Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Justin Heinze, Associate Professor of Health Behavior & Health Equity, University of Michigan

What is the best way to handle cellphones in schools?

That’s a question Michigan educators are grappling with this spring after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed into law a ban on smartphone use in Michigan schools.

The law goes into effect in the school year that begins in August 2026. It requires public and charter K-12 schools to adopt rules prohibiting students from using smartphones during instructional time, but it allows educators and school officials to determine the best way to do that.

The new law includes several exemptions, including medical or emergency use, and does not apply to Michigan’s private schools.

We are University of Michigan faculty in the schools of Public Health, Public Policy and Education, and we are interested in how cellphone access both helps and hurts students in schools.

Many districts already have cellphone policies, but the new law creates an opportunity to look at which policies best support student well-being and academic success.

Drawbacks and benefits to student learning

Cellphones were used by 97% of young people ages 11-17 during the school day in 2022, with both good and bad effects.

Cellphone use can distract students and lead to disengagement from school, impaired learning and poorer mental health. It can also lead to exposure to interpersonal violence, such as bullying or fights, and harm broader well-being.

But students also use phones in beneficial ways, such as monitoring their blood sugar levels, connecting with family and peers, and even contacting digital tip lines to prevent violence.

Defining the array of cellphone policies

As part of a CDC-funded project focused on cellphone policies and health, we collected data on existing cellphone policies in the 2025-26 school year for every school district in Michigan. Our team checked hundreds of local and regional education authority webpages and consulted student handbooks. When digital information was missing, we contacted districts directly. Building on a national teacher survey called Phones in Focus, we recorded not only when phone use is restricted but how schools restrict it, noting cases in which the district policy varied by grade level.

At the time of this writing, our data reflects 779, or 95%, of publicly funded traditional and charter school districts in Michigan.

At the start of the 2025-26 school year, 94.7% of districts had existing mandates, compared to 2.5% of districts that required individual schools to set their own policies.

Just under 3% of all Michigan districts had no stated policy at all. It is possible that these districts communicated a set policy through informal channels or, in practice, were letting schools decide on their own rules.

Among districts with mandated policies, there were important differences in rules relating to cellphones. To help think through policies, we sorted them on two criteria: when policies are enforced and how policies are enforced.

About half of the district policies provided different rules by grade level. In these cases, we include the policies for high school students to generate the statistics below.

When and how to limit use

Let’s start with when: In districts with stated policies, 50% specified “bell-to-bell” restrictions, meaning that students were not permitted to use their phones at any point during the school day, including during lunch or passing periods. The remaining 50% of districts mandated “schedule-based” restrictions, which typically meant that phones were prohibited during instructional time but could be used at other times, such as lunch or between classes.

When it comes to the “how,” districts specified a number of different approaches to enforcing cellphone restrictions.

The most common approach, adopted by 62% of districts, is what we describe as a “no show,” meaning that students are required to keep their phones out of sight, such as in their backpacks or pockets. This policy is used in Alanson Public Schools, for example.

Seventeen percent of districts require students to keep their phones in their lockers throughout the school day. Sturgis Public Schools, a school district that provides special education and early childhood services, is one.

Other school districts enforce stricter policies. Detroit Premier Academy, a charter school, implemented a “no phones” rule that bans phones inside school buildings. Roughly 8% of districts surveyed use this approach.

Another 8% collected phones in each classroom, often using structured, numbered pocket charts or a designated bin.

Less common was the “centralized collection” approach, meaning when students arrive at school, staff collect their phones and store them for the remainder of the day. Stockbridge Community Schools was among the 21 school districts, or about 3%, we found that follow this policy.

The final 2% used lockable pouches.

Location and type of school mattered

We found that policy features were associated with the type and location of districts.

Charter and urban districts were substantially more likely than suburban or rural schools to adopt bell-to-bell policies that prohibit phones during the school day.

Roughly 20% of charter districts prohibited students from bringing phones to school, while 2% of traditional districts adopted this approach.

Traditional districts relied more on “lockers” – 22% – and “classroom collection” – 11% – approaches.

Twenty-five percent of rural, 15% of suburban and 5% of city districts used the lockers approach.

These approaches have important implications for enforcement.

The “no show” and “classroom collection” approaches place most of the enforcement burden on teachers, and both methods require monitoring throughout the school day.

The “centralized collection” and “lockable pouch” approaches place more burden on school administrators, but in theory they require enforcement only at the beginning of the day.

It is less clear how the “lockers” and “no phone” approaches are enforced in practice, but they rely more heavily on an individual student’s adherence to policy and resisting the temptation to use a phone throughout the day.

Is one approach better than others?

With so many policies, it’s natural to ask which one is best. No doubt, education leaders across the state will be debating that question with a renewed focus on policies. Here’s some guidelines to help guide those debates:

• Set and communicate clear policies: This will make it easier on school staff responsible for making sure students do not access their phones during the school day. Implementation will be critical. No policy can be effective if it is enforced inconsistently or not at all. Ideally, students should get the same message from the district, principal, teachers and their parents or caregivers.

• Consider difficult trade-offs: “Classroom collection” and “no show” policies allow for parents and students to stay in touch as needed and call less attention to students who use their personal devices for medical or other permitted reasons. On the other hand, these approaches will require teachers to monitor students and enforce the rules throughout the school day, which may be less effective in preventing student phone use than the “centralized collection” approach or rules that completely prohibit phones on school premises.

• Watch out for unintended consequences: Some policies are cheap to implement. Others require the purchasing of expensive equipment or a good deal of staff time. Think about what protocols need to be in place to keep up and enforce those rules. That will enhance resource efficiency and protect teachers who report challenges with monitoring phone use and even violence when they try to enforce the rules.

Justin Heinze receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control, including for the data collected for this article (R01CE003837).

Brian Jacob receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control, the Arnold Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation. He is currently conducting an evaluation of Yondr lockable pouches and, as part of this project, has interacted with Yondr staff to obtain data and gain greater understanding of how Yondr is implemented in schools.

Elyse Thulin receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She is affiliated with Sandy Hook Promise Foundation’s National Research Advisory Council.

– ref. We collected data on how 779 Michigan school districts are regulating student cellphones − here are the trends – https://theconversation.com/we-collected-data-on-how-779-michigan-school-districts-are-regulating-student-cellphones-here-are-the-trends-275544

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jerrid Kruse, Professor of Science Education, Drake University

Some school districts, including ones in Maine, New Mexico, Iowa and Oregon, are shifting to standards-based grading, where students are graded on the skills and concepts they learn instead of points accumulated from assignments and tests throughout the school year.

Jerrid Kruse, a professor of education at Drake University, studies how people learn and teach science, and standards-based grading is one aspect of this work.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, edited for brevity and clarity.

What is standards-based grading, and how is it different from traditional grading?

Jerrid Kruse: The main thrust of standards-based grading is really an increased transparency between what teachers are teaching and how they are assessing their students.

I think when most people think of traditional grading, they think of accumulating points or making deposits like in a banking model, where if I turn in the homework every day, I get 5 points. And I keep building those points up so that even if I do poorly on a test, I still end up with a B in the class, even though I may have gotten a C or even lower on a test.

Standards-based grading is a shift away from that. Instead of focusing on student behaviors, such as completing homework and showing up to class on time, standards-based grading focuses on if the student is actually learning the things we’re trying to teach them.

How exactly does it impact student learning?

Kruse: If teachers can assess student learning more transparently, then teachers have more accurate information about what students do and do not know, and students also have more information about what they themselves do and do not know. Then teachers and students can act on that information; that’s the key.

We cannot expect standards-based grading to magically fix the teaching and the learning that’s happening in the classroom. Instead, what it does is provide a more transparent assessment of to what extent the learning is happening in the classroom. And then it’s up to the teachers and the students to act on that information.

So the student can go home and study the particular things that they’re having trouble with, and the teachers can say, “OK, my class is really struggling with standard number 4, so let’s spend some more time on standard number 4.” It’s really about what teachers and students do with that information.

What are some of the challenges?

Kruse: One of the big things is teacher buy-in. Top-down initiatives oftentimes end up with really poor implementation or superficial implementation. In my experience, the best standards-based grading efforts have come from the teachers themselves rather than from an administrator. So I think it’s important to spend time getting teacher buy-in and maybe even making it optional at first to let it be more of a grassroots effort.

Another challenge for teachers is identifying the key standards. So rather than thinking, “Okay, I’m going to teach Chapter 3,” it’s shifting that thinking to: “What is the thing or concept that I want students to learn out of Chapter 3?” From there, they can better communicate that to students.

Also, what will the report card look like? Are we going to continue to report A, B, C, D and F grades? Are we going to report all of the standards? These are questions teachers and school administrators need to decide together.

Then finally, in terms of helping parents and students understand why a school might move to standards-based grading, I suggest leaning into the transparency piece. The goal is more communication and more accurate communication between schools and kids and parents. That’s going to be a key piece for any district considering this.

Why should people care?

Kruse: Grades are a consistent source of struggle for students. For some kids, it’s really about how we can help them be less concerned about the grade and more concerned about the learning. And so standards-based grading can help push in that direction.

And then on the other side, we have kids who have been underserved by traditional education, and a standards-based approach can help these kids see school as something that they can do because they can see incremental progress on the standards rather than just a C or other letter grade. It’s the difference between “I got a C,” and “I got a C, and these are the three standards that I need to work on.”

I think it helps all students, including high achievers and traditionally low achievers, but in different ways.

SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Jerrid Kruse receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the William G. Stowe Foundation.

– ref. Standards-based grading offers a different model of assessing student learning in the classroom – https://theconversation.com/standards-based-grading-offers-a-different-model-of-assessing-student-learning-in-the-classroom-277792

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ryan Creps, Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership, University at Buffalo

The Department of Justice announced in March 2026 that it is suing Harvard University and the University of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that both universities failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus, violating students’ civil rights.

These cases follow earlier efforts by the Trump administration in 2025 to block federal funding to several major universities. The Trump administration has also – largely unsuccessfully – pushed universities to sign agreements that would give the federal government greater oversight over their day-to-day operations.

In 2025, the Trump administration launched broad Title VI investigations into 60 colleges and universities. These investigations focused on whether schools had done enough to protect Jewish students from discrimination and harassment, particularly in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, the subsequent war in Gaza, and widespread protests across U.S. college campuses.

Many of those investigations continue. Title VI is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in any program that receives federal funding.

These federal investigations have prompted scientific researchers, among others, across higher education to ask whether the government can invoke claims of civil rights law violations to justify cutting off federal research funding that supports their labs and projects.

As a scholar of educational leadership and policy, I think it is helpful to place the Trump administration approach to higher education within a broader understanding of how courts have interpreted civil rights laws within the past few decades and the nuanced way the Supreme Court has found they apply to universities.

Supreme Court weighs in

In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. This law banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in employment, education and public places.

Congress then passed the Higher Education Act in 1965. This law significantly increased the federal government’s investment in colleges and universities. It also created the Pell Grant program – the first federally funded need-based financial aid program for undergraduate students.

In addition, the Higher Education Act spelled out that schools that receive federal funding need to comply with civil rights laws.

Leaders of Grove City College, a small nondenominational Christian college in rural Pennsylvania, were concerned that this law would bring unwanted government oversight.

At the time, the college did not accept any direct federal funding. But some of its students received Basic Educational Opportunity Grants. These grants helped undergraduate students pay for college. Unlike loans, these grants did not have to be repaid.

In 1975, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare asked all universities and colleges with students who received federal grants to agree to comply with Title IX, a 1972 law that prohibits discrimination based on someone’s sex.

In 1976, Grove City refused to sign on to this agreement. A legal back-and-forth ensued.

Grove City College argued that the federal government’s request amounted to unwarranted government intervention, because the college did not directly receive federal funding. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare threatened to cut off the federal grants Grove City students received.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled in 1984 that Grove City’s financial aid program – but not the entire college – needed to comply with Title IX in order to receive federal aid. That’s because this specific office directly handled federal student aid.

A 1988 law clarifies the ruling

Many House Democrats perceived this Supreme Court ruling as a loophole that would let universities and colleges sidestep civil rights laws by applying them only to the specific programs that received federal funds.

In 1984, a group of Democrats unsuccessfully tried to pass legislation that would have extended civil rights protections across all programs within colleges and universities that receive federal aid for any program. A different version of this bill passed Congress with bipartisan support in 1988, on the brink of the presidential elections.

President Ronald Reagan vetoed the bill. Reagan stated in his explanation to the Senate that this bill “would vastly and unjustifiably expand the power of the Federal Government over the decisions and affairs of private organizations.”

However, many Republicans seeking reelection in Congress feared that rejecting the bill could alienate women and people of color in the upcoming election.

Within a week, Congress voted to override the veto and enacted the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1988. This law clarified that any college accepting federal funds must comply with civil rights laws in all of its programs. This law also allowed the government to withhold federal research funding from colleges based on civil rights violations.

Enforcing civil rights laws today

The Trump administration is testing just how much the federal government can exert power over colleges and universities that receive federal funding. Some Trump administration supporters say they see this strategy as overdue enforcement against discrimination.

On the other hand, the Association of American Universities, an organization made up of American research universities, is among the opposition arguing that the administration is trying to weaponize civil rights laws to control how colleges and universities are run.

Antisemitic incidents are on the rise in the U.S., including on college campuses. But some observers have noted that the issue is nuanced, and that the administration is likely exploiting a controversial issue to achieve ideological goals.

Federal courts’ interpretations in the Harvard and UCLA lawsuits will further shape how civil rights protections are enforced at colleges and universities. Specifically, these cases will help determine whether the mere allegations of civil rights violations against a university can justify a sweeping freeze of federal research funding.

Ryan Creps does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump administration’s lawsuits against Harvard and UCLA have roots in a decades-old fight over civil rights law – https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-lawsuits-against-harvard-and-ucla-have-roots-in-a-decades-old-fight-over-civil-rights-law-276586

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Christina Grozinger, Professor of Entomology, Penn State

North America’s bee populations are in trouble, but don’t blame the honey bees. While some people argue that an overabundance of managed honey bees – those raised to help pollinate crops and produce honey – is causing native bees to disappear, the evidence doesn’t support the claim.

What is true is that populations of many species of bees, including honey bees, are struggling.

Half of all honey bee colonies die every winter in the United States, on average. Commercial beekeepers experienced their highest losses on record – more than 60% of their colonies – in the winter of 2024-25. Overall, one-fifth of pollinators in North America are considered to be at risk for extinction due in large part to habitat loss, rising temperatures, extreme weather, diseases and pesticides.

We study bees and other vital pollinators, and we can tell you that there are good reasons to love all the bees. In fact, they’re essential.

Why care about pollinators?

Bees help farmers grow the foods people love to eat, everything from apples to almonds.

Along with other pollinators – such as flies, butterflies and moths – bees help nearly 80% of flowering plants produce fruit and seeds, which in turn support birds and other wildlife.

About 75% of the world’s agricultural crops, including vegetables, fruits and tree nuts, benefit from pollinators. Additionally, pollinators contribute to production of feed for livestock and fiber crops, such as cotton.

In the United States, pollination by insects contributes $34 billion to the economy.

Among the pollinators, honey bees are the most important for agriculture crops. Managed honey bees, which beekeepers can move from field to field, are particularly essential in intensively farmed areas that lack the natural habitat to support wild bees.

So, why are people concerned about honey bees?

Honey bees were introduced to North America by European settlers in the early 1600s.

Since honey bees are not a native species, the most common concern you might hear is that they will outcompete wild bees for pollen and nectar. This is typically portrayed as a numbers game: If resources are limited, the more bees present on the landscape, the less food there is to go around.

Honey bees live in large social colonies and are adept at capitalizing on high-quality patches of flowers, leading to the concern that this species in particular may have a rapid, outsized effect on native bees that share the same food.

Managed bees can also carry viruses and other pathogens that may infect native bee species. Because viruses are shared among colony members, viruses can persist in managed honey bee colonies and then be spread to other bees that forage on the same flowers.

Scientists and farmers also have a concern about economic sustainability if farms are too reliant on honey bees alone for crop pollination. Threats to honey bee health and high colony mortality in the United States could put crops at risk if other pollinators aren’t in the vicinity to do the job.

Why don’t studies find a honey bee impact on native bees?

Humans actually know little about bee interactions. The U.S. has more than 4,000 native bee species, but there is enough data to estimate population sizes and ranges for less than half of them. Meaningful data examining the effects of honey bees on other species are even more scarce.

In a recent analysis, we found that only 15% of 116 published studies on resource competition involving honey bees measure how competition from honey bees affects the survival, reproductive output and long-term population trends of native species.

The majority of published studies on honey bee and wild bee competition address different versions of a narrow question: Do honey bees and native bees visit the same plants?

Because honey bees are “super generalists” that thrive worldwide well beyond their native range, most scientists would predict that the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.”

However, about half of the research suggests that honey bees don’t change the way native bees go about their day at all. From the perspective of a wild bee, the honey bees simply don’t exist in their world.

Different bee species can coexist with very little evidence of direct interaction. An analysis of bee communities measured across diverse agricultural, urban, grassland and forested environments found the abundance of honey bees and the abundance of native bees were positively associated about five times as often as they were negatively associated. In other words, rather than landscapes supporting one bee species at the expense of another, the same habitats support both.

Calls to restrict honey bees from certain locations also often miss a key reality: Native bee hot spots and urban and commercial beekeeping rarely overlap.

Beekeeping is anchored in agricultural lands. North America’s rarest bees thrive in environments like the Sonoran Desert – habitats that are poorly suited for managed colonies.

If competition occurs, it is typically the product of agriculture practices that strip the land of flowering plants that bees need.

Research that has artificially introduced hives into natural areas like the high Sierra – places beekeepers don’t typically go – has generated competition that left less pollen and nectar for the native bees. But frequently competition involves common native bees that are not under threat.

So, if honey bees aren’t to blame, what is?

The top drivers of pollinator declines are considered to be land use – the spread of cities and agriculture, as well as the way land is managed – along with rising temperatures, extreme weather and pesticide use.

Agriculture and urbanization reduce the amount and diversity of flowering plants, and droughts can reduce plant flowering and the resources bees rely on. Pesticides can reduce bees’ ability to lay eggs and care for their offspring, or they can kill bees outright.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab tracks bee populations in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region. Studies using its data have found that urbanization and weather changes have been the major drivers of changes in wild bee abundance and diversity in that region.

As temperatures rise, wild bee populations are expected to decline there. Warmer winters mean bees active in spring emerge earlier from their nests, and increased spring rain and temperature fluctuations can limit their ability to feed their offspring, meaning fewer bees.

The western bumble bee, Bombus occidentalis, was once widespread and abundant across western North America, but it has been in decline since the late 1990s. Long-term monitoring of its populations from 1998 to 2020 shows the primary reasons are land management changes, increasing temperature, drought and pesticide use.

What can you do to support pollinators?

The biggest threat to pollinators is the disappearing variety of flowering plants.

You can help reverse this by filling your garden with more flowering plants, trees and shrubs to give bees, butterflies and other pollinators a variety of food sources.

You can also advocate for bee-friendly behavior in your community, such as creating pollinator habitats in public and private spaces and reducing the use of harsh pesticides and herbicides. Planting more flowers in parks and along roadsides, and protecting wildlands where the rarest native bees live, can help keep these wonderful species thriving.

Christina Grozinger receives funding to study honey bee and wild bee health, management and conservation from the National Science Foundation, US Department of Agriculture, Foundaiton for Food & Agriculture Research, Human Science Frontiers Program.

Andony Melathopolous receives funding from USDA-NIFA – 2022-08511.

Clare Rittschof receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Kavli Foundation, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, USDA-AFRI, the Bill Gatton Foundation, and the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.

Harland Patch has received funding to study pollinator heath, floral traits and plant-pollinator interactions from the National Science Foundation, US Department of Agriculture, Gates Foundation and the Horticultural Research Institute.

Jay Evans receives funding from USDA-ARS and USDA-NIFA

– ref. It’s OK to love all the bees (the honey bees, too) – https://theconversation.com/its-ok-to-love-all-the-bees-the-honey-bees-too-279849

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Hollis Karoly, Associate Professor of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Amid a renaissance in the science of psychedelics, public interest in psilocybin – or magic mushrooms, as they’ve long been known – is surging.

One study found that rates of psilocybin use increased 44% among adults ages 18-29 from 2019 to 2023, and 188% among those over age 30. This amounts to more than 5 million adults using psilocybin in 2023 alone. And those numbers are rising: A study published in early 2026 found that about 11 million adults in the United States used psilocybin in the previous year.

In many ways, the growing scientific and public interest in psilocybin mirrors the early days of recreational cannabis legalization in the U.S. Much like how cannabis commercialization quickly outpaced the development of regulations necessary to protect public health, the expanding psilocybin market and surging public interest are moving faster than the science and regulations needed to ensure it is used safely.

We are substance use researchers who have spent more than a decade studying the many new, high-THC cannabis products that have flooded the legal-market.

Now, we similarly aim to bridge the gap between public enthusiasm for psilocybin and the limited scientific evidence available about its potential benefits and risks. Currently, this type of real-world data on the effects of psilocybin mushrooms is almost nonexistent.

How do psilocybin mushrooms work?

Psilocybin is a prodrug, which means that it has very low activity until the body converts it into psilocin. Psilocin is the compound primarily responsible for the psychoactive effects of psilocybin mushrooms.

Psilocin resembles the chemical messenger serotonin, which is involved in regulating a range of physiological and psychological functions, including mood, appetite, cognition and sensory perception. As a result, when psilocin binds to serotonin receptors, it alters how people think, feel and experience the world.

Importantly, research suggests that psilocin also alters the brain’s ability to strengthen or weaken neural connections, referred to as synaptic plasticity. This process likely underlies the profound and sometimes long-lasting effects psilocybin mushrooms can have on thoughts, emotions and perception.

Psilocybin mushrooms contain numerous other compounds, together known as tryptamines, such as baeocystin, norbaeocystin and aeruginascin. Research on rodents shows that mushrooms containing these compounds may elicit stronger and longer-lasting effects than psilocybin alone.

But very little is known about how these other tryptamines affect humans. This is because federal regulations require researchers to use an isolated, synthetic version of psilocybin in clinical studies rather than the entire mushroom.

Thus, the many ongoing clinical trials testing psilocybin as a treatment for various mental health conditions use synthetic psilocybin that does not contain these other tryptamines.

Psilocybin mushrooms sit in a legal gray area

Psilocybin is more accessible than ever before.

In 2019, Denver, Colorado, became the first American city to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms. This means that possession becomes the lowest law enforcement priority and criminal penalties are reduced or eliminated, but it does not fully legalize them.

Over the next two years, several other U.S. cities including Oakland and Santa Cruz, California; Seattle, Washington; and Detroit, Michigan, followed suit. In 2020, Oregon legalized psilocybin for supervised use in licensed settings, and Colorado did the same in 2022. These legal, supervised-use programs allow access to psilocybin mushrooms in regulated environments without a prescription.

Even for people living outside those states and cities, the barriers to accessing psilocybin mushrooms are low. With a quick Google search and around US$35, anyone can legally purchase kits containing the materials needed to grow psilocybin-containing mushrooms. These kits are legal to buy and sell because they contain only mushroom spores, which are tiny reproductive cells from which mushrooms grow. Once these spores begin growing into mushrooms, they can produce psilocybin, making the mushrooms a federal Schedule 1 substance.

Because psilocybin mushrooms exist in this legal gray area and are governed by different rules across states, psilocybin mushrooms are essentially unregulated across most of the U.S.

As a result, consumers lack reliable information about what their mushrooms contain, how much they should take and how to use them safely.

Psilocybin potency is increasing in the US

Much like the cannabis industry, which has seen a steady increase in product variety and product strength since legalization, the psilocybin mushroom market is experiencing rapid growth.

For instance, psilocybin edibles are now available and increasingly popular.

In addition, selective cultivation practices are being used by individual and commercial growers to systematically increase the amount of psilocybin contained in their mushroom strains. For example, the Oakland Hyphae Cup, a community contest intended to identify the best mushroom strains, has shown wide variability in psilocybin content across samples.

Researchers are identifying a similar pattern of widely variable psilocybin content in scientific studies of psychedelic mushrooms from around the world.

Potential harms of psilocybin

Despite psilocybin’s therapeutic promise, it also carries risks. Psilocybin can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness and changes in blood pressure.

Less commonly, some people experience psychotic symptoms, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, paranoia, confusion or emotional distress.

Another serious potential side effect of psychedelic drugs is what’s known as hallucinogen persisting perception disorder. It involves ongoing perceptual distortions similar to those experienced while directly under the influence of psilocybin, which can persist for weeks, months or years, even once the psilocybin has left the body.

Harms are more likely when people take high doses.

As mushroom potency increases without market regulation, consumers may inadvertently ingest more psilocybin than intended, increasing the risk of harm. Without sufficient research on modern psilocybin products, consumers have little guidance on how to reduce potential harms.

Next steps in research and regulation

Studying psilocybin in the real world requires creative research approaches.

Our team hopes to work within federal restrictions to study people using their own psilocybin mushroom products at home, while providing real-time data to our research team using app-based surveys.

Independent laboratories using state-of-the-art measurement techniques can aid researchers like us by providing information about the potency of the mushroom products that people are using.

While ongoing clinical trials provide important data about the effects of psilocybin under tightly controlled conditions, real-world data is needed to understand how modern psilocybin mushrooms are used and experienced by consumers.

These insights matter not only for scientists and policymakers but for the growing number of people trying psilocybin mushrooms for relief, self-improvement or out of curiosity. In a largely unregulated market, and with few clear guidelines on safe use, consumers are left to simply figure it out on their own.

Hollis Karoly receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Institute for Cannabis Research (ICR).

Kent Hutchison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Psilocybin mushrooms are going mainstream, but scientific research and regulation lag behind – https://theconversation.com/psilocybin-mushrooms-are-going-mainstream-but-scientific-research-and-regulation-lag-behind-277472

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephen D. Turner, Associate Professor of Data Science, University of Virginia

Artificial intelligence is rapidly learning to autonomously design and run biological experiments, but the systems intended to govern those capabilities are struggling to keep pace.

AI company OpenAI and biotech company Ginkgo Bioworks announced in February 2026 that OpenAI’s flagship model GPT-5 had autonomously designed and run 36,000 biological experiments. It did this through a robotic cloud laboratory, a facility where automated equipment controlled remotely by computers carries out experiments. The AI model proposed study designs, and robots carried them out and fed the data back to the model for the next round. Humans set the goal, and the machines did much of the work in the lab, cutting the cost of producing a desired protein by 40%.

This is programmable biology: designing biological components on a computer and building them in the physical world, with AI closing the loop.

For decades, biology mostly moved from observation toward understanding. Scientists sequenced the genomes of organisms to catalog all of their DNA, learning how genes encode the proteins that carry out life’s functions. The invention of tools like CRISPR then allowed scientists to edit that DNA for specific purposes, such as disabling a gene linked to disease. AI is now accelerating a third phase, where computers can both design biological systems and rapidly test them.

The process looks less like traditional benchwork in a lab and more like engineering: design, build, test, learn and repeat. Where a traditional experiment might test a single hypothesis, AI-driven programmable biology explores thousands of design variations in parallel, iterating the way an engineer refines a prototype.

As a data scientist who studies genomics and biosecurity, I research how AI is reshaping biological research and what safeguards that demands. Current safety measures and regulations have not kept pace with these capabilities, and the gap between what AI can do in biology and what governance systems are prepared to handle is growing.

What AI makes possible

The clearest example of how researchers are using AI to automate research is AI-accelerated protein design.

Proteins are the molecular machines that carry out most functions in living cells. Designing new ones has traditionally required years of trial and error because even small changes to a protein’s sequence can alter its shape and function in unpredictable ways.

Protein language models, which are AI systems trained on millions of natural protein sequences, can quickly predict how mutations will change a protein’s behavior or design new proteins. These AI models are designing potential new drugs and speeding vaccine development.

Paired with automated labs, these models create tight loops of experimentation and revision, testing thousands of variations in days rather than the months or years a human team would need.

Faster protein engineering could mean faster responses to emerging infections and cheaper drugs.

The dual-use problem

Researchers have raised concerns that these same AI tools could be misused, a challenge known as the dual-use problem: Technologies developed for beneficial purposes can also be repurposed to cause harm.

For example, researchers have found that AI models integrated with automated labs can optimize how well a virus spreads, even without specialized training. Scientists have developed a risk-scoring tool to evaluate how AI could modify a virus’s capabilities, such as altering which species it infects or helping it evade the immune system.

Current AI models are able to walk users through the technical steps of recovering live viruses from synthetic DNA. Researchers have determined that AI could lower barriers at multiple stages in the process of developing a bioweapon, and that current oversight does not adequately address this risk.

Risk from bio AI

Experienced scientists are already using AI to plan and design biological experiments. The question of whether AI can help people with limited biology training carry out dangerous lab work is the subject of active research.

Two recent studies have reached different conclusions.

A study by AI company Scale AI and biosecurity nonprofit SecureBio found that when people with limited biology experience were given access to large language models, which is the type of AI behind tools like ChatGPT, they were able to complete biosecurity-related tasks, such as troubleshooting complex virology lab protocols with four times greater accuracy. In some areas, these novices outperformed trained experts. Around 90% of these novices reported little difficulty getting the models to provide risky biological information, such as detailed instructions on working with dangerous pathogens, despite built-in safety filters meant to block such outputs.

In contrast, a study led by Active Site, a research nonprofit that studies the use of AI in synthetic biology, found that AI help did not lead to significant differences in the ability of novices to complete the complex workflow to produce a virus in a biosafety laboratory. However, the AI-assisted group succeeded more often on most tasks and finished some steps faster, most notably on growing cells in the lab.

Hands-on work in the lab has traditionally been a bottleneck to translating designs into results. Even a brilliant study plan still depends on skilled human hands to carry out. That may not last, as cloud laboratories and robotic automation become cheaper and more accessible, allowing researchers to send AI-generated experimental designs to remote facilities for execution.

Responding to AI-driven biological risks

AI systems are now able to run experiments autonomously and at scale, but existing regulations were not designed for this. Rules governing biological research do not account for AI-driven automation, and rules governing AI do not specifically address its use in biology.

In the U.S., the Biden administration had issued a 2023 executive order on AI security that included biosecurity provisions, but the Trump administration revoked it. Screening the synthetic DNA that commercial providers make to ensure it cannot be misused to make pathogens or toxins remains mostly voluntary. A bipartisan bill introduced in 2026 to mandate DNA screening does not yet address AI-designed sequences that evade current detection methods.

The 1975 Biological Weapons Convention, an international treaty prohibiting the production and use of bioweapons, contains no provisions for AI. The U.K. AI Security Institute and the U.S. National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology have both called for coordinated government action.

The safety evaluations that AI labs run before releasing new models are often opaque and unsuited to capture real-world risk. Researchers have estimated that even modest improvements in an AI model’s ability to help plan pathogen-related experiments could translate to thousands of additional deaths from bioterrorism per year. Timelines for when these capabilities cross critical thresholds remain unclear.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative has proposed a managed access framework for biological AI tools, matching who can use a given tool to the risk level of the model rather than blanket restrictions. The RAND Center on AI, Security and Technology outlined a set of actions researchers could take to improve biosecurity, including improved DNA synthesis screening and model evaluations before release. Researchers have also argued that biological data itself needs governance, especially genomic data that could train models with dangerous capabilities.

Some AI companies have started voluntarily imposing their own safety measures. Anthropic activated its highest safety tier when it released its most advanced model in mid-2025. At the same moment, OpenAI updated its Preparedness Framework, revising the thresholds for how much biological risk a model can pose before additional safeguards are required. But these are voluntary, company-specific steps. Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, wrote that the pace of AI development may soon outrun any single company’s ability to assess the risk of a given model.

When used in a well-controlled setting, AI can help scientists quickly reach their research goals. What happens when the same capabilities operate outside those controls is a question that policy has not yet answered. Overreact, and talent and investment may move elsewhere while the technology continues advancing anyway. Underreact, and the risks of that technology could be exploited to cause real harm.

I am applying for grants in this area.

– ref. AI can design and run thousands of lab experiments without human hands. Humanity isn’t ready for the new risks this brings to biology – https://theconversation.com/ai-can-design-and-run-thousands-of-lab-experiments-without-human-hands-humanity-isnt-ready-for-the-new-risks-this-brings-to-biology-279191