Most people rarely consider what they wear to bed, often opting for pajamas or old T-shirts without much thought. However, going to sleep without clothing—sleeping naked—has been identified by science as a simple yet effective health hack with multiple benefits. One of the primary advantages is improved sleep quality. Sleeping naked helps regulate core body temperature by allowing heat to dissipate more easily, preventing overheating that can disrupt sleep cycles. Cooler skin temperature promotes longer and deeper sleep, which is essential for immune function and alertness throughout the day. In addition to better sleep, sleeping naked has metabolic benefits. It stimulates the production of brown fat, a type of fat that generates heat by burning calories, which can boost metabolism and potentially reduce the risk of obesity and diabetes. Furthermore, better sleep supported by sleeping naked can aid in weight management by lowering the likelihood of sleep-related weight gain. Beyond physical health, sleeping without clothes can enhance skin health since improved sleep accelerates skin repair and recovery. It also contributes to mental well-being by reducing stress and anxiety levels, which are often exacerbated by poor sleep. Importantly, sleeping naked may foster body positivity and improve intimacy between partners. Wearing fewer barriers can increase self-esteem and lead to stronger emotional and physical connections within relationships. In summary, ditching pajamas is a straightforward, science-backed strategy to improve sleep, boost metabolism, enhance skin health, reduce stress, and promote intimacy—all contributing to overall well-being. Trying this simple habit could be the health upgrade many are overlooking. <br /><br /> The science is clear: sleeping naked can help you fall asleep faster, sustain deeper sleep, and wake up feeling more refreshed, making it a worthwhile health practice to consider.

6/30/2025, 7:38:00 AM

Meta Platforms is currently facing significant pressure from European Union regulators over its controversial "pay-or-consent" model introduced in November 2023. This model requires users on Facebook and Instagram to either consent to being tracked for personalized ads or pay a subscription fee for an ad-free experience. The EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), designed to curb the dominance of large tech companies, mandates that platforms must offer genuine alternatives without heavy personal data usage. However, the European Commission has found that Meta’s original model breached these rules by not providing an equivalent service to users who refused consent, relying heavily on personal data for ad targeting. Although Meta updated its model in November 2024 to reduce data reliance, the EU remains unconvinced that the changes fully comply with the DMA. Regulators have warned Meta that continued non-compliance could result in hefty daily fines, potentially up to 5% of Meta’s global average daily turnover. The Commission can only confirm limited adjustments to the model so far and is still assessing whether these meet the legal requirements. Meta, on the other hand, claims it has engaged constructively with the EU and provided options that exceed regulatory expectations. Looking ahead, Meta may either have to abandon the pay-or-consent framework altogether or decide to challenge the EU legally to defend its approach. The situation highlights the broader clash between big tech business models reliant on data-driven advertising and the EU's tightening regulatory environment focused on user privacy and fair competition. The outcome will be closely watched as a precedent in the evolving digital regulatory landscape.<br /><br />Meanwhile, EU scrutiny signals intensified enforcement of digital market rules, hinting at stricter controls over how tech giants monetize user data in Europe. Meta’s next moves will significantly impact the future of online privacy and subscription models in social media.

6/30/2025, 7:28:00 AM

An expert group appointed by the World Health Organization (WHO) has released its final report on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, concluding that it still lacks a definitive answer. Despite over three years of extensive research and analysis, the report states that **no conclusive evidence has been found to determine precisely how the SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged**. The group, known as the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), emphasized that the investigation is hindered mainly by the lack of access to critical data, especially from China. Essential information, such as hundreds of genetic sequences from early COVID-19 cases, detailed records of animals sold in Wuhan markets, and data on laboratory biosafety conditions, has not been provided to WHO or SAGO, limiting their ability to fully evaluate all hypotheses.<br /> <br /> The report acknowledges that the majority of scientific evidence points toward a **zoonotic spillover event**, meaning the virus likely jumped from animals to humans, either directly from bats or through an intermediate host such as raccoon dogs or civet cats. However, the possibility of a laboratory-related origin could neither be confirmed nor ruled out due to the absence of sufficient data. Importantly, the expert group found no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 was intentionally engineered or that the virus was circulating outside China before December 2019.<br /> <br /> WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reaffirmed that all hypotheses remain on the table and appealed to China and other countries to share information transparently. The report highlights the ongoing need for openness to prevent future pandemics and represents a call for continued investigation with full international cooperation. Despite the inconclusive findings, SAGO remains committed to reviewing new evidence as it becomes available.

6/30/2025, 7:06:10 AM

A recent national survey, conducted between April 10 and June 10 and released on Monday, reveals that nearly 60 percent of Americans support increasing federal funding for medical research. This survey, part of the Civic Health and Institutions Project and involving more than 30,000 respondents from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, was developed by researchers from Rutgers, Harvard, Northeastern, and the University of Rochester. The findings highlight a broad public desire for enhanced investment in science and health agencies, despite ongoing debates and some political proposals to reduce funding. The survey asked participants about their views on several current issues in science policy, including proposed cuts to grant funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and potential layoffs at science and health agencies. Results indicate that government actions to defund scientific work or conduct large-scale layoffs are not widely supported. While the administration has proposed deep cuts and slowed grant awards in the current fiscal year, only a minority of Americans approve of these moves. In fact, just 21 percent approve of recent administrative actions, with 48 percent disapproving and over 30 percent expressing no strong opinion. Partisan differences are evident but not absolute. About 67 percent of Democrats support increased funding for medical research, while approximately 48 percent of Republicans also favor such increases. Notably, only about 15 percent of Republicans support funding cuts. Researchers note that public opinion on this issue is not strictly divided, but instead reflects a significant degree of ambivalence or uncertainty among many Americans. <br /> <br /> These findings underscore that most Americans see value in robust federal funding for medical research and express concern over potential reductions. The data suggest a broad public consensus on the importance of supporting scientific progress and maintaining strong health research institutions. While there are some differences along party lines, even a substantial portion of Republicans oppose reductions to research funding. This pattern highlights the complexity of public attitudes toward federal investment in science and health, with many Americans wary of policies that could undermine medical advancements and public health infrastructure. <br /> <br /> Overall, the survey results indicate that a majority of Americans prioritize medical research as a national concern and are reluctant to see it diminished by budget cuts. The findings may influence ongoing policy debates, particularly as Congress and the administration weigh decisions on research funding and the future of science agencies. The public’s concerns reflect a recognition of the critical role that federally funded research plays in advancing health, innovation, and the well-being of society as a whole.

6/30/2025, 7:02:00 AM

Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla is conducting vital research on muscle degradation in space during his 14-day mission aboard the International Space Station (ISS), under the Axiom Mission 4 (Ax-4). This research, a collaboration between ISRO, NASA, and Axiom Space, focuses on understanding how and why astronauts experience significant muscle loss in microgravity conditions, a phenomenon that poses a major challenge for long-duration spaceflights.<br /> <br /> Muscle loss in space is severe and rapid; astronauts can lose up to 20% of their muscle mass in missions lasting just five to eleven days. Unlike on Earth, where muscle loss or sarcopenia develops over decades, the microgravity environment impairs muscle regeneration and mitochondrial function. Group Captain Shukla's experiments aim to study these underlying causes by examining muscle cell behavior in microgravity and testing potential interventions that could stimulate muscle regeneration. This research has the potential to improve astronaut health during extended space missions and aid patients suffering from age-related muscle loss on Earth.<br /> <br /> This mission not only advances ISRO’s human spaceflight capabilities ahead of its upcoming Gaganyaan program but also strengthens international scientific collaboration. Data from Shukla’s research will help develop countermeasures to combat muscle atrophy in space, a critical step toward enabling longer missions. Furthermore, ISRO’s partnership with medical research institutions highlights India's growing focus on space medicine and astronaut health. Overall, Group Captain Shukla’s work represents a significant stride for India’s ambitions in space exploration and contributes to global efforts in life sciences research in microgravity.<br /> <br />

6/29/2025, 8:05:00 AM

Senator Susan Collins played a pivotal role in securing significant funding for a key project through two extraordinary grants that have greatly advanced the initiative. In 2022, she announced federal funding of $12.3 million specifically allocated to support Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences. This funding, included in the Fiscal Year 2023 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, was a result of Senator Collins’ influential position as a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The grant aims to expand and enhance Bigelow Lab’s oceanographic research, which is critical for understanding and improving the health of Maine’s coastal ecosystems, especially the Gulf of Maine. This scientific work has direct benefits for Maine’s seafood and tourism industries and strengthens coastal communities by providing new educational and research opportunities. <br /> <br /> In addition to the federal funding, the Harold Alfond Foundation contributed a leadership grant that further propelled the project forward. Recognizing the importance of bolstering the state's economic and environmental prospects, the foundation’s support complemented the federal investment, helping to ensure the success and sustainability of the initiative. These combined grants not only underscore the collaboration between public and private sectors but also highlight a shared commitment to advancing Maine’s scientific capabilities and community development. The infusion of funding facilitates continued innovation in marine science and strengthens Maine’s position as a leader in ocean research and environmental stewardship.

6/29/2025, 8:01:00 AM

A newly developed memory device has demonstrated remarkable durability and data retention capabilities, marking a significant advancement in organic electronic technology. This device successfully retained stored data for over 10,000 seconds, demonstrating reliable performance in maintaining information integrity over an extended period. Further underscoring its robustness, it distinguished clearly between On and Off states through more than one million operational cycles, highlighting excellent signal discrimination and endurance. What sets this device apart is not only its performance but also its environmental friendliness and physical resilience. It showed no degradation even after over 250 write-erase cycles and maintained functionality after being bent more than 3,000 times. Such durability is exceptional for organic memory devices, which traditionally face challenges in maintaining performance under mechanical stress. Moreover, this memory chip is designed to be safely implanted in the human body and controlled to degrade only when necessary. The researchers can manipulate its thickness and composition to time its dissolution precisely. Once the device’s protective outer layer dissolves, the remaining material vanishes in water within about three days without leaving any residue. This biodegradability addresses the growing issues of e-waste and reduces the need for surgical removal in medical implants, potentially lowering patient discomfort and healthcare costs. This innovation holds promise for a broad range of applications such as disposable healthcare monitoring systems, surgical implants that degrade post-operation, eco-friendly data storage solutions, and transient military devices. The integration of physical self-destruction into a high-performance memory device also paves the way for future developments in intelligent transient electronics, incorporating features like self-healing and photo-responsiveness to further enhance next-generation bioelectronics and sustainable technology.

6/29/2025, 7:57:00 AM

Five years after a widely revered behavioural science study was debunked as entirely bogus, the scandal continues to reverberate through the field, raising profound questions about its credibility and future direction. The case centers on Francesca Gino, a Harvard Business School professor whose research on dishonesty and ethics—key topics in behavioural science—was found to involve falsified data. Investigations revealed irregularities such as modified data sets, questionable participant inclusions, and mismatches between qualitative comments and quantitative scores in her studies. These revelations not only led to multiple retractions but also cast doubt on the robustness of behavioural science research more broadly. This scandal is not isolated. It follows earlier crises such as the exposure of fabricated data by Dutch researcher Diederik Stapel, which had already shaken confidence in behavioural concepts like social priming. Now, with other prominent figures, including Dan Ariely—known for popularizing behavioural economics—linked to questionable findings, there is growing unease over widespread replication failures and data manipulation. The fallout extends beyond academia; behavioural science principles, famously popularized by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s "Nudge," are routinely implemented in government policies and corporate strategies worldwide. The controversy has prompted calls for rigorous scrutiny, transparency, and reform within the discipline. Critics argue that behavioural science needs to address its replication crisis and ethical lapses to restore trust. Yet, despite these challenges, some believe the discipline is poised for a revolution that will tighten its scientific methods and reaffirm its value in understanding human behavior and informing better decision-making. This scandal, while damaging, may ultimately serve as a catalyst that propels behavioural science toward greater reliability and impact.

6/29/2025, 5:45:52 AM

Maine Technology Institute (MTI) is actively seeking proposals to establish a co-working wet laboratory space designed to support fledgling life science businesses in the state. The initiative aims to provide startups with access to essential lab infrastructure and services that are currently scarce in Maine, helping them to develop and test their innovations without having to relocate to larger markets such as Boston. This wet lab will offer shared equipment, office space, meeting rooms, purchasing services, and waste management, creating a comprehensive environment tailored to the needs of early-stage ventures. Maine’s life sciences sector is expanding, with over 500 organizations involved in biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, marine sciences, aquaculture, healthcare innovations, AI, and bioinformatics. Despite this growth, many startups face a critical hurdle when needing access to a fully equipped wet lab to advance their research and commercial development. MTI’s project will address this gap by funding up to $2.7 million to an experienced operator who can build and manage such a facility in the Portland area. The facility will be designed to be flexible, supporting both wet and dry lab work with modular layouts and short-term use agreements to cater to a range of scientific priorities. The project also emphasizes collaboration by potentially serving as a flagship hub that connects with regional lab sites, fostering a statewide innovation ecosystem. MTI aims to launch the facility quickly, with proposals due by July 1, 2025, and the goal of accelerating Maine’s life science startups, retaining local talent, and stimulating economic growth within the state’s growing biotech sector. Interested parties can contact MTI representatives for more information and participation opportunities.

6/28/2025, 8:00:00 AM

As summer vacation plans are in full swing, the increase in online booking scams poses a significant risk to travelers. To avoid falling victim, it’s essential to exercise caution when making reservations. Scammers are using advanced techniques, including artificial intelligence, to create convincing fake websites that mimic well-known travel brands. These sites often appear legitimate, complete with sleek photos and attractive rates, making them difficult to distinguish from actual booking platforms. Scammers typically lure victims through targeted social media ads offering huge discounts, which can lead to loss of money or personal data. In recent times, airline and flight scams have been particularly prevalent, with many reported cases. Travel agent scams are also financially damaging, as they often result in significant losses for victims. To protect yourself, it's advisable to book directly with hotels or trusted agencies. Be cautious of suspicious deals and avoid off-platform payments. Using well-known rental sites like Airbnb or Booking.com for vacation rentals can also help ensure safety. Additionally, it's important to verify any communications from airlines or travel companies by directly visiting their official websites rather than clicking on links in unsolicited messages. Travelers should remain vigilant and take necessary precautions to stay safe during the summer travel season. By being aware of these scams and taking steps to protect themselves, travelers can enjoy their vacations without financial stress. The summer travel season is a time for relaxation and enjoyment, and being informed can help ensure that it remains so.

6/27/2025, 7:40:00 AM

Some of us hold firm to the belief in civil debate and discussion as essential tools for scientific progress and public health policy. However, Drs. Vinay Prasad, Marty Makary, and Jay Bhattacharya seem to diverge from this approach. These three physicians have become prominent figures in critiquing and challenging the mainstream public health orthodoxy, particularly related to COVID-19 policies and vaccine recommendations.<br /><br /> Makary, now the FDA Commissioner, Prasad, recently appointed director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, have all moved from being seen as public health dissenters to key decision-makers. They have questioned broad vaccine mandates and the one-size-fits-all nature of COVID-19 vaccination policies in the United States. For example, they argue that vaccine recommendations should focus on older adults and high-risk individuals rather than extending universally to all ages, including children, suggesting a more evidence-based, risk-tailored public health approach.<br /><br /> Despite their scientific credentials and roles, they have been criticized for a perceived rigid adherence to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the sole valid form of evidence, sometimes dismissing other forms of scientific dialogue or data as less meaningful. This stance contrasts with a more open, nuanced discussion model which values diverse evidence and debate. Their approach has been depicted as less tolerant of civil discourse, reflecting a fracture in how medical experts engage on contentious issues in public health. This tension highlights the challenges in balancing robust scientific rigor with inclusive, respectful debate during a highly politicized health crisis.

6/27/2025, 7:13:00 AM

Citing an unnamed source, Axios recently reported that the Trump administration has cut approximately $20 million in grants covering subscriptions with Springer Nature, a major scientific publishing company that produces over 3,000 journals, including the prestigious *Nature*. These subscription payments have traditionally come from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and others within the federal government. The move appears to be part of a broader effort by the Trump administration and MAGA-aligned factions to target academic and research institutions seen as promoting so-called "woke" ideology, including topics like diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and gender-affirming care. This has involved withholding federal funding and legal actions against entities perceived as politically biased or ideologically opposed to the administration’s views. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice sent a letter to a Springer Nature publication challenging its editorial stances and accusing it of partisanship in scientific debates, as well as probing alleged connections to Chinese Communist Party influence and censorship issues. Other scientific journals, such as *Chest*, have also faced similar scrutiny and accusations. Despite the cutbacks, NIH initially stated no contracts with Springer Nature had been terminated and affirmed continued access for NIH staff to the journals. However, the Department of Health and Human Services later confirmed that all contracts with Springer Nature had been terminated or are inactive, criticizing the publications as “junk science.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) denied cancelling its subscriptions. Springer Nature has maintained that it has a strong track record communicating U.S. research globally and continues to have good relationships with U.S. federal agencies, though it declined to comment on individual contracts. This subscription funding cut is part of a wider evaluation that could impact billions more, reflecting an ongoing conflict between the administration's ideological agenda and the scientific publishing community. <br /> <br /> This development offers a stark example of how political considerations are increasingly influencing federal funding decisions in scientific research, potentially restricting access to critical scientific literature that supports innovation and transparency. The severing of grants from a major publisher like Springer Nature may have significant implications for researchers who rely on these publications for up-to-date scientific information, peer-reviewed research, and collaborative advancements in various fields. It also highlights the rising tensions between federal agencies and scientific institutions amid a politicized environment around research funding and academic freedom.

6/27/2025, 7:08:00 AM

Last week, a federal judge ruled that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) unlawfully terminated hundreds of research grants and ordered the agency to restore the funding. The judge found the NIH’s actions arbitrary and capricious, particularly criticizing the politically motivated cancellations targeting research in sensitive areas such as vaccine studies, transgender health, diversity initiatives, COVID-19, and climate change. These terminations disrupted critical public health research that had been rigorously evaluated and approved through established scientific processes. The ruling came after lawsuits filed by multiple states, public health organizations, and research institutions, including Harvard’s public health school. The court emphasized that NIH must immediately make the funds available again to the affected projects, condemning the agency’s previous directives as unlawful and harmful to scientific progress. Internal indications suggest that the NIH plans to comply with the court’s order and reinstate the grants. However, researchers remain in a state of uncertainty, as actual funding has not yet been restored and the timing for resumption of support is unclear. Affected scientists expressed relief and cautious optimism that their work—focused on advancing knowledge and improving health care through evidence-based research—can continue without disruption. This decision is seen as a significant victory for scientific integrity and public health, reinforcing that research priorities should be guided by data rather than political agendas. It also underscores the importance of protecting minority health and maintaining the independence of federally funded research. Despite the ruling, the delay in funding restoration continues to create challenges for researchers who rely on these grants to conduct vital studies.

6/27/2025, 7:04:00 AM

G. Dale Wesson critiques the recent simplification of research university classifications by the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Carnegie Foundation, arguing that while well-meaning, it is a serious misstep with significant consequences. The Carnegie Classification system historically served as a nuanced framework for categorizing U.S. higher education institutions, reflecting their diversity in mission, size, research activity, and student outcomes. Since its launch in 1970, it has used complex, multifaceted metrics to capture the variety and complexity of institutions across the country. Recent changes aim to simplify this system, particularly regarding research university status. For example, the previous Research-1 (R1) classification relied on a complicated formula that potentially encouraged competition for prestige at the expense of institutional mission focus. Now, the criteria are streamlined to just two thresholds: a minimum of $50 million in annual research spending and at least 70 research doctorates awarded per year. This change has made the Research-1 status more accessible, adding 40 new institutions this year. Additionally, a new category acknowledges smaller colleges conducting research, broadening recognition beyond large research universities. While simplification facilitates clearer comparisons and potentially boosts institutions' competitiveness for grants and talent, the move can also obscure important institutional differences and nuances. Wesson warns this reduction risks overlooking the complex roles universities play beyond research metrics, such as access, economic mobility, and community engagement. The new classification system’s focus on student access and earnings aims to highlight these factors but may not fully compensate for the loss of the richer, more detailed institutional profiles previously available. In summary, although the simplification intends to promote clarity and student success focus, it also imposes complicated consequences by flattening the landscape of higher education diversity and potentially incentivizing institutions to prioritize research scale over mission alignment.<br /> <br />

6/26/2025, 7:35:00 AM

Housing Secretary Scott Turner has publicly criticized the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building, dubbing it “the ugliest building in D.C.” This harsh assessment underscores longstanding dissatisfaction with the building’s condition and suitability as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) headquarters. On Wednesday, HUD announced plans to relocate approximately 2,700 employees from the Weaver Building to a new site located in Alexandria, Virginia. The new headquarters will be housed in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) office building at 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, a modern, roughly 700,000-square-foot facility situated in a vibrant neighborhood featuring amenities such as a Wegman’s grocery store, a movie theater, shops, and restaurants. This relocation marks the first significant cabinet agency move out of Washington, D.C., reflecting a broader intent under President Donald Trump's administration to reduce the federal presence in the capital. The Weaver Building, known for its brutalist architecture and X-shaped granite design, has been described as “underutilized” and plagued by numerous issues including health hazards, leaks, and structural failures. These problems have not only affected employee well-being but have also burdened taxpayers with costly maintenance and repair expenses. By moving to the NSF building, HUD anticipates unlocking hundreds of millions in taxpayer savings through the avoidance of expensive long-term repairs and reducing ongoing upkeep costs. Secretary Turner emphasized that this move is about more than just changing locations; it is a mission-driven shift aimed at fostering a healthier work environment and better reflecting the department’s commitment to excellence. The relocation will be staggered over time, with collaboration between HUD, NSF, and the General Services Administration to ensure a smooth transition. This move represents a significant modernization effort for HUD, prioritizing employee welfare and operational efficiency.

6/26/2025, 7:34:00 AM