The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced a new policy on the protection of the women’s category that will force thousands of elite women athletes from around the world to undergo genetic sex testing in order to compete.
Critics argue the policy is based on weak science and raises urgent and important questions about fairness and human rights. It requires athletes seeking to participate in the women’s category at IOC events, such as the Olympic Games and the Youth Olympic Games, to undergo screening for the sex-determining region Y (SRY) gene.
The IOC’s policy is an extension of the genetic sex testing practices recently adopted by international sport federations for athletics, swimming, boxing and skiing and snowboarding. It also encourages other international sport federations to implement similar exclusionary policies for competitions outside the Olympics.
The purpose of the test is to identify and exclude transgender women and women with sex variations due to the perception that they threaten the integrity of women’s sport. Athletes who test positive for the SRY gene are ineligible for the women’s category, unless they can demonstrate complete insensitivity to testosterone through clinical evaluations.
The International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry announced a new policy on the protection of the female (women’s) category in Olympic Sport and guiding considerations for international sport federations. (IOC Media)
These groups noted that the intrusive and exclusionary practices now codified in the IOC’s policy are rooted in stereotypes and generalized assumptions of performance advantage rather than robust, sport-specific evidence. They also noted that the practices risk violating the human rights principles of non-discrimination, bodily and psychological integrity, dignity and privacy for all women athletes.
Ethics, flawed evidence and cost
According to the IOC, the new policy is informed by consultations with experts, reviews of scientific evidence and input from the IOC’s “Protection of the Female Category Working Group.” Yet, the identities of these experts and members of the working group have not been revealed, and the alleged scientific evidence relied upon by the IOC has not been cited.
The truth is that there is no independent, high-quality evidence showing that women with the SRY gene and sex variations have an athletic advantage.
Similarly, for transgender women, the scientific research is inconclusive and recently led a Belgian court to conclude that a ban on transgender women in international cycling was unlawful.
Contrary to the IOC’s assertions, genetic sex testing is highly invasive, which is why it is strictly regulated under various laws.
In many jurisdictions, it can only be conducted for clear medical purposes, after an individual has provided free and informed consent, and where the processing of genetic data is subject to adequate safeguards.
The IOC’s response to this illegality is that athletes can simply travel to other countries without such laws to take the test.
Pragmatic questions about the costs of genetic sex testing have not been addressed in the IOC policy and cannot be ignored. It is estimated that the cost to test an athlete could exceed US$10,000 in some cases, and it is not clear who will finance these costs.
Two days earlier, the Future of Sport in Canada Commission released its final report. The report recognizes the precarity of Canada’s sport system and the need for a massive infusion of funding to maintain safe sport standards for all athletes.
Given this national focus, the genetic screening of women athletes seems far from a priority.
What’s at stake for the future
While the IOC has said its new policy only applies at the international level, there are concerns that this narrowing of the women’s category will filter down to lower levels of sport.
Without a change in course, genetic sex testing could become commonplace, and many women and girls may choose to leave sport to avoid having their bodies policed and their identity questioned.
To truly protect women’s sport, we believe that governments, athletes and other members of civil society must strongly oppose the exclusionary and rights-infringing policies of the IOC and international sport federations.
The outcome of a recent privacy complaint in Canada that will limit the use of certain sensitive personal data for sex testing provides a glimpse of the resistance that is possible.
Silvia Camporesi is a member of WADA’s Ethics External Advisory Group (EEAG).
Marcus Mazzucco and Sarah Teetzel do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Meta has been leading the way with smart glasses technology since launching its Ray-Ban model in 2021. Now the company may have plans to introduce facial recognition to its AI-enabled glasses, according to an internal memo leaked to The New York Times.
As a member of sex worker communities, and a researcher studying the intersection of sex work, law and technological surveillance, I am concerned about the integration of AI-enabled smart glasses with facial recognition technologies.
I am especially worried about the impact on sex workers and other vulnerable members of our population.
These glasses already enable wearers to take photos and videos in public and private spaces without consent. In 2025, a number of Instagram accounts uploaded videos of men entering massage parlours and soliciting women for sexual services. The videos, uploaded without the women’s knowledge or consent, garnered millions of views.
CNN Creators discuss the issue of covert filming with smart glasses, and speak to some of the women involved.
Sex workers are particularly at risk of non-consensual filming while at work. The consequences of this can include being outed to friends and family as a sex worker, blackmail and job loss. This can lead to loss of health, financial and housing services. Covert filming can also lead to stalking, abuse and violence.
Many sex workers use social media, just like everyone else. Some use it for work, while others only use it to connect with friends and family. Some use it for both. The issue with facial recognition is that sex workers’ efforts to remain anonymous could be easily trampled, especially if Meta explores options to identify people via Facebook and Instagram accounts.
While Meta will likely include safety features if it does pursue the integration of facial recognition into smart glasses, the trend in technological advances in recent months has shown that AI often works outside the scope of what it is programmed to do.
Sex workers’ rights are intimately tied with women’s and children’s rights. When a system or technology threatens the safety and well-being of sex workers, it also threatens women and children. Predatory technologies that allow vulnerable people to be secretly recorded and have their identities revealed without consent will lead to inevitable harms.
One way we can protect ourselves is through an app called Nearby Glasses. This allows users to scan their vicinity for Bluetooth signals from smart glasses with camera functionality. It alerts users about possible recording and also notes the manufacturer name of smart glasses detected. The developer designed this app as a form of resistance to expanding surveillance technology.
Is mass surveillance inevitable?
Legal scholar Woodrow Hartzog and his colleagues have characterized facial recognition technology as “the most dangerous surveillance tool ever invented,” posing unique threats to “privacy, civil liberties, human flourishing and democracy.” They speak of a slippery slope towards inevitable mass surveillance.
Meanwhile, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently declared: “It’s hard to imagine a world in several years where most glasses that people wear aren’t AI glasses.”
To protect the anonymity of sex workers and other vulnerable persons, it is imperative that we speak up and raise awareness of the consequences of such a world.
Brynn Colledge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The country has certainly suffered many tactical losses. But its missiles and drones have been strategically successful.
Iran so far has launched at least 5,400 such projectiles. Surprisingly, less than a tenth of them have targeted Israel, its traditional rival.
Missiles over Israel
Israel faced about 450 Iranian missile attacks during the war’s first four weeks. The rate of fire fell rapidly after the first weekend but has never halted.
Some missiles carry several hundred kilograms of explosives, enough to destroy an entire building. The rest instead dispense dozens of cluster bombs over wide areas. Those are less powerful but still lethal.
But interceptorssometimes miss. And their supply is limited. Consequently, at least nine large warheads and 150 cluster bombs have hit populated areas.
These numbers imply that almost all Iranian missiles are accurate enough to need interception. By contrast, during Israel’s earlier conflicts with Gaza in 2008, 2011 and 2014, less than a third of incoming rockets were so accurate.
Meanwhile, more than 90 per cent of Iran’s missiles and drones have targeted Arab countries in the Persian Gulf.
Number of Iranian missiles and drones arriving daily over Israel and the UAE, February 28 to March 27. Published news reports, CC BY
Drones across the Persian Gulf
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) collectively reported around 4,900 Iranian attacks during the first four weeks. Only one fifth were missiles: the rest were drones.
These countries have stated they are neutral in the war. However, they do have defence agreements with the U.S., and some host American military facilities.
These countries defend themselves using weapons like the U.S.-made Patriot and Israeli-made SPYDER interceptors. Drone experts from Ukraine now advise the defenders too.
For example, the UAE reported attacks by 1,835 drones, 378 ballistic missiles and 15 cruise missiles. As of March 10, it claimed to have intercepted 94 per cent of the drones and 99 per cent of the missiles.
The deadliness of these attacks has varied.
Continuing lethality
In Israel, Iranian missiles have killed 20 people, implying roughly 4.1 deaths per hundred missiles arriving.
That’s less than the 5.1 the country saw during its 2025 war with Iran. But it’s four to 40 times higher than the rates it suffered from rockets in earlier Gaza and Lebanon conflicts.
There were about 0.6 deaths per hundred Iranian attacks in Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE combined. That’s much lower than Israel’s rate, presumably because those countries were attacked by drones and short-range missiles carrying smaller warheads.
Interestingly, although the quantity of Iranian attacks fell after the first week, their lethality did not. Death rates per projectile in Arab countries showed little change week-to-week. In Israel, the rates were highest in Week 3.
In fact, Iranian missiles keep hitting precise targets, like U.S. military aircraft parked beside runways.
So, U.S. and Israeli warplanes have bombed thousands of targets, killed thousands of civilians, and slowed Iran’s missile fire. But they haven’t stopped it.
That’s not surprising. Airstrikes alone didn’t stop rocket fire during Israel’s previous conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. Ground invasions were needed for that.
Trump recently, and inadvertently, admitted this weakness. While discussing Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, he said “it would be great if we could do something, but theyhave to open it.”
This strategic failure despite tactical success is reminiscent of the Vietnam War. U.S. units had overwhelming firepower as they killed enemy soldiers. But body countsby themselves indicated little about strategic progress.
Trump talks about being the greatest U.S. president in history. So, perhaps his Iran war will make him the new leader on that policy failure list.
Michael J. Armstrong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Emily A. Margolis, Curator of Contemporary Spaceflight, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
The Artemis I crew and service modules with the Moon and Earth in the distance on Nov. 28, 2022.NASA
While I was leading a tour of the National Air and Space Museum in January 2026, a visitor posed this insightful question: “Why has it taken so long to return to the Moon?”
After all, NASA had the know-how and technology to send humans to the lunar surface more than 50 years ago as part of the Apollo program. And, as another tour guest reminded us, computers today can do so much more than they could back then, as evidenced by the smartphones most of us carry in our pockets. Shouldn’t it be easier to get to the Moon than ever before?
The truth is that sending humans into space safely continues to be difficult, especially as missions increase in complexity.
The Artemis II SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft Integrity en route from the vehicle assembly building to Launch Complex 39B at the Kennedy Space Center, Jan. 17, 2026. NASA/John Kraus
New technologies require years of study, development and testing before they can be certified for flight. And even then, systems and materials can behave in ways that surprise and worry engineers and mission planners; look no further than Boeing’s Starliner CFT mission or the performance of the Orion heat shield on Artemis I.
Issues with Starliner’s thrusters led NASA to return the spacecraft from the International Space Station without its crew. Unanticipated chipping of the Orion heat shield resulted in years of research, culminating in NASA altering the atmospheric reentry plans for the Artemis II mission.
NASA’s programs also require sustained political will and financial support across multiple presidential administrations, Congresses and fiscal years. As a historian of human spaceflight, I have studied the space agency’s efforts to engage the broader public to convince American taxpayers that their programs hold value for the nation.
NASA is now on the eve of the first crewed flight to the Moon since the Apollo era: Artemis II. A crew of four will conduct a lunar flyby, laying the groundwork, the agency hopes, for a landing on the Artemis IV mission.
In early 1970, with two successful Moon landings on the books, President Richard Nixon sought to reduce NASA’s budget to better align with his administration’s priorities. This decision put the space agency in a difficult position, which ultimately led to the cancellation of three planned Apollo missions to conserve funding for its plans for long-term human activity in low Earth orbit.
NASA repurposed the third stage of a Saturn V rocket to create the first U.S. space station, Skylab, which operated from 1973 to 1974. The space agency used leftover Saturn IB rockets and Apollo command and service modules to send crews to the station.
Over the next three decades, NASA developed and operated the space shuttle. The fleet of space shuttle orbiters supported satellite deployment and microgravity research on orbital missions of up to 17 days. This work was meant to enable future long-duration human missions and provide benefits to people on Earth. For example, data from protein crystal growth experiments have informed the development of medicines.
The space shuttle program facilitated the construction, maintenance and staffing of a continuously inhabited research platform in orbit, the International Space Station. The first modules launched in late 1998.
Space shuttle Endeavour’s robotic arm begins the sequence to deploy the Unity module of the International Space Station on Dec. 5, 1998. NASA
Where to next?
As the new millennium approached, the Clinton administration tasked NASA to think beyond the space station. What could robots and humans do next in space? And where could they do it? Notably, the White House expressed an interest in locations beyond low Earth orbit.
NASA, it turned out, was well positioned to meet the administration’s request. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin was already thinking about preparing proposals for the next presidential administration and had recently sponsored a human lunar return study. In 1999, he established a team to investigate new technologies, missions and destinations for the 21st century.
This work took on new significance following the tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia crew in February 2003. Many people, including those in the new George W. Bush White House, wondered whether the human spaceflight program should continue – and, if so, how.
Administration discussions culminated in Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration in 2004, which directed NASA to retire the space shuttle after the completion of the space station. It called for returning humans to the Moon on a crew exploration vehicle designed for destinations beyond low Earth orbit.
It also called for continuing robotic exploration of Mars and engaging companies and international partners in space. Fifteen years earlier, President George H. W. Bush had also announced a Moon and Mars exploration program, but congressional concerns about cost kept space travelers close to home.
President George W. Bush announces his administration’s Vision for Space Exploration at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 14, 2004. NASA/Bill Ingalls
The Constellation program’s legacy
In December 2004, NASA began the process of finding a manufacturer for the crew exploration vehicle. By August 2006, the space agency awarded Lockheed Martin the contract to build the capsule, which it had named Orion – the same Orion planned to carry Artemis astronauts to the Moon.
Years of research, development and testing followed for Orion as well as the Ares I crew and Ares V cargo launch vehicles. Together, these technologies made up the Constellation program.
An illustration of the Ares rockets from the Constellation program. The Ares I rocket with Orion spacecraft on top is on the left − it was intended for activities in low Earth orbit. The Ares V heavy-lift rocket, on the right, was designed for lunar missions. NASA
Constellation had two primary objectives: in the near term, to help transport crew to and from the space station after the space shuttle program ended; in the long term, to enable human lunar exploration.
Building systems that could work in both Earth orbit and around the Moon was supposed to save the time and cost of developing two vehicles. Similarly, adapting space shuttle program hardware could supposedly cut costs.
During the first months of Barack Obama’s presidency in 2009, the administration initiated an independent review of NASA’s human spaceflight plans. The Augustine Committee, chaired by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, found that the agency’s ambitions outstripped its limited budget, leading to significant delays. The first Orion spacecraft was likely to arrive after the space station ceased operations.
The committee proposed several paths forward at the current funding level, which prioritized space shuttle and space station programs. An additional annual investment of US$3 billion would allow for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
Ultimately, the Obama administration canceled Constellation, but two of its technologies lived on, thanks to U.S. senators from states that would have been affected by cuts.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 funded Orion’s continued development, shifting responsibility for space station crew transportation to commercial vehicles. It also directed NASA to develop the space launch system, a redesigned Ares V heavy booster, to send Orion to the Moon. The technical strategy had political benefits, too, preserving jobs in numerous congressional districts by providing continuity for aerospace contractors.
In December 2014, a Delta IV heavy rocket launched the first Orion capsule on a test flight, providing engineers with data on spacecraft systems and the heat shield. By October 2015, the space launch system had completed a critical design review, the last step before manufacturing could begin.
In this photo, the Orion capsule awaits recovery after splashdown after a test flight on Dec. 5, 2014. U.S. Navy, CC BY-NC
Introducing Artemis
In December 2017, the new Trump administration issued a policy directive shifting the focus of NASA’s human spaceflight program back to the Moon. The space agency would use Orion and the space launch system in a race to meet an ambitious 2024 landing date. NASA officially named the program Artemis in May 2019.
The 25-day Artemis I mission, launched in November 2022, was a major milestone for the program. This uncrewed flight was the first flight of the space launch system and the first to integrate SLS and Orion. It laid the groundwork for Artemis II, which will be the first crewed flight of the SLS.
Over more than 50 years, each new presidential administration has reassessed the place of spaceflight among its priorities, either encouraging or curtailing NASA’s efforts to return humans to the lunar surface.
Each crewed flight requires the alignment of technical expertise, political will and financial support over years if not decades. For the space fans who plan to watch the Artemis II launch, the wait for countdown may feel long. But it’s just a blink in NASA’s long journey back to the Moon.
Emily A. Margolis 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.
Ryland Grace, the ‘Project Hail Mary’ protagonist, exhibits intellectual humility while problem-solving to save the Earth. Amazon MGM Studios
Early in Phil Lord and Christopher Miller’s science fiction blockbuster “Project Hail Mary,” middle school teacher Ryland Grace, played by Ryan Gosling, is tasked by an international coalition to uncover the biology of a strange microbe known as an “astrophage” that has been absorbing energy from an ever-dimming Sun.
Grace is a molecular biologist by training, but his controversial ideas and overconfident attitude have kept him out of academia. The viewer will see through flashbacks that as he’s matured, he’s developed a vital skill for solving the astrophage crisis: intellectual humility.
I’m an anthropologist who studies astronauts and space professionals to understand what space symbolizes to the people who experience it firsthand. Grace’s character in “Project Hail Mary” developed several of the traits that I’ve observed in the astronauts I’ve interviewed. These characteristics prove essential to success in high-stakes, uncertain situations. Warning: some plot points will be revealed ahead.
‘Project Hail Mary’ follows a middle school science teacher tasked with saving Earth from star-eating microbes.
Grace has been chosen as one of the first to study astrophage because of his Ph.D. dissertation on whether life can exist without water, a hot take in the world of science that, along with his rude response to peer reviewers, has gotten him banned from polite science conferences. The solar microbes eating the Sun seem to live without water, so Grace is the acknowledged expert.
Unfortunately, Grace can’t see into the mysterious, opaque little organisms until a dead one becomes translucent. Finally, Grace can see inside the microbe to study it, and he believes his hypothesis about life not needing water will be proven. However, chemical analysis reveals astrophage is made up of mostly water.
In a moment that undercuts both his expertise and his expectations, Grace is wrong. Crushed, he throws a tantrum, observed by a bemused assembly of international leaders.
What actually matters isn’t that Grace is wrong but what he does next. Only after Grace overcomes his frustration and need to be right is he able to move forward, returning to the problem with curiosity rather than defensiveness and the resolve to learn enough about astrophage to make saving the world a possibility.
Admitting what you don’t know
Perhaps the real hero of the story is not Ryland Grace himself but his intellectual humility. Intellectual humility, the admission of your own limited knowledge and a willingness to learn from others, sometimes seems to be undervalued, particularly by those in leadership positions.
People who are intellectually humble will say things like, “Tell me more,” or “I wish I had thought of that.” They don’t feel threatened when admitting vulnerability.
Some people, however, do feel threatened by the thought of admitting incomplete knowledge or appearing to have limitations. Instead of confessing what they don’t know, they may claim a kind of certainty that goes beyond their true expertise, shutting down further questioning. Intellectual humility, in contrast, encourages someone to remain engaged by highlighting how much they still have to learn.
Being contradicted by the facts can produce diverse reactions. For someone without intellectual humility, not knowing can feel like failure. It can lead to defensiveness, denial or a refusal to engage. With humility, however, not knowing is more interesting than scary. The defensiveness is gone, replaced by curiosity.
When Grace realizes his expectations about astrophage aren’t supported by scientific evidence, he goes from feeling sure to feeling unsure. Reality itself hasn’t changed, but Grace’s sense of reality shifts in an important way. He realizes that there is a great deal he still needs to learn about these microbes, without assumptions blocking new knowledge. His intellectual humility gives him a path forward, a way to reset and take in new information without shutting down.
Intellectual humility as a method
Ryland Grace is willing to learn, and this serves him well throughout the movie. His intellectual humility operates as a method, guiding how he approaches problems step by step.
For instance, once he realizes, to his dismay, that astrophage is made of water, Grace acknowledges this new truth. He doesn’t like it, but he accepts it. Moving forward, he avoids making assumptions about astrophage. Instead, he tests hypotheses using simple tools that have been cobbled together from items available in a big-box store.
His partner in this experiment is Carl, played by Lionel Boyce, who is there as a sort of half-“babysitter,” half-security guard, keeping an eye on Grace but also being irresistibly pulled into his scientific orbit.
While Carl doesn’t have any scientific training, Grace listens to his ideas and enlists his help with his experiments. Amazon MGM Studios
Grace’s intellectual humility transforms Carl from a minder into a partner. Even though Carl isn’t a scientist himself, when Grace has to figure out how to make the lab’s astrophage experiment replicate the conditions causing the crisis in our solar system, it is Carl who suggests a solution.
Instead of being bothered that a nonscientist knew better than he did, Grace acknowledges the solution’s value, thanks Carl and uses Carl’s idea to reach a crucial discovery, proving himself to be open to ideas and feedback from others.
When Grace’s experiments struggle, he moves forward without defensiveness and instead displays increasing curiosity. His method of intellectual humility is to admit ignorance, test variables and revise working hypotheses based on new data, staying open to suggestions from others the whole time. To borrow a phrase from a different space story, “this is the way.”
Science fiction to real space exploration
Although “Project Hail Mary” is fictional, the attitude displayed by Ryland Grace is something I have seen in ethnographic interviews with astronauts and other space professionals, including engineers, astronomers and flight surgeons. Ethnography is a method of research, usually done in the long term, that combines interviews and participant observation.
When confronted with the reality of the universe – an enormous starry void we humans are only beginning to understand – scientists and space explorers are often stunned and humbled by the extent of their own ignorance. Although there are, without a doubt, less-than-humble people building rockets or going into space, intellectual humility is often a guiding force among many successful space researchers.
The universe is full of stars, planets and galaxies – astronauts report feeling humility when confronted with the vastness of space. NASA/STScI
In my book, “The Ultraview Effect,” I trace the way a sense of cosmic awe can provoke feelings of humility and openness, which serve as catalysts for curiosity. This pattern, which I began to notice after an astronaut told me how seeing billions of stars with his own eyes made him realize how little he actually knew, is very similar to what Grace experiences in the movie.
Being open to awe and willing to be humbled by it isn’t weakness but strength. And in his embrace of intellectual humility, Grace lives up to his name.
Deana L. Weibel has received a research award from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum for upcoming archival research. She is an advisor to Cosmic Girls and a Fellow of the Explorers Club.
PlantNet is the brainchild of a consortium composed of four French research organisations (CIRAD, Inria, INRAE and IRD) and the Agropolis Foundation. It has recorded over 80,000 plant species and registers, on average, 100,000-700,000 new users per day and is available in 54 languages.Plantnet.org, Fourni par l’auteur
Identifying weeds, checking out the pollen map, or discovering new plant life-forms are among the promising wealth of data available to users of PlantNet – a “Shazam!” for plants. Pierre Bonnet and computer scientist Alexis Joly introduced us to the digitally enhanced plant recognition application they developed.
The Conversation: What can you tell us about PlantNet users?
Pierre Bonnet and Alexis Joly: An impact study carried out a few years ago identified that 12% of users used the app for work, either for research, land management, farming or teaching purposes. The large majority of users use PlantNet out of curiosity or personal interest.
Looking at who and where PlantNet users are based reflects the way technology is used in different parts of the world. In Asia, we have quite a few young users, because they are the most connected. We can also observe that the Chinese flora, which is nevertheless very rich, is poorly represented by the users of the application, and this is explained in particular by the fact that non-state or non-Chinese platforms, which are not carried by Chinese companies or partners, are much less present on this market.
Tropical parts of the world are very biodiversity-rich, is PlantNet particularly big there?
P.B. and A.J.: Brazil is in eighth place with just over 600,000 annual users. Indonesia and India are in the top 20. Currently, the bulk of PlantNet’s activity is still in Europe and North America. Several things explain this. PlantNet has already been launched in France and in Europe, and has therefore been further promoted and attracted media attention in this region of the world. Backed by user demand, the application was also initially adapted to the French and Mediterranean flora before it was gradually extended to include other European flora, then North American, and tropical.
It should also be taken into account that in tropical areas, species richness is certainly far greater, but access capacities are often more limited. The road network is less developed; 3G connectivity can be poor, particularly in forested mountain areas.
In the field, plant biodiversity can also be more complex to photograph, take for example, the many tropical plants that are epiphytic that is to say, that grow on another plant, especially at canopy level. When we talk about trees that are several tens of metres high, it immediately becomes more complex to photograph.
All this makes tropical plants and flowers considerably less known. The application covers almost 100% of European flora, compared with coverage of a few tens of percent for tropical countries. This is something that is not unique to PlantNet, and generally applies to all institutional databases, especially since covering tropical areas costs more.
But despite this, we are working with partners in Costa Rica, Guyana, Brazil, Cameroon, Madagascar and Malaysia, in particular to extend our coverage of the number of species.
In the tropics or elsewhere, what can be noted about the plants that users are looking to identify? Are the most common plants the most in demand or not necessarily?
P.B. and A.J.: There is necessarily a correlation, because very rare plants are necessarily rarely observed. But we also note that certain plants are very common, but of little interest, because they are “discreet”. These can be crop weeds, plants found by the roadside but which do not have noticeable flowers, which are pollinated by the wind with slender, greenish flowers, such as species of fescue (Festuca spp.), or bromes (Bromus spp.). They are less observed because they are actually less attractive. We can also note that tree searches are popular, whereas certain herbaceous or epiphytic plants tend to be extremely rare.
People actually often observe plants that they like, or plants that seem useful to them. Incidentally, we get a lot of requests about fruits, berries, and plums, probably because people want to know if they are edible or not.
But the goal of tracking useful plants for humans was not the main objective of the PlantNet project from the get-go. We had to adapt it, however, to meet expectations in terms of this type of use while remaining fairly moderate regarding the volume of information we provide.
At the same time, we are working more and more with people who study animal health, either in human health and who use the PlantNet service or data for their own work. Like for instance, people who worked for ToxiPlant which identifies plants that are toxic for horses. We also regularly consult doctors on different uses of PlantNet for identifying allergenic plants, especially those that cause skin allergies. We also liaise with the French regional agency for monitoring air quality ATMO Occitanie, which uses shared data on flowering plants listed through PlantNet that it integrates into its air quality estimation models indicating pollen counts.
Are there certain plants that would benefit from being photographed more?
P.B. and A.J.: Yes. There are plants that interest us, or our partners, but for which we have very little data. These include allergenic plants for respiratory allergies, such as male junipers, which release pollen when their cones open.
These cones are very discreet. Junipers are therefore photographed, but rarely with illustrations that show the development stage of the cones. Seeing as they cause allergies, some of our partners would like to collect more data on the subject. We hope to remedy this through animation features, either directly through the platform or through social media, to generate interest in collecting data on this type of plant or on rare, endangered plants or plants that have conservation issues, such as Marsilea strigosa Willd. and Arenaria provincialis Chater & P. Halliday (native to the South-eastern France).
We also have the case of certain plants that interest us for agriculture, weeds, for example, which we have barely identified at the stage of young shoots, such as ‘Imperatacylindrica_ (L.) Raeusch. or that Galium aparine L.
Your application encourages users to take several different pictures. This can be photos of flowers, leaves, fruits, bark, or of the entire plant, for example, to help them identify plants. What types of data do you have the most of?
P.B. and A.J.: Data on flowers, especially in their blooming seasons – during spring and early summer. Flowers attract interest and trigger observation. They are also the most effective visually, and have typically been used a lot by botanists in the past.
On PlantNet, after flowers, we notice a decreasing degree of performance for fruit, leaves, and then twigs and bark, which are sometimes more difficult to take pictures of, even if users are always encouraged to combine several criteria (flower and fruit, flower and leaf…) each time to maximise their chance of correctly identifying a plant.
What happens when PlantNet can’t match a photograph with an existing species?
P.B. and A.J.: Troubleshooting “no results found” is still a tricky business for all forms of AI, and PlantNet is no exception. Some species are very poorly represented, and it is very difficult to teach the model behind the app to differentiate between something that is very rare in the learning database and something that we do not have at all. We therefore seek to quantify the uncertainty, rather than decide when the model is uncertain or not. We are working with our team on creating confidence intervals. That is why, in some cases, the application will provide several species.
One thing that makes this work difficult is that new species often resemble existing species. A new species is thought to be very picturesque, but it isn’t always the case, hence the confusion.
There is also the issue of hybrid, ornamental plants. You will always come across new plant creations. We cover them, but not as well as other plants, even though we are trying to overcome this difficulty.
We also set out to simply identify more and more plants. Today PlantNet covers 85,000 species out of an estimated 400,000, with 2,000 new species being discovered each year. These discoveries are made by taxonomists worldwide and via the World Flora Online network, which brings together several dozen universities, herbaria and botanical gardens, which PlantNet joined in 2025.
Working closely with these networks will enable us to improve cases where PlantNet performs poorly, particularly when new species emerge thanks to the research carried out by the taxonomists, who actually further knowledge by dividing what was previously thought as a single species, but which represents, in fact, several of them or, conversely, by grouping together what were thought to be different species, but which turns out in reality to be only one plant.
Let’s come back to the 10% of users who used PlantNet for work. Who are they? What line of work are they in?
P.B. and A.J.: PlantNet’s data is very useful for building species distribution models predicting where a given species is commonly found. There are certainly biases in our data, depending on where people do and don’t go, but they can help us to gain a better understanding of the factors that influence these distributions, including climate change. This provides answers to questions like, “will species change habitats or stay put?” or “what is the human impact on species distribution?” Many ecologists download the PlantNet data and couple it with other data for species distribution modelling.
PlantNet data can also help in the detection of invasive species that are often notable for their size, density, visual appearance, or novelty, such as Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E.Br or Mirabilis jalapa L. We are working on this subject with the French Biodiversity Office, which is interested in using plant monitoring cameras to detect the presence of invasive plants, in order to contain their expansion within the areas where they are found.
We have an ongoing project that focuses on improving the classification of species that are present in farming environments and recognition of plant pathogens whether they are viruses, bacteria, fungi…
Have you discovered any unusual uses of the app that have surprised you?
P.B. and A.J.: Perhaps the most surprising was a Dutch museum which used PlantNet to identify plants featured in the paintings it had on display.
Other surprises have included people using PlantNet to identify a tattoo of a plant, or a plant-inspired pattern of an oilcloth… along with other more fun uses of the app like on the Explorama or Geo Quest apps which use our automated identification service.
PlantNet supports the diversity of possible uses, not by trying to integrate them, but rather by sharing its plant-identifying services. We have more than 20,000 accounts that have incorporated PlantNet’s service into their own mobile or web application, or in their data processing workflow.
And what other uses for PlantNet could be developed?
P.B. and A.J.: We have processed just over 1.3 billion plant ID requests. Among this data, there is a lot of material for characterising environments and species… However, the data is still difficult to use due to its sheer volume. These photos most probably contain new species and data on species that do not exist elsewhere. Photos users have posted provide potentially interesting information about the associated communities (not just in the foreground, i.e.; the plant photographed, but in the background) and about plants’ surrounding environments. While it’s not what the photo primarily sets out to do, it does offer potentially very interesting data on plant associations, that for the moment, remain untapped.
Little use has been made of our data to study the impact of current, fairly fast-moving climate change. PlantNet has, in this respect, collected extensive data over the last five to ten years that could allow us to gain greater understanding on how plants react to such swift environmental changes. From one year to the next, there may be a lot of variability, but for now, it is difficult to measure this impact.
What can PlantNet users do to help with further research going forward?
P.B. and A.J.: Creating a user profile significantly increases the benefits for research. By creating an account, people agree to terms of use and facilitate re-exploitation for research. The more qualitative the data is, the more relevant it is to research activities. Geolocation is, for example, very valuable to us. It is also beneficial for users with a potentially higher level of determination.
Interview by Gabrielle Maréchaux, Environment Journalist at The Conversation France.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
Pierre Bonnet a reçu des financementsde la commission européenne (projets HORIZON GUARDEN – 101060693 et MAMBO – 101060639) ainsi que de l’agence nationale de la recherche (PEPR AgroEcoNum – 22-PEAE-0009).
Alexis Joly a reçu des financements de la commission européenne (projets HORIZON GUARDEN et MAMBO) ainsi que de l’agence nationale de la recherche (PEPR AgroEcoNum).
Before catalytic converters, starting a gas-powered vehicle could choke the surrounding area with smog.Bettmann via Getty Images
Cars on the road today are 99% cleaner than they were in 1970. Air quality in the United States is much, much better as a result. In Los Angeles, where I live, lead levels in the air were 50 times higher in the 1970s than today, and the amount of lead in kids’ blood has plummeted.
What made that drop possible is arguably the most important environmental technology ever invented: the catalytic converter.
California has long had the authority under the federal Clean Air Act to set emissions standards for cars and trucks that are higher than the nation’s, and its early use of that authority is a major reason why catalytic converters are now standard in vehicles and people are healthier across the country.
At a time when the Trump administration is attacking California’s ability to cut air and climate pollution and revoking its Clean Air Act waivers, it’s helpful to remember just how important the state’s leadership has been in making the air Americans breathe so much healthier.
But without California’s willingness in the early 1970s to push automakers to meet tough standards, the technology would have developed more slowly and the air would have remained dirtier for many more years.
Widespread car ownership altered American life, changing where people lived, worked and vacationed. But cars also brought terrible smog as their use skyrocketed. When Houdry realized his life’s work was choking the air of Los Angeles, he decided to do something about it. By the late 1950s, Houdry had invented a rudimentary catalytic converter.
What is a catalytic converter? The Engineers Post
You might think that this invention, which Houdry said could make “the lung cancer curve dip,” would lead carmakers to install the technology on their new vehicles.
But that is not what happened. Instead, auto manufacturers engaged in what the government described as a yearslong conspiracy to keep emissions-limiting technology off the market, ultimately leading to an antitrust legal settlement.
It wasn’t until the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act that carmakers got serious about improving upon Houdry’s invention for mass market installation.
The Clean Air Act’s ambition
The 1970 Clean Air Act is a remarkable piece of legislation. Passed with only one negative vote and signed into law by President Richard Nixon, the act set wildly ambitious goals. They included a requirement that carmakers cut auto pollutants by 90% by 1975.
Congress passed this requirement knowing that the technology to cut emissions wasn’t ready for prime time. Houdry’s catalytic invention couldn’t work with leaded gasoline, and it hadn’t been tested in tough conditions, such as freezing cold or sweltering heat.
The Ford Motor Co., with Lee Iacocca as its president, told Congress in 1970, “If such (pollution cuts) are established … the technology as we know it today would not permit us to continue to produce cars after January 1, 1975.”
Ford Motor Co. President Lee Iacocca leans against a Ford Mustang in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., in 1974. John Olson/Getty Images
Automakers responded with two separate tactics. The first was to gear up – alongside companies like Corning Glass and the Engelhard Company – to develop technology to meet the 90% cuts. Most of their efforts focused on improving the catalytic converter, made more plausible when Engelhard determined that catalytic converters wouldn’t corrode with unleaded gasoline. The EPA’s Ruckelshaus ordered gas stations to make unleaded gasoline available as of Jan. 1, 1975.
While the auto companies worked to meet the congressional mandate, they also pressured Congress and the courts to weaken or delay it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit obliged, ordering Ruckelshaus to extend the deadline for compliance by a year. Congress eventually extended the deadline to 1981.
But California did not let up.
A gamble that paid off
California has the authority under federal law to issue its own automobile pollution standards, as long as the standards are stronger than federal standards and the state receives a waiver from the EPA. No other state has similar power, but states can adopt California’s higher standards.
After the federal appeals court gave carmakers an extra year to comply with the federal rules, California decided it would not let car companies off the hook.
The state asked Ruckelshaus to grant a waiver for California to issue standards tough enough that carmakers would have to install catalytic technology to meet them.
After several of its motorcycle messengers became ill from driving in smog in 1955, a Los Angeles printing company bought gas masks for them. Bettmann via Getty Images
Ruckelshaus faced enormous pressure to deny the waiver, with automakers arguing that the technology was neither effective nor available. But in a hint of the resolve he would later show in refusing Nixon’s order to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, Ruckelshaus gave California the go-ahead in 1973, and the state’s rules went into effect for the 1975 model year.
He reasoned that doing so would maintain “continued momentum toward installation of (catalyst) systems … while minimizing risks incident to national introduction of a new technology.” In other words, California could serve as a guinea pig for the rest of the country by adopting tough standards.
Ann Carlson and PBS’s “American Experience” explore Los Angeles’ war on smog.
The gamble paid off. Since California was the nation’s largest auto market, companies had strong economic incentives to change their models to meet the state’s standards. Catalytic technology is now not only standard on American vehicles but also on vehicles around the world, and air quality in the U.S. is vastly improved.
Catalytic converters have removed 8 billion tons of pollution from the air in the U.S. They have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and led to the removal of a deadly neurotoxin, lead, from the atmosphere.
But the state’s ability to set higher standards is under attack. Congress – at the behest of the Trump administration – has overturned three waivers the state was granted to cut even more pollutants and the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The Trump administration has also sued California to invalidate its mandates for automakers to sell zero-emissions vehicles.
Today, California officials are searching for alternative ways to continue to make cars and trucks cleaner. The state has set aside money to replace federal tax incentives for electric vehicles, and the Legislature is exploring creative ways to hold indirect sources of emissions, such as rail yards, ports and warehouses where vehicles are constantly running, accountable for air pollution.
But these alternatives aren’t as powerful as the authority to exceed federal standards to make the air cleaner.
Ann E. Carlson’s research was supported by UCLA. President Biden appointed her to serve as Chief Counsel and Acting Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 2021-2024.
Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump’s nominee to helm the Fed, is expected to change the way the central bank operates. AP Photo/Alastair Grant
Since President Donald Trump named Kevin Warsh as his choice for Federal Reserve chair on Jan. 30, 2026, financial markets have focused on one question: Is he still the inflation hawk he once was, or is he now more comfortable with the lower interest rates that the president has long demanded?
We have a different take. Drawing on decades of research on central banking and an extended interview with Warsh conducted by one of us (Bowmaker) in 2023 for a forthcoming book on the Fed, we think the real change would be not in interest rates but in how the Fed communicates.
‘About right’
It’s no small matter. In modern central banking, policymakers’ pronouncements often shape the economy as much as their actual decisions.
The 2023 interview supports that view. Two themes ran through Warsh’s answers. The first was expected – a commitment to price stability. The second was more revealing: a desire to rethink how the Federal Reserve conducts its internal policy discussions and communicates them to the public.
In the interview, Warsh illustrated this with a story from 2006, when he was nominated to the Fed’s Board of Governors and sought advice from former chair Paul Volcker. Volcker told him the first task was to get interest rates “about right” – a phrase that, as Warsh noted, reflects the reality that policymakers never know the precise optimal level.
But Volcker added a second lesson he considered even more important: Make sure you look like you know what you are doing.
As Warsh interpreted it, modern central banking is not only about setting policy but also about presenting outcomes as the result of fulsome deliberation.
Warsh said he favors what he calls a “family fight” model of policymaking: open disagreement behind closed doors followed by unity in public. Recalling the 2007-09 financial crisis when the Fed was led by Ben Bernanke, he described arguments running their course in the chair’s office before members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee, known as the Federal Open Market Committee, reached their final decision and spoke collectively.
According to Warsh, large institutions – especially in times of crisis – need to project a single voice.
Although Alan Greenspan was the first chair to publicly announce the Fed’s decisions, the central bank remained inscrutable under his tenure, with analysts sizing up his briefcase to guess interest rate decisions. Mark Wilson/Newsmakers via Getty Images
Shifting toward openness
In a 2014 review for the Bank of England, Warsh recommended that their policy meetings begin with an unrecorded discussion – essentially the same “family fight.”
His concern was that transcripts, even when released years later, can shape how officials speak. If policymakers know their words will eventually be scrutinized, they tend to hedge and qualify their views rather than speaking plainly. In that sense, the effort to avoid appearing wrong can weaken decision-making.
That position puts him at odds with the Federal Reserve’s path over the past three decades – all in the name of reducing uncertainty, stabilizing expectations and improving policy effectiveness.
Beginning in 1994, under Alan Greenspan, the Fed started publicly announcing its interest rate decisions, a major break from earlier practice when markets had to infer policy changes.
His successors, Janet Yellen and Jerome Powell, largely kept the framework in place, with current chair Powell holding a press conference after every meeting and trying to replace “Fed speak” with clearer language. The result is a central bank far more open than at any point in its history, explaining not only its decisions but also how it interprets the economy.
Fed credibility
Warsh is skeptical about this approach. He worries that publishing policymakers’ projections engenders “a troubling convergence of views,” as he said in the 2023 interview, stifling genuine disagreement inside the committee.
In his view, short-term forecasting offers limited benefit while subtly shaping how officials think about policy.
Warsh’s concern extends to communication more broadly. In his view, expansive messaging can make it harder to adjust policy as conditions change. As he said in the interview, extensive communication constrains a central banker’s “ability to change his mind,” yet “a central bank that can’t change its mind isn’t credible.”
For Warsh, credibility comes from adaptability rather than consistency – a stance that could call into question practices such as the dot plot.
Predictable vs flexible
Why does this all matter?
Modern financial markets respond as much to signals as they do to actions. Investors do not wait for interest rates to change; they adjust their behavior based on expectations of the central bank’s moves. Forward guidance and projections reduce uncertainty by helping markets anticipate policy.
A shift toward less explicit signaling would not necessarily make policy tighter or looser, but we believe it would make it less predictable – even though speaking with a single voice might partially offset this. Market reactions could become more sensitive to incoming data due to fewer clues about the Fed’s intentions.
The implications extend beyond Wall Street. Mortgage rates, business investment and hiring decisions all depend on expectations about future borrowing costs. Clear communication stabilizes those expectations, while greater discretion gives policymakers flexibility to respond to surprises.
Warsh’s approach, based on the 2023 interview, suggests he wants to trade some of that predictability for flexibility. In our assessment, the public may hear less about where policy is heading but see faster changes when economic conditions shift.
We cannot predict whether Warsh will push for lower interest rates or follow Volcker’s advice to get policy “about right.” But his own words suggest he will try to reshape how the Federal Reserve debates, signals and justifies its decisions – and in modern central banking, changing communication can change policy itself.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
But this isn’t simple entertainment: In theory, these wagers serve as a means of collecting the public’s insights into the future.
That’s why you may have seen CNN’s pundits casually mention Kalshi’s election odds for the 2026 primaries, or watched CBS offer real-time Polymarket projections of which actors would win awards during the Golden Globes.
Existing research on the principles and history of prediction markets suggests they can be a valuable way of pooling collective knowledge about the future.
But as researchers like me, journalistsand legislators race to understand the impact these markets are having on society and politics, several questions have emerged about the regulation of these platforms and their forecasting abilities.
The what and why of prediction markets
In practice, prediction markets are quite simple.
Each market offers what are known as “event contracts” on whether some future outcome will occur. Each contract costs between 1 and 99 cents, paying out US$1 if the event occurs or nothing if it does not.
Similar to sports betting, purchasing a contract represents a wager. There are higher returns for positions on outcomes deemed less likely. Like in the stock market, a trader can buy and sell contracts over time, as odds – and thus prices – fluctuate.
At the time of writing, Kalshi traders put the odds of the passage of the SAVE Act, legislation centered on requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, at about 10%. So each contract for this outcome costs 10 cents. If I think the act is more likely to pass than that, I could purchase some “shares” and sell them at a higher price if the odds go up in the future. If I hold them and the bill ultimately becomes law, I would receive a return that’s 10 times what I originally paid.
Prediction markets let users trade on whether specific events will occur, ranging from election outcomes to geopolitical developments. Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Two theories support the idea that prediction markets should excel at forecasting: the wisdom of crowds and the efficient market hypothesis.
First described over a century ago, the wisdom of crowds refers to the idea that the median judgment of a large, diverse group of people operating independently is often more accurate than that of a single expert.
A related argument appears in the efficient market hypothesis, which emerged in the mid-20th century among economists who championed free markets. It holds that prices encode all available information, reflecting the collective judgments of profit-seeking sellers and deal-seeking buyers.
At their best, then, prediction markets aggregate collective intelligence to weigh the likelihood of future events.
Polling’s credibility crisis creates an opening
Gambling on the outcomes of the day’s events has a long history. In 16th-century Italy, gamblers could wager on the election of civic magistrates and the outcome of papal conclaves. And from the 1880s to 1930s, New York City was the hub of political wagering, which sometimes exceeded the stock market in daily volume.
Reporting on bets ahead of the 1924 presidential election, The New York Times observed, “It is an old axiom in the financial district that Wall Street betting odds are ‘never wrong.’”
Around the same time, Elon Musk posted on X about Donald Trump leading Kamala Harris in prediction market odds. Trump followed suit. Kalshi put up billboards with live election odds in Times Square. Users and dollars flowed in. By election day, a volume of over $500 million in presidential election bets had been traded on Kalshi alone. Polymarket featured over $3.6 billion more in volume.
Political polling, meanwhile, was facing a crisis of confidence. Response rates had been declining for decades, and Trump voters had been undercounted in 2016 and 2020.
The polls forecast the presidential election as a coin toss. The prediction market, meanwhile, favored Trump at roughly 60% odds to win.
After Trump won at the ballot box, prediction markets declared victory over polling as the new, trustworthy forecasters of public opinion.
With polling experiencing a crisis of confidence, prediction markets have become an increasingly attractive way for journalists to offer a data-backed snapshot of public beliefs.
Prediction markets have other advantages over polls for journalists. They respond to events in real time, and they’re free to access. Polls, meanwhile, take time and money to administer. They provide forecasts for political outcomes that go beyond elections – such as Cabinet nominations and Supreme Court decisions – which are usually outside the purview of polling.
In recent months, Kalshi and Polymarket have inked severalpartnershipdeals with news outlets. There’s a symbiotic relationship at play: Prediction markets provide journalists with data to report and discuss. Journalists, in turn, legitimize prediction markets by citing them as a trusted source.
Contracts on the next French presidential election are trading on Polymarket, alongside markets on whether a U.S.-Iran ceasefire will take place by certain dates. Théo Marie-Courtois/AFP via Getty Images
Prediction markets have historically performed well on elections. Whether they’re more accurate than polls on other kinds of questions is still up for debate.
If traders behave purely rationally, in the economic sense, they might flit between positions to maximize profit based on new information, personal biases aside.
But when wagering on elections, most traders have seemed to consistently buy and sell only one position, rather than switching between them. They may think they’re trading rationally while exhibiting a “wishful thinking” bias. Or, like many sports bettors, they may be wagering out of fandom or for entertainment.
All of these scenarios could undercut the accuracy of these markets.
The elephant in the room
Many journalists are embracing the data even as their news outlets run stories about concerns over insider trading in predictive markets. Because the outcome of events is often determined by human actors, those privy to certain plans – say, a looming ceasefire deal – would have access to information not available to the public and could profit handsomely off that information.
Two anonymous accounts made hundreds of thousands of dollars predicting the downfall of Nicolás Maduro and betting on the toppling of Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, with traders putting their money down just before the U.S. took military action. This timing has raised some eyebrows.
The legal mechanisms for enforcing these rules, however, are less clear. SEC Rule 10b5-1 prohibits trading securities on the basis of material nonpublic information.
But event contracts are not governed by the SEC. They’re under the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a much smaller agency. As things stand, the small agency has too few employees to regulate the legality of specific event contracts, which are governed by the Commodity Exchange Act. Kalshi and certain other prediction market platforms are instead given the latitude to self-certify the legality of each contract.
Any efforts to meaningfully regulate insider trading would, in my view, require clear rules and viable enforcement mechanisms.
From participation to profit
As I conduct my research, I often consider what the booming popularity of prediction markets says about American culture and politics in 2026.
In 1969, sociologist Erving Goffman theorized that Americans’ attraction to gambling stemmed from a need for “action” in an increasingly bureaucratized society. Similarly, studies have suggested that betting on sports makes fans feel like they’re participating, not just observing.
Who knows what will happen in the coming year. The filibuster might be weakened, or the U.S. could invade Cuba. Most Americans will have little say. But prediction markets at least offer the chance to make a buck off the action.
Parker Bach 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.
Mindfulness meditation is a process of noticing difficult thoughts and feelings rather than shutting them out.Marco VDM/E+ via Getty Images
Imagine being asked to sit alone in a quiet room for 15 minutes with nothing to do – no phone, no music, no external distraction. In a well-known 2014 study, many participants found that task so challenging that they chose to press a button to give themselves an unpleasant electric shock instead of continuing to sit with their thoughts and sensations.
Because being with their own thoughts, emotions and bodily sensations can be so difficult, people often turn away from them. Smartphones offer constant distraction from boredom or stress, allowing users to disengage from their present-moment sensations and thoughts with a quick swipe or tap.
But avoiding unpleasant internal experience can backfire. Studies show that doing so is associated with a range of mental health problems, including anxiety and depression.
Mindfulness is a mental state that people can learn to cultivate through training. When people are mindful, they direct their attention toward their moment-to-moment bodily sensations, emotions and thoughts, and they meet those experiences with an attitude of curiosity and open acceptance.
Mindfulness can be cultivated through “mindful moments” in daily life, moments in which people intentionally stay present with what they do, hear, see or feel. However, formal mindfulness meditation involves sustained practice that systematically trains attention and acceptance. Our research shows that training acceptance during mindfulness meditation can substantially improve your emotional well-being.
Research shows that practicing mindfulness meditation can ease the symptoms of health conditions such as pain, insomnia, anxiety and depression.
This doesn’t mean they were doing it wrong. Turning your attention inward can feel challenging. Often, it brings you into contact with experiences that you normally try to push away, such as feeling bored, uncomfortable or agitated. However, we’ve also found that facing difficult experiences during mindfulness training can have positive effects.
In these studies, we have found that acceptance is the critical driver. When acceptance is removed from mindfulness training, these benefits largely disappear.
The power of learning to accept experience
A key part of mindfulness practice involves turning toward difficult experiences, such as like stress, boredom and pain, rather than seeking distractions or pushing those experiences away. It means noticing feelings and thoughts as they arise, sensing how they show up in the body, and approaching them with an attitude of acceptance rather than judgment or resistance.
A helpful way to think about this comes from the “two arrows” metaphor, which is rooted in East Asian Buddhist traditions. It teaches that there are two types of suffering, which can be likened to being struck by two arrows.
The first arrow is the unavoidable unpleasant experience that comes with being human – for example, feeling exhausted after a poor night’s sleep. The second arrow is how we react to that unpleasantness: tensing up, resisting it, replaying it in our mind, criticizing ourselves or trying to escape it. Often this second arrow adds more suffering than the original unpleasant experience.
In mindfulness practice, the goal is not to stop having unpleasant sensations and feelings. Instead, mindfulness helps people accept the unavoidable difficulties of that first arrow and to soften the second arrow by letting go of struggle with those experiences and reactions that make them worse.
For example, let yourself feel bored without immediately reaching for distraction. Acknowledge anxiety, sadness or grief with openness, instead of trying to suppress those feelings or fueling them with harsh self-criticism.
Practicing mindfulness in everyday life
One way to cultivate this attitude is to treat thoughts, emotions and sensations as guests in your inner landscape. Instead of fighting them or clinging to them, notice when they arise. Acknowledge and welcome them, and when they naturally change, let them go. Some people find it helpful to imagine holding a difficult feeling as they would a crying baby, with a touch that’s steady, supportive and kind.
If you want to try this in daily life, the next time you feel a challenging experience, pause and open to the experience for a moment. Notice what you are feeling. Where does it show up in your body – a tightness in the chest or heaviness in the stomach? Can you allow it to be there, even briefly, without trying to fix it or distract yourself from it?
Then observe what happens. Does the challenging experience change over time in any way? Do your reactions shift or soften with repeated practice? Remember that a brief practice is unlikely to produce instant relief, and expecting quick results can actually make it harder to stay open to your experience as it is.
Rather, our findings suggest that meaningful change comes through consistent, ongoing practice. Every small step matters. Over time, brief moments of responding to stress or discomfort with mindfulness can reshape how you relate to challenges and provide greater resilience and ease.
In the study where people chose electric shocks over sitting alone with their thoughts, being with their inner experience felt almost intolerable. Mindfulness offers a different path: not escaping that experience but learning to stay with it. In doing so, what once felt unbearable can become something you can meet with greater emotional balance and well-being.
Yuval Hadash received funding for his mindfulness meditation research from Yad Hanadiv Foundation and Mind & Life Institute.
J. David Creswell receives funding for his mindfulness meditation research from the National Institutes of Health. He is also the Chief of Science at Equa Health, Inc.
