old.

Later dating studies pushed the age of the find back, to between 100,000 and 200,000 years in 1991 and to about 160,000 years in 2007.

In 2017, two studies reclassified Irhoud 1 and associated remains as Homo sapiens and gave them an age of roughly 315,000 years, making them the oldest known representatives of the species.

“In 2017, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI-EVA) publicly released image and video data regarding the three-dimensional digital reconstruction of the Jebel Irhoud skull,” said corresponding author Dr. Johari Yap Abdullah, a researcher at the Universiti Sains Malaysia and Saveetha University, and his colleagues.

“The three-dimensional model in question constitutes a composite skull, structured through the spatial integration of multiple specimens excavated from the same stratigraphic unit.”

The MPI-EVA model is dominated by the Irhoud 1 fossil, the original 1961 find, which supplies the braincase and upper face.

A mandible from another individual, Irhoud 11, and fragments from other specimens fill the gaps...

A new company has a plan to make the dirty gas turbines powering data centers more efficient: liquid carbon dioxide.

American Supercritical came out of stealth Wednesday, announcing $8 million in funding. It wants to retrofit inefficient gas turbines that many data centers rely on for power with units that can generate more power, without adding more emissions (though the gas-fired turbines will continue to emit carbon pollution). The technology can also theoretically be used on a wide variety of energy sources at a time when power demand is skyrocketing.

“We want to start with gas turbines but eventually expand beyond that,” says cofounder Simon Shuham.

Most large gas-fired power plants in the United States use an array of heat engines in what’s known as a combined-cycle process: First, turbines generate electricity from burning compressed air and natural gas, then a separate engine uses the hot exhaust to make steam and create additional energy. But for a variety of reasons, data centers across the US have opted to power their operations with what are known as simple-cycle turbines, and exclude the steam component.

These turbines are much less efficient than combined-cycle plants. Usually, only about 35 percent of the energy from simple-cycle turbines is converted to electricity, while the rest escapes as exhaust. (In combined-cycle plants, that figure hovers closer to 60 to 65 percent.) That exhaust includes greenhouse gases, making plants that run on simple-cycle turbines a much worse choice for the environment than combined-cycle plants.

The size of some of these plants combined with their inefficiency is a recipe for climate disaster. A massive data-center power plant in Texas that Amazon is building with just simple-cycle turbines, for instance, is permitted to emit more than 33 million tons of greenhouse gases per year—more than the annual total of some small countries.

But all these small, inefficient turbines could be a great match for supercritical CO2 technology, American Supercritical’s founders say. Carbon dioxide becomes supercritical when it’s pressurized and held at a certain temperature. In this state, it gets the density of liquid but still behaves like a gas, meaning it can move energy more efficiently through much smaller amounts of equipment.

American Supercritical wants to attach its units to small gas turbines and help generate more energy. While the turbines themselves would still use gas, the supercritical CO2 unit can use the hot exhaust generated from those turbines to create additional electricity. Instead of using that heat to boil water and create steam, the heat is transferred directly by the pressurized CO2 to generate additional energy with no additional emissions.

“We’re essentially building miniature combined-cycle plants,” says Shuham.

Using supercritical CO2 also can eliminate or greatly reduce water use in the power generation process—something that’s drawn intense scrutiny when it comes to data centers. Importantly, the CO2 involved operates in a closed-loop system, meaning that it doesn’t have to be refilled. Cofounder Matthew Carlson, who researched supercritical CO2 for more than a decade, likens it to refrigeration systems that circulate CO2 to facilitate cooling.

Researchers in Japan have switched on "Shunkai," a neutral atom quantum computer that scientists hope to scale into a 10,000-qubit behemoth by March 2031.

Shunkai is the first full-stack system of its kind in Japan, meaning it features the software, control and hardware layers needed to read user inputs and return a result — not unlike a conventional PC. In theory, that means it should be easier for researchers to get some meaningful use out of the machine, with the team behind Shunkai planning to open it up to external users over the coming years.

In a statement, project lead Kenji Ohmori, a professor of photo-molecular science at the Institute for Molecular Science, said researchers' use of Shunkai would "lead to ripple effects on various fields in industry, academia, and government around the world."

The team behind the new machine plans to integrate it into an existing shared supercomputing facility to create a quantum-GPU hybrid computing center.

Quantum computers: Powerful but impractical
Unlike traditional, or "classical," computers, quantum computers operate according to the strange laws of quantum physics. In quantum systems, qubits — in the form of superconducting circuits, trapped ions or photons (among other modalities) — represent the fundamental building blocks of quantum information. These can exist as a 1, 0, or a "superposition" of both states at once...

Misophonia causes strong emotions in response to everyday sounds like chewing or sniffing. The condition often involves feelings of immediate distress or anger. This can be confusing and upsetting for children, adults and their families or friends.

Misophonia can disrupt family meals, school, work, friendships and other parts of daily life. At Yale Child Study Center, associate professor Thomas Fernandez, M.D., works with patients who struggle with misophonia.

Fernandez also studies the genetics of misophonia and other conditions. In a recent interview with the Misophonia Research Fund (MRF), he described current research investigating how misophonia is rooted in the brain.

He also discussed how discoveries about underlying biological mechanisms could ultimately lead to more targeted treatments. Read on for key takeaways from the interview and a follow-up with Fernandez about the research.

What is misophonia? Is it real and rooted in the brain?
Misophonia can cause intense feelings of distress, anger or panic when someone hears chewing, sniffing, tapping or other sounds. "The response can feel immediate and involuntary, and some people avoid shared meals, classrooms, workplaces, or social situations to escape triggers," Fernandez says.

He emphasizes that these feelings are real, even if others are not bothered by the same sounds. Misophonia is brain-based. Understanding this can help reduce blame, conflict at home and misunderstandings at school or with friends.

A growing body of research indicates that misophonia reflects differences in how the brain responds to certain sounds. Studies point to networks involved in sound, emotion and salience, the process in the brain that flags something as especially important.

Researchers are still working to understand exactly how these systems interact and develop. What is clear is that the response is not a matter of willpower or simply being "too sensitive"...

We have long known every tonne of carbon dioxide matters to the climate. But governments keep approving new fossil fuel projects—even as climate change worsens.

Until now, it's been difficult to say how much damage and extra warming a specific project will cause. Fossil fuel companies—and government agencies approving their projects—have often relied on what's known as the "drop in the ocean" defense.

While backers concede a new project will add more carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, they say those emissions are tiny compared with the global total and that it's almost impossible to track damage attributable to an individual project.

This defense won't work anymore. In recent years, attribution science has advanced rapidly, allowing scientists to pinpoint the role of climate change in making disasters and extreme weather more likely.

Our new open-source climate tool—the Carbon Impacts Tracer—goes one step further. It shows how much a new project will warm the planet and how much damage it will cause across eight areas, from crop losses to heat wave deaths in Europe.

This will help hold fossil fuel companies and governments approving these projects accountable for the damage the projects will cause...

On an afternoon in Seoul in March 2016, I watched a program I helped build put a stone on the fifth line of a Go board in what looked like a gift to its human opponent. Move 37 in game two of the five-game match looked so absurd that some commentators thought it was a programming glitch.

It wasn’t. AlphaGo won the game, ultimately triumphing 4-1 over Lee Sedol, one of the greatest professional Go players of all time. “I thought AlphaGo was based on probability calculation and that it was merely a machine,” Lee said afterwards. “But when I saw this move, I changed my mind. Surely, AlphaGo is creative.” 

When Deep Blue defeated then reigning world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, it did so by looking six to eight moves ahead per player and evaluating 200 million chess positions per second, using rules hard-coded by humans. Go is a vastly more complex game. A stone’s worth depends on how distant groups and territory unfold over dozens of moves. Computing even a fraction of the possible outcomes would take a supercomputer billions of years. To win, AlphaGo had to sense who was ahead at a glance and even invent moves no human had thought to play.

That is why many accounts of AlphaGo’s match against Lee portray move 37 as a flash of pure machine intuition. But that is a misunderstanding. It was actually AlphaGo’s powers of reasoning that made this creative choice—and these are powers that today’s AI lacks. If we want future AI systems to produce trustworthy results and really novel insights in fields like science and medicine, we need to equip them with genuine reasoning capabilities of this kind.

AlphaGo is made up of two systems. The first, its policy network, was trained to guess what move a strong human would play. This “intuitive” part regarded move 37 as nothing special—a play that had a roughly one in 10,000 chance of being made by an expert human player. What made AlphaGo choose it was the program’s search machinery, which looked beyond immediate plausibility and weighed the future consequences of proposed moves. It explicitly constructed and searched a game tree with thousands of branches, each representing a different possible future. 

A well-known theory in the behavioral sciences, popularized by Daniel Kahneman, distinguishes between two modes of human thought: System 1 is fast, gut-level, effortless; system 2, slow, step-by-step, and deliberative. AlphaGo offered a striking machine analogue of that split. Its networks supplied the hunches—this move looks promising, this position looks won—and its search supplied the deliberation, testing those hunches against the moves and countermoves that would follow. As in human cognition, neither half works alone. Intuition alone would never have opted for move 37, and brute-force search would have struggled to sieve through all the many possible moves.

This is strikingly different from the way today’s AI models work. A large language model picks the next token, over and over. That amounts to system 1 in action—fast, associative, and surprisingly good pattern completion across almost every subject people write about...

When reading the news, you may occasionally be bemused by the flip-flopping science and health stories: one week you’re told coffee is good for you, the next week that it’s bad. Red wine extends your life, then it doesn’t. Over time, new scientific studies seemingly contradict one another, leaving us unsure what evidence to believe.

As a science journalist, I’ve learnt that often the actual problem is that each study is reported in isolation, rather than weighed against everything else we know. And sometimes, the risks of harm are high. For example, in September 2025, I reported on the US Food and Drug Administration’s announcement that it would add a warning label to the painkiller acetaminophen (paracetamol), claiming that taking the drug during pregnancy increased a child’s risk of autism. It made global headlines. Yet looking closer at the science, it was clear that the FDA and its parent health department had cherrypicked a few studies, and downplayed other more robust findings. This was confirmed a couple of months later when researchers published a major review that better represented the full body of knowledge. ‘Existing evidence does not clearly link maternal paracetamol use during pregnancy with autism or ADHD in offspring,’ it concluded. By then, of course, countless women had been needlessly scared about a painkiller that is widely considered one of the safest to take during pregnancy.

In 2025, academics worldwide published about 7 million scholarly articles ­– that’s more than 19,000 each day. On the surface, that might seem like a number to celebrate, but it also poses a problem. As the volume of research balloons, it can be hard to discern what these millions of papers actually tell us. Within the firehose, there are rigorous methodologies and important findings, but also baffling contradictions, unconfirmed results and sloppy science. And some diverse forms of knowledge, such as lived experience and Indigenous insights, are rarely captured in scholarly articles and databases at all.

The causes are systemic. Scientists publish and promote one paper after another because that’s how they advance in their careers. Journalists breathlessly chase the latest, flashiest studies so their headlines get clicks online. Meanwhile, hardly any of us spend time trying to make sense of what the world already knows by carefully synthesising and taking stock of existing knowledge. Iain Chalmers, a doctor who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration, an evidence-synthesis group based in London, once called this the ‘scandalous failure of science to cumulate evidence scientifically’.

This failure was a key motivation to write my book Beyond Belief: How Evidence Shows What Really Works (2026). Researching it, I discovered better ways to make sense of the world – but these methods are not as widely known as they should be. If they were, we might pause before believing news stories based on single studies, and instead recognise the real work: finding, sorting and synthesising evidence. This unglamorous labour already shapes our lives far more than any individual study or news headline will. We might also realise that, for many of the wicked problems we face, humans already possess much of the knowledge needed to solve them. All it needs is the ability to assemble it – and then act...

Our Smile mission is ready for science.

Its ultraviolet camera has already captured this substorm rippling through the northern lights around Earth’s North Pole.

Smile will study how Earth responds to the solar wind, helping us better understand space weather.

Read more: esa.int/Science_Explor…

In optogenetics, scientists control neurons by stimulating them with light—potentially unlocking breakthroughs for conditions such as dementia, depression and blindness.

Three scientists won the Nobel Prize in medicine on Monday for their work in the field: U.S. neurologist Karl Deisseroth and German scientists Peter Hegemann and Georg Nagel.

"Being able to manipulate cells with a combination of light and genetics has been transformational across the biological sciences," said Simon Schultz, neurotechnology professor at Imperial College London.

Here are some key facts about optogenetics and its uses.

Protein discovery
In a type of green algae, Hegemann and Nagel discovered a light-sensitive protein that they dubbed channelrhodopsin.

Deisseroth introduced it genetically into a cell and stimulated it with light, which triggered a nerve signal in rats and mice.

By controlling the light, scientists can switch a neuron's signal on or off with minute precision.

By turning off some neurons and observing others, they can track which areas affect certain functions.

Introducing the prize, Nobel medicine committee member and neuroscientist Abdel El Manira said the discovery shed light on functions "from parental behavior and aggression to anxiety and fear, as well as fundamental physiological drives such as thirst and water intake."

Memory
Schultz said his own teams had used optogenetics "as a closed-loop treatment for memory disorders" by lengthening the pulses that help the brain store memories.

"The next step is to demonstrate that we can improve learning and memory in complex tasks," he said in comments released by the college...

Francis Halzen won the Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday for his efforts to demystify a rare group of neutrinos, tiny cosmic particles that scientists believe offer clues to how the universe evolved.

"It was a great surprise and I obviously didn't expect it," Halzen said, speaking to the committee by phone from Italy, in a call broadcast at the news conference to announce the winner.

Halzen said it was predicted before that he would win the Nobel Prize but the announcement still made him feel "strange."

"I am working on a proposal, and I hope that this prize will help getting it approved," he said to chuckles from the audience.

Halzen paved the way for a new kind of astronomy
The Nobel Committee for Physics also said Halzen's work was instrumental to the construction of the IceCube Neutrino Observatory in Antarctica.

"Francis Halzen realized that the ice at the South Pole could visualize these neutrino messengers from cosmos," committee member Eva Olsson said during the news conference. "People joined him in the quest for these neutrino messengers. The messenger is bringing information from cosmos. They opened the door to distant galaxies and tell us about the processes of exploding stars."

Born in Belgium, the 82-year-old scientist is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin–Madison in the U.S, which operates the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. Efforts by The Associated Press to reach him were not immediately successful.

Neutrinos are tiny cosmic particles with a mind-bogglingly small mass. Yet they are everywhere: they spew from stars like the sun and trillions zip through our bodies every second.

Scientists can't glimpse the mysterious ghost particles zooming around on their own. Instead, they measure what happens when the tiny particles collide with other bits of matter, producing flashes of light or charged particles.

Halzen helped pull the curtain back on a rare gang of neutrinos that scientists consider messengers from the cosmos, offering clues to how the universe evolved.

"This experiment in the Antarctic is a revolutionary way of understanding the universe that we didn't have before," said Michael Moloney, chief executive officer for the American Institute of Physics...

National happiness is influenced by complex relationships beyond basic economic factors, according to a study by Javier I. Borráz-León of the Secretariat of Science, Humanities, Technology, and Innovation in Mexico City and colleagues.

Published Sept. 30, 2026, in the journal PLOS One, the study finds that cats and their parasites are strongly correlated with both positive and negative happiness scores worldwide.

The general well-being of a country's populace is often represented by a national happiness score. Such scores are known to be associated with economic factors such as family income and health costs, but other factors have rarely been explored. In this study, researchers investigated the nuanced relationships underlying national well-being by factoring in the presence of domestic cats and their parasites.

The team compiled data from 93 countries, including income, health costs, GDP, domestic cat density and the prevalence of Toxoplasma, a parasite that can be transferred from cats to humans.

The data revealed that greater numbers of cats are associated with higher national happiness—consistent with studies on the benefits of pet ownership—but also that greater Toxoplasma prevalence is associated with lower national happiness, despite the parasite being spread by cats. These counterintuitive results suggest complex factors at work.

This study does not resolve the underlying causes of these associations, but the authors suggest that the influence of cats on happiness might be tied to economic factors; higher income and better public health, for example, might encourage pet ownership while reducing infection rates.

This study demonstrates that biological factors as well as economic ones can correlate with happiness, revealing new avenues for investigating national well-being. The authors note that while this study unveils previously unrecognized relationships, future studies will be needed to determine the underlying mechanisms.

The authors add, "What we found is that countries with more cats tended to report higher levels of happiness, while countries with higher exposure to Toxoplasma gondii tended to report lower levels of happiness. Of course, these are associations at the country level, so we cannot say that having more cats makes people happier or that Toxoplasma makes people less happy, but the patterns are interesting enough to deserve further investigation."

"What we find most interesting is that these results bring together factors that are usually studied separately: wealth, health, human–animal relationships and infectious disease. Our study suggests that understanding why some populations report greater well-being may require us to consider biological and ecological factors alongside the socioeconomic conditions that have traditionally received most attention"...