Sometimes, things just don’t mix on their own, and that’s where emulsifiers lend a helping hand – particularly when it comes to food. However, recent chatter about ultra-processed foods and the additives involved has caused some to question whether emulsifiers might actually be harmful to our health. So what does science say?What are emulsifiers?Emulsifiers are substances that help to bring together other substances that wouldn’t normally mix, stopping them from separating. The classic example of such a pair is oil and water – a pain in the butt if you’re trying to use both in a recipe.The structure of emulsifiers is what makes them so useful: they have a water-loving (or hydrophilic) end that sticks into the water, whilst the other end is water-hating (or hydrophobic), and instead sticks into the oil. This creates tiny droplets of one substance suspended within the other in what’s known as an emulsion.Emulsifiers bring together substances that wouldn't normally mix, thanks to their amphiphilic nature.Image credit: The European Food Information Council (EUFIC)Those used in food can be found naturally, and you may well have used them within your own kitchen. In making mayonnaise, for example, egg yolks are used because they contain emulsifying agents. The same goes for whacking a bit of mustard in a tasty homemade vinaigrette – oil and vinegar aren’t friends otherwise.Why does the food industry use emulsifiers?But emulsifiers aren’t just handy for whipping up homemade goods. They’re used throughout the food industry and can be sourced from the same natural products we might use at home, or similar synthetic versions. Common ones include mono and diglycerides of fatty acids, lecithin (that’s the one found in eggs), carrageenan, and esters.They serve multiple purposes, ranging from improving taste and shelf-life to altering consistency, structure, and texture. In ice cream production, for example, emulsifiers are used to get that nice smooth feel with no ice crystals, whilst in bread, they can help to make a loaf extra plump and soft.Are emulsifiers safe?Though there are many organizations and legislative bodies responsible for providing advice on and regulating the safety of emulsifiers added to food – such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK – that hasn’t stopped concerns over whether or not they can cause harm to our health, often following the publication of new research on the topic.A number of studies, for example, have explored the suggestion that some emulsifiers could contribute to inflammation in the gut. A 2017 review of such studies concluded that the emulsifying agents carrageenan and carboxymethylcellulose might promote intestinal inflammation and diseases associated with chronic inflammation, such as colitis – though it also stated they were unlikely to be the main cause. A more recent study that also explored the impact of emulsifiers polysorbate-80, soy lecithin, and gum arabic on mice found that all were associated with markers of gut inflammation.Some scientists have taken issue with drawing any hard and fast conclusions about emulsifiers and health from this initial body of research though, primarily because the vast majority of it was conducted in animals – after all, mice aren’t humans (sorry, Stuart Little), so the effects seen in these studies might not necessarily translate to us.Study methods also don’t always match up with how we’d go about consuming emulsifiers on a regular day-to-day basis. “[E]xperimental doses of emulsifiers given to animals in these studies are often much higher than average human consumption,” Dr Alicia Sandall, a registered dietitian and post-doctoral researcher at King’s College London, told the BBC.That being said, some studies have involved humans – but have they made any difference to scientists’ conclusions about the safety of emulsifiers?The human studiesA large cohort study – a type of study that follows a group of people over a period of time – known as the NutriNet-Santé study has spawned two research papers that have piqued interest in this area. In both cases, they show that there’s still a long way to go to produce a reliable body of evidence.The first paper, published in September 2023, followed over 95,000 French adults and their intake of emulsifiers to find out if it increased their risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study concluded that intake of four specific emulsifiers belonging to two groups, including mono and diglycerides of fatty acids, was positively associated with a risk of CVD.A number of scientists, however, have argued that the results should be interpreted with caution.“It is not possible to attribute the findings to emulsifiers,” said Professor Gunter Kuhnle, Professor of Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Reading, who was not directly involved in the work. “The study relies on self-reported dietary data and estimates emulsifier intake from this information.”  “Considering that emulsifiers are found in a wide range of foods, it is impossible to attribute observed effects to these compounds and not specific dietary patterns. Many foods with unfavorable nutrient profile contain emulsifiers and this might also explain some of the results.” It’s a similar situation for the second, more recent paper, which used data from over 100,000 of the study participants to conclude that seven individual emulsifiers, including carrageenan and gum arabic, could increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.Participants’ food intake was self-reported – which often makes this kind of data unreliable – and the amount of emulsifier consumed was an estimate. The researchers themselves acknowledge that the study is limited: “A single observational epidemiological study is not sufficient per se to establish causality,” they write.It’s a theme found throughout the limitations sections and criticisms of such human studies on emulsifiers and health – there still simply isn’t enough evidence to make reliable conclusions one way or the other.“I can understand that lots of people are concerned about what to eat,” professor of dietetics Kevin Whelan, who was involved in the 2020 mouse study, told the Guardian. “But my view is it’s too early to be saying we should not be adding emulsifiers to our foods. I also think it’s too early to be saying that everybody should stop eating any emulsifiers in foods.”All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text, images, and links may be edited, removed, or added to at a later date to keep information current.The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions.

This week, the best preserved Neanderthal skeleton in over 25 years was discovered in a “funeral cave”, alpaca sex is so strange it’s never been seen in any other mammal, and we now know why a giant hole appeared in Antarctic sea ice eight years ago. Finally, we explore what Earth would be like if it had rings.Subscribe to the IFLScience newsletter for all the biggest science news delivered straight to your inbox every Wednesday and Saturday. Orangutan Seen Treating A Wound With A Medicinal Plant In World-First ObservationA wild Sumatran orangutan has been seen chewing the leaves of the Akar Kuning plant and applying the juice to a wound on his cheek, the first time this has been reported. The process went on for seven minutes, until the wound was entirely covered, making clear it was deliberate, and the orangutan continued to chew on the plant’s leaves for another half an hour. The wound healed fully without infection. Read the full story hereT. Rex Was A “Smart Giant Crocodile”, Not A Massive Brainy BaboonThat Tyrannosaurus rex might have been as intelligent as a baboon was posited by a 2023 study that used bony braincases to infer dinosaur smarts. It was an incredible and intimidating concept for a predator, but one that’s now been rebutted by a paper that claims in truth, T. rex was more comparable to a “smart giant crocodile”. Read the full story hereBest-Preserved Neanderthal Skeleton In Over 25 Years Found In “Flower Funeral” CaveThe most complete and well-preserved Neanderthal skeleton discovered since the turn of the millennium has been used to reconstruct the face of its owner – a female member of the extinct human lineage who lived around 75,000 years ago. Found within the iconic yet controversial Shanidar Cave – where Neanderthals repeatedly buried their dead, possibly on beds of flowers – the skeleton features in a new Netflix documentary entitled Secrets of the Neanderthals. Read the full story hereAlpaca Sex Is So Weird, It's Never Been Seen In Another MammalAlpacas have weird sex lives: they are the only mammal we know of in which the penis enters the uterus to directly deposit sperm. It’s a reproductive strategy that’s never been confirmed in any other mammal before, and new research suggests it may help the kinky camelids’ chances of pregnancy. Read the full story hereEight Years Ago A Huge Opening Appeared In Antarctic Sea Ice – Now We Know WhyIn 2016, the sea ice in Antarctica’s Weddell Sea developed an enormous hole twice the size of Wales – the country, not a pod of giant mammals. The following year it returned, but the reasons remained unknown. Now scientists think they can explain what caused them, and recruited some pretty cute research assistants to help find out. Read the full story hereTWIS is published weekly on our Linkedin page, join us there for even more content.Feature of the week: What Would The Earth Be Like With Rings?A ringed planet is a thing of beauty. Saturn is iconic – and let’s be honest, it’s 90 percent due to the rings because the planet itself does not have many other distinctive features. Earth’s beauty is very different, but it's fun to wonder if it could be enhanced by the presence of rings. The question of aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, but we can answer the scientific ones: How would Earth get rings, and what would happen to the planet? Read the full story here More content:CURIOUS Live, our free virtual event, is back for May 2024. Register now and join us as we explore nuclear war, the connection between mental and physical health, insect detectives, and the search for life elsewhere in the universe. Grab your free ticket now!Have you seen our e-magazine, CURIOUS? Issue 22 May 2024 is out now. Check it out for exclusive interviews, book excerpts, long reads, and more.PLUS, the entire season 3 of IFLScience's The Big Questions Podcast is available now.

On May 3, China launched Chang’e 6, its latest mission to the Moon. Similar to its predecessor, it is a sample retrieval mission, expected to collect up to 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) of lunar material from the far side of the Moon, the portion that is always facing away from Earth. The whole mission is expected to last 53 days.China has already broken records on the far side by becoming the first and only nation to soft-land there with Chang’e 4 in 2019. That mission landed in the Von Kármán crater, which is 180 kilometers (110 miles) across and sits within the South Pole-Aitken Basin. Chang’e 6 is targeting another area of the basin: the Apollo crater, which is three times as wide as the Von Kármán.The interest in this area lies in the distant past of the Moon. Underneath this region, there is a massive structure, potentially part of the colossal object that slammed into the Moon and created the basin 4 billion years ago. The jackpot would be to find portions of the lunar mantle and bring them back to Earth.In an attempt to achieve this, Chang’e 6 is equipped with a scoop to collect soil and rocks from the surface, as well as a drill to collect subsurface samples. An ascent vehicle will launch the samples into orbit, where it will rendezvous with an orbiter and come back to Earth. That is not the only focus of the mission, however. The lander and orbiter include scientific payloads from other countries too, which aim to understand dust and outgassing on the Moon, studying lunar magnetism, among other goals.Chang’e 6 is the third generation of lunar missions from China. It will be followed by Chang’e 7 in 2026 and Chang’e 8 in 2028, which will land at the lunar South Pole – an area earmarked for future human exploration – and they will demonstrate the ability to construct a robotic research station on the Moon. This will be an important step ahead of the expected Chinese crewed landing on the Moon in the 2030s.In the US, China’s plans are being seen with increased anxiety. On April 17, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies held a hearing about the NASA Budget for 2025. Both the chair, representative Harold Rogers (R-KY), and NASA Administrator Bill Nelson made reference to a new space race.“The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in 1958 in response to the so-called Space Race with the Soviet Union to land the first man on the Moon. Today we find ourselves in yet another space race, this time with China,” Rogers stated during the hearing.“We are in a race,” Nelson replied to a question from Rogers on Chinese plans. “The latest date they've said they're going to land [on the moon] is 2030 but that keeps moving up.”Nelson also said that he believes that the Chinese civilian space program is actually a military program. The comments have been seen as venting a frustration about the comparatively limited budget NASA operates. Others have considered Nelson’s comments as coming across as hypocritical given NASA’s many links to the military-industrial complex and the Department of Defense.China appears to be willing to invest what is needed in space. In the US, NASA’s budget requested for 2025 is the same as it was in 2023 and 2024. Totaling $25,383,700,000 or 0.34 percent of the federal budget, the request has disappointed many, as it showed the shutting down of the operation of the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

An international team of archaeologists have unearthed the long-lost upper half of a statue of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II. The discovery comes nearly 100 years since the statue’s lower half was first identified.In 1930, Günther Roeder, a German archaeologist, unearthed the lower part of a statue that depicted Ramesses II, otherwise known as Ramesses the Great. Ramesses ruled the Nile Valley and the wider Egyptian Empire from 1279 to 1213 BCE, which made him one of the longest ruling pharaohs in history.The newly discovered statue portion was found by a joint team of Egyptian and American archaeologists from the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and the University of Colorado Boulder. It was recovered while the team were researching the ruins of the ancient city of Hermopolis (present day el-Ashmunin), which is about 150 miles south of Cairo.   The top of the statue is about 3.8 meters long (12.5 feet) and depicts Ramesses in a seated position, wearing a double crown and headdress that shows the royal cobra. When erect (stop it), the complete statue would have stood about 7 meters (23 feet) tall, so the researchers believe.The statue itself is made of limestone and it has hieroglyphic writings on its back that exalt the Pharaoh.The excavation at Hermopolis was initially launched to find the religious center that once stood there during the New Kingdom era (otherwise known as the Egyptian Empire), which extended from the 16th century BCE to the 11th century BCE, and lasted until the Roman era (30 BCE to 641 CE).Along with the recovered statue piece, the researchers also found traces of ancient blue and yellow pigments that they can analyze to gain more insights into the statue and when it was created.“It will be quite exciting to have a scientific analysis of the pigment,” Yvona Trnka-Amrhein, assistant professor of classics at the University of Colorado Boulder, expressed in a statement.  It is possible that the soil samples that were mixed in with the pigment can offer even more information about the history of the area.Ramesses II is one of the few Egyptian pharaohs known to non-experts in the Western world. He was a source of inspiration for Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Ozymandias sonnet, was played by Yul Brynner in the film The Ten Commandments, and was voiced by Ralph Fiennes in the animation The Prince of Egypt.Now that the top half of the statue has been recovered, Trnka-Amrhein's colleague Basem Gehad, with the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, has submitted a proposal to reunite them. However, it is currently unclear where the completed statue will be placed if the proposal is approved. It will likely remain at the site or be placed in a museum.

When the age of dinosaurs came crashing to a close with the arrival of Chicxulub, the vacant niches left in their wake were free real estate for mammals who wriggled their way to the top. In that time, we’ve seen incredible species evolve, like the largest mammal ever  - Paraceratherium – but who claims the title of the smallest mammal in the world?Whether you're interested in the smallest ever, or the smallest alive today, it all looks a bit shrew-like.The smallest mammal ever to existAn early Eocene insectivore claims the title of smallest mammal the Earth’s ever seen. At least, until scientists discover another one. Batodonoides vanhouteni was a shrew-like mammal that lived around 53 million years ago, known from teeth that indicated a body size smaller than any other mammal known to science.It was first identified in the Wasatchian Formation in Wyoming and the Uintan Formation in California back in 1998. Its reach is hard to estimate because the teeth are so small (less than 1 millimeter) that they’ve likely gone undetected in some methods used to sample substrate.The scientists behind the discovery estimated it probably weighed 1.3 grams (0.05 ounces), concluding that, “B. vanhouteni is the smallest terrestrial mammal yet known, and quite possibly the most diminutive of all mammals – smaller even than the chiropteran C. thonglongyai [...] This leaves us with a question, what is the lower limit of mammalian size?”The Etruscan shrew is bigger than Batodonoides vanhouteni is estimated to have been.Image credit: davidmometto via iNaturalist, CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED, croppedThe smallest mammal in the world todayThe Etruscan shrew, Suncus etruscus, is the smallest mammal in the world today. Adults weigh 1.8 to 3 grams (0.06 to 0.1 ounces), and their body length is 35 to 48 millimeters (1.4 to 1.9 inches), which makes them about 20 times lighter than your average mouse.Being so mini means that even a grasshopper represents a sizable meal, which is good, because Etruscan shrews have to eat eight times their body weight in food daily. To tackle such a massive appetite, they’ve evolved super senses that landed them a spot in National Geographic’s series Super/Natural. Those senses include the ability to strike 12 times faster than the blink of an eye, and being able to sense the environment thanks to a mess of super-sensitive whiskers that make up for their comparatively lousy vision and hearing. Best of all, when they have babies, the mothers get them safely from A to B by forming a kind of conga line, each shrew clamping onto the base of the tail of the shrew in front.If all this talk of tiny mammals has you feeling a little cumbersome, get a load of the prehistoric slab that was Paraceratherium.

Viagra – or if we’re going to be fancy scientific about it, sildenafil – is perhaps one of the best-known drugs in the world. Plenty will know what it treats, but what about how it works?From angina to erectile dysfunctionThe first clues appeared when Viagra was initially in clinical trials as a treatment for angina, a condition where chest pain is caused by blood flow to the heart being restricted. It was hoped that Viagra could help to relax the smooth muscle in artery walls, widening up the vessels and increasing the blood supply.Unfortunately, it didn’t seem to have much of an impact when it came to angina. There was another unexpected side effect though – several male participants reported that whilst taking the drug, they experienced more erections. By 1998, Viagra had been approved by the FDA as a treatment for erectile dysfunction. But how did it lead to these surprise boners?The science of getting hardAn important first step is for the person taking Viagra to actually be aroused. That’s because it works to interrupt a process that only occurs specifically within the penis when the person attached to it is turned on.When someone with a penis is aroused, it triggers a nerve signaling cascade that leads to the release of nitric oxide from nerves in the corpora cavernosa, the spongy erectile tissue in the penis. Here, the nitric oxide activates an enzyme that catalyzes the production of a molecule called cGMP.This in turn leads to the relaxation of the smooth muscle forming the walls of arteries within the corpora cavernosa. When these arteries relax and dilate, blood flows into the penis, causing it to inflate and abracadabra – you’ve got an erection. It doesn’t last forever though, as another penis-specific enzyme called PDE5 arrives to break cGMP down, reducing the relaxation of the smooth muscle, restricting blood flow, and bringing the erection to a deflating close. It’s this part of the process that Viagra targets."The physiology of erection is like driving a car," explained Dr Arthur Burnett, a urology professor who’s studied the science of erectile dysfunction extensively, in a statement. "You can't just turn the key and expect to go anywhere. You also need to hit and hold the accelerator."Viagra helps to keep the foot on the gas because it’s a PDE5 inhibitor – in other words, it acts to stop PDE5 from breaking down cGMP. That means that, as long as the Viagra user continues to be aroused, cGMP continues to build up, the arteries become fully dilated, and an erection is sustained.At least, that’s how it should work in theory – and for many people, it works in practice too. However, erectile dysfunction can be caused by multiple different things, which means that Viagra won’t necessarily work for everybody.Thankfully, scientists are exploring a multitude of other avenues for treatment, from a breakthrough over-the-counter gel that was approved last year, to the potential of diet-based remedies.All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text, images, and links may be edited, removed, or added to at a later date to keep information current.  The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions.

Sometimes, things just don’t mix on their own, and that’s where emulsifiers lend a helping hand – particularly when it comes to food. However, recent chatter about ultra-processed foods and the additives involved has caused some to question whether emulsifiers might actually be harmful to our health. So what does science say?What are emulsifiers?Emulsifiers are substances that help to bring together other substances that wouldn’t normally mix, stopping them from separating. The classic example of such a pair is oil and water – a pain in the butt if you’re trying to use both in a recipe.The structure of emulsifiers is what makes them so useful: they have a water-loving (or hydrophilic) end that sticks into the water, whilst the other end is water-hating (or hydrophobic), and instead sticks into the oil. This creates tiny droplets of one substance suspended within the other in what’s known as an emulsion.Emulsifiers bring together substances that wouldn't normally mix, thanks to their amphiphilic nature.Image credit: The European Food Information Council (EUFIC)Those used in food can be found naturally, and you may well have used them within your own kitchen. In making mayonnaise, for example, egg yolks are used because they contain emulsifying agents. The same goes for whacking a bit of mustard in a tasty homemade vinaigrette – oil and vinegar aren’t friends otherwise.Why does the food industry use emulsifiers?But emulsifiers aren’t just handy for whipping up homemade goods. They’re used throughout the food industry and can be sourced from the same natural products we might use at home, or similar synthetic versions. Common ones include mono and diglycerides of fatty acids, lecithin (that’s the one found in eggs), carrageenan, and esters.They serve multiple purposes, ranging from improving taste and shelf-life to altering consistency, structure, and texture. In ice cream production, for example, emulsifiers are used to get that nice smooth feel with no ice crystals, whilst in bread, they can help to make a loaf extra plump and soft.Are emulsifiers safe?Though there are many organizations and legislative bodies responsible for providing advice on and regulating the safety of emulsifiers added to food – such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK – that hasn’t stopped concerns over whether or not they can cause harm to our health, often following the publication of new research on the topic.A number of studies, for example, have explored the suggestion that some emulsifiers could contribute to inflammation in the gut. A 2017 review of such studies concluded that the emulsifying agents carrageenan and carboxymethylcellulose might promote intestinal inflammation and diseases associated with chronic inflammation, such as colitis – though it also stated they were unlikely to be the main cause. A more recent study that also explored the impact of emulsifiers polysorbate-80, soy lecithin, and gum arabic on mice found that all were associated with markers of gut inflammation.Some scientists have taken issue with drawing any hard and fast conclusions about emulsifiers and health from this initial body of research though, primarily because the vast majority of it was conducted in animals – after all, mice aren’t humans (sorry, Stuart Little), so the effects seen in these studies might not necessarily translate to us.Study methods also don’t always match up with how we’d go about consuming emulsifiers on a regular day-to-day basis. “[E]xperimental doses of emulsifiers given to animals in these studies are often much higher than average human consumption,” Dr Alicia Sandall, a registered dietitian and post-doctoral researcher at King’s College London, told the BBC.That being said, some studies have involved humans – but have they made any difference to scientists’ conclusions about the safety of emulsifiers?The human studiesA large cohort study – a type of study that follows a group of people over a period of time – known as the NutriNet-Santé study has spawned two research papers that have piqued interest in this area. In both cases, they show that there’s still a long way to go to produce a reliable body of evidence.The first paper, published in September 2023, followed over 95,000 French adults and their intake of emulsifiers to find out if it increased their risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study concluded that intake of four specific emulsifiers belonging to two groups, including mono and diglycerides of fatty acids, was positively associated with a risk of CVD.A number of scientists, however, have argued that the results should be interpreted with caution.“It is not possible to attribute the findings to emulsifiers,” said Professor Gunter Kuhnle, Professor of Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Reading, who was not directly involved in the work. “The study relies on self-reported dietary data and estimates emulsifier intake from this information.”  “Considering that emulsifiers are found in a wide range of foods, it is impossible to attribute observed effects to these compounds and not specific dietary patterns. Many foods with unfavorable nutrient profile contain emulsifiers and this might also explain some of the results.” It’s a similar situation for the second, more recent paper, which used data from over 100,000 of the study participants to conclude that seven individual emulsifiers, including carrageenan and gum arabic, could increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.Participants’ food intake was self-reported – which often makes this kind of data unreliable – and the amount of emulsifier consumed was an estimate. The researchers themselves acknowledge that the study is limited: “A single observational epidemiological study is not sufficient per se to establish causality,” they write.It’s a theme found throughout the limitations sections and criticisms of such human studies on emulsifiers and health – there still simply isn’t enough evidence to make reliable conclusions one way or the other.“I can understand that lots of people are concerned about what to eat,” professor of dietetics Kevin Whelan, who was involved in the 2020 mouse study, told the Guardian. “But my view is it’s too early to be saying we should not be adding emulsifiers to our foods. I also think it’s too early to be saying that everybody should stop eating any emulsifiers in foods.”All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text, images, and links may be edited, removed, or added to at a later date to keep information current.The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions.

This week, the best preserved Neanderthal skeleton in over 25 years was discovered in a “funeral cave”, alpaca sex is so strange it’s never been seen in any other mammal, and we now know why a giant hole appeared in Antarctic sea ice eight years ago. Finally, we explore what Earth would be like if it had rings.Subscribe to the IFLScience newsletter for all the biggest science news delivered straight to your inbox every Wednesday and Saturday. Orangutan Seen Treating A Wound With A Medicinal Plant In World-First ObservationA wild Sumatran orangutan has been seen chewing the leaves of the Akar Kuning plant and applying the juice to a wound on his cheek, the first time this has been reported. The process went on for seven minutes, until the wound was entirely covered, making clear it was deliberate, and the orangutan continued to chew on the plant’s leaves for another half an hour. The wound healed fully without infection. Read the full story hereT. Rex Was A “Smart Giant Crocodile”, Not A Massive Brainy BaboonThat Tyrannosaurus rex might have been as intelligent as a baboon was posited by a 2023 study that used bony braincases to infer dinosaur smarts. It was an incredible and intimidating concept for a predator, but one that’s now been rebutted by a paper that claims in truth, T. rex was more comparable to a “smart giant crocodile”. Read the full story hereBest-Preserved Neanderthal Skeleton In Over 25 Years Found In “Flower Funeral” CaveThe most complete and well-preserved Neanderthal skeleton discovered since the turn of the millennium has been used to reconstruct the face of its owner – a female member of the extinct human lineage who lived around 75,000 years ago. Found within the iconic yet controversial Shanidar Cave – where Neanderthals repeatedly buried their dead, possibly on beds of flowers – the skeleton features in a new Netflix documentary entitled Secrets of the Neanderthals. Read the full story hereAlpaca Sex Is So Weird, It's Never Been Seen In Another MammalAlpacas have weird sex lives: they are the only mammal we know of in which the penis enters the uterus to directly deposit sperm. It’s a reproductive strategy that’s never been confirmed in any other mammal before, and new research suggests it may help the kinky camelids’ chances of pregnancy. Read the full story hereEight Years Ago A Huge Opening Appeared In Antarctic Sea Ice – Now We Know WhyIn 2016, the sea ice in Antarctica’s Weddell Sea developed an enormous hole twice the size of Wales – the country, not a pod of giant mammals. The following year it returned, but the reasons remained unknown. Now scientists think they can explain what caused them, and recruited some pretty cute research assistants to help find out. Read the full story hereTWIS is published weekly on our Linkedin page, join us there for even more content.Feature of the week: What Would The Earth Be Like With Rings?A ringed planet is a thing of beauty. Saturn is iconic – and let’s be honest, it’s 90 percent due to the rings because the planet itself does not have many other distinctive features. Earth’s beauty is very different, but it's fun to wonder if it could be enhanced by the presence of rings. The question of aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, but we can answer the scientific ones: How would Earth get rings, and what would happen to the planet? Read the full story here More content:CURIOUS Live, our free virtual event, is back for May 2024. Register now and join us as we explore nuclear war, the connection between mental and physical health, insect detectives, and the search for life elsewhere in the universe. Grab your free ticket now!Have you seen our e-magazine, CURIOUS? Issue 22 May 2024 is out now. Check it out for exclusive interviews, book excerpts, long reads, and more.PLUS, the entire season 3 of IFLScience's The Big Questions Podcast is available now.

On May 3, China launched Chang’e 6, its latest mission to the Moon. Similar to its predecessor, it is a sample retrieval mission, expected to collect up to 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) of lunar material from the far side of the Moon, the portion that is always facing away from Earth. The whole mission is expected to last 53 days.China has already broken records on the far side by becoming the first and only nation to soft-land there with Chang’e 4 in 2019. That mission landed in the Von Kármán crater, which is 180 kilometers (110 miles) across and sits within the South Pole-Aitken Basin. Chang’e 6 is targeting another area of the basin: the Apollo crater, which is three times as wide as the Von Kármán.The interest in this area lies in the distant past of the Moon. Underneath this region, there is a massive structure, potentially part of the colossal object that slammed into the Moon and created the basin 4 billion years ago. The jackpot would be to find portions of the lunar mantle and bring them back to Earth.In an attempt to achieve this, Chang’e 6 is equipped with a scoop to collect soil and rocks from the surface, as well as a drill to collect subsurface samples. An ascent vehicle will launch the samples into orbit, where it will rendezvous with an orbiter and come back to Earth. That is not the only focus of the mission, however. The lander and orbiter include scientific payloads from other countries too, which aim to understand dust and outgassing on the Moon, studying lunar magnetism, among other goals.Chang’e 6 is the third generation of lunar missions from China. It will be followed by Chang’e 7 in 2026 and Chang’e 8 in 2028, which will land at the lunar South Pole – an area earmarked for future human exploration – and they will demonstrate the ability to construct a robotic research station on the Moon. This will be an important step ahead of the expected Chinese crewed landing on the Moon in the 2030s.In the US, China’s plans are being seen with increased anxiety. On April 17, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies held a hearing about the NASA Budget for 2025. Both the chair, representative Harold Rogers (R-KY), and NASA Administrator Bill Nelson made reference to a new space race.“The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in 1958 in response to the so-called Space Race with the Soviet Union to land the first man on the Moon. Today we find ourselves in yet another space race, this time with China,” Rogers stated during the hearing.“We are in a race,” Nelson replied to a question from Rogers on Chinese plans. “The latest date they've said they're going to land [on the moon] is 2030 but that keeps moving up.”Nelson also said that he believes that the Chinese civilian space program is actually a military program. The comments have been seen as venting a frustration about the comparatively limited budget NASA operates. Others have considered Nelson’s comments as coming across as hypocritical given NASA’s many links to the military-industrial complex and the Department of Defense.China appears to be willing to invest what is needed in space. In the US, NASA’s budget requested for 2025 is the same as it was in 2023 and 2024. Totaling $25,383,700,000 or 0.34 percent of the federal budget, the request has disappointed many, as it showed the shutting down of the operation of the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

An international team of archaeologists have unearthed the long-lost upper half of a statue of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II. The discovery comes nearly 100 years since the statue’s lower half was first identified.In 1930, Günther Roeder, a German archaeologist, unearthed the lower part of a statue that depicted Ramesses II, otherwise known as Ramesses the Great. Ramesses ruled the Nile Valley and the wider Egyptian Empire from 1279 to 1213 BCE, which made him one of the longest ruling pharaohs in history.The newly discovered statue portion was found by a joint team of Egyptian and American archaeologists from the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and the University of Colorado Boulder. It was recovered while the team were researching the ruins of the ancient city of Hermopolis (present day el-Ashmunin), which is about 150 miles south of Cairo.   The top of the statue is about 3.8 meters long (12.5 feet) and depicts Ramesses in a seated position, wearing a double crown and headdress that shows the royal cobra. When erect (stop it), the complete statue would have stood about 7 meters (23 feet) tall, so the researchers believe.The statue itself is made of limestone and it has hieroglyphic writings on its back that exalt the Pharaoh.The excavation at Hermopolis was initially launched to find the religious center that once stood there during the New Kingdom era (otherwise known as the Egyptian Empire), which extended from the 16th century BCE to the 11th century BCE, and lasted until the Roman era (30 BCE to 641 CE).Along with the recovered statue piece, the researchers also found traces of ancient blue and yellow pigments that they can analyze to gain more insights into the statue and when it was created.“It will be quite exciting to have a scientific analysis of the pigment,” Yvona Trnka-Amrhein, assistant professor of classics at the University of Colorado Boulder, expressed in a statement.  It is possible that the soil samples that were mixed in with the pigment can offer even more information about the history of the area.Ramesses II is one of the few Egyptian pharaohs known to non-experts in the Western world. He was a source of inspiration for Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Ozymandias sonnet, was played by Yul Brynner in the film The Ten Commandments, and was voiced by Ralph Fiennes in the animation The Prince of Egypt.Now that the top half of the statue has been recovered, Trnka-Amrhein's colleague Basem Gehad, with the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, has submitted a proposal to reunite them. However, it is currently unclear where the completed statue will be placed if the proposal is approved. It will likely remain at the site or be placed in a museum.