Science

For decades, scientists believed Vesta, one of the largest objects in our solar system's asteroid belt, wasn't just an asteroid and eventually concluded it was more like a planet with a crust, mantle and core. Now, new research flips this notion on its head. Astronomers reveals Vesta doesn't have a core. These findings startled researchers who, until that point, assumed Vesta was a protoplanet that never grew to a full planet.

Researchers have developed a new machine learning algorithm that excels at interpreting optical spectra, potentially enabling faster and more precise medical diagnoses and sample analysis.

Researchers have developed a new machine learning algorithm that excels at interpreting optical spectra, potentially enabling faster and more precise medical diagnoses and sample analysis.

Scientists have developed a problem-solving architecture modeled on neurobiology that leverages quantum mechanical behavior to guarantee optimal solutions to complex problems.

Scientists have developed a problem-solving architecture modeled on neurobiology that leverages quantum mechanical behavior to guarantee optimal solutions to complex problems.

New research has revealed that a massive meteorite struck northwestern Scotland about 200 million years later than previously thought, in a discovery that not only rewrites Scotland's geological history but alters our understanding of the evolution of non-marine life on Earth.

How can walking robots deliver more efficient in-situ robotic exploration on the Moon compared to other types of robots? This is what a recent study presented at the 56th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference hopes to address as a team of researchers from the University of Southern California (USC) discussed the benefits of using legged robots for lunar exploration regarding gait speed (walking speed). This study has the potential to help engineers, scientists, mission planners, and astronauts develop novel robotic designs to conduct more efficient science and mission objectives on future Moon surface missions.

Earth has a number of companions in space; of course the Moon is the most well known but there are a host of smaller objects that visit us, complete a few orbits then head off again. A team of astronomers have detected four objects like this and have performed spectroscopic analyses on them. They found that their surface composition is similar to eh Moon suggesting that it’s a major source of these temporary satellites instead of the asteroid belt.

The Orion Nebula is a fabulous example of a vast cloud of electrically charged gas which is emitting bright radiation. If the atoms in the gas are cool enough though, they can form giant molecular clouds that obscure light, these are known as dark nebula. A team of astronomers have now found an enormous cloud of molecular hydrogen in our own cosmic backyard just 300 light years away. The cloud contains 3,400 times the mass of the Sun and if we could see it, it would stretch nearly 40 times the width of the Moon across the sky.

The US government’s proposal for a vast health database to study autism could improve our understanding of the condition – but there is a risk it could do more harm than good

How do robots feel in space? This is both a practical and possibly an existential question. Still, today, we'll focus on the practical side by looking at a review paper from Hadi Jahanshahi and Zheng Zhu of York University in Canada that discusses different tactile sensor types and their advantages and disadvantages for use in space.

Ion drives are renowned for their efficiency. They're extremely efficient compared to chemical rockets, so they're preferred for deep space missions where propellant supplies are critical. New research shows how they could run on simple water, making them even more efficient.

An alternative periodic table of elements focusing on highly charged ions reveals new science that could support the quest for more accurate optical atomic clocks

It's nearly impossible to overstate the effect supermassive black holes have on their host galaxies. When actively accreting matter, they release colossal amounts of energy as winds, jets, and radiation that shape their surroundings. But stellar mass black holes also shape their surroundings with energetic jets.

On February 6 of this year, the Presidents of three evolution/ecology societies (the Society for the Study of Evolution [SSE], the American Society of Naturalists [ASN], and the Society of Systematic Biologists [SSB]) put a letter on the SSE website. It was a reaction to a Trump executive order about the definition of sex, and the “tri-societies” statement asserted that sex is not binary (in ANY species), but was a multidimensional multifactoral “biological construct”.  I archived the letter here because I had a feeling that it would cause trouble.

It did. But first, read it below.  It was written, of course, as a kind of virtue-flaunting exercise to placate those who don’t feel that they are either “male” or “female” (“nonbinary” people). But in so doing, the three Societies promulgated a gross distortion of what many (I won’t say “most”, since I don’t know) biologists conceive of as the definition of sex, which is based on gamete size and is close to being binary as it comes. I’ve bolded bits of it below, bits that conflate sex and gender, throw in “lived experience” to add to the confusion, and claim that the nonbimodality of sex “is a hallmark of biological species,” implying that in all animals and plants the definition of sex is far more than bimodal.

Note that the members of these three societies were not polled about the so-called “scientific consensus” they assert; this is a diktat from the Presidents. Voilà: the original “tri-societies” letter:

President Donald J Trump
Washington, DC Members of the US Congress Washington, DC February 5, 2025

RE: Scientific Understanding of Sex and GenderDear President Trump and Members of the US Congress,

As scientists, we write to express our concerns about the Executive Order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government”. That Order states first, that “there are two sexes…[which] are not changeable”. The Order goes on to state that sex is determined at conception and is based on the size of the gamete that the resulting individual will produce. These statements are contradicted by extensive scientific evidence.

Scientific consensus defines sex in humans as a biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex. Accordingly, sex (and gendered expression) is not a binary trait. While some aspects of sex are bimodal, variation along the continuum of male to female is well documented in humans through hundreds of scientific articles. Such variation is observed at both the genetic level and at the individual level (including hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, as well as genital morphology). Beyond the incorrect claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genetic composition at conception does not define one’s identity. Rather, sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.

We note that you state that “Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale and trust in the government itself”. We agree with this statement. However, the claim that the definition of sex and the exclusion of gender identity is based on the best available science is false. Our three scientific societies represent over 3500 scientists, many of whom are experts on the variability that is found in sexual expression throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. More information explaining why sex lies along a continuum can be found here. If you wish to speak to one of our scientists, please contact any of the societies listed below.

Carol Boggs, PhD
President
Society for the Study of Evolution
president@evolutionsociety.org

Daniel Bolnick, PhD
President
American Society of Naturalists

Jessica Ware, PhD
President
Society of Systematic Biologists
president@systematicbiologists.org

You can see all my posts about the resulting kerfuffle here.  In short, intiially about twenty of us wrote to the three societies objecting to the letter’s scientific contentions. Eventually 125 people connected with evolution appended their names to the letter and were willing to make their objections public (see here). Richard Dawkins also got into the fray, and both he and I discovered independently that the three Presidents who signed the letter actually act as if sex were binary in their own published research. Further, two former Presidents of the SSE also publicly disagreed with the characterization of biological sex given above.

Finally, our letter signed by 125 people asked for an answer, and although we got one from the societies, we were also told we couldn’t make it public. So be it, but I did characterize the answer here, and the societies largely conceded our points. As I wrote:

. . . . this time we asked for a response and got one, signed by all three Presidents.  I can’t reprint it because we didn’t ask for permission [we later did but were refused], but some of its gist is in the response below from Luana [Maroja]. I will say that they admitted that they think they’re in close agreement with us (I am not so sure!), that their letter wasn’t properly phrased, that some of our differences come from different semantic interpretations of words like “binary” and “continuum”(nope), and that they didn’t send the letter anyway because a federal judge changed the Executive Order on sex (this didn’t affect our criticisms). At any rate, the tri-societies letter is on hold because the organizations are now concerned with more serious threats from the Trump Administration, like science funding.

It’s still on hold, but now they’ve taken it down (see below).

I closed my post this way:

I end by saying that scientific societies need not be “institutionally neutral” when they are dealing with issues that affect the mission of the societies, as the definition of sex surely does. But what’s not okay is for the societies to distort “scientific consensus” in the interest of ideology. I have no idea if the Presidents of these societies really believe what they said (as Dawkins has pointed out, all three Presidents use a binary notion of sex in their own biological work), but something is deeply wrong when you use one notion of sex in your own science and yet deny that notion when you’re telling politicians what scientists “really believe.”

It’s just wrong when three evolution societies give the public a distorted view of how biologists define “sex”, and even more wrong when they do so because they are motivated not by the search for truth but to cater to a certain ideology.

As this sad drama draws to an end, I was just informed that, after several months, the three societies have taken down their misguided diktat.  Go to this SSE website and you’ll see this note:

As they say, “a revised version is in progress and will be posted shortly.”  I look forward to the revised definition of sex!  I also note that, as far as I know, no members of the three Societies have been informed that the letter was removed (they were told that the letter was posted, but only several weeks after it went up).

I’m posting this simply as a public service, to inform members of the Societies, and others following kerfuffles about the definition of sex, that the letter was finally taken down and will be replaced. The silver lining is that although I found the original letter embarrassing to science–and just another reason for people not to trust science–the Societies are rethinking what they say about sex.  However, I doubt that the replacement letter is going to emphasize the bimodality of sex as it is defined by many biologists.  After all, the Societies have to be ideologically correct, don’t they?

h/t: Luana Maroja (who did nearly all the heavy lifting of writing responses, gathering signatures, and so on.

Neutrinos have always been hard to explain – and now the detection of one so energetic it shouldn't exist may help illuminate the strangest corners of the cosmos

Nothing wows new observers like seeing Saturn for the first time. I always check out the ringed planet if it's visible, and telescopes down the line at any star party will invariably be pointed Saturn-ward to a chorus of ‘oh’s’ and ‘ah’s’…. but 2025 gives you another reason to gaze at Saturn, as its largest moon Titan completes a series of rare shadow transits.

Laboratory measurements of crushed quartz suggest earthquakes generate huge volumes of hydrogen underground, a potential source of energy for life below the surface – and people above it

Early humans had almost no hope of surviving severe burns, so evolution may have prioritised the selection of genes that heal mild ones, which could be affecting modern medicine

Men who were embodying female avatars via virtual reality felt anger and disgust when catcalled, which could change the behaviour of some perpetrators