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.

The Real Mystery About Mexico’s New President

News Feed
Saturday, June 1, 2024

MEXICO CITY — On virtually every corner of Mexico’s capital city, drivers encounter political activists holding signs for one or another of the country’s political parties. Colorful banners enliven the otherwise gray and white walls of the city’s office buildings. The nation is visibly preparing for its presidential election on Sunday.One word dominates, on fences and bumper stickers, even in radio commercials: Morena. It is the acronym of Mexico’s current ruling party, the National Regeneration Movement, which is set to win in the upcoming election.And one person dominates, as well. Next to the party’s dark red logo, Mexicans have grown accustomed to reading the phrase “Es Claudia” — “It’s Claudia” — or “Claudia Presidenta” — “President Claudia.” Those slogans refer to 61-year-old Claudia Sheinbaum, the former mayor of Mexico City and the clear favorite to occupy the nation’s highest office.In fact, the contest is all but decided. Morena, with two allied parties, currently holds a majority of seats in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies and Senate. It is also the party of Mexico’s current president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador who, despite many controversies throughout his tenure, maintains an approval rating well above 50 percent.As a result, Sheinbaum seems like a virtual shoo-in. Polls give her an ample winning margin of between 15 and 25 percent. Moreover, this spread has remained constant since last September, when Mexico’s largest political forces announced their candidates for the presidency. Sheinbaum is just as popular as her party.So, unless something unexpected were to occur — something that destroys a 20-point lead overnight — Mexicans know what will happen on election day. Millions will head to the polls and around midnight, the president of Mexico’s National Elections Institute will announce Claudia Sheinbaum as the country’s next leader — and the first woman to occupy the presidency.The real question, however, is what will happen after that.For as long as Claudia Sheinbaum has been a public figure, she has alternated between what people here see as two different personalities. On one hand, she’s an accomplished physicist with expertise in environmental science and a reputation for pragmatism. On the other, she’s a long-time leftist activist, a close ally and champion of López Obrador — a divisive figure who came to power promising to represent the lowest echelons of Mexican society and, during his tenure, increased social spending to a historic high while simultaneously attacking Mexico’s system of checks and balances.The question raging here is: Which of Sheinbaum’s two personalities will dominate? Some think she will be Mexico’s Angela Merkel — a scientist by training who will prioritize efficiency over ideology for the nation’s benefit. Others see her as a mere puppet of López Obrador, who will follow in his leftist footsteps, increasing social welfare programs and battling the nation’s Supreme Court.The truth, in all likelihood, is that she will fall somewhere in between. But how that balance is set, the way in which she reconciles these aspects of her life, will define not only Mexico’s future but what kind of president she will be when it comes to negotiating with the United States and its president.In other words, which Claudia — or combination of the two — becomes president will have an outsize influence on the U.S. political landscape at a time when immigration, drug trafficking and trade are all top issues for American politicians.Mexico already plays a disproportionate role when it comes to the U.S. debate over immigration, and having a Mexican president set on defending Mexican sovereignty and other Latin American countries could worsen the U.S. border crisis during a presidential election cycle. But the implications to the U.S. go beyond immigration. A more ideological and leftist Sheinbaum could easily take a nationalist perspective on drug policy and commerce. She could seek more beneficial terms for Mexico in the USMCA negotiations next year or be unwilling to cooperate with U.S. authorities to investigate the increased drug trade of fentanyl. A more pragmatic Sheinbaum, on the other hand, could find compromises when discussing trade, and agree on a middle ground for investigating cartels with U.S. support without risking Mexico’s sovereignty.That means the United States should have a keen interest in figuring out which side of Sheinbaum’s personality will govern her interactions with Washington. And it turns out some key episodes in her past took place in the United States.Mexico today is a democracy with a peaceful transfer of power between parties and broadly successful elections. But this is a fairly recent phenomenon. For most of the 20th century, the country was ruled by a single political party, the PRI, in a unique form of autocracy — one that earned it the nickname of “the perfect dictatorship” from Peruvian Nobel Prize-winning author Mario Vargas Llosa.For close to 70 years, the PRI ruled the country from top to bottom, holding the presidency, governorships and Congress. However, every six years, the party would hold elections and a new generation of politicians would enter its ranks. Dissidents were severely punished. In 1968, as students sought to protect the autonomy of Mexico’s public universities, government forces opened fire on protesters resulting in a massacre and the incarceration of many student activists. This would occur again, in 1971. The people would change over time, but the party wouldn’t and anyone who objected was repressed.That is the Mexico that Claudia Sheinbaum grew up in. Born in 1962, she was the daughter of a small businessman and an acclaimed cellular biologist — both descendants of Jewish immigrants from Europe, although Sheinbaum herself is not religiously observant; she kept an image of the catholic Virgin of Guadalupe on her desk as mayor of Mexico City. Due to her mother’s academic life, Sheinbaum’s family was close to some of the student protesters who were arrested in 1968. Her childhood was divided between studying for exams, reading books, listening to political meetings in Mexico’s nascent left wing and visiting family friends incarcerated under the PRI regime.As an undergraduate in Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM), she majored in physics with a focus on clean energy generation. At the same time, however, she was a core member of the university’s activist community, taking part in the Student Council and leading a number of protests against the regime. She was both Claudia the physicist and Claudia the activist. Even her undergraduate physics thesis had a political dimension; she studied the impact of stoves used by purépecha indigenous communities in Mexico to better understand energy consumption in rural areas.Later, as a Ph.D. candidate, she moved briefly to California where she did research at the University of California, Berkeley, while her then-husband, Carlos Ímaz, pursued graduate studies at Stanford. Even then, away from Mexico, Sheinbaum found an outlet for politics. When Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari visited Stanford’s campus in 1991, she joined protesters holding a sign calling for “Free Trade and Democracy Now” — a moment that would be immortalized on the front page of the university’s newspaper, the Stanford Daily.The truth is that all along, Sheinbaum has been both a researcher focused on her career, and a social activist deeply engaged with Mexico’s left. Upon returning to Mexico after her graduate studies, Sheinbaum joined the faculty at UNAM teaching courses on energy management while joining Mexico’s newly formed Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) — a leftist party run by Michoacán governor Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas.In 2000, a then up-and-coming politician ran for mayor of Mexico City with the PRD and won; it was López Obrador. Sheinbaum joined his administration as Secretary of the Environment — her first time in public office.According to a biography of Sheinbaum’s career published ahead of the election, she did that job as a data-driven pragmatist, even as her boss became known as a leftist ideologue. Sheinbaum was in charge of expanding Mexico City’s highways and she did it by building a second roadway above the city’s main arteries — Periférico and Viaducto — to reduce emissions and lower traffic congestion. She was also in charge of building the city’s first metro bus line to expand public transportation, now a staple of Mexico City’s urban infrastructure. As a recent memoir puts it, Sheinbaum was passionate about the technicalities of the projects and impatient with the political maneuvering often needed to get them done.But politics and activism were never far away. When López Obrador ran for president in 2006, she became the spokesperson for his campaign; when they lost the election and claimed political fraud, Sheinbaum organized protests in support of their movement. That was her modus operandi: technical when possible, political when needed.Sheinbaum took a break from politics starting in 2006 when López Obrador’s tenure in Mexico City ended and she became mired in a political controversy involving her then-husband receiving bribes, allegedly in support of the López Obrador presidential campaign. After the scandal, Sheinbaum returned to teaching full time at UNAM and participated as a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICPP).It was close to a decade later, when López Obrador created a new party — Morena — that Sheinbaum reentered politics. In 2015, she ran to become borough chief of Tlalpan — one of Mexico City’s 16 districts. Morena was seen as a decidedly leftist party, seeking to “transform” Mexico and put an end to a “neoliberal era.” But after she was elected, she began to make a name for herself as a pragmatist. In 2018, she made a successful bid to become Morena’s nominee for mayor of Mexico City, beating more party-line candidates such as long-time activist Martí Batres. Sheinbaum would go on to win the election by using her pragmatism to attract middle-class voters while supporting the ideological stance of Morena, which appealed to lower-class voters who felt neglected by past administrations.As mayor, at least in the beginning of her tenure, Sheinbaum’s technical nature predominated. Her administration was not marked by the kind of political battles that followed her predecessor, Marcelo Ebrard, who had legalized same sex marriage and decriminalized abortion. Instead, she focused on large infrastructure projects and innovation, meant to improve mobility and decrease carbon emissions. She spearheaded the development of a cableway system, capable of moving 133,000 people every day. She also developed a free wifi program across the city, and began constructing the largest solar park inside of a city — built on top of Mexico’s iconic Central de Abastos market. Quite famously, she worked with people outside of her own party to consolidate her cabinet, including her Secretary of Public Security, Omar García Harfuch, who would later run to replace Sheinbaum as mayor with her blessing.Her tenure, of course, had its difficulties. She had to deal with a number of crises including the sudden collapse of a metro train resulting in the deaths of 26 civilians. But even then, ideology seemed to be an afterthought; a ghost of her activist past.It wasn't until after the 2021 midterm elections that Sheinbaum had to deal with politics more closely. The election resulted in a vote of no confidence against president López Obrador after the COVID-19 pandemic, decreasing his party’s hold on Congress and, in a historical shift, turning nine of Mexico City’s 16 boroughs — many of them run by the left — to the opposition. Soon she was dropping her stance as a technical mayor and once again becoming one of López Obrador’s fiercest defenders.Pre-2021, Sheinbaum held back on attacking Mexico’s autonomous electoral institute, the INE, which President López Obrador has criticized since the 2006 presidential election. After the 2021 midterm election, Sheinbaum joined her mentor and began to tweet against the institute. A similar thing happened when speaking of the main opposition parties: PAN and PRI. Her mentions of the political opposition pre-2021 were scarce; afterwards, she would criticize them for opposing a reform to Mexico’s energy sector, and blasted them as harbingers of inequality. The more political Sheinbaum had emerged once more to defend her party and its leader.Some of that shift likely stemmed from the change between being a mayor to running for president. But it also marked a return of the defining tension of her life.Now, with the election looming, which of Sheinbaum’s personalities will guide her presidency is a hot topic of debate here. One needs only to look at Sheinbaum’s proposed government plan to see the inherent tension between her personas.Some of her proposals are truly technical in nature like creating a program to support women who are victims of violence (Proposal #49) or doubling Mexico’s rail freight capacity (Proposal #71). Others are truly political in nature, such as reforming the nation’s electoral institute and Supreme Court so its ministers and justices are elected by popular vote (Proposals #8 and #98). Both of those were key priorities for López Obrador that he did not succeed in implementing.Nowhere is this tension more evident than in her proposals for the energy sector. On the one hand, Sheinbaum has been vocal that she differs with López Obrador’s reluctance to invest in renewable energies. In fact, Proposal #66 of her government plan is precisely about “supporting an energy transition” towards greener sources. Yet, to do this, she aims to maintain Mexico’s state-owned Petroleum and Electricity companies that have been favored by López Obrador despite their immense debts (Proposals #63-65). So which will it be? A green future or one that invests in state-owned oil? At this point in time, no one can say for sure.Whichever Claudia or combination of Claudias comes to power will determine whether she will seek an open dialogue with the U.S. president or fight with ideological fervor to protect Mexico’s sovereignty. It will determine if Mexico will compete for global investment as dozens of western companies seek to relocate away from China or if Mexico will focus solely on domestic concerns. Will Claudia Sheinbaum follow party-line views and be guided by ideology, or will she follow her technical past?That is the election outcome that Mexicans — and Americans — will learn only after the new president is seated.

José Luis Sabau is a writer and researcher based in Mexico City. He studied political science at Stanford and currently writes for El Sol de México, Excélsior, and Nexos.


MEXICO CITY — On virtually every corner of Mexico’s capital city, drivers encounter political activists holding signs for one or another of the country’s political parties. Colorful banners enliven the otherwise gray and white walls of the city’s office buildings. The nation is visibly preparing for its presidential election on Sunday.

One word dominates, on fences and bumper stickers, even in radio commercials: Morena. It is the acronym of Mexico’s current ruling party, the National Regeneration Movement, which is set to win in the upcoming election.

And one person dominates, as well. Next to the party’s dark red logo, Mexicans have grown accustomed to reading the phrase “Es Claudia” — “It’s Claudia” — or “Claudia Presidenta” — “President Claudia.” Those slogans refer to 61-year-old Claudia Sheinbaum, the former mayor of Mexico City and the clear favorite to occupy the nation’s highest office.

In fact, the contest is all but decided. Morena, with two allied parties, currently holds a majority of seats in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies and Senate. It is also the party of Mexico’s current president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador who, despite many controversies throughout his tenure, maintains an approval rating well above 50 percent.

As a result, Sheinbaum seems like a virtual shoo-in. Polls give her an ample winning margin of between 15 and 25 percent. Moreover, this spread has remained constant since last September, when Mexico’s largest political forces announced their candidates for the presidency. Sheinbaum is just as popular as her party.



So, unless something unexpected were to occur — something that destroys a 20-point lead overnight — Mexicans know what will happen on election day. Millions will head to the polls and around midnight, the president of Mexico’s National Elections Institute will announce Claudia Sheinbaum as the country’s next leader — and the first woman to occupy the presidency.

The real question, however, is what will happen after that.

For as long as Claudia Sheinbaum has been a public figure, she has alternated between what people here see as two different personalities. On one hand, she’s an accomplished physicist with expertise in environmental science and a reputation for pragmatism. On the other, she’s a long-time leftist activist, a close ally and champion of López Obrador — a divisive figure who came to power promising to represent the lowest echelons of Mexican society and, during his tenure, increased social spending to a historic high while simultaneously attacking Mexico’s system of checks and balances.

The question raging here is: Which of Sheinbaum’s two personalities will dominate? Some think she will be Mexico’s Angela Merkel — a scientist by training who will prioritize efficiency over ideology for the nation’s benefit. Others see her as a mere puppet of López Obrador, who will follow in his leftist footsteps, increasing social welfare programs and battling the nation’s Supreme Court.

The truth, in all likelihood, is that she will fall somewhere in between. But how that balance is set, the way in which she reconciles these aspects of her life, will define not only Mexico’s future but what kind of president she will be when it comes to negotiating with the United States and its president.

In other words, which Claudia — or combination of the two — becomes president will have an outsize influence on the U.S. political landscape at a time when immigration, drug trafficking and trade are all top issues for American politicians.



Mexico already plays a disproportionate role when it comes to the U.S. debate over immigration, and having a Mexican president set on defending Mexican sovereignty and other Latin American countries could worsen the U.S. border crisis during a presidential election cycle. But the implications to the U.S. go beyond immigration. A more ideological and leftist Sheinbaum could easily take a nationalist perspective on drug policy and commerce. She could seek more beneficial terms for Mexico in the USMCA negotiations next year or be unwilling to cooperate with U.S. authorities to investigate the increased drug trade of fentanyl. A more pragmatic Sheinbaum, on the other hand, could find compromises when discussing trade, and agree on a middle ground for investigating cartels with U.S. support without risking Mexico’s sovereignty.

That means the United States should have a keen interest in figuring out which side of Sheinbaum’s personality will govern her interactions with Washington. And it turns out some key episodes in her past took place in the United States.


Mexico today is a democracy with a peaceful transfer of power between parties and broadly successful elections. But this is a fairly recent phenomenon. For most of the 20th century, the country was ruled by a single political party, the PRI, in a unique form of autocracy — one that earned it the nickname of “the perfect dictatorship” from Peruvian Nobel Prize-winning author Mario Vargas Llosa.

For close to 70 years, the PRI ruled the country from top to bottom, holding the presidency, governorships and Congress. However, every six years, the party would hold elections and a new generation of politicians would enter its ranks. Dissidents were severely punished. In 1968, as students sought to protect the autonomy of Mexico’s public universities, government forces opened fire on protesters resulting in a massacre and the incarceration of many student activists. This would occur again, in 1971. The people would change over time, but the party wouldn’t and anyone who objected was repressed.



That is the Mexico that Claudia Sheinbaum grew up in. Born in 1962, she was the daughter of a small businessman and an acclaimed cellular biologist — both descendants of Jewish immigrants from Europe, although Sheinbaum herself is not religiously observant; she kept an image of the catholic Virgin of Guadalupe on her desk as mayor of Mexico City. Due to her mother’s academic life, Sheinbaum’s family was close to some of the student protesters who were arrested in 1968. Her childhood was divided between studying for exams, reading books, listening to political meetings in Mexico’s nascent left wing and visiting family friends incarcerated under the PRI regime.

As an undergraduate in Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM), she majored in physics with a focus on clean energy generation. At the same time, however, she was a core member of the university’s activist community, taking part in the Student Council and leading a number of protests against the regime. She was both Claudia the physicist and Claudia the activist. Even her undergraduate physics thesis had a political dimension; she studied the impact of stoves used by purépecha indigenous communities in Mexico to better understand energy consumption in rural areas.

Later, as a Ph.D. candidate, she moved briefly to California where she did research at the University of California, Berkeley, while her then-husband, Carlos Ímaz, pursued graduate studies at Stanford. Even then, away from Mexico, Sheinbaum found an outlet for politics. When Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari visited Stanford’s campus in 1991, she joined protesters holding a sign calling for “Free Trade and Democracy Now” — a moment that would be immortalized on the front page of the university’s newspaper, the Stanford Daily.



The truth is that all along, Sheinbaum has been both a researcher focused on her career, and a social activist deeply engaged with Mexico’s left. Upon returning to Mexico after her graduate studies, Sheinbaum joined the faculty at UNAM teaching courses on energy management while joining Mexico’s newly formed Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) — a leftist party run by Michoacán governor Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas.

In 2000, a then up-and-coming politician ran for mayor of Mexico City with the PRD and won; it was López Obrador. Sheinbaum joined his administration as Secretary of the Environment — her first time in public office.



According to a biography of Sheinbaum’s career published ahead of the election, she did that job as a data-driven pragmatist, even as her boss became known as a leftist ideologue. Sheinbaum was in charge of expanding Mexico City’s highways and she did it by building a second roadway above the city’s main arteries — Periférico and Viaducto — to reduce emissions and lower traffic congestion. She was also in charge of building the city’s first metro bus line to expand public transportation, now a staple of Mexico City’s urban infrastructure. As a recent memoir puts it, Sheinbaum was passionate about the technicalities of the projects and impatient with the political maneuvering often needed to get them done.

But politics and activism were never far away. When López Obrador ran for president in 2006, she became the spokesperson for his campaign; when they lost the election and claimed political fraud, Sheinbaum organized protests in support of their movement. That was her modus operandi: technical when possible, political when needed.



Sheinbaum took a break from politics starting in 2006 when López Obrador’s tenure in Mexico City ended and she became mired in a political controversy involving her then-husband receiving bribes, allegedly in support of the López Obrador presidential campaign. After the scandal, Sheinbaum returned to teaching full time at UNAM and participated as a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICPP).

It was close to a decade later, when López Obrador created a new party — Morena — that Sheinbaum reentered politics. In 2015, she ran to become borough chief of Tlalpan — one of Mexico City’s 16 districts. Morena was seen as a decidedly leftist party, seeking to “transform” Mexico and put an end to a “neoliberal era.” But after she was elected, she began to make a name for herself as a pragmatist. In 2018, she made a successful bid to become Morena’s nominee for mayor of Mexico City, beating more party-line candidates such as long-time activist Martí Batres. Sheinbaum would go on to win the election by using her pragmatism to attract middle-class voters while supporting the ideological stance of Morena, which appealed to lower-class voters who felt neglected by past administrations.

As mayor, at least in the beginning of her tenure, Sheinbaum’s technical nature predominated. Her administration was not marked by the kind of political battles that followed her predecessor, Marcelo Ebrard, who had legalized same sex marriage and decriminalized abortion. Instead, she focused on large infrastructure projects and innovation, meant to improve mobility and decrease carbon emissions. She spearheaded the development of a cableway system, capable of moving 133,000 people every day. She also developed a free wifi program across the city, and began constructing the largest solar park inside of a city — built on top of Mexico’s iconic Central de Abastos market. Quite famously, she worked with people outside of her own party to consolidate her cabinet, including her Secretary of Public Security, Omar García Harfuch, who would later run to replace Sheinbaum as mayor with her blessing.

Her tenure, of course, had its difficulties. She had to deal with a number of crises including the sudden collapse of a metro train resulting in the deaths of 26 civilians. But even then, ideology seemed to be an afterthought; a ghost of her activist past.

It wasn't until after the 2021 midterm elections that Sheinbaum had to deal with politics more closely. The election resulted in a vote of no confidence against president López Obrador after the COVID-19 pandemic, decreasing his party’s hold on Congress and, in a historical shift, turning nine of Mexico City’s 16 boroughs — many of them run by the left — to the opposition. Soon she was dropping her stance as a technical mayor and once again becoming one of López Obrador’s fiercest defenders.

Pre-2021, Sheinbaum held back on attacking Mexico’s autonomous electoral institute, the INE, which President López Obrador has criticized since the 2006 presidential election. After the 2021 midterm election, Sheinbaum joined her mentor and began to tweet against the institute. A similar thing happened when speaking of the main opposition parties: PAN and PRI. Her mentions of the political opposition pre-2021 were scarce; afterwards, she would criticize them for opposing a reform to Mexico’s energy sector, and blasted them as harbingers of inequality. The more political Sheinbaum had emerged once more to defend her party and its leader.

Some of that shift likely stemmed from the change between being a mayor to running for president. But it also marked a return of the defining tension of her life.


Now, with the election looming, which of Sheinbaum’s personalities will guide her presidency is a hot topic of debate here. One needs only to look at Sheinbaum’s proposed government plan to see the inherent tension between her personas.

Some of her proposals are truly technical in nature like creating a program to support women who are victims of violence (Proposal #49) or doubling Mexico’s rail freight capacity (Proposal #71). Others are truly political in nature, such as reforming the nation’s electoral institute and Supreme Court so its ministers and justices are elected by popular vote (Proposals #8 and #98). Both of those were key priorities for López Obrador that he did not succeed in implementing.



Nowhere is this tension more evident than in her proposals for the energy sector. On the one hand, Sheinbaum has been vocal that she differs with López Obrador’s reluctance to invest in renewable energies. In fact, Proposal #66 of her government plan is precisely about “supporting an energy transition” towards greener sources. Yet, to do this, she aims to maintain Mexico’s state-owned Petroleum and Electricity companies that have been favored by López Obrador despite their immense debts (Proposals #63-65). So which will it be? A green future or one that invests in state-owned oil? At this point in time, no one can say for sure.

Whichever Claudia or combination of Claudias comes to power will determine whether she will seek an open dialogue with the U.S. president or fight with ideological fervor to protect Mexico’s sovereignty. It will determine if Mexico will compete for global investment as dozens of western companies seek to relocate away from China or if Mexico will focus solely on domestic concerns. Will Claudia Sheinbaum follow party-line views and be guided by ideology, or will she follow her technical past?

That is the election outcome that Mexicans — and Americans — will learn only after the new president is seated.




Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Nobel Prize in Economics Awarded for Research on Science, Technology and Growth

Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt share the Nobel economics prize for work that underlines the importance of investing in research and development

October 14, 20254 min readEconomics Nobel Honors Work Linking Scientific Research to ProsperityJoel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt share the Nobel economics prize for work that underlines the importance of investing in research and developmentBy Philip Ball & Nature magazine Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt, winners of the 2025 Economics Nobel prize. Northwestern University, Patrick Imbert/Collège de France, Ashley McCabe/Brown UniversityThe 2025 Sveriges Riksbank Prize for Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has been awarded to three researchers who have shown how technological and scientific innovation, coupled to market competition, drive economic growth.One half of the prize goes to economic-historian Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, and the other half is split between the economic theorists Philippe Aghion of the Collège de France and the London School of Economics and Peter Howitt of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.“I can’t find the words to express what I feel,” Aghion said. He says he will use the money for research in his laboratory at the Collège de France.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.The award “underlies the importance in investing in science for innovation and long-term economic growth”, says economist Diane Coyle of the University of Cambridge. “It's great to see the Nobel prize recognize the importance of this topic,” adds innovation policy researcher Richard Jones of the University of Manchester, UK. “It's important that economists understand the conditions that lead to technological progress,” he adds. The winners, says Coyle, “have long been on people’s list of potential candidates”.Old isn’t goldEconomic growth at a rate of about 1-2 per cent annually is the norm for industrialized nations today. But such growth rates did not happen in earlier times, despite technological innovations, such as the windmill and the printing press.Mokyr showed that the key difference between now and then was what he calls “useful knowledge”, or innovations based on scientific understanding. One example is the advances made during the Industrial Revolution, beginning in the eighteenth century, when improvements in steam engines could be made systematic rather than by trial and error.Aghion and Howitt, for their part, clarified the market mechanisms behind sustained growth in recent times. In 1992 they presented a model showing how competition between companies selling new products allows innovations to enter the marketplace and displaces older products: a process they called creative destruction.Underlying growth, in other words, is a steady churn of businesses and products. The researchers showed how companies invest in research and development (R&D) to improve their chances of finding a new product, and predicted the optimal level of such investment.Entrepreneurial stateAccording to economist Ufuk Akcigit of the University of Chicago, Aghion and Howitt highlight an important aspect of economic growth, which is that spending on R&D does not by itself guarantee higher rates of growth: “Unless we replace inefficient firms from the economy, we cannot make space for newcomers with new ideas and better technologies.”“When a new entrepreneur emerges, they have every incentive to come up with a radical new technology,” Akcigit says. “As soon as they become an incumbent, their incentive vanishes” and they no longer invest in R&D to drive innovation.Thus, because companies cannot expect to remain at the forefront of innovation indefinitely, the incentive for investing in R&D coming from market forces alone declines as a company’s market share grows. To guarantee the societal benefits of constant innovation, the model suggests that it is in society’s interests for the state to subsidize R&D, so long as the return is not merely incremental improvements.The work of all three laureates also acknowledges the complex social consequences of growth. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution there were concerns about how mechanisation would cause unemployment of manual workers – a worry echoed today with the increasing use of AI in place of human labour. But Mokyr showed that in fact early mechanization led to the creation of new jobs.Creative destruction, meanwhile, leads to companies failing and jobs being lost. Aghion and Howitt emphasized that society needs safety nets and constructive negotiation of conflicts to navigate such problems.Their model “recognizes the messiness and complexity of how innovation happens in real economies”, says Coyle. “The idea that a country’s productivity level increases by companies going bust and new ones coming in is a difficult sell, but the evidence that that’s part of the mechanism is pretty strong.”Timely messageThis year’s award comes at a time when funding for scientific research is under threat in the United States and around the world. “It’s a very timely message when we’re seeing the United States undermining so much of its science base,” says Coyle. Aghion said, “I don’t welcome the protectionist wave in the US” and added that “openness is a driver of growth. I see dark clouds accumulating”. to translate high-tech innovations into market value.Economic historian Kerstin Enflo, a member of the Nobel prize awarding committee, denied that the award was intended as a comment on the direction of US policies. “It is only about celebrating the work [the laureates] have done”, she said at the press conference.Green growthMore recently, researchers are questioning the ‘growth-at-all-costs’ narrative not least because of the ways to pursue growth has led to environmental degradation, including global warming.“How can we make sure we innovate greener?” Aghion asked. “Firms don’t spontaneously do this. So how can we redirect growth towards green?” Mokyr’s work showed that growth can sometimes be self-correcting in the sense of producing innovations needed to solve such problems. But that is not a given and requires well-crafted policies to nurture innovation without promoting inequality and unsustainability. “We need to harness the productivity potential and minimize the negative effects”, said Aghion.This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 13, 2025.

What humans might learn from nature’s real-life zombies

Zombies, it turns out, are real — and science journalist Mindy Weisberger can give you plenty of examples of them. She’s read up on the fungi that take over flies’ bodies, partially digesting them from the inside out before forcing them to climb up blades of grass, so that fungal spores can explode out from […]

Cicadas can be infected by a fungal parasite that turns them into zombies. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Zombies, it turns out, are real — and science journalist Mindy Weisberger can give you plenty of examples of them. She’s read up on the fungi that take over flies’ bodies, partially digesting them from the inside out before forcing them to climb up blades of grass, so that fungal spores can explode out from their swollen corpses and claim new victims.  She’s considered the hairworms that grow inside of crickets before inducing their hosts to toss themselves into a nearby body of water, where the worms emerge from the crickets’ exoskeleton in a miniature but all-too-real imitation of the alien in Alien.  She’s even researched the snails that fall victim to certain flatworms. The flatworms’ larvae need to be eaten by birds to reach the next stage of their lifecycle, so broodsacs full of larvae take up residence in the snails’ eyestalks and turn them into pulsing, colorful, caterpillar-like bird-lures. The parasite also manipulates the snails into wandering into the open in order to increase the odds that a bird will spot the snails and devour both their eyestalks and the larvae within them.  Weisberger dug into these specific nightmare-inducing examples of parasitic mind-control — and many others — as part of her effort to understand real-life “zombification” in her book, Rise of the Zombie Bugs. What she found was that these natural zombie stories are not only sources of inspiration for horrifying fiction — they could also inspire researchers who are trying to better understand everything from immune responses to pest control.  So we spoke to Weisberger about research on real-life zombies for Unexplainable, Vox’s science podcast. What follows is a version of our conversation, edited for clarity and length. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Unexplainable wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Let’s start by just defining some terms. What do we mean when we say “zombifier,” or “zombie?” Sure. A zombifier is an organism that manipulates the behavior of its host, and a zombie is an organism that is being manipulated to behave in a way that it normally would not, and which only benefits the parasite that’s manipulating it.  Let’s say you catch a cold — you’re gonna change your behavior because you’re feeling sick. You feel like you need to rest more, you need to drink more water. These are all things that help you recover, that help you fight off the infection. So in a certain sense, that’s the cold virus generating a change in behavior, but it’s a behavioral change that actually benefits you.  For a zombie, the changes to its behavior are not something that benefit the host. They only benefit the parasite. That’s what makes it a zombie. So it’d be like if I got sick and instead of going into my room and trying to sleep it off, I went and I licked everybody that I could lick in order to spread it.  Yeah, exactly. There are zombifying viruses; there are zombifying fungi; there are insects that are able to zombify their hosts. There are worms that can zombify their hosts. Most of the organisms that they infect are arthropods — bugs. (I do have to apologize to entomologists, because as far as entomologists are concerned, bugs are only insects with sucking mouth parts. However, as we all know, colloquially, “bugs” covers a much broader range.) What are some of the biggest categories of mysteries about how [zombifiers do what they do]? Some of the biggest mysteries start with the moment that the host is infected, because obviously a body’s first response to any kind of infection is going to be an immune response. The first thing that a zombifier needs to do is to somehow get past that. That’s a big question for zombifiers, from viruses to wasps to fungi to worms: When they get inside an organism where they’re not supposed to be, how exactly are they telling their host immune system, “No, there’s nothing to see here! Just go about your business! You don’t need to worry about me!”  Another one is, once it gets to the point of manipulation, what are the cues? How does it decide “OK, now’s the right time to get this host moving to a place where I need to be”?  The third big question is obviously the nuts and bolts of: How is it manipulating behavior? The thing about this field is that there is still so much that scientists are piecing together about the precise mechanisms of how this works. Behavior is something that is just super complicated, even in insects.   So, when we look at, for example, the wasp that parasitizes orb-weaving spiders, scientists have found that in the spiders that are zombified, what the wasp does — it lays an egg on the spider. The egg hatches, and the wasp larva essentially piggybacks on the spider and drinks from it like it’s a living juice box.   And the spider just goes about its business until the larva is ready to reproduce. And then somehow the wasp larvae is manipulating the spider to think that it’s time to molt, so that the spider makes a different type of web than it normally does, something called a resting web. It’s reinforced, and it’s meant to support the spider and protect the spider while it’s molting.  And then once that web is done, the wasp larvae drains the spider dry, the spider’s empty husk of a corpse drops to the ground, and the wasp larva builds its cocoon and sets itself up in the spider’s final web to hang out until it becomes an adult wasp. What scientists found is that when spiders start making that final web, their little spider brains are being flooded with ecdysteroids, which is the hormone that the spider naturally releases when it’s ready to build a molting web. And scientists aren’t sure yet: Is the larvae actually producing the ecdysteroids? Is it somehow triggering its production in the spider through another compound? That’s something that they’re still figuring out. Why is it important to understand how this behavior manipulation works? In a lot of ways, this is looking at sort of really big questions about how behavior works, which is something that scientists are still piecing together, on so many levels for all different types of organisms, because there are so many factors that shape behavior. Some of them are genetics; some of them are biochemical; some of them have to do with environments; some of them have to do with social relationships. So, this is one way of trying to understand behavior writ large.  You mentioned that these insects suppress the immune systems of their hosts. Is there stuff that we could learn from that about how immune systems work in general? Oh yeah. Looking at the immunosuppressive aspect of zombifiers is definitely something that is a huge area of interest, because that could inform the development of immunosuppressive drugs, which is something that is just something that would be hugely beneficial to people.  Not that this should be all about what’s in it for me, but that is usually a consideration for scientific research: Could there potentially be applications for this that have medical applications? And so, there is not yet a direct line between any research into how zombifiers evade their host’s immune system and the development of some kind of pharmaceutical immunosuppressive. But that’s definitely something that is part of the mix when scientists are following that line of investigation. I think about all the insects that invade homes, some of which are beneficial, some of which are less so. Could we potentially borrow from this to fight off pests? Pest control is definitely one avenue that scientists have explored. Is there some way that we can take what we’re seeing these zombifiers do to insects and apply it to insects that we don’t like?  So baculoviruses — which are these viruses that infect caterpillars and make them climb and then dissolve their bodies into goo — this is something that has been deployed as a strategy for pest control in China and in Europe, in the US, in Brazil.  These types of viruses are an interesting alternative to traditional insecticides because they are very targeted. They’re less toxic to the environment. They’re not harmful to insects that are not their host species and they’re not toxic to people. But they’re also not as quick as I think the insecticides that people have gotten used to. And people like things to be quick and they like them to be absolute.  So what seems like the best way is perhaps to incorporate this alongside insecticides, and use this along with other approaches, because there are a lot of benefits to just going full-on zombie warfare to get rid of our agricultural pests. Could humans be zombified this way? Like, are we also susceptible to this? Well, there are some types of pathogens that are known to manipulate behavior in mammals and indeed in humans too. So rabies, of course. There have been medical cases of rabies-infected humans that are thousands of years old with documentation of heightened aggression. So there is already a virus among us that can manipulate human behavior.  And recently, there have been studies into Toxoplasma gondii, which is the pathogen that causes toxoplasmosis. Its definitive host is cats. It’s very entrenched amongst human populations. And in fact, many, many people, millions of people, carry Toxoplasma gondii, but it doesn’t cause any symptoms. It tends to be dangerous in people that are pregnant or in immunocompromised people. Most of the people who are carrying Toxoplasma gondii have no symptoms.  However, there have been studies recently in the last 10, 15 years or so, that have looked at people who are carrying the parasite and have found that there does seem to be evidence of certain types of behavior: of being more risk-taking, of being bolder. And what’s interesting about it is that Toxoplasma gondii is known for manipulating behavior in rodents. And what it does is it makes them bolder and less afraid of cats.  What? Because Toxoplasma gondii needs to reproduce inside cats. So it infects rodents, and then to get back into a cat, it makes the rodent less afraid of and attracted to the smell of cat pee. And that brings the rodent closer to a cat than it would normally go. And then once it’s eaten, then the parasite is back inside the cat.  And scientists have found that this is true for other animals too. So hyena cubs that are infected with Toxoplasma gondii are bolder around lions and are more likely to be eaten by lions. Chimpanzees that are infected with Toxoplasma gondii lose their fear of jaguars. And some studies found that people who are infected with Toxoplasma gondii are more likely to make risky business decisions or be bolder in traffic. There’s still a lot of work to be done because obviously human behavior is its own form of complicated. But there is some evidence that seems to suggest that Toxoplasma gondii can shape human behavior, too. What?  Did I just blow your mind? So there could literally at this moment be zombifiers within us shaping us in some way? It’s entirely possible. There are so many things that make us who we are that shape how we behave. There are environmental factors; there are social factors. But, you know, there might also be zombifiers.

Laurent Demanet appointed co-director of MIT Center for Computational Science and Engineering

Applied mathematics professor will join fellow co-director Nicolas Hadjiconstantinou in leading the cross-cutting center.

Laurent Demanet, MIT professor of applied mathematics, has been appointed co-director of the MIT Center for Computational Science and Engineering (CCSE), effective Sept. 1.Demanet, who holds a joint appointment in the departments of Mathematics and Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences — where he previously served as director of the Earth Resources Laboratory — succeeds Youssef Marzouk, who is now serving as the associate dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing.Joining co-director Nicolas Hadjiconstantinou, the Quentin Berg (1937) Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Demanet will help lead CCSE, supporting students, faculty, and researchers while fostering a vibrant community of innovation and discovery in computational science and engineering (CSE).“Laurent’s ability to translate concepts of computational science and engineering into understandable, real-world applications is an invaluable asset to CCSE. His interdisciplinary experience is a benefit to the visibility and impact of CSE research and education. I look forward to working with him,” says Dan Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the Henry Ellis Warren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.“I’m pleased to welcome Laurent into his new role as co-director of CCSE. His work greatly supports the cross-cutting methodology at the heart of the computational science and engineering community. I’m excited for CCSE to have a co-director from the School of Science, and eager to see the center continue to broaden its connections across MIT,” says Asu Ozdaglar, deputy dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, department head of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and MathWorks Professor.Established in 2008, CCSE was incorporated into the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing as one of its core academic units in January 2020. An interdisciplinary research and education center dedicated to pioneering applications of computation, CCSE houses faculty, researchers, and students from a range of MIT schools, such as the schools of Engineering, Science, Architecture and Planning, and the MIT Sloan School of Management, as well as other units of the college.“I look forward to working with Nicolas and the college leadership on raising the profile of CCSE on campus and globally. We will be pursuing a set of initiatives that span from enhancing the visibility of our research and strengthening our CSE PhD program, to expanding professional education offerings and deepening engagement with our alumni and with industry,” says Demanet.Demanet’s research lies at the intersection of applied mathematics and scientific computing to visualize the structures beneath Earth’s surface. He also has a strong interest in scientific computing, machine learning, inverse problems, and wave propagation. Through his position as principal investigator of the Imaging and Computing Group, Demanet and his students aim to answer fundamental questions in computational seismic imaging to increase the quality and accuracy of mapping and the projection of changes in Earth’s geological structures. The implications of his work are rooted in environmental monitoring, water resources and geothermal energy, and the understanding of seismic hazards, among others.He joined the MIT faculty in 2009. He received an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship and the U.S. Air Force Young Investigator Award in 2011, and a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation in 2012. He also held the Class of 1954 Career Development Professorship from 2013 to 2016. Prior to coming to MIT, Demanet held the Szegö Assistant Professorship at Stanford University. He completed his undergraduate studies in mathematical engineering and theoretical physics at Universite de Louvain in Belgium, and earned a PhD in applied and computational mathematics at Caltech, where he was awarded the William P. Carey Prize for best dissertation in the mathematical sciences.

Scientists Reveal That the Red Sea Completely Vanished 6.2 Million Years Ago

KAUST researchers discovered that the Red Sea experienced a massive disruption 6.2 million years ago, completely transforming its marine life. Researchers at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) have confirmed that the Red Sea once completely dried up around 6.2 million years ago, only to be suddenly refilled by a catastrophic influx of [...]

New research shows the Red Sea dried out 6.2 million years ago before being suddenly flooded by the Indian Ocean. (Artist’s concept). Credit: SciTechDaily.comKAUST researchers discovered that the Red Sea experienced a massive disruption 6.2 million years ago, completely transforming its marine life. Researchers at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) have confirmed that the Red Sea once completely dried up around 6.2 million years ago, only to be suddenly refilled by a catastrophic influx of water from the Indian Ocean. Their work places a precise timeline on a remarkable event that reshaped the basin’s history. By combining seismic imaging, microfossil analysis, and geochemical dating, the team discovered that this transformation occurred within just 100,000 years, an exceptionally short span in geological terms. During this period, the Red Sea shifted from being linked to the Mediterranean to becoming a desolate salt basin. The dry phase ended when a powerful flood cut through volcanic ridges, opening the Bab el-Mandab strait and restoring the Red Sea’s connection to the global oceans. “Our findings show that the Red Sea basin records one of the most extreme environmental events on Earth, when it dried out completely and was then suddenly reflooded about 6.2 million years ago,” said lead author Dr. Tihana Pensa of KAUST. “The flood transformed the basin, restored marine conditions, and established the Red Sea’s lasting connection to the Indian Ocean.” How the Indian Ocean Flooded the Red Sea The Red Sea was initially connected from the north to the Mediterranean through a shallow sill. This connection was severed, drying the Red Sea into a barren salt desert. In the south of the Red Sea, near the Hanish Islands, a volcanic ridge separates the sea from the Indian Ocean. But around 6.2 million years ago, seawater from the Indian Ocean surged across this barrier in a catastrophic flood. The torrent carved a 320-kilometer-long submarine canyon that is still visible today on the seafloor. The flood rapidly refilled the basin, drowning the salt flats and restoring normal marine conditions in less than 100,000 years. This event happened nearly a million years before the Mediterranean was refilled by the famous Zanclean flood, giving the Red Sea a unique story of rebirth. Why the Red Sea Matters Geologically The Red Sea formed by the separation of the Arabian Plate from the African Plate beginning 30 million years ago. Initially, the sea was a narrow rift valley filled with lakes, then became a wider gulf when it was flooded from the Mediterranean 23 million years ago. Marine life thrived initially, as seen by the fossil reefs along the northern coast near Duba and Umlujj. However, evaporation and poor seawater circulation increased salinity, causing the extinction of marine life between 15 and 6 million years ago. Additionally, the basin was filled with layers of salt and gypsum. This culminated in the complete desiccation of the Red Sea. The catastrophic flood from the Indian Ocean restored marine life in the Red, which persists in the coral reefs to the present. All in all, the Red Sea is a natural laboratory for understanding how oceans are born, how salt giants accumulate, and how climate and tectonics interact over millions of years. The discovery highlights how closely the Red Sea’s history is linked with global ocean change. It also shows that the region has experienced environmental extremes before, only to return as a thriving marine ecosystem. “This paper adds to our knowledge about the processes that form and expand oceans on Earth. It also maintains KAUST’s leading position in Red Sea research,” said co-author KAUST Professor Abdulkader Al Afifi. Reference: “Desiccation of the Red Sea basin at the start of the Messinian salinity crisis was followed by major erosion and reflooding from the Indian Ocean” by Tihana Pensa, Antonio Delgado Huertas and Abdulkader M. Afifi, 9 August 2025, Communications Earth & Environment.DOI: 10.1038/s43247-025-02642-1 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.Follow us on Google, Discover, and News.

The Sun’s Poles Hold the Key to Its Three Greatest Mysteries

The Sun’s poles may hold answers to long-standing mysteries about magnetic cycles, solar wind, and space weather. The polar regions of the Sun remain one of the least explored areas in solar science. Although satellites and ground-based observatories have captured remarkable details of the Sun’s surface, atmosphere, and magnetic field, nearly all of these views [...]

The Sun’s polar regions, long hidden from our Earth-bound perspective, are a critical frontier in solar physics, holding the secrets to the solar magnetic cycle and the origin of the fast solar wind. An upcoming mission is designed to achieve an unprecedented polar orbit, promising to finally reveal these uncharted territories and transform our ability to predict space weather. Credit: Image courtesy of Zhenyong Hou and Jiasheng Wang at Peking University. Beijing Zhongke Journal Publising Co. Ltd.The Sun’s poles may hold answers to long-standing mysteries about magnetic cycles, solar wind, and space weather. The polar regions of the Sun remain one of the least explored areas in solar science. Although satellites and ground-based observatories have captured remarkable details of the Sun’s surface, atmosphere, and magnetic field, nearly all of these views come from the ecliptic plane, the narrow orbital path followed by Earth and most other planets. This restricted perspective means scientists have only limited knowledge of what occurs near the solar poles. Yet these regions are critical. Their magnetic fields and dynamic activity are central to the solar magnetic cycle and provide both mass and energy to the fast solar wind. These processes ultimately shape solar behavior and influence space weather that can reach Earth. Why the Poles Matter On the surface, the poles may seem calm compared to the Sun’s more active mid-latitudes (around ±35°), where sunspots, solar flares, and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are common. However, research shows that polar magnetic fields contribute directly to the global solar dynamo and may act as the foundation for the next solar cycle by helping establish the Sun’s dipole magnetic field. Observations from the Ulysses mission further revealed that the fast solar wind originates mainly from vast coronal holes in the polar regions. For this reason, gaining a clearer view of the Sun’s poles is essential to addressing three of the most fundamental questions in solar physics: 1) How does the solar dynamo work and drive the solar magnetic cycle? The solar magnetic cycle refers to the periodic variation in sunspot number on the solar surface, typically on a time scale of approximately 11 years. During each cycle, the Sun’s magnetic poles undergo a reversal, with the magnetic polarities of the north and south poles switching. The Sun’s global magnetic fields are generated through a dynamo process. Key to this process are the differential rotation of the Sun that generates the active regions, and the meridional circulation that transport magnetic flux toward the poles. Yet, decades of helioseismic investigations have revealed conflicting results about the flow patterns deep within the convection zone. Some studies even suggest poleward flows at the base of the convection zone, challenging the classical dynamo models. High-latitude observations of the magnetic fields and plasma motions could provide the missing evidence to refine or rethink these models. 2) What drives the fast solar wind? The fast solar wind – a supersonic stream of charged particles – originates primarily from the polar coronal holes, and permeates the majority of the heliospheric volume, dominating the physical environment of interplanetary space. However, critical details regarding the origin of this wind remain unresolved. Does the wind originate from dense plumes within coronal holes or from the less dense regions between them? Are wave-driven processes, magnetic reconnection, or some combination of both responsible for accelerating the plasma in the wind? Direct polar imaging and in-situ measurements are required to settle the debate. 3) How do space weather events propagate through the solar system? Heliospheric space weather refers to the disturbances in the heliospheric environment caused by the solar wind and solar eruptive activities. Extreme space weather events, such as large solar flares and CMEs, can significantly trigger space environmental disturbances such as severe geomagnetic and ionospheric storms, as well as spectacular aurora phenomena, posing a serious threat to the safety of high-tech activities of human beings. To accurately predict these events, scientists must track how magnetic structures and plasma flows evolve globally, not just from the limited ecliptic view. Observations from a vantage point out of the ecliptic would provide an overlook of the CME propagation in the ecliptic plane. Past Efforts Scientists have long recognized the importance of solar polar observations. The Ulysses mission, launched in 1990, was the first spacecraft to leave the ecliptic plane and sample the solar wind over the poles. Its in-situ instruments confirmed key properties of the fast solar wind but lacked imaging capability. More recently, the European Space Agency’s Solar Orbiter has been gradually moving out of the ecliptic plane and is expected to reach latitudes of around 34° in a few years. While this represents a remarkable progress, it still falls far short of the vantage needed for a true polar view. A number of ambitious mission concepts have been proposed over the past decades, including the Solar Polar Imager (SPI), the POLAR Investigation of the Sun (POLARIS), the Solar Polar ORbit Telescope (SPORT), the Solaris mission, and the High Inclination Solar Mission (HISM). Some envisioned using advanced propulsion, such as solar sails, to reach high inclinations. Others relied on gravity assists to incrementally tilt their orbits. Each of these missions would carry both remote-sensing and in-situ instruments to image the Sun’s poles and measure key physical parameters above the poles. The SPO Mission The Solar Polar-orbit Observatory (SPO) is designed specifically to overcome the limitations of past and current missions. Scheduled for launch in January 2029, SPO will use a Jupiter gravity assist (JGA) to bend its trajectory out of the ecliptic plane. After several Earth flybys and a carefully planned encounter with Jupiter, the spacecraft will settle into a 1.5-year orbit with a perihelion of about 1 AU and an inclination of up to 75°. In its extended mission, SPO could climb to 80°, offering the most direct view of the poles ever achieved. The 15-year lifetime of the mission (including an 8-year extended mission period) will allow it to cover both solar minimum and maximum, including the crucial period around 2035 when the next solar maximum and expected polar magnetic field reversal will occur. During the whole lifetime, SPO will repeatedly pass over both poles, with extended high-latitude observation windows lasting more than 1000 days. The SPO mission aims at breakthroughs on the three scientific questions mentioned above. To meet its ambitious objectives, SPO will carry a suite of several remote-sensing and in-situ instruments. Together, they will provide a comprehensive view of the Sun’s poles. The remote-sensing instruments include the Magnetic and Helioseismic Imager (MHI) to measure magnetic fields and plasma flows at the surface, the Extreme Ultraviolet Telescope (EUT) and the X-ray Imaging Telescope (XIT) to capture dynamic events in the solar upper atmosphere, the VISible-light CORonagraph (VISCOR) and the Very Large Angle CORonagraph (VLACOR) to track the solar corona and solar wind streams out to 45 solar radii (at 1 AU). The in-situ package includes a magnetometer and particle detectors to sample the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field directly. By combining these observations, SPO will not only capture images of the poles for the first time but also connect them to the flows of plasma and magnetic energy that shape the heliosphere. SPO will not operate in isolation. It is expected to work in concert with a growing fleet of solar missions. These include the STEREO Mission, the Hinode satellite, the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), the Advanced Space-based Solar Observatory (ASO-S), the Solar Orbiter, the Aditya-L1 mission, the PUNCH mission, as well as the upcoming L5 missions (e.g., ESA’s Vigil mission and China’s LAVSO mission). Together, these assets will form an unprecedented observational network. SPO’s polar vantage will provide the missing piece, enabling nearly global 4π coverage of the Sun for the first time in human history. Looking Ahead The Sun remains our closest star, yet in many ways it is still a mystery. With SPO, scientists are poised to unlock some of its deepest secrets. The solar polar regions, once hidden from view, will finally come into focus, reshaping our understanding of the star that sustains life on Earth. The implications of SPO extend far beyond academic curiosity. A deeper understanding of the solar dynamo could improve predictions of the solar cycle, which in turn affects space weather forecasts. Insights into the fast solar wind will enhance our ability to model the heliospheric environment, critical for spacecraft design and astronaut safety. Most importantly, better monitoring of space weather events could help protect modern technological infrastructure — from navigation and communications satellites to aviation and terrestrial power systems. Reference: “Probing Solar Polar Regions” by Yuanyong Deng, Hui Tian, Jie Jiang, Shuhong Yang, Hao Li, Robert Cameron, Laurent Gizon, Louise Harra, Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, Frédéric Auchère, Xianyong Bai, Luis Rubio Bellot, Linjie Chen, Pengfei Chen, Lakshmi Pradeep Chitta, Jackie Davies, Fabio Favata, Li Feng, Xueshang Feng, Weiqun Gan, Don Hassler, Jiansen He, Junfeng Hou, Zhenyong Hou, Chunlan Jin, Wenya Li, Jiaben Lin, Dibyendu Nandy, Vaibhav Pant, Marco Romoli, Taro Sakao, Sayamanthula Krishna Prasad, Fang Shen, Yang Su, Shin Toriumi, Durgesh Tripathi, Linghua Wang, Jingjing Wang, Lidong Xia, Ming Xiong, Yihua Yan, Liping Yang, Shangbin Yang, Mei Zhang, Guiping Zhou, Xiaoshuai Zhu, Jingxiu Wang and Chi Wang, 29 August 2025, Chinese Journal of Space Science.DOI: 10.11728/cjss2025.04.2025-0054 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.Follow us on Google and Google News.

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.