Science Archives - Page 9 of 30

science explains what happens to your body (and your brain) depending on the time you choose

April 29, 2026 by usatoday24

In social circles, the truth is that there are sometimes very interesting debates about common customs, such as whether it is better to shower first thing in the morning or just before getting into bed. Here, while there is a group of people who defend tooth and nail the revitalizing power of water in the morning to “start” the day, others say that there is nothing like hot water at night to conclude sleep. And here science has something to say. It makes us sleep better. If you have trouble falling asleep, the science here suggests that a nighttime shower may be a good idea, and explained in a meta-analysis published in 2019 in the magazine Sleep Medicine which analyzed 17 different studies. Here it was concluded that bathing or showering with hot water between one and two hours before going to bed reduces the time to fall asleep by approximately 36%. Because? Here hot water is our main ally, since it warms the skin and, therefore, increases blood flow to the extremities such as the hands and feet. From here, when you get out of the shower, that heat dissipates quickly, causing a drop in the body’s core temperature. And this is the key, because this thermal drop mimics the natural cooling that our body experiences before sleeping, which sends an unequivocal signal to the brain to release melatonin, which is the sleep hormone, and reduce levels of cortisol, which is related to stress. It depends on the time. From a psychological point of view, morning and night showers fulfill completely opposite functions and it depends precisely on the time at which we take them. In the case of the morning showerthe goal is increase performance with the activation of the sympathetic system by stimulating muscle tone and, above all, preparing us for the stress of the day. In the case of the night shower, as we have said before, an attempt is made to activate the parasympathetic system with a longer and more leisurely duration of the shower with the aim of reducing the accumulated physical and mental tension, fulfilling the function of an authentic ritual of transition and disconnection. According to psychology. Here we enter territory that is not so clear, but which indicates, for example, that people who prefer a shower at night do so because they have a lower tolerance for dirt, which is why they prefer to remove all the sweat of the day before going to bed. But it is also noted that people who prefer solitude tend to prefer nighttime showers, precisely because, after a day full of stimuli, the bathroom becomes a capsule of sensory disconnection. In the end, it is a way to relax from everything that has happened throughout the day. Images | freepik In Xataka | Cooling down is the forgotten step in our exercise routines. And that affects how we shower

Barbacid’s promising cancer study has been withdrawn. The reason is not science, it is a “hidden” spin-off

April 28, 2026 by usatoday24

Last December, the team led by the prestigious researcher Mariano Barbacid filled the headlines of the main media with great news: had found a triple therapy to eliminate pancreatic tumors in animal models. Very relevant news because of how deadly pancreatic cancer is and how it affects our society, but now this euphoria has hit a wall after the decision of the US National Academy of Sciences to remove the item from PNAS magazine. The context. The original article, published on December 2 of last year, was not just another publication, but described the results of administering three drugs in 45 mice who had pancreatic cancer. And although it was a preclinical study that had not been tested in humans and was the expected next step, it generated great expectation. The promise of a cure, even if it was in the animal phase, propelled intense fundraising campaigns to be able to start a clinical trial with humans as soon as possible. In this way, foundations such as CRIS against cancer achieved raise 3.7 million euros in the heat of these advances and thanks to the media showcase that was given to them. And now they withdraw it. The first thing to keep in mind when faced with so many alarmist headlines is that it is not removed from the PNAS magazine because the results have been invented or exaggerated, but rather the reason lies in the omission of important information regarding to conflict of interest. In this case Mariano Barbacid, taking advantage of his status as a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, used a “fast track” of publication that is reserved for academics of this institution. The problem is that this privilege requires scrupulous and impeccable transparency. Data omission. As detailed by El Paísthe alarms went off in February 2026, when the academy received notices about possible conflicts of interest that have now led to the sudden retraction of the article. The problem is that Mariano Barbacid, along with researchers Carmen Guerra and Vasiliki Liaki, are co-owners of Vega Oncotargetsa spin-off which was born in the ecosystem of the National Cancer Research Center (CNIO) with the aim of developing and marketing therapies against pancreatic cancer like this one. This is why informing the journal that the authors had a direct economic and business interest in the success of the study is a violation of the most basic transparency regulations in scientific publication. It always happens. When a researcher wants to publish the results of his or her research, a lot of data must always be provided, both about the method that has been followed and everything behind it, such as the source of financing or the conflicts behind. For example, if a researcher owns shares of a large pharmaceutical company and studies one of its drugs, logically good results will benefit him because the value of the company will increase. And this is something that should always be reported so that anyone reading the research knows if the researcher may have been influenced by an economic component. And in this particular case, the fact that there is already a company that will commercialize the future therapy that is being investigated is logically something that must always be specified, because if the study goes well, it logically benefits the company enormously. There are already answers. As we say, PNAS sanctions bad practice when it comes to being transparent, but in no case does it indicate that the research is poorly done. Along these lines, Carmen Guerra has already admitted the error, as El País points out, and has confirmed that the team has resubmitted the article with this correction, detailing that they do have participation in Vega Oncatargerts. The problem is that now they are going to have to go through the entire standard review process and the republishing will not be fast. Images | UPV brgfx on Freepik In Xataka | Mice today, hope tomorrow: researchers have managed to attack pancreatic cancer before it forms

We already knew that we ate plastic. Now science has discovered the exact chaos it causes in our intestines

April 27, 2026 by usatoday24

We have long realized that we are surrounded by microplastics, both in the water which we take as in food or even the air that we breathe, causing them to appear even in the human placenta. However, there are still many questions about the consequences of having these microplastics in the body, although science continues to take steps to give us an answer about them. how it can alter our general healthand the last thing we know is related to the effect on our digestive system. Ground zero. Something that is already known by almost everyone is that the intestine is full of billions of microorganisms which are essential for our immunity and also for metabolism, making its alteration related even to issues in the central nervous system. But now, science suggests that microplastics can drastically alter the composition and diversity of this ecosystem by destroying some of the bacteria that we harbor inside us to create a completely different environment that can affect our digestion, but also other parts of the body. How it has been seen. To understand how this happens in real time, CSIC researchers developed a sophisticated patented digestion simulation system known as SIMGI. This is mainly based on introducing artificial particles formed by the typical plastic of water bottles into the stomach and colon and observing how it affected bacterial diversity. From here, different investigations have seen that families of beneficial bacteriaas Lachnospiraceae, Oscillospiraceae and Ruminococcaceaeplummet, while the growth of groups that can generate disease is favored. And we must understand that ‘good’ bacteria occupy a space in our intestine so that nothing else can ‘germinate’ there. But logically, if they disappear, they leave their ‘hole’ for other bacteria to pass through. It goes further. But beyond a bacterial imbalance, there is different research that already points to how microplastics destroy the physical barrier we have in our intestine. In this way, scientists have detected that these tiny fragments cause the generation of oxidative stress and, therefore, the overproduction of reactive oxygen species, which only generates great damage to the tissues. But this chemical attack also adds to mechanical damage, which some experts categorize as ‘sandpaper’, since together they manage to reduce the expression of proteins that are key to maintaining the union structure that characterizes the cells that exist in our intestinal wall. The result. If we destroy the scaffolding that maintains the ‘walls’ of our digestive system, the only thing that will be achieved is that increase intestinal permeabilityso any toxin or bacterial molecule will be able to pass from the intestine to the bloodstream, since there is no ‘wall’ that blocks the access of agents that are not wanted in our body. Logically, the passage of toxins without the control of this intestinal barrier activates our immune system defenses, which results in inflammation maintained over time that favors the destruction of tissues and also progresses in important chronic diseases. There is more. As if that were not enough, it is known that microplastics are excellent transport vehicles, since when they come into contact with our biological fluids they become covered with a “protein crown”. This is something really important, since this layer literally camouflages the microplastic and makes it easier for it to adhere to our living cells. But added to all this, we also see that they can act as the perfect support for bacteria and form what is known as biofilms. In this way, microplastic can be seen as a vehicle for external and potentially dangerous microbial communities directly to our tissues. Where are they going? If microplastics alter our barriers, logically the plastic has a free way and that is why it is capable of traveling to different organs such as, for example, the liver, kidneys or brain. And once here, research already indicates that its accumulation is related to DNA damage, deregulation of the immune system or alterations in our entire hormonal system that can lead to chronic diseases. Images | rimufilms on Freepik In Xataka | Researchers analyzed 280 samples of bottled water. Only one of the brands was free of microplastics

We have been using the excuse of hunger for years to justify our bad mood. Science has just proven us right

April 26, 2026 by usatoday24

There are people who when they are hungry seem to completely lose control and jump at the slightest, making it difficult to approach them. And it is not a lack of patience for waiting for lunch or dinner, nor is it a personality trait, but rather It’s pure biology. Here society has even given it a name to explain this phenomenon that relates quick anger to the desire to eat: ‘Hangry‘, a fusion between hungry (hungry in English) and angry (angry in English). The definitive experiment. Although this attitude has been internalized in society as a personality trait, like someone who wakes up and can’t have a conversation, science has a lot to say. Specifically, a study published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2022 continued to 64 adults for 21 days to see what happened. Using an app, participants recorded their levels of hunger, anger, irritability, pleasure and arousal five times a day, accumulating more than 9,100 observations. And here the results, the truth is, were devastating: being hungry was directly associated with negative emotions, such as anger or being irascible. A great anger. If we go into detail, the feeling of hunger It was able to explain 34% of the cases of anger, 37% of the cases of irritability and also a 38% drop in the feeling of pleasure. But the most important thing is that this correlation remained firm even after scientists controlled for variables such as age, sex, weight, or even personality traits when not hungry. Because? The answer to these mood changes seems to lie specifically in what we need to ingest: glucose. And it makes a lot of sense, because this carbohydrate acts as the main fuel for our brain and its scarcity generates a true energy crisis that forces the body to draw energy from other places, such as ketone bodies. The brain here is a really demanding organ, since, although it only represents 2% of the body weight, it consumes around 20% of the energy, and in these situations it is noticeable. And it is proven. Without going any further, a study published in 2014 analyzed 107 couples for 21 days, measuring their blood glucose and measuring aggression. The best thing is that they quantified it with a voodoo doll that represented their partner and a pin cushion. From here it was seen that the lower the glucose levels were at the end of the day, the more pins were stuck in the doll. The conclusion seemed very clear: glucose acts as the “fuel of self-control.” Without it, the prefrontal cortex, which is in charge of regulating impulses, loses its ability to stop the amygdala, which is the center of primitive and less rational emotions. What happens. When the brain detects this lack of “fuel”, it does not interpret it as “the restaurant reservation has been delayed”, but as a vital threat that there is a lack of food in the environment. That is why to compensate, the adrenal glands release both cortisol and adrenaline, which are involved in the stress situation. Logically, an increase in these hormones generates irritability that is typical of hypoglycemia. Although if we go further, there are studies that suggest that the brain, in emergency situations such as hunger, prioritizes survival over patience or social courtesy, making us ‘jump’ at any interaction. The good news. Here, being aware of what is happening to us and that it is related to hunger is the most valuable thing to avoid getting angry with our partner or friend. Logically, this makes the brain understand that it is not in the middle of the jungle and that it needs to look for food as soon as possible, but it will only delay a little returning to the glucose levels to which it is accustomed. Images | freepik In Xataka | We thought that quenching hunger with Ozempic was the definitive remedy against obesity. Until we look at the muscle

Science now suggests that it also improves mood (even decaffeinated)

April 25, 2026 by usatoday24

For many of us, life doesn’t begin until we drink our first cup of coffee in the morning to receive the morning rush that we directly associate with the power of caffeine. But the reality is that this is not the culprit, but rather the coffee itself (even without caffeine) and its interaction with the microbiota It is our digestive system that is truly responsible for our high. What has been seen? A recent and exhaustive study published in the prestigious magazine Nature has shown than regular coffee consumption drastically modifies our intestinal microbiomewhich is increasingly beginning to have more relevance. And, through the well-known gut-brain axis, which can be imagined as a highway that connects both places, this drink is capable of improving our mood and reducing stress. An experiment. To reach this result, the research team recruited 31 regular coffee drinkers, who consumed between 3 and 5 cups a day. But at the same time they also needed 31 people not to drink any coffee. From here, regular consumers were subjected to what was probably the worst fortnight of their lives: two weeks without drinking any coffee. The good news is that, after this period, the drink was reintroducedbut in a controlled way, separating the subjects between those who drank normal coffee and those who drank decaffeinated coffee. The result. Through stool and blood analysis, along with psychological and cognitive tests, it was possible to see that when coffee was reintroduced, markers of perceived stress plummeted and mood improved. And since decaf achieved the same psychological impact, the researchers concluded that what is responsible for making us feel good is not (only) caffeine, but the bioactive compounds in coffee feeding our bacteria. Because? When we are drinking coffee, the reality is that we drink a powerful cocktail of polyphenols and chlorogenic acids that act as prebiotics, making them perfect food for certain beneficial bacteria that live in our colon. Here the study detected that coffee promotes the growth of some specific species such as Eggertella sp. as well as an increase in the Firmicutes family. Although they have very strange names (like almost everything in microbiology), these microorganisms are health factories, since when they digest the compounds, short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate are produced. And these metabolites travel from the intestine to the brain, reducing neuronal inflammation and modulating the production of neurotransmitters key to well-being. There are many tests. In addition to this study, there are other different ones, such as one published in 2024 that linked coffee consumption to an increase in bacteria Lawsonibacter asaccharolyticusa powerful butyrate producer strongly linked to intestinal and mental health. but another published in 2022 showed that both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee mitigated depressive behaviors and reduced pro-inflammatory cytokines, normalizing the microbiota deregulated by lack of rest. More than a stimulant. For decades, coffee’s relationship with gastrointestinal health has been a topic of debate that is often blamed on reflux. However, current evidence paints a very different picture in moderate doses, since here it is an active tool to maintain a diverse intestinal ecosystem and is also positive to protect us against other diseases. Images | prostooleh on Freepik In Xataka | If the question is “how much caffeine is in each cup of coffee or tea,” this graph offers insightful answers.

We have been believing for years that yogurt was the best probiotic. Science is now crowning kefir

April 24, 2026 by usatoday24

In recent months there is a dairy product that has begun to become very popular, causing traditional yogurt to begin to falter from its ‘reign’ on supermarket shelves. We are talking about kefir, a product that is increasingly you are listening much more and which is registering a boom that is driven above all by social networks that have promoted some of the benefits it can have for the digestive system. A battle. For decades, yogurt has been the undisputed leader in taking care of our intestinal flora due to the ‘good’ bacteria it has in its composition. However, at a microscopic level, the battle is completely unequal, since, while conventional yogurt usually contains between 2 and 5 bacterial strains whose effects on the intestine are transitory, kefir is a massive symbiotic consortium and offers a better long-term result. We are talking about an ecosystem that houses between 30 and 50 strains of bacteria and yeast, and here the published reviews highlight that this overwhelming microbiological diversity allows kefir to survive stomach acids and ‘settle’ in the intestine in a persistent way. In this way, the bacteria are not passing through as can happen with yogurt, but rather kefir settles and transforms the bacterial flora. And more benefits. Its level of residual lactose here is significantly lower, so the bacteria and yeast in kefir “eat” much of the sugar in the milk during its fermentation, which explains why there are clinical trials showing that lactose intolerant They digest it without having as much reflux and also with less bloating. What does science say? Here there are different sources that can be consulted that suggest that the consumption of kefir reduces some of the bacteria that colonize our mouth producing cavities and is also a proven ally in the eradication of the dreaded bacteria. Helicobacter pylori (although strict antibiotic treatment is required to eliminate it). A recent meta-analysis published in 2025 indicates that kefir also reduces markers of general inflammation and oxidative stress, which are two of the great enemies we face when we talk about harmful agents for the body if they are maintained over time. Furthermore, its ability to reduce the fasting glucose and insulin resistancemaking it a food of interest for the control of type 2 diabetes. The small print. Like everything in nutritional science, the “how much” and the “what” are critical. Here studies indicate that to obtain these metabolic and anti-inflammatory benefits, doses of between 400 and 600 milliliters daily are required, maintained constantly for periods of 4 to 12 weeks. If taken in a ‘jumping’ manner and without consistency, no results should be expected. Which one to choose. Although it may seem like it, not all kefirs are the samesince a pilot trial in healthy men showed that traditional kefir (made from real nodules) reduces LDL cholesterol and inflammatory cytokines much more than hyper-processed commercial versions. The reason is quite simple: industrialization tends to simplify microbial diversity to sterilize the product, losing along the way part of this microbiological ‘magic’ that we appreciate so much. Images | freepik In Xataka | We have been assuming for decades that “skimmed” or “0% fat” yogurt is healthier. It’s time to rethink it

Science explains why you leave the gym a month after starting

April 22, 2026 by usatoday24

The beginning of the year arrives, the gym fee is paid and you leave with great motivation religiously for several weeks. But a day appears where you can’t go due to overwork and, suddenly, you don’t play sports again for months. This is a description of what happens to many people, and although it is easy to blame a lack of discipline, the truth is that psychology points to the goals we set for ourselves. The culprits. As reported by El País, when we face To a new exercise routine, we set goals that are as rigid as if it were a new company we are creating. And this is a mistake, as a study published this year points out, showing that excessively rigid exercise plans encourage an “all or nothing” mentality. This means that if the goal is to “go to the gym 4 days a week for 1 hour” and one week you can only go two days for 20 minutes, the brain processes it as a total failure, which triggers dropout rates. But also, if they are very ambitious, great frustration can arise when you are not seeing the result because of how far away it is. The goals. We usually start the sport with a result in mind which can be “lose five kilos” or “get some good abs to go to the beach to show them off”, but science suggests that this is the wrong approach to adhering to this exercise plan in the long term. The evidence suggests that focusing on the process, such as proposing that tomorrow you will do a little more exercise than today, improves motivation. This is supported by self-determination theory, which shows that when exercise is associated with daily enjoyment and well-being, rather than achieving a number on a scale, it is maintained for longer. Flexibility. One of the great fitness myths is that you must reorganize your entire existence around your training routine to achieve results, and this can suffocate anyone. Here the science point because the goals must be individual and above all flexible in the event of an unforeseen work or social event, since sport can be seen as a real inconvenience. Autonomy. When exercise is perceived as a punishment or a medical obligation imposed to improve health, it has an expiration date that is very close. Here interventions reviewed by Infocop and publications of the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMFYC) they insist in the need for progressive adaptation and, above all, giving positive feedback. The WHO itself, in its guidelines on physical activityemphasizes that health promotion should not be obsessed with the “optimal goal” and maximum performance, but with the creation of a sustainable habit that focuses on doing a little exercise so as not to be sedentary. Because the reality is that with a small amount of exercise time, The benefits achieved are incredible. Rescheduling goals. In summary of all this, we must keep in mind that we must avoid strict numbers at the beginning, such as ‘lose 10 kilos in two months no matter what’, and above all be compassionate towards failure, since a day without training does not ruin progress. In addition, we must opt for activities that really motivate us and not the exercises that appear on TikTok and that are fashionable. Images | freepik In Xataka | We have been debating for years whether we should exercise at night or in the morning. The answer is in our DNA

The science of learning dismantles the mathematical rule of the fashionable study method

April 20, 2026 by usatoday24

When it comes to studying anything, almost all of us want to have a system that allows us learn quickly and efficient. This is where we can turn to the Internet, where there are numerous pages that promise us almost miraculous systems to pass easily, and one of them is the 2-7-30 method. But… What does science say about this system? What is it about? This method focuses on a system where you have to review the information exactly 2, 7 and 30 days after having addressed it on the first occasion. Something that is quite similar to what we want to achieve with the flashcards. Something that a priori seems quite simple to put into practice, but which can generate quite a bit of fear by leaving a topic shelved for so many days in the last round. It gives good results. But it is the best from the point of view of science, and to understand it, we have to go to the basics of how our memory works. And this method is based on the spacing effectwhich undoubtedly far surpasses the classic ‘binge’ the night before an exam, where you try to get all the data in in a matter of hours. Here, a classic meta-analysis published in 2006 in Psychological Bulletin, analyzed 839 measures in 317 experiments and confirmed that distributing practice over separate intervals dramatically improves retention. But even in the past, other studies suggested that repeating material over time consolidates memory much more efficiently. Recovery practice. There is no point in spacing out the reviews if, when day 2 or day 7 of the method arrives, we limit ourselves to passively rereading the notes. Here different studies have shown that actively trying to remember information produces much more lasting learning than passively re-studying it. In this way, forcing the brain to “rescue” that data strengthens neuronal connections, and science points to the advantage of active remembering over traditional binge-watching methods, such as making conceptual maps. The enemy to beat. The concept of reviewing in increasingly longer windows of time is born from the need to combat our natural decline in retention. This is where a work on the “forgetting curve” by Hermann Ebbinghaus comes into play, which demonstrated that we lose most of the newly learned information within hours or days if we do nothing to retain it. More modern replications of this idea confirm that this initial rapid forgetting is real and useful to contextualize the problem, although researchers depend on different factors and not only the strict passage of time. That is why the idea we should stick with is that every time we review the information, the forgetting curve resets and its slope becomes gentler so that it takes longer to disappear. The myth of exact numbers. Although it has been shown that spacing study days, in reality science does not identify 2, 7 and 30 days as a universally valid pattern for all learning and people, but will depend on many factors. Here, a study published in 2008 showed that the optimal interval between reviews depends on the retention interval we are looking for, but that the spacing changes radically if the objective is to remember something for an exam that is due in a week versus if we want to remember something in a year, as can happen in an opposition. In this way we get the following pattern: If the exam is in 1 week, the reviews should be separated by just 1 or 2 days. If the exam is in 1 year, Reviews should be spaced several weeks or even a month apart. Images | freepik In Xataka | SQ3R technique: the study method that helps you understand the subjects, not just remember them

Science has managed to turn off the extra chromosome of Down syndrome. It has also opened the great ethical debate on gene editing

April 18, 2026 by usatoday24

In the complex genetic map that surrounds the known down syndromethe problem is not that there is a lack of information in our cells, but that there is an excess. The presence of a third copy of chromosome 21 It unbalances the entire cellular system that ends up generating an entire clinic that today did not have any type of cure. But thanks to clinical advances and revolutionary gene therapies, we have found a way to turn off this gene that is extra in the cells of people with Down. A natural switch. To understand this advance, we must look at how nature itself resolves its own genetic imbalances. And, for those who do not know, in human beings sex is determined by two types of chromosomes: X and Y. If you are a woman, you will have XX chromosomes, and if you are a man, you will have XY. The problem, boiling it down to its most basic, is that always one of the ‘X’ genes must be silenced so that the genetic load is compensated in humans. And this is something that is done thanks to the gene XIST which encodes an RNA molecule that covers the chromosome and alters its chromatin, silencing de facto their genes. Something that has been developed by nature itself in order to maintain the species, and then the question is obligatory: why not use this natural switch to silence the chromosomes that generate diseases as important as Down syndrome? It’s not something new. The idea of using this “switch” to be able to alter the gene expression of the chromosomes that we have in excess is not new, since in 2013 the researcher Jeanne Lawrence demonstrated for the first time that this RNA could induce the silencing of the extra chromosome 21 in human cells that were in culture in a laboratory. Later, in 2020, it was applied to neural stem cells, but the historical problem has always been the same: the very low efficiency when integrating this gene into the affected cells.. A new milestone. This has changed radically, as a team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston has published a new article in PNAS with a solution to eradicate this bottleneck thanks to the tool CRISPR/Cas9. This system can be visualized as simple scissors that specifically cut into our DNA to eliminate something that was left over or altered. The problem is that it was not very efficient at integrating new genetic material, and to overcome this, scientists have developed a modified version of CRISPR/Cas9 that boosts the success rate of the integration of the XIST gene which will silence the third chromosome 21. Good results. Here we recognize how XIST has been integrated into 20-40% of cell lines that have trisomy 21. Furthermore, the method reliably affects only the extra copy of chromosome 21 without silencing other genes that can cause other diseases. There are problems. Despite the enthusiasm, the technique is far from being applied in humans, since one of the biggest challenges of CRISPR is the mutations off-target, That is, it acts on other genetic points that are its marked objectives. And this occurs when these ‘scissors’ cut a sequence of DNA that closely resembles its target, but which in reality is not. In this way, an error off-target It could trigger severe cellular problems or even cancer. Recent studies show that experimentation on embryos with these techniques often results in mosaicism with edited and unedited cells, as well as incomplete edits. This means that right now we have to work on having greater specificity in the genetic objectives of the therapy so that the consequences of using it are not much greater than the fact of curing a disease. Ethical shock. The controversy is served with genetic therapies in general, since right now one of the lines that are open is to eliminate this extra chromosome directly in a human embryo before implementing it in a woman so that she is not born with this disease. This is where bioethicists they point because experimenting with human embryos damages their physical integrity and poses irreversible risks for future generations. Furthermore, they underline the urgency of distinguishing between the use of CRISPR for purely therapeutic purposes, such as treating symptoms, and its use for “genetic improvement” or the selection of embryos that are much more advanced or genetically perfect. This is also added to the fact that genetic editing in embryos for reproductive purposes is currently prohibited in most countries. Images | Sangharsh Lohakare In Xataka | The surprising thing is not that we have sequenced the DNA of a Neanderthal from 11,000 years ago: it is what it has revealed

Science has managed to turn off the extra chromosome of Down syndrome. It has also opened the great ethical debate on gene editing

April 18, 2026 by usatoday24

Log In

Sign In

Forgot password?

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections