Podcasts about Michelle Dickinson

For centuries, people have argued about what separates something that's alive from something that's simply chemistry. Every living thing, from bacteria to blue whales is ultimately made from the same atoms as the rocks beneath our feet. The difference isn't the ingredients. It's how they're organised. So how few ingredients can you assemble before chemistry starts behaving like life? A team of synthetic biologists have taken a step towards answering that question by building what they call a synthetic cell entirely from carefully chosen chemical components. Published this week they assembled every component themselves, creating a tiny cell-like structure whose complete ingredient list is known. The cell can't survive on its own, can't evolve naturally and still depends on scientists to feed it, but it can repeatedly feed, grow, copy its DNA and divide into daughter cells, performing several of the key behaviours we associate with life. They carried out a series of experiments, each asking whether one more essential feature of life could be recreated from non-living ingredients. Experiment 1 - Can you make an artificial cell grow? The researchers began with tiny fat bubbles called liposomes as artificial cell membranes. Inside they placed a carefully designed 90,000-base-pair synthetic genome spread across seven plasmids, along with a purified protein-making system called PURE that could read DNA and build proteins. Real cells grow by taking in nutrients, artificial cells can't, so the team invented tiny "feeder" liposomes loaded with fresh proteins, ribosomes, enzymes and membrane material. The question was - can one artificial cell feed another? To find out, they engineered the synthetic cells to manufacture a membrane protein called α-hemolysin carrying a short histidine tag. Feeder liposomes were coated with nickel-containing lipids that recognised this tag. When the two met, they fused together, delivering both nutrients and fresh membrane material. The researchers watched the membranes merge, the contents mix and new proteins begin to appear inside the enlarged synthetic cells. Remarkably, the ability to feed wasn't controlled externally, it was encoded by the synthetic cell's own DNA. Cells that produced more of the membrane protein fed more efficiently and grew larger. Experiment 2 - Can it repeat the process? Growing once isn't life, living cells must grow repeatedly. Every 12 hours the synthetic cells were fed, their DNA copied and the population divided before beginning the cycle again. The synthetic cells successfully completed five generations of feeding, genome replication and division. Each generation produced new DNA, new RNA and new proteins while maintaining much of the original 90,000-base-pair genome. Around 30% of daughter cells still inherited the complete genome after five generations, an impressive result given that the system lacked many of the sophisticated mechanisms real cells use to organise DNA during division. Experiment 3 - Can evolution begin? This experiment asked whether the synthetic cells could experience something resembling natural selection. The researchers deliberately introduced a tiny genetic change. One version of the synthetic genome contained a stronger promoter controlling production of the feeding protein α-hemolysin. That meant these cells could produce more feeding proteins, fuse with more feeder liposomes and potentially grow faster. They then mixed equal numbers of fast-growing and slow-growing synthetic cells together. After just five generations, the faster-growing cells had become the majority. When food became scarce, their advantage became even larger. The synthetic cells weren't evolving in the full Darwinian sense because the beneficial mutation had been introduced by the researchers rather than arising spontaneously. But they were undergoing selection. The cells with the more advantageous genome produced more offspring, causing that genetic version to spread through the population, one of the defining processes that shapes life on Earth. So... is it alive? That depends on who you ask. The synthetic cell doesn't yet tick every box that biologists would associate with life. It can't survive without scientists feeding it. It borrows ribosomes from bacteria rather than making its own. And while it can undergo selection, it doesn't yet evolve naturally because the beneficial mutations were introduced by the researchers rather than arising spontaneously. The more interesting question isn't whether this tiny collection of chemicals has crossed some invisible line between chemistry and life. It's whether scientists are finally beginning to understand what that line actually is. For the first time, researchers can begin asking not just what life is, but which parts of life are absolutely essential. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Learning a new skill can be deeply frustrating. Whether you're trying to play your first chord on a guitar, use chopsticks, swing a golf club or simply write your name with your non-dominant hand, the experience is often the same. You know exactly what you're trying to do, yet your body seems to have other ideas. Every movement feels awkward, clumsy and strangely unnatural. It's tempting to assume that some people are simply born more talented than others. We often describe elite athletes, musicians and artists as "naturals," as though their brains came pre-wired with abilities the rest of us lack. But what if that's not what's happening at all? A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tackled this question by investigating one of the oldest mysteries in neuroscience: why is your dominant hand better than your other one? Scientists agree that most of us are born with a preference for using one hand over the other but don't know why that preferred hand becomes so much more skilled. Does the dominant side of the brain have a built-in advantage for controlling movement? Or does the preferred hand simply become better because it has spent decades holding pens, using tools, throwing balls and brushing teeth? To answer that question, the researchers recruited right-handed volunteers and designed experiments where participants sat in front of a table with 5 objects in front of them. The first experiment: Is your dominant arm simply better at controlling movement? Experiment 1 involved participants reaching from the centre to each target using either their left or right arm. Then the same again with a 1.8 kg weight strapped to each participant's wrist. Adding the weight made both arms less precise, but it affected them almost equally. If the dominant side of the brain truly had a built-in advantage for controlling movement, this extra challenge should have magnified the difference between the two arms. It didn't. The second experiment: A lightweight stick Next the researchers attached a long, lightweight bamboo stick to the participants' forearms and the participants had to touch each target using the tip of the stick. This time, a dramatic difference emerged. The dominant arm produced much smoother, more consistent trajectories, while the non-dominant arm struggled to accurately control the stick's tip. The dominant was better because it had spent a lifetime learning how to control tools. The third experiment: What happens when neither arm has any experience? Finally, the researchers attached a pen to each participant's elbow and asked them to write the letter "A" and the number "8" using their elbows as the writing tool. If the dominant side of the brain is naturally better at controlling movement, the dominant elbow should still perform better. But if skill comes from practice, neither elbow should have an advantage because neither has spent decades learning to write. The dominant elbow showed no advantage whatsoever. Then they created a training program where each participant trained one elbow to write with a pen, and whichever elbow was trained became significantly better at writing. The research suggests that the brain builds skilled movement wherever sufficient practice occurs. The researchers concluded that we're not born with one hand that is inherently more skilled. Instead, skill appears to emerge from years of experience controlling increasingly complex movements with tools and objects. That means the frustrating awkwardness of learning something new isn't necessarily evidence that you lack talent. It may simply reflect the fact that your brain hasn't yet accumulated the thousands of repetitions needed to build those same movement programmes. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Your brain was never designed for this much bad news, according to new research. For almost all of human history, the biggest threats we faced were local - a predator hiding in long grass or a sick child in the village. Your brain evolved to notice these dangers quickly because missing one could be fatal. On the other hand, reacting to something harmless carried very little cost. This imbalance shaped what psychologists call the negativity bias, where we naturally pay more attention to negative information than positive information, remember it for longer, and react to it more quickly. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. Spotting danger helped our ancestors survive long enough to pass on their genes. The problem is that while our world has transformed dramatically over thousands of years, our brains have not. Today, the same neural machinery that once monitored a few square kilometres is expected to process conflicts on multiple continents, financial markets, natural disasters and political unrest all before breakfast. A study published in the scientific journal Nature Human Behaviour wanted to know whether people genuinely prefer negative news, or whether journalists simply believe they do. To answer this, scientists examined 22,743 randomized controlled experiments run by the news website Upworthy where editors created more than 105,000 different headline variations, which were shown to readers over 370 million times, generating 5.7 million clicks. Each experiment involved the same news story, but with different headline wording. Readers were randomly shown one version or another, allowing researchers to isolate whether changing just a few words influenced which headline people clicked. The researchers counted how many positive and negative words appeared in each headline using established language-analysis tools, then compared which versions attracted more readers. For a headline of average length, every additional negative word increased the click-through rate by around 2.3 percent. Positive words had the opposite effect, reducing clicks by roughly 1 percent per additional positive word. People weren't necessarily choosing different stories, they were choosing the more negatively worded version of exactly the same story. Our brains treat negative information as potentially important. Threats demand attention because they might require action. Long before we consciously decide whether something matters, our nervous system has already begun evaluating it. This is why alarming headlines are so difficult to ignore. Modern news organisations understand this, whether consciously or not. Headlines compete for a tiny slice of our attention, and research shows that negative language consistently wins that competition. The challenge is that our brains evolved to respond to occasional, nearby threats, not an endless stream of global crises. Instead of processing one danger and moving on, we now encounter hundreds of unrelated problems every day. Psychologists have begun describing an extreme form of this pattern as Problematic News Consumption (PNC). Researchers who developed the scale surveyed American adults about their news habits and found that around 17 percent showed severe levels of problematic news consumption. These individuals reported becoming preoccupied with the news, struggling to regulate their consumption and experiencing disruption to their daily lives. Strikingly, 61 percent of people with severe PNC reported feeling unwell "quite a bit" or "very much," compared with just 6 percent among people without problematic news consumption, suggesting a strong link between excessive news engagement and poorer wellbeing. Avoiding the news altogether isn't the answer, instead, the evidence suggests we should rethink how we consume news. Research on stress consistently shows that people cope better when they can distinguish between information they need to know and problems they can realistically influence. That means: Setting specific times to catch up on the news instead of checking constantly. Reading fewer, higher-quality articles rather than endless social media posts. Recognising when content is designed primarily to provoke outrage or maximise engagement. Focusing on actions you can actually take, rather than carrying the emotional weight of every global crisis. If the news feels overwhelming lately, that isn't a personal failing, your brain is doing exactly what evolution designed it to do: prioritise potential threats. The difference is that our ancestors might have encountered a handful of genuine dangers each week but today, many of us encounter hundreds before lunch. Our brains were built to survive a dangerous world, not to monitor the entire planet 24 hours a day. Understanding that may be the first step towards developing a healthier relationship with the news, allowing us to stay informed without becoming overwhelmed by the constant flow of humanity's worst moments. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When most people think of animals that understand human communication, dogs usually come to mind. But according to a new study published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, goats may deserve a place on that list too. Researchers discovered that goats can use the direction of a human voice to locate hidden food. This is a sophisticated skill previously demonstrated in dogs and human babies, but not even consistently in chimpanzees, our closest living relatives. Animals constantly use sounds to gather information about the world around them. Human babies can follow the direction of a person's voice to find objects, even when they cannot see the speaker. Domestic dogs can do this too. Surprisingly, previous experiments found that chimpanzees generally struggle with the task. The new study asked a simple question: can goats do it? Researchers worked with 29 adult goats. A large wooden screen was placed in a testing area, with a red bucket positioned at each end. One bucket contained a food reward, the other was empty. The goats could see the buckets but could not see the researcher hidden behind the screen. The researchers ran three different conditions to determine exactly what information the goats were using. 1. Reward-directed speech. The hidden researcher placed food in one bucket and then sat closer to the empty bucket. If the goats simply walked toward the source of the voice, they would choose incorrectly. Instead, the researcher turned their head and body toward the bucket containing food and enthusiastically said "Oh look, look there, this is great!" 2. No speech control. In the second condition, everything was identical except the researcher remained completely silent. This tested whether goats might simply be smelling the food. 3. Non-deward-directed speech control. In the third condition, the researcher spoke exactly as before, but deliberately faced away from both buckets. The voice was present, but it provided no useful directional information. If goats were truly using voice direction, their performance should fall back to chance levels. Each goat completed four trials in every condition, giving researchers a total of 12 tests per animal. The goats performed best when the direction of the voice pointed toward the food. The goats performed no better than chance when the researcher stayed silent so they were not finding the food by smell. When speech was present but carried no directional information, success again dropped to chance levels, showing that it was specifically the direction of the voice that mattered. One of the most intriguing aspects of the study is how the goats compare with other species tested using the same experimental design. Human infants succeed roughly 80 percent of the time. Dogs succeed around 63 percent of the time. Chimpanzees generally fail to perform above chance. The goats' performance was remarkably similar to that of domestic dogs. Interestingly, the researcher spoke German during the experiment, even though the goats lived in England. That means the animals were not responding to the meaning of the words themselves. They were using the direction of the voice, not the language being spoken. For an animal often stereotyped as stubborn or simple, that's a remarkable achievement. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Artificial intelligence is already helping scientists discover new drugs, predict protein structures, and accelerate medical research. Now it has reached another milestone: helping design a vaccine that has been tested in humans for the first time. Researchers have published results in the Journal of Infection from a Phase I clinical trial of pEVAC-PS, an experimental vaccine designed using AI and computational modelling. Their goal is ambitious: create a single vaccine capable of protecting against not just today's coronaviruses, but future ones that have yet to emerge. That might sound impossible, but it addresses one of the biggest challenges in vaccine development. Traditional vaccines are built to recognise a specific virus. They work brilliantly, until the virus changes. We've seen this repeatedly with influenza and, more recently, with COVID-19, where new variants emerged faster than vaccines could be updated and distributed. This team took a very different approach. Instead of focusing on a single virus, they used AI and computational screening tools to analyse thousands of related coronaviruses from the group that includes SARS, COVID-19, and many bat viruses that have the potential to jump into humans in the future. The algorithms searched for regions of these viruses that remain remarkably consistent across strains and over time. These conserved regions are often critical to the virus's survival, making them less likely to mutate. The result was a synthetic vaccine antigen designed to train the immune system to recognise shared features across an entire family of viruses rather than one specific strain. Unlike the mRNA vaccines many people became familiar with during the COVID-19 pandemic, pEVAC-PS is a DNA vaccine. DNA vaccines have several practical advantages. They are generally more stable, easier to store, and less dependent on ultra-cold refrigeration. The vaccine was also delivered without a needle. Instead, researchers used a high-pressure device that injects the vaccine through the skin using a fine stream of liquid. Needle-free delivery reduces sharps waste, can improve vaccine acceptance, and may simplify large-scale deployment during future outbreaks. The Phase I trial enrolled 39 healthy volunteers who had previously received COVID-19 vaccines. The primary purpose was not to determine whether the vaccine prevented disease, but to answer two fundamental questions: Is it safe? And does it trigger an immune response? The good news is that the vaccine performed well from a safety perspective. Across four different dose levels, researchers found no serious safety concerns and no evidence that higher doses created more significant side effects. Overall, the vaccine was described as safe and well tolerated. Detailed analysis showed that some antibodies targeted areas of the virus that scientists believe are important for broad protection across the coronavirus family. This is an encouraging sign because it suggests the AI-guided design strategy is identifying biologically meaningful targets. However, the overall immune response was modest. Antibody levels generally remained close to pre-existing levels, and increases in neutralising antibodies were relatively small. In other words, it did not yet generate the strong, broad protection researchers ultimately hope to achieve. That doesn't mean the approach has failed. Phase I trials are designed primarily to establish safety and provide an early signal of biological activity. In this case, the study demonstrated that a vaccine designed using computational methods and AI can be safely administered to humans and can stimulate immune responses against conserved coronavirus targets. That's an important proof of concept. The bigger story may be what this means for the future of vaccine development. For decades, vaccine design has largely been reactive: a new virus appears, scientists study it, and then create a vaccine. AI offers the possibility of becoming more proactive. By analysing huge datasets of viral genomes, identifying stable targets, and predicting how viruses might evolve, future vaccines could be designed to provide protection against threats before they emerge. We're not there yet. A universal coronavirus vaccine remains several years away, and larger clinical trials will be needed to determine whether this approach provides meaningful protection in the real world. But this study offers an intriguing glimpse of what next-generation vaccine design could look like. Rather than chasing the next pandemic, AI may eventually help us prepare for it before it arrives. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 14 June 2026, Succession star Brian Cox is proving you are never too old to try something new. At the ripe old age of 79 he's directed his first film, he tells Francesca about the experience and he tells us the impact of playing media magnate Logan Roy. Harry McNaughton started out as an 18 year old on Shortland Street but now plies his trade behind the scene championing Kiwi screen projects. He talks to Francesca about how the NZ screen industry doesn't get enough credit and his new project Head Girl. Opportunity Party leader Qiulae Wong is making a play for Parliament through the Mt Albert electorate. She tells Francesca it doesn't change her focus on getting the party past the 5 percent threshold. Elon Musk is the world's first trillionaire - Francesca asks the question, what's next for SpaceX and Musk himself. And AI has created its first vaccine and it is now being tested on humans, Dr Michelle Dickinson has all the details. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Humans have used homing pigeons to carry messages across vast distances since ancient times. They delivered military intelligence during wars, business communications before telegraphs existed, and even love letters between separated families. Yet despite our long history with these remarkable birds, one mystery has remained unsolved: how do pigeons always know where home is? Scientists have known for decades that pigeons use a combination of clues to navigate. They can recognize landmarks, use the position of the Sun, and even detect smells carried by the wind. But researchers have long suspected there was another navigation system at work, one that allows pigeons to find their way even when the sky is completely overcast. A new study published in the journal Science may have uncovered the answer, and it's stranger than anyone expected. The compass might be hiding inside the pigeon's liver. Many animals appear capable of sensing Earth's magnetic field. Migratory birds travel thousands of kilometres with astonishing accuracy. Sea turtles return to the beaches where they were born. Sharks navigate across entire oceans. Scientists call this ability magnetoreception, the capacity to detect Earth's magnetic field and use it like a compass. The problem is that nobody has been entirely sure how animals do it. Now researchers have identified something unexpected: specialised immune cells called macrophages in pigeon livers that contain large amounts of iron. Normally, macrophages help clean up the body by removing old red blood cells. Because red blood cells contain iron, these liver macrophages gradually accumulate iron-rich particles. What surprised researchers was that these particles appear to have a property called superparamagnetism. The team discovered that these iron-rich macrophages sit close to nerve fibres inside the liver. That means they may be able to detect changes in Earth's magnetic field and pass that information directly to the brain. To test the theory, the researchers trained 34 homing pigeons to return home from a location 19 kilometres away. Half of the birds were then given a treatment that temporarily removed these specialised macrophages from their livers. The next day, the pigeons were released under completely overcast skies. Every pigeon with an intact liver compass found its way home within about an hour. The pigeons whose macrophages had been removed became hopelessly disoriented. They flew in random directions and none returned home that day. When the Sun came out again, those same pigeons were suddenly able to navigate normally. Their flight ability hadn't been affected. They weren't sick. They simply seemed unable to determine direction when they couldn't see the Sun. The study suggests that pigeons may possess two different navigation systems. The first relies on familiar cues such as the Sun and visual landmarks. The second appears to rely on magnetic information gathered by specialised immune cells in the liver. When one system becomes unavailable, the other takes over. If confirmed, this would be one of the most surprising examples yet of how biology repurposes ordinary cells for extraordinary tasks. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For decades, one of the biggest challenges of sending humans to Mars hasn't just been getting there, it's getting back. Under current mission plans, astronauts could spend nearly three years completing a round trip to the Red Planet. The journey to Mars alone typically takes seven to ten months, and crews then have to wait for Earth and Mars to align again before returning home. But now, an accidental discovery published in the journal Acta astronautica and inspired by asteroid trajectories suggests that future Mars missions might one day take less than a year-round trip. The idea came from a scientist who was studying near-Earth asteroids - specifically how scientists estimate their trajectories when first discovered. One asteroid caught his attention: 2001 CA21. Early calculations suggested the asteroid followed an unusual orbital path that crossed both Earth's and Mars' orbital regions. Later observations refined the asteroid's true trajectory, and the original estimates were essentially discarded. But the scientist noticed something fascinating hidden inside those early calculations. The geometry of the asteroid's path hinted at an ultra-fast route between Earth and Mars. Mars is much farther from the sun than Earth, and the planets are constantly moving around the sun at different speeds. To save fuel, spacecraft usually travel along carefully timed transfer orbits that take advantage of planetary alignment. These efficient routes are slower but practical. The problem is timing. Earth and Mars only line up properly for these fuel-efficient missions roughly every 26 months. Missing the return window means astronauts could be stranded waiting for another alignment. Using the new asteroid-inspired geometry, the researchers calculated that an extremely fast route to Mars could theoretically take as little as 34 days. The spacecraft would need to travel at around 32.5 kilometres per second which is far beyond the capabilities of current rockets. Also, arriving at Mars would be even more challenging. The spacecraft would hit the Martian system traveling so fast that current landing technologies couldn't safely slow it down. So while the 34-day mission is mathematically possible, it remains impractical with today's technology. Rather than focusing on the impossible extreme case, the researchers explored whether similar geometric paths could work during future Mars alignments using technology that may exist in the near future. And one opportunity stood out: the 2031 Mars opposition. According to the calculations, astronauts could potentially complete a round trip to Mars in about 153 days (roughly five months), or a lower-energy version lasting around 226 days (about 7.5 months) That's still dramatically shorter than the multi-year missions currently envisioned. The proposed mission profile would involve: A 33-day trip to Mars About one month on the Martian surface A 90-day return journey to Earth NASA's NASA probe New Horizons became the fastest spacecraft ever launched from Earth when it left for Pluto at around 16.26 kilometres per second. Future rockets like SpaceX Starship or Blue Origin New Glenn may eventually push those limits even further. One of the most fascinating parts of this story is that the discovery wasn't the result of a grand Mars mission plan. It came from a scientist noticing something unusual in old asteroid calculations that everyone else had moved past. Breakthroughs don't always emerge from people searching directly for answers. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When we think about exercise that improves balance and agility, most of us picture standing workouts like yoga, squats, balance boards, maybe even tai chi. But new research published in the journal PLOS ONE suggests something surprising - you may be able to improve your balance while lying flat on your back. The researchers found that just 10 minutes a day of simple floor-based exercises improved people's balance and side-to-side agility in as little as two weeks. Humans are actually built in a fairly awkward way. Our centre of gravity sits high in the body, around the chest area, balanced above a relatively tiny base: our feet. In engineering terms, we are basically top-heavy towers wobbling around on two narrow supports. To stay upright, the body constantly coordinates signals between the core muscles, hips, legs, ankles, and nervous system. When that coordination weakens, balance problems, injuries, falls, and back pain can follow. Most exercise programs focus on strengthening either the 'core' or the legs separately. But researchers wanted to test something different: what happens if you train the body to coordinate both systems together? The researchers designed a simple routine performed entirely in a lying-down position. Participants lay on their backs and completed a short series of movements including: Gentle abdominal tightening Small pelvic lifts similar to mini bridges Controlled heel slides Ankle flexing Toe movements resembling a “rock-paper-scissors” motion The routine was low intensity, required no equipment, and took only about 10 minutes to complete. Participants repeated the exercises daily for two weeks. After the program, participants showed measurable improvements in balance and agility. Researchers observed: Reduced body wobbling while standing still Better stability with feet close together Faster side-to-side stepping movements Interestingly, participants did not become significantly stronger or more powerful. That suggests the improvements likely came from the nervous system becoming better at coordinating the body, essentially improving communication between the trunk and legs. It seems like the exercises may have trained the body to work smarter, not necessarily harder. Balance is one of those abilities we rarely think about until we begin losing it. Because the routine is gentle and performed lying down, it could potentially help: Older adults People recovering from injury Those with limited mobility People intimidated by traditional exercise Anyone wanting a low-impact daily routine This study highlights something scientists are increasingly discovering about the human body: small, consistent movements can have surprisingly meaningful effects.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you've ever watched a crab dart across a beach, you've probably noticed something strange - that they almost never walk forward. Instead, they scuttle sideways with surprising speed and agility, a movement so iconic it has practically become the defining feature of crabs themselves. Now, scientists have published in the journal eLife that they believe they know where this unusual walk came from. Researchers studying crab movement discovered that sideways walking likely evolved only once in the history of “true crabs,” a group known scientifically as Brachyura. That's remarkable because in evolution, useful traits often appear independently many times. Wings evolved separately in birds, bats, and insects. Streamlined body shapes evolved in dolphins and sharks despite them not being closely related. But sideways walking? Scientists think crabs only invented it once, and then stuck with it. The researchers studied how 50 different crab species moved, filming them individually in specially designed arenas that mimicked their natural environments. When they mapped those movements onto the crab family tree, a striking pattern appeared - most modern crabs inherited their sideways movement from one ancient ancestor. At first glance, walking sideways seems awkward. But for crabs, it may actually be a survival superpower. Crabs have wide, flattened bodies with legs that naturally extend outward. Moving sideways allows them to move faster and more efficiently without constantly twisting their bodies. A sideways-moving crab can rapidly dart left or right in unpredictable bursts, making it harder for predators to anticipate where it will go next. Today there are nearly 8,000 known species of true crabs living in environments ranging from deep oceans to rivers, forests, and even land. The scientists believe this evolutionary shift happened shortly after one of Earth's major extinction events: the Triassic–Jurassic extinction around 200 million years ago. At that time, the world was changing dramatically and nature was opening up entirely new ecological opportunities. Crabs may have arrived with the perfect new adaptation at exactly the right moment. Scientists often talk about “carcinization” the repeated evolution of crab-like body shapes across different crustacean groups. Oddly enough, becoming crab-shaped has happened multiple times in evolutionary history. But sideways walking appears to have been much rarer. That suggests some behaviours are surprisingly difficult to evolve, even if they turn out to be highly successful once they appear. It's easy to dismiss a crab's sideways scuttle as just a quirky detail of nature. But this study suggests it may have been one of the most important movement innovations in marine evolution. A single change in how an animal moved may have helped crabs spread across the planet, adapt to countless environments, and become one of the most successful groups of crustaceans on Earth. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 10 May 2026, Francesca speaks to comedian and author Pax Assadi about his new book full of excerpts from his life, 'Mortified'. Aidan Donoghue from the Victoria University Wellington Student Association shares his thoughts on the Government's decision to scrap the fees free scheme. He says it's another kick in the guts for struggling students. Francesca gives her thoughts on the ex-CRL bosses' comments on the expensive project: Yes, it's over budget. But weren't you the guy making those decisions? And doctor Michelle Dickinson shares a research paper that asks the question, 'How do you give CPR in space?'. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Space tourism is now a thing, and it probably won't be too long before that tour consists of an orbit around the moon. We already have a situation where astronauts spend months living in space stations far from Earth. Now, imagine someone suffers a cardiac arrest. On Earth, CPR is a life-saving skill we take for granted. Push hard and fast on the chest to keep blood flowing to the brain and organs until medical help arrives. But in space, things get complicated very quickly. Research published in the journal Microgravity are now exploring a question most of us have never considered: how does blood move through the body during CPR when gravity is reduced? CPR relies heavily on gravity and body positioning here on Earth. When you compress someone's chest, you are helping pump blood through the cardiovascular system toward vital organs like the brain. But in space, astronauts float. Without gravity, rescuers can't brace themselves properly, and the body itself behaves differently. Fluids shift upward toward the head, the heart can shrink slightly over time, and circulation changes in ways scientists are still trying to fully understand. That means traditional CPR techniques may not work as effectively in reduced gravity environments like the moon, Mars, or spacecraft. Researchers have proposed several “space CPR” methods over the years, but there has been a major problem: nobody has really been able to measure what is happening inside the body during those attempts. The Concordia research team developed a remarkably advanced CPR simulator designed specifically for hypogravity environments. At first glance, it looks like a medical training mannequin. But inside, it contains a surprisingly realistic artificial cardiovascular system. Instead of simply measuring how deep chest compressions are, the system measures whether blood is actually moving effectively through the body. To test the system, the researchers took their mannequin aboard a specially modified Falcon 20 aircraft used for space science experiments. The plane flies in steep arcs called parabolic flights. During parts of the flight, passengers experience brief periods of reduced gravity, similar to what astronauts feel in space. During these moments of hypogravity, the mannequin received automated chest compressions while sensors tracked how fluid moved through its artificial arteries. One of the key measurement points was the carotid artery, the major vessel that carries blood to the brain. The team observed measurable differences in blood pressure compared with Earth-based CPR. Systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, pulse pressure, and mean arterial pressure were all higher in reduced gravity conditions. The body appears to respond differently to CPR in low gravity than it does on Earth. That's an important discovery because it suggests Earth-based assumptions about resuscitation may not fully apply in space. As humans spend more time away from Earth, medical emergencies become inevitable and unlike on Earth, there is no ambulance coming. Future astronauts may need to handle life-threatening emergencies entirely on their own, with limited equipment and delayed communication with Earth. Understanding how CPR works in reduced gravity could one day save lives millions of kilometres from the nearest hospital. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 3 May 2026, Francesca speaks to investigative reporter and influential AI expert Karen Howe, who initially supported the development of AI, but now sees a darker side to the newest tech trend. Luuka Jones-Yaxley has gone from being an Olympic Silver Medalist to Hollywood Stunt Performer. Francesca gets the details on her journey, including rubbing elbows with some of Hollywood's biggest stars. Francesca gives her thoughts on a chaotic week in politics, backed up by a visit from ACT Party Leader David Seymour, who has just announced a new immigration policy. And doctor Michelle Dickinson tells us where the safest spot to sit is on an airplane. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When you board a plane, you probably think about whether or not you want a window or aisle seat that is either close to the bathroom, or far away. But new research published in the journal AIP Advances concludes that when it comes to safety, who is sitting around you matters more than where you sit on a plane. There's a global aviation safety standard rule you've probably never heard of: every passenger must be able to evacuate a plane in 90 seconds. But here's the catch: it's based on controlled tests, under perfect conditions, involving calm people and ideal scenarios. I've never been in a plane emergency, but I imagine people panic, aisles clog and not all passengers will move at the same speed. The new research asked a simple question - what actually happens during a realistic evacuation and does the passenger type and seating location affect survival? The researchers built a full digital model of an Airbus A320 cabin and simulated emergency evacuations under one of the worst-case scenarios: a dual-engine fire. This scenario prevents the use of wing exits, forcing everyone to escape only through the front and back doors They ran 27 different scenarios with different passenger mixes and seating arrangements. Surprisingly they found that the fastest evacuation didn't happen with the strongest, fastest passengers but instead when only 20 percent of passengers were elderly and evenly distributed near exits. That scenario took 141 seconds. It still didn't meet the 90 seconds target, but it was the fastest of all of the scenarios and much better than the worst evacuation, which took over 218 seconds. At first glance, the findings seem obvious. Older passengers move more slowly, which slows down evacuation, but the real insight is not just how many slower passengers you have, it's where they are Here's what the study found: Older passengers may move more slowly, take longer to react, need assistance and struggle in stressful, unfamiliar situations. Clustering slower passengers in one area creates bottlenecks Random placement causes unpredictable surges and congestion Even distribution smooths the flow and reduces jams When exits are limited (like in a fire scenario), small delays ripple outward and slow everyone down. This research is important because the world is aging, meaning that in the near future, more flights will include a higher proportion of older passengers. The researchers suggest that airlines should strategically distribute slower-moving passengers evenly to improve safety, so maybe in the future your seating choice might be made by your age, not whether or not you like the window seat. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Michelle Dickinson, a mental health advocate and TED speaker, challenges traditional workplace culture by emphasizing emotional well-being, resilience, and self-leadership . Her work highlights a critical shift:

Walk through almost any neighbourhood today and you'll see an oodle - Goldendoodles. Labradoodles. Cavapoos. Cockapoos. These 'designer dogs' have exploded in popularity, often chosen for a simple reason - they're supposed to be easier. Easier to train. Better with kids. A perfect blend of the 'best' traits from two breeds. But a new scientific study suggests the reality might be a lot messier. Crossbreeding isn't new, but “doodles” are a modern phenomenon. The logic seems straightforward. combine two desirable breeds (like a poodle and a Labrador), and you'll get a dog that inherits the best of both. It's a concept rooted in something called hybrid vigour, the idea that mixing genetic lines can reduce inherited health problems and improve traits. But behaviour isn't that simple. In a study published in PLOS One, researchers set out to test whether these popular beliefs hold up. They focused on three common poodle crossbreeds: Cockapoos (cocker spaniel × poodle) Labradoodles (Labrador × poodle) Cavapoos (Cavalier King Charles spaniel × poodle) And compared them to their purebred parent breeds. Instead of relying on anecdote, they collected large-scale behavioural data from over 9,400 dogs, one-third of which were crossbreeds. Their owners completed detailed surveys covering 12 behavioural traits, including: Trainability Aggression Attachment to owners Fear responses Excitability Interaction with other dogs Across the dataset, the results challenged the popular narrative. Crossbreeds showed more behavioural problems in 44 percent of comparisons and they showed fewer problems in only 10 percent. In other words, doodles were more likely to have behavioural challenges than their purebred parents, not less. The differences weren't trivial. Across all three crossbreeds, researchers found higher levels of: Non-social fear (e.g. loud noises, unfamiliar objects) Separation-related behaviours (distress when left alone) Excitability and over-arousal Cockapoos stood out the most, showing the highest levels of undesirable behaviours compared to their parent breeds. Cavapoos also showed elevated issues, but Labradoodles were more nuanced - better behaved than poodles, but worse than Labrador retrievers. Behaviour is what scientists call a complex trait, it emerges from the interaction of genetics, environment, training and early life experiences. The data showed that owners of crossbred dogs were more likely to be first-time dog owners and rely on non-professional training advice This is important information as a dog's behaviour isn't just what it is, it's what it experiences. As demand for designer dogs has surged, so has poor breeding practice. High demand can lead to: Less controlled breeding Reduced focus on temperament Stress on breeding dogs Early-life environments that aren't ideal All of these factors can shape behaviour long before a puppy ever reaches a home. This study isn't really about whether doodles are “good” or “bad” dogs. It's about how mixing two breeds doesn't guarantee a specific behaviour and what matters most is: Early socialisation Consistent training Environment Informed expectations LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

French fries are one of the world's most beloved comfort foods, crispy on the outside, fluffy on the inside, and hard to resist. But there's a catch, they're also packed with oil, which adds extra calories and is linked to health issues like obesity and high blood pressure. New research published in the Journal of Food Science has found a way to enjoy fries with less guilt, without sacrificing the taste and texture people love. To make the perfect - and healthy - French fry, hybrid cooking which combined traditional frying with microwave heating was used. The result was fries that absorb less oil, cook faster, and still come out crispy. The key science lies in what's happening inside the potato while it cooks. When potatoes are dropped into hot oil, something interesting happens beneath the surface. At first, the potato is full of water, leaving no room for oil to get in. But as the heat builds, that water starts to evaporate, creating tiny empty spaces inside the fry. These spaces act like little tunnels that pull oil in. Think of it like using a straw: Blow air into it, and liquid is pushed out, suck on it, and liquid is pulled in. During frying, the potato often ends up in that 'sucking' state, drawing oil inward. This is where microwaves come in. Unlike conventional frying, which heats food from the outside in, microwaves heat from the inside out. They energize water molecules throughout the potato, causing them to rapidly turn into vapor. This creates positive pressure inside the fry, which helps push oil out rather than letting it seep in. In simple terms: microwaves help the potato resist soaking up oil. Faster Cooking, Less Grease The research showed several benefits to this combined method: Lower oil absorption → fewer calories and less fat Faster cooking times → more efficient preparation Maintained texture → still crispy and satisfying Microwaves alone make fries soggy which is why the combination works so well: Microwaves reduce oil and cook the inside Traditional frying delivers the crispy exterior Instead of reinventing the entire cooking process, food manufacturers could simply upgrade existing fryers by adding microwave technology. Since microwave generators are relatively affordable and widely available, this could be an easy change for large-scale food production. Let's be honest, most people want to eat healthier, but cravings often win in the moment. Foods like French fries are hard to give up because they taste so good. This new approach could offer a middle ground: enjoying the same indulgent foods, but with less fat and fewer health risks. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 19 April 2026, today in 1943, Sergeant Haane Manahi changed the course of World War II in North America. A film has been made about his heroic efforts, director Tearepa Kahi and lead actor Alex Tarrant tell Francesca talk about the little known soldier and why they wanted to tell his story. South African born Kiwi artists Tusekah is on the rise, she joins Francesca in studio for a live performance of her latest single 'Lay Me Down'. After a short reprieve, the Strait of Hormuz is closed again. Geopolitical analyst Dr Geoffrey Miller talks about how moves by Iran and the US in the last 24 hours could threaten any peace deal between the two countries. Francesca has embraced AI for one of life's more mundane jobs - has it converted her thinking on using it more in the future? And science has found a healthier way to produce a crispy French fry, Dr Michelle Dickinson with all the details. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have you ever looked up at the sky and spotted a face in the clouds? Or noticed a grumpy expression in a crumpled sock? If so, you're not alone, this surprisingly common experience is called pareidolia and scientists are fascinated by it. New research published in the journal Royal Society Open Science found that humans are incredibly good at recognising faces. In fact, we're so good that our brains often find them where none exist, on handbags, in TV static, or even in burnt toast. Researchers asked participants to look at everyday objects and random visual “noise” and describe what they saw. In one experiment, participants looked at a handbag. Its zips and folds consistently appeared to form a smiling face to many viewers. But when shown random visual noise - essentially meaningless patterns, responses became much more imaginative. People reported seeing everything from angels and dragons to demons and religious figures. What's fascinating is that there was nothing actually there, the images were just noise, but the brain filled in the gaps anyway. In another experiment, researchers added a subtle vertical symmetry feature to the images which is a key characteristic of human faces. That small tweak made a big difference and suddenly, participants were much more likely to report seeing faces. and not just any faces, but often angry ones. Across the experiments, patterns started to emerge. Many participants tended to see male faces, and a significant number perceived those faces as angry. One theory is that our brains rely on a kind of built-in 'face template,' which may lean toward male features. Interestingly, this bias shows up even in young children, suggesting it might be deeply ingrained. As for the anger, evolution may play a role. When faced with uncertainty, it's safer for the brain to assume a potential threat to prepare you for danger than risk missing it. Pareidolia reveals something profound about how we see the world. Our brains don't just passively receive information, they actively interpret it, often jumping to conclusions based on minimal clues. When it comes to faces, the brain seems to follow a simple rule: detect first, analyse later. This makes sense when you consider how important face recognition has been throughout human history. for communication, survival, and social connection. So next time you spot a face in the clouds or a smile in your morning coffee, relax as it's just brain doing exactly what it evolved to do, finding meaning in the world, even when there's nothing there at all. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 5 April 2026, Aussie comedian Felicity Ward is heading our way for the upcoming comedy festival, she joins Francesca to talk about being unashamedly extroverted and how Dancing with the Stars changed her life in unusual ways. Film director Bart Schrijver has used his experience walking the length of New Zealand to make his new film 'The North'. Bart tells Francesca of his experience on the Te Araroa trail and why he turned it into what has been called the ultimate hiking film. Yesterday, marathon swimmer Jono Ridler completed a history making journey. 90 days, 1367 kilometres and more than 468 hours swimming in the ocean with nothing more than togs, swim cap and goggles. Jono tells Francesca the impact the swim has had on him. Francesca talks the pros and cons of the Tom Phillips documentary, while there's a clear case for the story to be told, she says the OIA documents released this week complicate things. And did you know bumble bees can survive days in water without drowning? Dr Michelle Dickinson explains. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes, the most exciting scientific discoveries don't come from carefully planned experiments, they come from accidents. A scientist was storing hibernating bumblebee queens in a refrigerator. These bees were in a deep resting state called diapause which is basically a kind of suspended animation that helps them survive winter. Condensation from the fridge dripped into the containers, leaving the bees submerged in water, by the time they were found, it was assumed they had drowned, but they hadn't which led to the question, can bees can survive underwater? The results were published in the journal Royal Society Proceedings B. Bumblebees don't have lungs, and like most insects they breathe through tiny openings in their bodies connected to tubes that deliver oxygen directly to their tissues. If those openings are blocked, for example with water, you would expect the bee to run out of oxygen pretty quickly. To figure out how they survived, the researchers placed hibernating queen bees in water and carefully measured how much carbon dioxide (CO₂) they produced. They found that the bees reduced their metabolism by more than half, producing 75 percent less CO₂ almost immediately and their metabolism continued to slow over time . But that wasn't the whole story. The researchers also found signs that the bees were partially switching to anaerobic metabolism which is a way of producing energy without oxygen (similar to what happens in your muscles during intense exercise). This process isn't ideal long-term but it can keep organisms alive in tough conditions. And there was one more clever trick. Scientists believe the bees may be using something called a “physical gill.” This is a thin layer of air that clings to the bee's body underwater, allowing oxygen to diffuse in and carbon dioxide to diffuse out. It's a bit like carrying your own tiny oxygen bubble. When removed from the water, the bees slowly woke up over several days and carried on as normal. This discovery could have real implications as bumblebee queens often hibernate underground, sometimes in areas that flood. This ability to survive underwater could be a crucial survival strategy and reminds us that insects are far more resilient than we give them credit for. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cockroaches are not usually associated with romance. But scientists publishing in the journal Royal Society Open Science have just discovered something surprising - some cockroach couples appear to form exclusive, long-term partnerships. And the way they start that relationship is by eating each other's wings. Researchers already knew that during courtship, Salganea taiwanensis cockroaches sometimes chew off and eat their partner's wings. What they didn't know was whether this strange behaviour had a deeper social purpose. To find out, scientists designed an experiment to test whether the wing-eating ritual might actually help form a pair bond between the insects. In the study, researchers observed two types of cockroach pairs: Couples that had already eaten each other's wings Couples that had not yet performed the ritual Each pair was placed inside a small nest environment, similar to the wooden spaces they inhabit in nature. Then researchers introduced an unfamiliar cockroach into the nest and observed how the pairs reacted. Cockroach couples that had already completed the wing-eating ritual became highly aggressive toward intruders. They rammed into the stranger repeatedly to drive it out of their nest. Across hundreds of recorded attacks, almost none were directed at their partner. By contrast, cockroach pairs that had not yet eaten each other's wings behaved very differently. They were far more passive and rarely defended the nest aggressively. This suggests the wing-eating ritual may act as a kind of biological commitment ceremony, triggering the formation of an exclusive partnership. Pair bonding, forming a long-term relationship with one partner is something scientists often associate with vertebrates like humans, birds, and some mammals. Seeing this kind of selective partnership behaviour in an insect is unusual. The researchers say their work provides the first experimental evidence that insects can form exclusive partnerships using behaviours similar to those seen in animals with much more complex brains. Cockroaches are biparental, meaning both the male and female care for their young. Because their offspring develop slowly, having two committed parents dramatically improves the chances that the young will survive. From an evolutionary perspective, forming a stable partnership makes sense. Studies like this remind us that even insects can have surprisingly complex social behaviours. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 29 March 2026, newcomer Robert Aramayo shocked at this years BAFTAs by beating Hollywood heavyweights Leonardo DiCaprio and Timothee Chalamet to win the lead actor award. This week he tells Francesca what went through his head when his name was read out and the impact his win has had on the film 'I Swear'. Fiona Samuel was given a two word brief when asked to write her latest play, those words were Helen Clark. The result is a satire 'Helen Clark in Six Outfits'. Fiona talks about how a frustrating element of Clark's career inspired the show. In light of closures for both McCain and Watties this week, Buy NZ Made Executive Director Dane Ambler is calling for policy that prioritises New Zealand suppliers. Francesca reflects on missed opportunities for Chris Hipkins this week. And it turns out cockroaches form long term relationships by doing something a little bit unexpected to their prospective partner - Dr Michelle Dickinson has the details. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Andrew Dickens Full Show Podcast for Sunday 22 March 2026, Madeleine Sami's Emmy nominated show Deadloch is back for season two, filmed in the Northern Territory, Madeleine tells Andrew about the insanity of filming in the croc infested area and questions how much the high temperatures impact the locals. Smash hit musical & Juliet is being brought to New Zealand by a team of local creatives, two of those, actress Awhimai Fraser and director Hamish Mouat talk about reimaging the show for Kiwi audiences. Minimum fish sizes could be scrapped for commercial fishers, TV fishing host Matt Watson is not happy and explains why. While Andrew points out there may be some good aspects to the current escalating fuel prices. Dr Michelle Dickinson has been at an AI conference this week which is likened to the Super Bowl of AI - so what did she learn and what does the future of AI look like? Michelle with all the latest in AI. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NVIDIA GTC took place last week in San Jose, where thousands of developers and industry experts gathered to discuss the latest AI breakthroughs. The sessions revealed how AI was set to shape every major industry, with plenty of experts discussing the next steps for this new technology. Nanotechnologist Dr Michelle Dickinson was at the event, and she revealed how AI was set to impact the business and medical sectors, among others. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NVIDIA GTC took place last week in San Jose, where thousands of developers and industry experts gathered to discuss the latest AI breakthroughs. The sessions revealed how AI was set to shape every major industry, with plenty of experts discussing the next steps for this new technology. Nanotechnologist Dr Michelle Dickinson was at the event, and she revealed how AI was set to impact the business and medical sectors, among others. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Imagine biting into a tomato that smells like freshly buttered popcorn. Research published in the journal KeAi showed the world's first tomato plants with a popcorn-like aroma made using gene-editing technology. The goal is part of a much bigger effort to solve one of the biggest problems in modern agriculture: why tomatoes have lost so much of their flavour. Why tomatoes don't taste like they used to If you've ever eaten a tomato straight from a garden, you probably know the difference immediately. Homegrown tomatoes are often sweet, fragrant, and intensely flavourful. Supermarket tomatoes, by comparison, can sometimes taste bland. Once removed from the vine, the fruit begins to undergo metabolic changes that slowly reduce its aroma and flavour. Long transport times and storage conditions make this even worse. Over decades, breeding tomatoes for durability, size, and shelf life has also unintentionally reduced many of the compounds responsible for flavour. Scientists around the world are now trying to bring that flavour back. The science behind the popcorn smell In the new study, researchers used the gene-editing technology CRISPR/Cas9 to modify two specific genes in tomato plants. These genes normally control how the plant processes certain chemical compounds. By switching them off, the researchers triggered the buildup of a molecule called 2-AP. This compound is famous in the food world. It's responsible for the distinctive smell of: Buttered popcorn Fragrant rice varieties like basmati and jasmine Freshly baked bread When the edited tomatoes started producing higher levels of this compound, the plants developed a distinct popcorn-like aroma. Improving flavour without hurting the plant One of the most important findings from the research is that the genetic change didn't appear to harm the plant's performance, so scientists managed to increase the tomato's aroma without reducing yield or nutritional value. The tomatoes used in the experiment were a research variety called Alisa Craig, commonly used in plant science studies. The next step will be introducing the aroma trait into commercial tomato varieties that are grown at scale. If successful, future supermarket tomatoes could have far richer aromas and more complex flavour, something that many people feel has been missing from modern produce. This research is part of a growing trend in agriculture: using gene editing not just to make crops tougher or higher yielding, but to improve the eating experience itself. Instead of choosing between flavour and productivity, scientists are increasingly finding ways to achieve both. And if that future includes tomatoes that smell like buttered popcorn, it might make the produce aisle a lot more interesting. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have you ever wondered why some people seem particularly drawn to conspiracy theories, even when the evidence doesn't support them? New research suggests the answer may have less to do with intelligence or critical thinking, and more to do with how people naturally process information. A study published in the journal Cognitive Processing found that people who strongly prefer order, patterns, and structured explanations may be more likely to find conspiracy theories appealing. What's interesting is that this can happen even when those people are perfectly capable of scientific reasoning. The appeal of a simple explanation The world is complicated, events are messy, unpredictable, and often confusing. Conspiracy theories offer something very tempting: a tidy explanation for chaos. They connect dots, assign motives, and turn uncertainty into a clear story. For people who naturally look for structure and patterns, that kind of explanation can feel satisfying. Researchers describe this thinking style as “systemising.” Systemising is the tendency to interpret the world by identifying patterns and rules that explain how things work. People who score highly on systemising often enjoy solving puzzles, analysing systems, or finding logical frameworks that make sense of complex information. In the study, researchers looked at more than 550 participants and identified different thinking styles. They found that people with strong systemising tendencies were more likely to believe conspiracy theories, even if they demonstrated strong reasoning skills. The reason? Conspiracy theories often present events in a way that appears highly structured and internally consistent. Loose ends get tied together. Coincidences become evidence. Complex events get reduced to a clear narrative. The problem is that once someone adopts a structured explanation, it can be difficult to let go of it. Why beliefs can stick, even when new evidence appears Participants who strongly preferred structured explanations were less likely to change their views when presented with new evidence. This doesn't necessarily mean someone is irrational. Instead, it reflects how their brain prefers to organise information. The desire for a coherent system can sometimes override the willingness to question the system itself. Why this matters Conspiracy theories aren't just harmless speculation. They can erode trust in institutions, influence public health decisions, increase anxiety, damage relationships, and spread misinformation. Understanding why people believe them is therefore important. The research suggests that simply presenting facts may not always be enough to change someone's mind. If conspiracy beliefs satisfy deeper psychological needs, like the desire for order and predictability, then addressing misinformation may require more than just correcting the record. It may also require recognising how different people make sense of the world. A reminder about human thinking Perhaps the most important takeaway from this research is that belief in conspiracy theories isn't always about poor reasoning. Sometimes it's about the human desire to make sense of uncertainty. Our brains are pattern-finding machines, most of the time that ability helps us navigate the world. Understanding that tendency may be one of the most powerful tools we have for recognising misinformation, both in others, and in ourselves. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for 1 March 2026, rockstar physicist Professor Brian Cox is bringing his latest show to New Zealand, he joins Francesca to talk about breaking world records, misinformation and returning to his love of music. Wrongly convicted Amanda Knox and her husband Christopher Robinson have released a documentary about Amanda's return to Italy. The pair join Francesca to talk about what it was like for Amanda to face her demons. Major developments in the Middle East overnight, The Economist Middle East Correspondent, Gregg Carlstrom has the latest and what it all means. Francesca talks about the fallout of the move on laws and questions if they will achieve anything. And do you believe in soul mates or "the one"? New research suggests it might be more like "the two". Dr Michelle Dickinson with the latest research on love. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We've all grown up on the same story, from Romeo and Juliet to Titanic, from ancient myths to modern rom-coms, the message is pretty consistent: somewhere out there is The One. One epic love. One soulmate. One lightning bolt that strikes once in a lifetime. But new research published in the journal Interpersona suggests something a little less cinematic. A large study from researchers at Indiana University's Kinsey Institute asked more than 10,000 single adults in the U.S. one simple question: “In your lifetime, how many times have you been passionately in love?” The average answer wasn't one, it was just over two. In fact, two was the most common response. Almost one in three people said they'd experienced passionate love twice. That was about twice as many as those who said they'd only felt it once, or never at all. A smaller group reported three or four times and some people said zero. The idea that passionate love is a once-in-a-lifetime event? The data doesn't really support that. One of the interesting things about this study is how similar the answers were across different groups. Straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants all reported roughly the same number of passionate love experiences. Older respondents reported only slightly more than younger ones. In other words, the “two loves” pattern held up across age and orientation. That's kind of reassuring. It suggests that passionate love isn't rare, and it isn't reserved for a select few. Most people experience it at least once and often more than once across their lives. So if you've fallen deeply, passionately in love more than once, you're not unusual. For many people, love isn't a single lightning strike, it's something that can happen again. For centuries, our stories have told us to look for The One, science, gently and without drama, is suggesting that for most of us, it might be The Two. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A bonobo named Kanzi was sitting at a table across from a researcher. On the table are two completely empty clear cups and an empty clear jug. The researcher pretends to pour juice into both cups. Then she pretends to dump the juice out of one of them, turning it upside down and shaking it as if to show it's empty. Then she asks Kanzi, “Where's the juice?” There is no juice, but most of the time, Kanzi points to the cup that is supposed to still contain the imaginary juice. The study, published in Science, is the first controlled evidence that a nonhuman ape can represent something mentally that isn't physically there, and keep track of it as events unfold. In the study, three controlled experiments were used to test whether an ape could actually track a pretend object in a consistent, rule-based way. In the first experiment, Kanzi watched the pretend pouring and pretend dumping, and then had to identify which cup still 'had' the invisible juice. Even when the researchers moved the cups around, he usually pointed to the correct one. That suggests he wasn't just memorising a position, he was mentally tracking the imagined contents. But maybe, you might think, he believed there was real juice hidden in there somehow. So the researchers ran a second experiment to rule that out. This time, one cup had real juice in it and the other had pretend juice. When asked what he wanted to drink, Kanzi overwhelmingly chose the real juice, so he clearly understood the difference between imagination and reality. In a third test, they switched from juice to grapes. The researcher pretended to take a grape from an empty container and place it into one of two jars, then pretended to empty one jar. When asked, 'Where's the grape?' Kanzi again pointed to the jar that was supposed to still contain the imaginary grape. This matters because imagination has long been considered one of the defining features of being human. Human children typically start pretend play around age two, and even younger babies show signs they understand make-believe scenarios. But until now, scientists hadn't demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions in other animals. Humans and bonobos share a common ancestor from around six to nine million years ago. If the roots of imagination stretch back that far, then this capacity didn't suddenly appear with us. It may be part of a much older cognitive toolkit. If apes can think about things that aren't present, if they can hold an imagined object in mind and update that representation as events change, then their experience of the world may be far richer than we've assumed. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 15 February 2026, British Australian actress Miriam Margolyes chats her upcoming new film Holy Days and pushes back on rumours she might not have long left to live. We often think of grief as death but we all experience living losses too. Dr Lucy Hone is a specialist in resilience psychology and talks to Francesca about recognising other forms of loss and grief and how we can all cope with the hard things in life. Sailing Professor Mark Orams calls for changes to Sail GP following the Black Foils major crash on the first day of the Auckland event, while Francesca pushes back on suggestions the Winter Olympics are elitist. And scientists have found coffee consumption might reduce your dementia risk ... or have they? Dr Michelle Dickinson clears up the latest in coffee research. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you're holding a cup of coffee or tea right now, here's a small piece of encouraging news. A large study published in the journal JAMA suggests that people who drink two to three cups of caffeinated coffee or tea a day have about a 15-20 percent lower risk of developing dementia compared to people who avoid these drinks altogether. The researchers analysed data from more than 130,000 men and women followed for up to 43 years as part of two major US health studies. Participants regularly reported what they ate and drank, whether they developed dementia, and how their cognitive abilities changed over time. The people who drank the most caffeinated coffee or tea had an 18 percent lower risk of dementia compared to those who drank little or none. The benefit seemed to plateau at around two to three cups of coffee or one to two cups of tea per day. Decaf coffee showed no clear link to reduced dementia risk. Regular caffeine drinkers also reported slightly less cognitive decline and performed a bit better on some objective brain function tests. Now we have to remember there may be other factors. It's possible that people who drink tea and coffee differ in other ways, maybe they're more socially engaged, more active, or have different sleep patterns. For example, people with poor sleep (which is linked to higher dementia risk) might avoid caffeine which could skew the results. There are plausible biological reasons for the link. Tea and coffee contain caffeine and polyphenols, which may: Improve blood vessel health Reduce inflammation Lower oxidative stress (damage caused by free radicals) Improve metabolic health Caffeine is also associated with lower rates of type 2 diabetes, which is itself a risk factor for dementia. But caffeine isn't purely good. In some people it raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is a major driver of dementia risk so more isn't better. Experts estimate that up to half of dementia cases worldwide could potentially be prevented or delayed by addressing known risk factors like high blood pressure, smoking, obesity, hearing loss, poor sleep, and lack of exercise. So while your morning coffee might be part of a healthy pattern, it's not a magic shield. The real protective factors are the familiar ones: regular exercise, balanced nutrition, good sleep, social connection, and mental stimulation. If anything, this research offers gentle reassurance. If you enjoy your daily coffee or tea, there's no strong evidence here that you need to give it up for brain health and there may even be a modest benefit. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From dirty blowouts to spit-up and stomach bugs, parents quickly learn that unpleasant messes are part of everyday life. Now, new research published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology suggests that this constant exposure doesn't just test patience - it actually permanently changes how the brain responds to disgust. The study found that long-term exposure to bodily waste significantly reduces parents' disgust reactions, and that this effect can last well beyond the childcare years. The findings, shed new light on how caregiving reshapes the brain and may have implications for professions where managing disgust is part of the job. Disgust is a basic human emotion that evolved to protect us from disease. The familiar 'yuck' response triggered by spoiled food, dirty environments or bodily fluids helps keep us away from potential sources of illness. It's not just psychological, the body often reacts automatically, with nausea or an urge to move away. What scientists have long debated is whether repeated exposure over months or years can truly dull this reaction. Parenthood offered a natural test case. The researchers studied 99 parents and 50 non-parents, analysing both questionnaire responses and observable behaviour, such as how much participants looked away from unpleasant images. The study included parent-specific scenarios and visuals, including pictures of heavily soiled nappies. As expected, non-parents showed strong avoidance when viewing images of bodily waste. Parents, however, reacted very differently, but only once their children had begun eating solid food. Parents of weaning or weaned children showed little to no avoidance of soiled nappies or even other forms of bodily waste. Their reactions suggested that prolonged, unavoidable exposure had desensitized them to disgust. Notably, this reduced response wasn't limited to child-related messes; it extended to bodily waste more generally. By contrast, parents whose youngest children were still exclusively milk-fed showed disgust responses similar to those of non-parents, even if they had older children. This surprised researchers and suggests that disgust may remain heightened during the earliest months of infancy, when babies are especially vulnerable to infection. The researchers believe this pattern may reflect an evolutionary adaptation. Strong disgust early on could help protect fragile infants from disease, while later desensitization allows parents to provide hands-on care when children are older and more resilient including when they're sick. The study suggests that parenthood can fundamentally reshape how people experience a deeply ingrained emotion. Researchers say these insights could help inform strategies to support healthcare workers, caregivers and others whose jobs require regular contact with unpleasant substances. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An upside-down jellyfish drifts gently in a shallow lagoon. At first glance, it looks like it's just floating, but scientists have discovered something quietly astonishing - around midday, the jellyfish takes a brief nap to recover from a disturbed night. The fact that jellyfish, which do not have a brain, are sleeping is amazing, and that discovery may completely reshape how we understand why all animals, including humans, need sleep. A new study published in Nature Communications tracked sleep-like behaviour in two simple sea creatures - the upside-down jellyfish (Cassiopea) and the starlet sea anemone (Nematostella). Both belong to an ancient lineage that dates back more than 500 million years, long before brains, backbones, or even eyes evolved. Despite their simplicity, these animals clearly cycle between periods of activity and rest. When they're resting, they respond more slowly to food or flashes of light, a key biological hallmark of sleep seen across the animal kingdom. For decades, scientists have debated what sleep is actually for. Is it about saving energy? Consolidating memories? Clearing out metabolic waste? In humans and other vertebrates, sleep is known to help repair damage in the brain. While we're awake, tiny breaks form in DNA inside our neurons, during sleep, repair mechanisms kick in and fix that damage. Until now, scientists thought this kind of 'neural housekeeping' required a complex brain, but the jellyfish just proved otherwise. The researchers found that while jellyfish and sea anemones are active, DNA damage builds up in their nerve cells -when they rest, that damage is repaired. When scientists deliberately kept the animals awake by altering water currents, the DNA damage increased and so did the amount of sleep the animals needed afterward, mirroring the 'sleep rebound' humans experience after a bad night. When researchers exposed the animals to UV light (which damages DNA), they slept more. Once they'd rested, the damage decreased and their normal rhythms returned. Even more surprising? Adding melatonin, the hormone many humans take for jet lag caused these brainless creatures to fall asleep at unusual times. That suggests melatonin's sleep-inducing role evolved far earlier than scientists thought. Put together, the findings point to a powerful idea: sleep may have started as a cellular defence mechanism. Being awake is stressful for nerve cells as sensory input, movement, and metabolism all create molecular wear and tear. Sleep creates a quiet window of reduced stimulation where essential repairs can happen safely. If even jellyfish need that repair time, then sleep likely evolved before brains, before complex nervous systems, and before animals even had left and right sides. This doesn't mean sleep has only one purpose. In animals with more complex brains, functions like memory consolidation and learning likely layered on top of this ancient repair role, but the study strengthens the idea that protecting DNA may be the most fundamental reason we sleep. The study offers a sobering perspective on modern life, as chronic sleep deprivation in humans has already been linked to neurodegeneration and increased DNA damage. If creatures as simple as jellyfish can't function without sleep, it's a reminder that rest isn't a luxury, it's a biological necessity baked into life itself. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What does it mean to be 'cool'? While the word can feel slippery and subjective, a new study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology suggests that people around the world largely agree on what makes someone cool - and the answer transcends culture, language and borders. According to the research, people deemed cool consistently share six personality traits, whether they live in the US, China, South Africa or Turkey. The findings suggest that modern media and global culture may have standardized the meaning of cool far more than we realize. The study draws on psychology experiments conducted between 2018 and 2022 with nearly 6,000 adults across 13 countries. Participants were asked to think of someone they considered 'cool,' 'not cool,' 'good,' or 'not good,' and then rate that person's personality traits and values. By comparing these ratings, researchers were able to identify what separates cool people from those who are merely good, or uncool. Despite wide cultural differences, the results were strikingly consistent. Cool people were seen as more extroverted, hedonistic, powerful, adventurous, open and autonomous. In other words, they were perceived as outgoing, pleasure-seeking, confident, independent and willing to take risks. The idea of cool emerged from small, rebellious subcultures including Black jazz musicians in the 1940s and the beatnik movement of the 1950s before spreading more widely. As creativity, innovation and change have become more valued in modern society, coolness has taken on a larger role. The researchers also found an important distinction between being cool and being good. While some traits overlap, good people were viewed very differently. They were more likely to be described as conforming, traditional, secure, warm, agreeable, conscientious and calm, qualities associated with stability, morality and cooperation. In other words, coolness isn't necessarily about being kind or ethical. It's about standing out, questioning conventions and projecting independence and influence. Researchers say the findings could help explain how social hierarchies form and how cultural norms change. Cool people, they argue, often occupy influential positions because they are seen as innovators and persuaders people capable of shifting attitudes and behaviours. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Humans have been chewing gum for thousands of years - from ancient tree resins to modern spearmint sticks, the habit has endured across cultures and centuries. Now, research in the journal in the journal Brain Science finds what gum-chewers have long suspected - chewing gum can really affect how our brains work. The story of gum goes back at least 8,000 years. Archaeological evidence shows that early humans chewed birchbark pitch to soften it into glue for making tools. Ancient Greeks chewed mastic resin, Native Americans used spruce sap, and the Maya enjoyed chicle, a natural latex from sapodilla trees. While these substances had practical uses, people also seemed to enjoy their soothing, calming effects. Chewing gum as we know it took off in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thanks largely to William Wrigley Jr. who transformed gum from a novelty into an everyday habit. His brands, including Juicy Fruit and Spearmint, promised more than just flavour they sold gum as a solution for nervousness, hunger and lack of focus. Even back then, some researchers were intrigued. A study in the 1940s found that people who chewed gum appeared less tense, though scientists couldn't explain why. A 2025 scientific review examined more than 30 years of brain-imaging studies on gum chewing. Using technologies such as MRI scans, EEG recordings and near-infrared spectroscopy, the researchers looked at what happens inside the brain when people chew. They found that chewing gum doesn't just activate the muscles and sensory areas needed to move the jaw. It also affects brain regions involved in attention, alertness and emotional regulation. In EEG studies, chewing was linked to short-term changes in brain-wave patterns associated with heightened alertness and what researchers describe as 'relaxed concentration.' That may explain why gum seems to help during dull or repetitive tasks. 'If you're doing a fairly boring task for a long time, chewing seems to be able to help with concentration'. The review also found that chewing gum can reduce stress, but only under certain conditions. In lab experiments, people who chewed gum during mildly stressful situations, such as public speaking or mental math exercises, often reported feeling less anxious. However, gum didn't consistently help in high-stress medical situations, like right before surgery, or when participants faced impossible tasks designed to provoke frustration. Some experts think the effect may be related to fidgeting. Chewing gives the brain a simple, repetitive action to latch onto, which may help regulate attention and stress. As the researchers noted, chewing gum appears capable of influencing brain activity 'beyond simple oral motor control,' even if the effects are often short-lived. For now, chewing gum isn't a miracle cure for stress or focus, but it may offer a small, temporary boost during boring or mildly stressful moments. After thousands of years, science is finally beginning to explain why such a simple habit has stuck around. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A study published this week in the journal American Psychologist has said that swearing can make you physically stronger. Participants were required to do a chair push up and those who swore were found to perform better than those who didn't. Michelle Dickinson and Francesca Rudkin discuss the study and how it might help people push through the Christmas season. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've already talked this year about research that shows staring at a seagull will prevent it from stealing your chips, but as beach season starts again - here is another science backed tactic that you can use. According to new research published in the journal Biology Letters the best defence might be the simplest - just shout at the gull! The researchers tested 61 on how they responded to human voices after placing a portion of chips in a gull hotspot. As soon as a gull approached, the team played one of three recordings: A male voice shouting: “NO, STAY AWAY, THAT'S MY FOOD, THAT'S MY PASTY!” The same voice speaking the same words in a normal tone. Birdsongs from a robin. All recordings were played at the same volume, so “shouting” didn't mean louder, just sharper and more commanding. Gulls are surprisingly sensitive to the tone of human speech, even when the loudness stays the same. Nearly half the gulls exposed to the shouting voice flew away within a minute. Only 15 percent flew away when they heard the normal speaking voice and many walked away. 70 percent of gulls who heard the robin stayed exactly where they were. This is the first known study showing that wild animals can distinguish between different emotional tones in human speech. Dogs, pigs, and horses can do this, but it's never been studied in seagulls. A future version of the study may test whether a woman's voice works just as well, or perhaps even better. It's not often science gives us an excuse to yell in public, but in this case you can claim it's for your own good. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Garlic is famous for many things, boosting flavour, warding off vampires, and making your kitchen smell incredible (or incredibly strong). But new research suggests it might have one more surprising talent: acting as a natural alternative to traditional mouthwash. The research published in the Journal of Herbal Medicine found that an extract made from garlic could offer antimicrobial powers comparable to chlorhexidine, a common chemical used in many medical-grade mouthwashes. But could garlic replace chemical mouthwashes altogether? Dr Michelle Dickinson discusses the findings and her take on it with Francesca Rudkin. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 7 December 2025, for years it was believed Suzanne Vega's 'Luka' was about a young boy, this week she tells Francesca why, after 35 years, she finally admitted she is Luka. Kiwi band Castaway are a band on the rise, this week they perform their latest single 'Pretty Little Liar' in studio and talk about their breakout year. Andrew Coster has finally spoken out, ZB political reporter Ethan Griffiths on Coster's version of events including his claims Ministers knew more than they have let on. And is garlic the next thing in mouth wash? Dr Michelle Dickinson explains. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We often think of brain development as something that happens in childhood, stabilises in adulthood, and then gradually declines. However new research published in the journal Nature Communications suggests our brains actually move through five distinct eras, each with its own strengths, vulnerabilities, and turning points. Researchers analysed MRI brain scans from nearly 4,000 people aged between newborn and 90 years old. Their goal was to understand how the brain's internal wiring, changes over a lifetime. Dr. Michelle Dickinson joins Francesca Rudkin to break-down and analyse the study. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast for Sunday 30 November 2025, there's Oscars buzz around Russell Crowe for his portrayal of Hitlers right hand man in new film Nuremberg. This week Russell tells Francesca why he's not interested in another Academy Award. Over the last few years Synthony Festival has taken off, The Black Seeds are playing the festival for the first time, front man Barnaby Weir talks about preparing for the uniquely different performance. Chris Hipkins is in campaign mode, he shares just how he plans to get a Labour victory at the next election, and Francesca shares a warning ahead of Ikea opening this week. And science has discovered we don't become "real adults" until much later in life than we though, Dr Michelle Dickinson shares the details. Get the Sunday Session with Francesca Rudkin Full Show Podcast every Sunday on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An enchanted Santa experience was more of a nightmare before Christmas for an Auckland mum, after she discovered the T&Cs would allow the business to use any photos taken of her children for its advertising or social media. Enchanted Christmas in Auckland's Newmarket boasts 180 decorated xmas trees, over a 150,000 lights, decorations and photo opportunities with Santa and the Grinch. But mum Michelle Dickinson was put off after reading the terms and conditions that she believes ignore children's digital privacy and the risks of artificial intelligence. Dickinson spoke to Lisa Owen.

Most of us think of oral health as something that affects our teeth and gums. But what if what's happening inside your mouth is quietly influencing the rest of your body's long-term risk of disease - including diabetes and heart disease? A new study published in the Journal of Translational Medicine has just found exactly that. The study followed 65 people who were treated for root canal infections, a type of deep tooth infection that lets harmful microbes seep into the bloodstream. The researchers tracked 44 different metabolites, small molecules in the blood linked to inflammation and metabolism, both before the root canal treatment and again over the next two years. They found that: Within three months, signs of systemic inflammation dropped. Two years later, several markers of metabolic health, including blood glucose levels had significantly improved. A root canal infection is more than a sore tooth, it's a chronic bacterial invasion. When bacteria and toxins escape from infected tissue, they can enter the bloodstream and spark inflammation throughout the body. Over time, this chronic inflammation is known to interfere with how our body handles glucose - potentially increasing insulin resistance, elevating blood sugar and putting extra strain on the heart and blood vessels. The results showed that: Over half of the metabolites shifted significantly. Some amino acids linked to insulin resistance dropped. Cholesterol dipped temporarily after three months. At the two-year point, glucose levels were notably lower. Pyruvate, a molecule involved in inflammatory pathways, also declined. The study raises the question around whether dental and physical health records should be connected, so doctors and dentists can work together helping to improve your overall health holistically. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For decades, most medical and biological research has been conducted primarily on male volunteers and male animals in laboratory studies. One of the main reasons was convenience - male hormone levels are more stable, whereas female hormones shift across the menstrual cycle, introducing variability that researchers historically preferred to avoid. But that convenience has come at a cost. When treatments are developed and tested mainly in males, the results don't always translate well to female physiology. This means that women have often been prescribed medications or therapies that were never fully tested on their biology. In some cases, women have experienced more side effects, reduced effectiveness, or entirely different outcomes than men. As we learn more, it's becoming clear that male and female bodies age differently too. And new anti-ageing treatments may need to take these differences into account. A new study published in the journal Ageing shows exactly why. The researchers discovered a combination of two drugs that extended lifespan in frail, elderly male mice by an impressive 73 percent from the start of treatment while also improving their mobility, endurance and memory. However, the same therapy did not provide the same benefits to female mice. They tested oxytocin, which is known to support tissue repair, along with another drug known as OT+A5i, which blocks a key pathway involved in regulating cell growth, differentiation, and death. The study involved 25-month-old mice which is roughly equivalent to a 75-year-old human. In male mice: Lifespan increased by 73 percent from the start of treatment. Median lifespan increased by 14 percent. Risk of death at any time decreased three-fold. Endurance, grip strength, and agility improved. Short-term memory improved. Blood biomarkers shifted toward younger, healthier levels. But in female mice: No significant extension of lifespan. No consistent improvements in strength or memory. Blood biomarkers did not shift in the same way. Researchers suggest several possibilities for the difference: Female inflammatory signalling pathways differ from males Hormonal environments change ageing differently in men and women The interaction between oxytocin and TGF-beta networks may not play the same role in female tissues This highlights the point that ageing is not identical in men and women, and treatments to slow ageing may need to be tailored accordingly. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you've ever tried to cook pasta at home, you'll know the struggle - one minute it's undercooked and chewy, the next minute it has disintegrated into a sticky mush. If you've ever attempted to cook gluten-free pasta, your experience has probably been even worse. So is there an idea way to cook pasta and does gluten-free pasta need different treatment? New research published in the journal Food Hydrocolloids used some of the most advanced research tools on the planet to look deep inside pasta as it cooks to find out. Using powerful beams of X-rays and neutrons from particle accelerator facilities usually reserved for studying materials, medicines and magnetic particle, they were able to figure out how to make better spaghetti. The researchers took regular and gluten-free pasta and used X-rays and neutrons to see how the pasta's internal structure changed during cooking, specifically the behaviour of gluten and starch. They even used heavy water (which contains a different form of hydrogen) to make one ingredient invisible at a time. This way, they could isolate and study gluten and starch separately. In regular pasta, gluten forms a strong internal framework which holds everything in place even when the pasta is boiling and swelling. This is why: Regular spaghetti stays firm. It doesn't fall apart easily. It digests more slowly (lower glycaemic index). In gluten-free pasta, there is no gluten scaffold. That means: The starch granules swell and collapse more easily. The pasta can turn mushy faster. It breaks down more quickly in digestion. Manufacturers try to replace gluten with processed starches, but the study showed these substitutes are much less stable, especially when overcooked. Most of us add salt to pasta water because it tastes better, but the research found it also strengthens pasta's internal structure. The perfect amount of salt was found to be 7 grams (1.5 teaspoons) of salt per litre of water. Salt helps gluten hold its shape and protects the starch granules so the pasta stays firm. More salt is not better When the researchers doubled the amount of salt, the pasta broke down faster. What did the scientists determine as the ideal cooking method for pasta? For regular pasta: Add 7 g of salt per litre of water and boil for 10 minutes For gluten-free pasta: Add 7 g of salt per litre and boil for 11 minutes Gluten-free pasta is simply less forgiving and even two extra minutes or too much salt can turn it into mush. This research isn't just about perfecting dinner. Understanding how pasta breaks down at the microscopic level can help food scientists design better gluten-free pasta that: Holds its shape better. Feels more like wheat pasta. Doesn't spike blood sugar as quickly. And more broadly, the study shows how cutting-edge scientific tools, normally used to study batteries, magnets and biological molecules are now being used to understand everyday foods. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Are you ready to face the AI revolution that's already transforming our daily lives? Join Francesca and Louise as they step into the world of artificial intelligence with nanotechnologist and science communicator Dr Michelle Dickinson. From the benefits of AI as a productivity tool to the concerning lack of regulation in New Zealand and the ways we might be unwittingly sharing our children’s data to train AI, Dr Dickinson brings clarity to complex concepts while also offering practical advice for navigating this new landscape.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Practical strategies to avoid burnout, build resilience, manage stress, and create joy in a tech-driven world. Find the shownotes at https://changesbigandsmall.com If you enjoy the episode, please share it with a friend. You can reach me at contact@changesbigandsmall.com if you have any questions or feedback. If you'd like to appear on the podcast, reach out to me for more information. I'm currently interviewing for the next season, which is focused on relationships. Join the Changes Big and Small Facebook group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/changesbigandsmall1/ The post Mindful Technology Use: How to Avoid Burnout and Find Joy with Michelle Dickinson appeared first on . Related posts: How to Overcome Fear and Find Beauty in the Darkness This 1-Minute Morning Habit Will Ignite Your Creativity (and Invite More Joy) with Katrina Mason How to Experience Joy During Life’s Challenges

In this episode of the Digital Learning Today, Jeff welcomes Michelle Dickinson and Heather Hartinger discuss the critical issues of burnout and resilience among educators. They explore the definitions and symptoms of burnout, the importance of self-awareness, and practical strategies for managing stress. The discussion emphasizes the need for educators to prioritize their own wellbeing, establish boundaries, and implement micro habits that can lead to significant improvements in their mental health. The conversation also highlights the importance of agency and the role of support systems in the journey towards recovery from burnout. If you are a new listener to TeacherCast, we would love to hear from you.  Please visit our Contact Page and let us know how we can help you today! Conversation Takeaways Burnout is often a cumulative effect that sneaks up on individuals. Self-awareness is crucial in identifying stress and energy levels. Educators often wait for external changes to feel better, which is counterproductive. Setting boundaries is essential for maintaining mental health. Many educators struggle to identify what brings them joy. Micro habits can lead to significant improvements in wellbeing. Sleep, hydration, and nutrition are foundational to resilience. Agency is key; educators must take control of their lives. Support systems and resources are vital for recovery from burnout. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Resilience and Burnout 03:14 Understanding Burnout: Definitions and Symptoms 05:45 Strategies for Identifying and Managing Stress 09:08 The Role of Agency in Managing Burnout 12:07 Creating Boundaries and Finding Joy 15:06 Micro Habits for Daily Resilience 17:48 The Journey of Recovery from Burnout 21:02 Resources and Support for Educators Follow The Jeff Bradbury Show And Subscribe View All Episodes Apple Podcasts Spotify Follow Our Host Jeff Bradbury | @JeffBradbury TeacherCast | @TeacherCast About our Guests Heather Hartinger Co-Founder, Partner, Program Director Heather Hartinger co-founded Resilience As A Lifestyle Solutions to redefine resilience as agency, not endurance. With over 20 years in branding, marketing, and culture development, she believes agency—paired with regulation and communication—is the universal solution for responsible living across all sectors. A Conscious Capitalist, she empowers educators and leaders through practical, trust-driven strategies, drawing from her global expertise with Fortune 500s, startups, and Web3 innovators. Michelle E. Dickinson Founder of Trifecta Mental Health and Resilience As A Lifestyle Solutions Michelle E. Dickinson is flipping the script on stress management. As a globally celebrated Resilience Visionary, Burnout Interventionist, TED speaker and bestselling author, she's taught over 15,000 people across education, Fortune 500s, and healthcare how to actually deal with burnout - not just talk about it. Michelle doesn't do typical coaching. She teaches practical skills that work right away - like getting a user manual for your brain. Her simple, profound...