Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

In the pandemic, we were told to keep 6 feet apart. There’s no science to support that.

News Feed
Sunday, June 2, 2024

The nation’s top mental health official had spent months asking for evidence behind the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s social distancing guidelines, warning that keeping Americans physically apart during the coronavirus pandemic would harm patients, businesses, and overall health and wellness.Now, Elinore McCance-Katz, the Trump administration’s assistant secretary for mental health and substance use, was urging the CDC to justify its recommendation that Americans stay six feet apart to avoid contracting covid-19 — or get rid of it.“I very much hope that CDC will revisit this decision or at least tell us that there is more and stronger data to support this rule than what I have been able to find online,” McCance-Katz wrote in a June 2020 memo submitted to the CDC and other health agency leaders and obtained by The Washington Post. “If not, they should pull it back.”The CDC would keep its six-foot social distance recommendation in place until August 2022, with some modifications as Americans got vaccinated against the virus and officials pushed to reopen schools. Now, congressional investigators are set Monday to press Anthony S. Fauci, the infectious-disease doctor who served as a key coronavirus adviser during the Trump and Biden administrations, on why the CDC’s recommendation was allowed to shape so much of American life for so long, particularly given Fauci and other officials’ recent acknowledgments that there was little science behind the six-foot rule after all.“It sort of just appeared, that six feet is going to be the distance,” Fauci testified to Congress in a January closed-door hearing, according to a transcribed interview released Friday. Fauci characterized the recommendation as “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, also privately testified to Congress in January that he was not aware of evidence behind the social distancing recommendation, according to a transcript released in May.Four years later, visible reminders of the six-foot rule remain with us, particularly in cities that rushed to adopt the CDC’s guidelines hoping to protect residents and keep businesses open. D.C. is dotted with signs in stores and schools — even on sidewalks or in government buildings — urging people to stand six feet apart.Experts agree that social distancing saved lives, particularly early in the pandemic when Americans had no protections against a novel virus sickening millions of people. One recent paper published by the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, concludes that behavior changes to avoid developing covid-19, followed later by vaccinations, prevented about 800,000 deaths. But that achievement came at enormous cost, the authors added, with inflexible strategies that weren’t driven by evidence.“We never did the study about what works,” said Andrew Atkeson, a UCLA economist and co-author of the paper, lamenting the lack of evidence around the six-foot rule. He warned that persistent frustrations over social distancing and other measures might lead Americans to ignore public heath advice during the next crisis.The U.S. distancing measure was particularly stringent, as other countries adopted shorter distances; the World Health Organization set a distance of one meter, or slightly more than three feet, which experts concluded was roughly as effective as the six-foot mark at deterring infections, and would have allowed schools to reopen more rapidly.The six-foot rule was “probably the single most costly intervention the CDC recommended that was consistently applied throughout the pandemic,” Scott Gottlieb, former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, wrote in his book about the pandemic, “Uncontrolled Spread.”It’s still not clear who at the CDC settled on the six-foot distance; the agency has repeatedly declined to specify the authors of the guidance, which resembled its recommendations on how to avoid contracting the flu. A CDC spokesperson credited a team of experts, who drew from research such as a 1955 study on respiratory droplets. In his book, Gottlieb wrote that the Trump White House pushed back on the CDC’s initial recommendation of 10 feet of social distance, saying it would be too difficult to implement.Perhaps the rule’s biggest impact was on children, despite ample evidence they were at relatively low risk of covid-related complications. Many schools were unable to accommodate six feet of space between students’ desks and forced to rely on virtual education for more than a year, said Joseph Allen, a Harvard University expert in environmental health, who called in 2020 for schools to adopt three feet of social distance.“The six-foot rule was really an error that had been propagated for several decades, based on a misunderstanding of how particles traveled through indoor spaces,” Allen said, adding that health experts often wrongly focused on avoiding droplets from infected people rather than improving ventilation and filtration inside buildings.Social distancing had champions before the pandemic. Bush administration officials, working on plans to fight bioterrorism, concluded that social distancing could save lives in a health crisis and renewed their calls as the coronavirus approached. The idea also took hold when public health experts initially believed that the coronavirus was often transmitted by droplets expelled by infected people, which could land several feet away; the CDC later acknowledged the virus was airborne and people could be exposed just by sharing the same air in a room, even if they were farther than six feet apart.“There was no magic around six feet,” Robert R. Redfield, who served as CDC director during the Trump administration, told a congressional committee in March 2022. “It’s just historically that’s what was used for other respiratory pathogens. So that really became the first piece” of a strategy to protect Americans in the early days of the virus, he said.It also became the standard that states and businesses adopted, with swift pressure on holdouts. Lawmakers and workers urged meat processing plants, delivery companies and other essential businesses to adopt the CDC’s social distancing recommendations as their employees continued reporting to work during the pandemic.Some business leaders weren’t sure the measures made sense. Jeff Bezos, founder of online retail giant Amazon, petitioned the White House in March 2020 to consider revising the six-foot recommendation, said Adam Boehler, then a senior Trump administration official helping with the coronavirus response. At the time, Amazon was facing questions about a rising number of infections in its warehouses, and Democratic senators were urging the company to adopt social distancing.“Bezos called me and asked, is there any real science behind this rule?” Boehler said, adding that Bezos pushed on whether Amazon could adopt an alternative distance if workers were masked, physically separated by dividers or other precautions were taken. “He said … it’s the backbone of trying to keep America running here, and when you separate somebody five feet versus six feet, it’s a big difference,” Boehler recalled. Bezos owns The Washington Post.Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokesperson, confirmed that Bezos called Boehler but said the Amazon founder’s focus was the discrepancy between the U.S. recommendation and the WHO’s shorter distance. The company soon said it would follow the CDC’s six-foot social distancing guidelines in its warehouses and later developed technologies to try to enforce those guidelines. “We did it globally everywhere because it was the right thing to do,” Nantel said.Boehler said he spoke with Redfield and Fauci about testing alternatives to the six-foot recommendation but that he was not aware of what happened to those tests or what they found. Fauci declined to comment. Redfield did not respond to requests for comment.But challenging the six-foot recommendation, particularly in the pandemic’s early days, was seen as politically difficult. Rochelle Walensky, then chief of infectious disease at Massachusetts General Hospital, argued in a July 2020 email that “if people are masked it is quite safe and much more practical to be at 3 feet” in many school settings.Five months later, incoming president Joe Biden would tap Walensky as his CDC director. Walensky swiftly endorsed the six-foot distance before working to loosen it, announcing in March 2021 that elementary school students could sit three feet apart if they were masked. Walensky declined to comment.The most persistent government critic of the social distancing guidelines may have been McCance-Katz, who did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Trump’s mental health chief had spent several years clashing with other Department of Health and Human Services officials on various matters and had few internal defenders by the time the pandemic arrived, hampering her message. But while her pleas failed to move the CDC, her warnings about the risks to mental health found an audience with Trump and his allies, who blamed federal bureaucrats for the six-foot rule and other measures.“What is this nonsense that somehow it’s unsafe to return to school?” McCance-Katz said in September 2020 on an HHS podcast, lamenting the broader shutdown of American life. “I do think that Americans are smart people, and I think that they need to start asking questions about why is it this way.”

Read more

The nation’s top mental health official had spent months asking for evidence behind the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s social distancing guidelines, warning that keeping Americans physically apart during the coronavirus pandemic would harm patients, businesses, and overall health and wellness.

Now, Elinore McCance-Katz, the Trump administration’s assistant secretary for mental health and substance use, was urging the CDC to justify its recommendation that Americans stay six feet apart to avoid contracting covid-19 — or get rid of it.

“I very much hope that CDC will revisit this decision or at least tell us that there is more and stronger data to support this rule than what I have been able to find online,” McCance-Katz wrote in a June 2020 memo submitted to the CDC and other health agency leaders and obtained by The Washington Post. “If not, they should pull it back.”

The CDC would keep its six-foot social distance recommendation in place until August 2022, with some modifications as Americans got vaccinated against the virus and officials pushed to reopen schools. Now, congressional investigators are set Monday to press Anthony S. Fauci, the infectious-disease doctor who served as a key coronavirus adviser during the Trump and Biden administrations, on why the CDC’s recommendation was allowed to shape so much of American life for so long, particularly given Fauci and other officials’ recent acknowledgments that there was little science behind the six-foot rule after all.

“It sort of just appeared, that six feet is going to be the distance,” Fauci testified to Congress in a January closed-door hearing, according to a transcribed interview released Friday. Fauci characterized the recommendation as “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”

Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, also privately testified to Congress in January that he was not aware of evidence behind the social distancing recommendation, according to a transcript released in May.

Four years later, visible reminders of the six-foot rule remain with us, particularly in cities that rushed to adopt the CDC’s guidelines hoping to protect residents and keep businesses open. D.C. is dotted with signs in stores and schools — even on sidewalks or in government buildings — urging people to stand six feet apart.

Experts agree that social distancing saved lives, particularly early in the pandemic when Americans had no protections against a novel virus sickening millions of people. One recent paper published by the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, concludes that behavior changes to avoid developing covid-19, followed later by vaccinations, prevented about 800,000 deaths. But that achievement came at enormous cost, the authors added, with inflexible strategies that weren’t driven by evidence.

“We never did the study about what works,” said Andrew Atkeson, a UCLA economist and co-author of the paper, lamenting the lack of evidence around the six-foot rule. He warned that persistent frustrations over social distancing and other measures might lead Americans to ignore public heath advice during the next crisis.

The U.S. distancing measure was particularly stringent, as other countries adopted shorter distances; the World Health Organization set a distance of one meter, or slightly more than three feet, which experts concluded was roughly as effective as the six-foot mark at deterring infections, and would have allowed schools to reopen more rapidly.

The six-foot rule was “probably the single most costly intervention the CDC recommended that was consistently applied throughout the pandemic,” Scott Gottlieb, former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, wrote in his book about the pandemic, “Uncontrolled Spread.”

It’s still not clear who at the CDC settled on the six-foot distance; the agency has repeatedly declined to specify the authors of the guidance, which resembled its recommendations on how to avoid contracting the flu. A CDC spokesperson credited a team of experts, who drew from research such as a 1955 study on respiratory droplets. In his book, Gottlieb wrote that the Trump White House pushed back on the CDC’s initial recommendation of 10 feet of social distance, saying it would be too difficult to implement.

Perhaps the rule’s biggest impact was on children, despite ample evidence they were at relatively low risk of covid-related complications. Many schools were unable to accommodate six feet of space between students’ desks and forced to rely on virtual education for more than a year, said Joseph Allen, a Harvard University expert in environmental health, who called in 2020 for schools to adopt three feet of social distance.

“The six-foot rule was really an error that had been propagated for several decades, based on a misunderstanding of how particles traveled through indoor spaces,” Allen said, adding that health experts often wrongly focused on avoiding droplets from infected people rather than improving ventilation and filtration inside buildings.

Social distancing had champions before the pandemic. Bush administration officials, working on plans to fight bioterrorism, concluded that social distancing could save lives in a health crisis and renewed their calls as the coronavirus approached. The idea also took hold when public health experts initially believed that the coronavirus was often transmitted by droplets expelled by infected people, which could land several feet away; the CDC later acknowledged the virus was airborne and people could be exposed just by sharing the same air in a room, even if they were farther than six feet apart.

“There was no magic around six feet,” Robert R. Redfield, who served as CDC director during the Trump administration, told a congressional committee in March 2022. “It’s just historically that’s what was used for other respiratory pathogens. So that really became the first piece” of a strategy to protect Americans in the early days of the virus, he said.

It also became the standard that states and businesses adopted, with swift pressure on holdouts. Lawmakers and workers urged meat processing plants, delivery companies and other essential businesses to adopt the CDC’s social distancing recommendations as their employees continued reporting to work during the pandemic.

Some business leaders weren’t sure the measures made sense. Jeff Bezos, founder of online retail giant Amazon, petitioned the White House in March 2020 to consider revising the six-foot recommendation, said Adam Boehler, then a senior Trump administration official helping with the coronavirus response. At the time, Amazon was facing questions about a rising number of infections in its warehouses, and Democratic senators were urging the company to adopt social distancing.

“Bezos called me and asked, is there any real science behind this rule?” Boehler said, adding that Bezos pushed on whether Amazon could adopt an alternative distance if workers were masked, physically separated by dividers or other precautions were taken. “He said … it’s the backbone of trying to keep America running here, and when you separate somebody five feet versus six feet, it’s a big difference,” Boehler recalled. Bezos owns The Washington Post.

Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokesperson, confirmed that Bezos called Boehler but said the Amazon founder’s focus was the discrepancy between the U.S. recommendation and the WHO’s shorter distance. The company soon said it would follow the CDC’s six-foot social distancing guidelines in its warehouses and later developed technologies to try to enforce those guidelines. “We did it globally everywhere because it was the right thing to do,” Nantel said.

Boehler said he spoke with Redfield and Fauci about testing alternatives to the six-foot recommendation but that he was not aware of what happened to those tests or what they found. Fauci declined to comment. Redfield did not respond to requests for comment.

But challenging the six-foot recommendation, particularly in the pandemic’s early days, was seen as politically difficult. Rochelle Walensky, then chief of infectious disease at Massachusetts General Hospital, argued in a July 2020 email that “if people are masked it is quite safe and much more practical to be at 3 feet” in many school settings.

Five months later, incoming president Joe Biden would tap Walensky as his CDC director. Walensky swiftly endorsed the six-foot distance before working to loosen it, announcing in March 2021 that elementary school students could sit three feet apart if they were masked. Walensky declined to comment.

The most persistent government critic of the social distancing guidelines may have been McCance-Katz, who did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Trump’s mental health chief had spent several years clashing with other Department of Health and Human Services officials on various matters and had few internal defenders by the time the pandemic arrived, hampering her message. But while her pleas failed to move the CDC, her warnings about the risks to mental health found an audience with Trump and his allies, who blamed federal bureaucrats for the six-foot rule and other measures.

“What is this nonsense that somehow it’s unsafe to return to school?” McCance-Katz said in September 2020 on an HHS podcast, lamenting the broader shutdown of American life. “I do think that Americans are smart people, and I think that they need to start asking questions about why is it this way.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Biden Awards Three Climate Experts Nation’s Highest Science Honor

Richard Alley, Lawrence Edwards and David Tilman were among the two dozen honorees who received the National Medal of Science or the National Medal of Technology and Innovation last week

January 6, 20252 min readBiden Awards Three Climate Experts Nation’s Highest Science HonorRichard Alley, Lawrence Edwards and David Tilman were among the two dozen honorees who received the National Medal of Science or the National Medal of Technology and Innovation last weekBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E News Rhône Glacier, the source of the river of the same name, is located in the Swiss Alps. Like many other alpine glaciers around the world, it has retreated significantly in the last 150 years as global temperatures rise. GmbH & Co. KG/Alamy Stock PhotoCLIMATEWIRE | The White House recognized more than two dozen scientists and innovators Friday with what will likely be the Biden administration's last National Medals of Science and National Medals of Technology and Innovation.The awards honored researchers ranging from astrophysicists and oncologists, as well as the pharmaceutical companies that developed the mRNA vaccines for Covid-19. Three climate and environmental scientists were included in the bunch.Richard Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University, received a National Medal of Science for his decades of research on melting glaciers and ice sheets, sea-level rise and other climate impacts.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“Spending long tours in the most remote and extreme environments on Earth, Richard Alley has catapulted climate predictions to great heights and raised new urgency to address the climate crisis, moving the world toward a sustainable future,” said Kei Koizumi, principal deputy director for science, society and policy at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, who announced the awards.Also recognized was R. Lawrence Edwards, a climate scientist at the University of Minnesota. Edwards was awarded a National Medal of Science for his work on reconstructing the planet’s climate history dating back to the prehistoric ages.“Lawrence Edward’s innovative research methods shed light on the rate, scale and drivers of climate change and the impact on human civilization, defining him as one of the most celebrated earth scientists of our time,” Koizumi said.G. David Tilman, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota, also received a National Medal of Science for his research on biodiversity and conservation, including the ways that the planet’s diversity of life helps bolster ecosystems against environmental disturbances like climate change.“David Tilman’s work proves the extraordinary variety of life that exists on Earth is essential to productive ecosystems, sustainable agriculture, renewable energy and more, helping to feed and power the world while making conservation both a strategic and moral calling,” Koizumi said.Altogether, the White House awarded 14 National Medals of Science and 11 National Medals of Technology and Innovation.“This year’s honorees represent a simple truth as I’ve always believed. America can be defined by a single word: possibilities,” Biden said at the ceremony on Friday. “That’s who we are: a nation of possibilities.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Meet the Tiny, Adorable Owls That Have Mastered the Art of Hiding

One of the smallest owls in North America, the northern saw-whet lives among us and is rarely seen—but one volunteer science project aims to find them and uncover their secrets year after year

The birds weigh about as much as a bar of soap. That’s how Melissa Boyle Acuti describes the northern saw-whet owl, the smallest owl species found in Maryland and one of the smallest in North America. They’re hardly bigger than a fist with a ping pong ball on top, she adds. During the fall in Edgewater, Maryland, a small group of volunteers helps catch and band these little owls from sunset to midnight. They’re participating in Project Owlnet, an initiative that seeks to learn more about these birds and their migration and that supports an ever-expanding network of migrant owl banding stations. Boyle Acuti is the banding station manager for Project Owlnet’s site at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) in Edgewater. She leads the participants through the project’s processes. The group uses an audio lure to entice the birds, capturing them in mist nets to bring back to the banding station. Once there, they place aluminum bands on the birds—“friendship bracelets for science,” as they’re called within the project. Project participants also measure the owls’ bills, wings and tails. They use a blacklight to look at the underside of the owls’ wings and see their molt pattern, which helps determine their ages, a difficult task. Old feathers don’t glow as brightly under the light because the pigment has faded, while new feathers have a brighter glow, Boyle Acuti says. Project Owlnet volunteer Kerry Wixted uses a blacklight to examine the wings of a saw-whet owl in 2023 Courtesy of Project Owlnet And how do the owls behave during all of this? “We definitely get beak snapping at times,” Boyle Acuti says, though most of them are fairly docile, she adds—their usual behavior is to sit and look camouflaged, after all. “I feel like there are times, during migration especially, it seems some of them are like ‘Hey, I got places to go, I don’t have time for this.’ But I might just be anthropomorphizing them.” Dave Brinker, one of the project’s founders, alongside Scott Weidensaul and Steve Huy, says that the start date of the project is noted as 1994, but it began casually before then. “It kind of grew organically out of attempts to get other bird banders to start banding saw-whets,” Brinker says. “Once it was really starting to do well, people said ‘Well when did you start this?’ We looked back and we kind of picked 1994 as a good point to say ‘Yeah we were pretty serious about it roughly then.’” Project Owlnet has banding stations around the United States and Canada. The data the teams collect may help to tell the story of the species’ behaviors and migration patterns. The future of migration tracking is the Motus system, Boyle Acuti says, which uses nanotag tech to track birds, bats and insects. Motus’ project No. 753 pertains to northern saw-whet owls. Workers put Motus radio tags on the owls, and when the birds pass by specialized receiving stations, the creatures’ travels are revealed. “The perception was that it was a rare bird,” Brinker says. “With what we’ve done with Project Owlnet and things over the years here, we’ve kind of flipped it on its head. The way you need to present it is: It’s a rarely observed or rarely seen bird.” These birds are good at being hidden, and they must be to survive, both Brinker and Boyle Acuti say, because anything larger than them is a potential predator. “They’re here, but they’re not calling attention to themselves,” she says. “I think the most fascinating thing is how many of them potentially are around our area, and nobody really knows about them.” A northern saw-whet owl on a tree branch in Canada Education Images / Universal Images Group via Getty Images In recent years, one saw-whet did achieve high profile status: Rocky, an owl that was rescued from the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree in New York City, treated at a wildlife rehabilitation site and later released in 2020. Rocky’s story led to multiple books and merchandise. She was discovered hidden among the tree’s branches, typical for the life of a saw-whet. The owls tend to live around five to eight years, according to Boyle Acuti. “They nest and summer up in these boreal forests in Canada,” she says. “Those areas, people can’t get to very easily. … So that’s why the fall migration studies are really important to know what’s happening with the population of owls.” For Christmas bird counts, the owls may be found down in their southern range, possibly showing up at stations in Georgia, Alabama and Oklahoma. “They go pretty far south in small numbers,” she says. “The more that we do with Project Owlnet, the more we learn about their migrations.” Saw-whet captures have varied widely from year to year at SERC, which became a Project Owlnet banding site in 2017. That year, the team captured eight birds, and the next year, they captured 54. Then in 2019, it was six; the year after, it was 29. And then eight in 2021, 26 in 2022, nine in 2023 and ten in 2024. Notably, one of the birds banded at SERC and identified as a recently hatched owl in 2022 was recaptured nearly 600 miles away in Quebec on October 14, 2024. Many factors may affect the owl population, Boyle Acuti notes: “You hear about the wildfires in Canada—they’ve been in the news. Even climate change, that could be causing the southern species to move more northerly. The tree species compositions, if those change, that could impact where the owls are nesting and the prey. There’s a lot we don’t know, and that’s why we study them. In order to see trends, you have to have long-term data sets.” Melissa Boyle Acuti, banding station manager for Project Owlnet at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, holds a saw-whet owl in 2023 Courtesy of Project Owlnet As the project continues, so will the data-gathering—and so will the appreciation of saw-whets. Brinker says when people see saw-whets for the first time, “they’re always saying, ‘Oh, that’s so cute—I didn’t know owls were so little.’” And these owls are still less known than others, as typically snowy owls, great horned owls and barred owls come to mind when people think of these nocturnal birds, he says. Most people “don’t think of a little saw-whet owl, which is really a master of concealment and hiding,” he adds. But for the folks dedicated to Project Owlnet, as volunteers look for the birds at night during autumn in Edgewater and elsewhere, the little saw-whet is surely the main owl on their minds. “We’ve started jokingly calling them ‘angry pinecones,’” Boyle Acuti says. “They’re not a whole lot bigger than a pinecone, to be honest—like a large pinecone. It is pretty interesting that they can be so well camouflaged.” Get the latest on what's happening At the Smithsonian in your inbox.

A life-changing device for diabetics

Read the winning essay from the Young Science Writer of the Year 2024 award

I am a teenager whose mother and grandmother both have type 1 diabetes.It is a disease which cannot be cured, only managed - an autoimmune condition, meaning that the body’s defence system attacks cells in the pancreas. These cells are then damaged and cannot produce insulin - the hormone which helps keep blood sugar levels within a safe range.In people without diabetes, insulin is released when we eat, preventing our blood sugar levels from going too high. That does not happen to diabetics. Without treatment, their blood sugar can spike - dangerously. Glucose monitors, healthy dietary choices, scheduled exercise, and most importantly insulin injections, are all used to control it.Insulin injections can be painful. They can cause bruising and a build-up of scar tissue, fat, and protein, which is called lipohypertrophy. As I have seen, these injections can be upsetting and restricting. Diabetics have to have their insulin with them and, for those who have problems with their eyesight, or with their mobility, it can be a struggle to inject.This is why I believe there is a better, more efficient way to deliver insulin.The insulin pump is a small device - around the size of a deck of cards - which supplies a continuous flow of longer-acting insulin through a cannula underneath the skin. This device comes in two forms, tubed and tubeless. Tubed pumps last for multiple years, with the insulin supply getting replaced every two to three days.Tubeless pumps are worn once and a new pump is applied every two to three days. They are changed often to stop the insulin supply running out and to prevent infection.An advantage of the insulin pump is that it allows increased flexibility for people with unpredictable schedules or who require smaller doses of insulin. This means that people with changing work shifts, who don’t necessarily eat and exercise at set times each day can still have set doses of insulin.A report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 2011 says that 86% of survey respondents cited that the insulin pump fits in with their lifestyle much better than injections.It is also more convenient to change an insulin supply or pump every two or three days, than it is to inject, on average, four times a day.However, there are disadvantages with pumps, as they are not for everyone. It may be difficult for people with eyesight or mobility problems to change their pump, but this issue is also related to insulin injections. Cannulas can also bend, restricting the flow of insulin, and the pump can sometimes become disconnected from the tubing without the user noticing.The NHS only offers insulin pumps to those who experience frequent episodes of dangerously low or high blood sugar without warning. These are known as “hypos” or “hypers”. This means that many people choose to self-fund an insulin pump, which typically costs £2,000-£3,000. On top of that, the cost of the equipment needed costs just over £1,000 per year. That is not affordable for many diabetics.Dr Iain MacLeod., who works as a GP at Prestonpans Group Practice in Scotland told me that insulin pumps had been “life-changing for many patients”.“I think [they] have been an excellent addition to the range of options available for managing diabetes,” he said.Dr MacLeod also expressed that pumps “allow more flexibility”, but that they ”are a lot more expensive than standard insulin therapy so, in these times of huge financial pressures within the NHS, it is probably not realistic for all diabetic patients to get the more expensive treatment options.“If the pump is the best option for a patient, then I would gladly recommend it,” he added.Insulin pumps are becoming more accessible - and even more fashionable - with companies selling accessories and pouches to protect pumps. I think this is making it easier to live with and accept the reality of the device, which is often life-changing.I believe it is important for diabetics to have access to whatever treatment options they need to not just manage their condition, but thrive.Jasmin is from Musselburgh Grammar School, East Lothian and the judges called her essay an “outstanding piece that presented a compelling message about the accessibility of healthcare".Runners up were Anna Joby, for her essay on light pollution and Lissie Marsh for a piece on the unseen environmental consequences of the overuse of tyres.The Young Science Writer of the Year Award is organised by the Association of British Science Writers in collaboration with the Royal Institution and with the support of BBC News. Details about how to enter the 2025 competition will be announced in the coming weeks.

Science-Backed Sleep Tips from 2024 to Help You Snooze Better

From the “sleepy girl mocktail” to power naps, researchers explained which sleep trends this year really help with quality shut-eye

December 13, 20244 min readScience-Backed Sleep Tips from 2024 to Help You Snooze BetterFrom the “sleepy girl mocktail” to power naps, researchers explained which sleep trends this year really help with quality shut-eyeBy Lauren J. YoungArtistGNDphotography/Getty ImagesBetween jobs, school, kids, and other physical and mental tolls on our time and energy, we could all use better, more restful sleep. There’s no question that good shut-eye is important for our health. Research has linked poor sleep with imbalanced sugar levels and metabolism and with elevated risk of cardiovascular issues and neurological conditions, including dementia. And slumbering bodies are very fickle: sleep quality can be easily thrown off by any number of environmental disturbances or emotional or physical stressors.We’re channeling some of the most helpful science-backed tips and findings that sleep experts have shared with us this year—so hopefully we feel more refreshed and reenergized in 2025.Short Daytime Naps Sharpen the MindOn supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.If you’re feeling sluggish in the middle of the day, a short snooze could be the refresher the brain needs. Growing evidence suggests that daytime power naps can actually give a boost to critical thinking skills, memory, productivity and mood. As Science of Health columnist Lydia Denworth reports, there is a science to napping effectively.It’s best to keep napping sessions 20 to 30 minutes long and before 5 P.M., for those who are regularly awake during daytime hours. That’s enough time to get in a cycle of “light sleep,” which is easier to wake up in, while avoiding disruptions to regular sleep at night. But note that regularly taking very long naps could be a sign of an underlying health issue.Mariia Borovkova/Getty ImagesStaying in Bed All Day, or “Bed Rotting,” Can Worsen Sleep“Bed rotting,” or opting to stay in bed for prolonged periods of time, is one of social media’s favorite mental health trends. Conditions or disabilities may cause people to remain in bed, but bed rotting is seen as a kind of elective counterculture to “productive” activities—the opposite of working, exercising or studying. People who bed rot often claim that they feel rejuvenated after hours or even days during which they stay in bed, only leaving to go to the bathroom or get food.But experts say this behavior can throw off the body’s internal clock, or circadian rhythm, which controls sleep-wake cycles. This could alter someone’s sleep drive (making them feel restless when they should be normally asleep) and sleep cues (making them less likely to associate their bed with sleepy times). To get out of a bed rotting cycle, experts say to first evaluate the reason why you feel the need for that kind of mental recharge. Then try to consistently wake up early in your sleep-wake cycle, no matter what time you went to sleep, and get natural light for an hour upon waking, if possible.The “Sleepy Girl Mocktail” Reminded Us Magnesium Is Important for SleepThe “sleepy girl mocktail,” a concoction of cherry juice, seltzer and magnesium, was another trend that took off this year. People on TikTok touted that the homemade sip helped them slip into slumber more easily. But evidence that it works is up in the air. That said, one of the ingredients, magnesium, has been shown to play a role in sleep. The mineral can help relax muscles and affect pathways in the brain that stabilize mood and anxiety. Magnesium supplements can be found at local drugstores—but some types can act as a laxative that can disrupt sleep.Koldunova_Anna/Getty ImagesSleeping on the Floor Could Benefit Your Back—SometimesPeople have been sleeping on the floor for centuries—and for some cultures today, it’s important to well-being. Some people with certain back ailments also could find floor sleeping particularly helpful.According to some physiotherapists, lying flat on your back, splayed out like a starfish, or tucking your knees up with your back on the floor helps stretch and take pressure off your back. The firmness of the floor might also give more support than a very soft mattress.Many experts agree that the practice isn’t appropriate for every back condition, however. The flatness of floors could lead to joint stiffness, put more pressure on hips and buttocks or reduce the curved shape of your spine, which can result in back pain.Sleeping Solo Might Be Better for You—And Your PartnerA 2023 survey found that up to a third of couples in the U.S. got a “sleep divorce,” a trend that further caught on this year as more people, including celebrities, shared that they are choosing to sleep separately from partners for a better night’s rest.Some evidence suggests that sleeping alone might be better for some couples. A lot of it has to do with differences in sleep compatibility. Research has shown that people with differing sleep schedules, such as night-shift workers and day-shift workers, can have poor sleep if they share a bed, and sleeping with a heavy snorer is more likely to cause fatigue and daytime sleepiness the next day. Researchers note, though, that there are benefits to co-sleeping—it can provide comfort and emotional support, which can relieve stress.Remedies for When Anxiety Keeps You AwakeMany people lost sleep over the stress of this year’s U.S. presidential election—and some may still be lying awake with anxiety. Any stressful event can disrupt sleep quality, but experts say there are actionable tips people can use:Before bed, put away screens, and try to avoid doomscrolling, or overconsuming news—stop when you feel informed. If you’re feeling amped up or angry, de-escalate before getting into bed. Whether it’s practicing meditation, drinking a warm beverage, doing a puzzle or knitting, do an activity that gets you into state of sleepiness first—no matter what time it is. Using a lesson from cognitive behavioral therapy, try to turn negative thoughts into positive ones by focusing on things you’re grateful for, says Sally Ibrahim, a sleep physician at the University Hospitals health system in northeastern Ohio.“If I practice it over and over again, those thoughts will in turn calm me down. It gives me peace and joy,” she says. “And those are the kinds of things that help not only our mental health but sleep.”

Injuries from Electric Bikes and Electric Scooters Have Tripled. Here’s What to Know

Following a startling spike in electric scooter and e-bike injuries, epidemiologists warn of inadequate infrastructure and safety rules

December 11, 20242 min readInjuries from Electric Bikes and Scooters Have Tripled. Here’s What to KnowFollowing a startling spike in electric scooter and e-bike injuries, epidemiologists warn of inadequate infrastructure and safety rulesBy Ben GuarinoEmergency department visits involving e-scooters have risen dramatically in recent years, according to a new analysis of a database representing U.S. hospitals. Electric scooters and electric bikes have become a common sight in U.S. streets—and, in some cities, on the sidewalks, too. As a general rule, whenever a new kind of vehicle become ubiquitous, injuries tend to follow. Emergency department visits involving these so-called electric micromobility machines tripled in the U.S. between 2019 and 2022, according to a study published this week in the journal Injury Prevention. Men were injured in e-vehicle accidents more frequently than women. And among age groups in such injuries, children and teenagers were the most likely to be under the influence of alcohol.“The tripling of injuries between 2019 and 2022 underscores the rapid adoption of these devices,” says Akshaya Bhagavathula, an associate professor of epidemiology at North Dakota State University and a co-author of the new study. It is also a consequence, he says, of a COVID-era trend in which travelers sought alternatives to public transportation. Small e-vehicles do offer perks such as avoiding traffic and, potentially, helping the planet: The battery-powered engines used in these machines are greener than their combustion equivalents, though net environmental benefits depend on how these vehicles are used.Despite the popularity of e-bikes and e-scooters, “infrastructure, safety regulations and awareness regarding the risks of impaired riding” have not kept up, Bhagavathula says. The epidemiologist and his colleagues searched the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a representative database of emergency departments in U.S. hospitals, and found 4,020 visits related to these vehicles in the study’s four-year window. That works out to estimates of 279,990 emergency department visits for e-scooter injuries and 16,600 such visits for e-bike injuries nationwide, the authors say.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.About 10 percent of the total micromobility injuries were associated with the use of alcohol or of alcohol plus drugs. Compared with adults under age 40, children ages 10 to 17 (the youngest cohort studied) had 7.5 times greater odds of these emergency department visits that involved drinking. “As we know, alcohol and [drug] use impair judgement, coordination and balance, significantly [increasing] the risk of injuries,” Bhagavathula says.E-scooter injuries showed the most dramatic rise, from 521 in 2019 to 1,362 in 2022. This corresponds to an estimated nationwide increase from about 20,000 in 2019 to 63,000 in 2022. These devices have “vehicle-specific vulnerabilities,” Bhagavathula says, noting that their relatively small wheels can make them less stable than, for example, traditional bicycles.These findings are in line with other recent reports that describe similar increases. A study published in JAMA Network Open in July found that, from 2017 to 2022, e-bike injuries doubled, and e-scooter injuries increased by 45 percent annually. Meanwhile injuries from human-powered bicycles and scooters remained mostly flat.After lower limbs, heads were the most frequently injured body part tracked in the new study. Not enough riders wear helmets, which is a critical issue, Bhagavathula notes. “Public safety campaigns and local regulations encouraging helmet use could greatly mitigate these risks,” he says, adding that e-mobility companies could do more to promote wearing the proper gear, too.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.