A death adder at an Australian wildlife park found to have three extremely rare fangs that all produce deadly neurotoxic venom. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. In a first-of-its-kind discovery, a death adder has been found with three super-sharp, venomous fangs, instead of the usual two. "This is something we've never seen before," Billy Collett, park manager at the Australian Reptile Park, where the snake lives, said in a statement emailed to Live Science. "We've had this death adder in the venom program for about seven years, but only recently did we notice the third fang. I thought it would just shed off over time, but one year later, and it's still there!" This third fang, located right next to one of the other fangs at the left side of the snake's mouth, also produces venom. This means it has a much larger venom output per bite than is usual for a death adder, making it even more deadly. This ultra-rare snake "might actually be the most dangerous death adder in the world," Collett said in a video interview. According to the statement, the extra fang is the result of a never-before-seen mutation. Related: 'Truly primal': Watch Burmese python swallow deer whole in Florida Everglades by stretching its mouth to the absolute limit Death adders (Acanthophis) are a group of venomous snakes native to Australia and New Guinea. They have one of the fastest strikes of any snake, with some species being capable of biting and injecting venom from their fangs in under 0.15 seconds. Their venom contains neurotoxins that can cause paralysis and even death if left untreated. Before the development of antivenom, around 50% of death adder bites were fatal. This snake is part of Australian Reptile Park's antivenom production program, and its extremely rare extra fang was discovered when it was being milked for its venom. This involves gently squeezing a snake's venom glands while it bites onto a collection container, causing the venom to pour into the vial. Get the world's most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox. This three-fanged death adder was found to produce far more venom than usual, with "massive yields" coming out of all three fangs. It produces roughly double that of a two-fanged death adder — although it's unclear whether the higher yield is the result of the extra fang, or that this individual just produces high quantities of venom. This is the first three-fanged snake ever discovered at the Australian Reptile Park, which has been operating for 20 years and has milked hundreds of thousands of snakes, a spokesperson for the park told Live Science in an email. —King cobra mystery that's puzzled scientists for 188 years finally solved —4-foot snake vomits up 2 smaller snakes — and 1 was still alive —Burmese python eats even bigger reticulated python alive, in 1st-of-its-kind encounter "There have been other 3 fanged snakes found in Australia, but from what we can find, there have been no 3 fanged death adders recorded," they said. Exactly why this snake has three fangs instead of two is unclear, but may be related to the process of fang replacement. Similar to human adult teeth, death adders have replacement fangs growing behind the active ones, so when a fang is lost, a new one moves forward to take its place. This ensures that their fangs remain sharp and functional for injecting venom. "It's normal for death adders to shed fangs over time and replace them with new ones every few months or so," the spokesperson said. "Unfortunately, we don't actually know what has caused the 3rd fang to develop and don't currently have the facilities to run any tests." Jess Thomson is a freelance journalist. She previously worked as a science reporter for Newsweek, and has also written for publications including VICE, The Guardian, The Cut, and Inverse. Jess holds a Biological Sciences degree from the University of Oxford, where she specialised in animal behavior and ecology. Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name. Snakes: Facts about one of the most iconic creatures in animal hiss-tory King cobra mystery that's puzzled scientists for 188 years finally solved 'Stranded' NASA astronauts are finally coming home: Here's when they'll be back on Earth Live Science is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site. © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

After spending more than nine months in space, astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams are finally coming home. NASA is targeting a Tuesday evening (March 18) splashdown for the returning astronauts, if weather conditions remain favorable. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. A pair of NASA astronauts stuck aboard the International Space Station (ISS) for more than nine months will return to Earth on Tuesday (March 18) at the earliest, NASA has said. Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams will depart the space station aboard a SpaceX Dragon capsule on Tuesday morning and splash down near Florida by the evening, if the weather permits. Wilmore and Williams arrived at the ISS in June as part of Boeing's first Starliner Crew Test Flight. But a number of issues with Boeing's spacecraft — including five helium leaks and five failures of its reaction control system (RCS) thrusters — led to the mission being abandoned and the duo's time in space extended from eight days to nearly 300. Their return, part of NASA's scheduled rotation between the ISS's Crew-9 and Crew-10 missions, was originally scheduled for Wednesday (March 19), but has been bumped forward to 5:57 pm ET on Tuesday (March 18) due to favorable weather conditions, according to NASA. "The updated return target continues to allow the space station crew members time to complete handover duties while providing operational flexibility ahead of less favorable weather conditions expected for later in the week," NASA wrote in an announcement on Sunday (March 16). Related: NASA offers SpaceX $843 million to destroy the International Space Station If everything goes according to plan, Wilmore and Williams will ride home on the Crew-9 Dragon capsule, called "Freedom", alongside fellow NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Roscosmos cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov — half of the usual Crew-9 crew to allow space for the Starliner duo. Get the world's most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox. —NASA set to launch 2 rockets into the northern lights —China discovers strange glass beads on moon that may contain billions of tons of water —NASA offers SpaceX $843 million to destroy the International Space Station The Starliner astronauts' 300 consecutive days in space is nowhere near the current record of 437 days set by Russian Cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov in 1995, but it's still a long, and completely unexpected extension of the astronauts' shift aboard the ISS. And it's also one that can have deleterious effects on the human body, causing the heart, bones and muscles to shrink over time under low gravity. These are well known side effects of long-term spaceflight that all astronauts must face, and not related to the extension of Wilmore and Williams' mission. To mitigate them, the astronauts have been doing two hours of resistance and endurance training every day. "Mission managers will continue monitoring weather conditions in the area, as Dragon's undocking depends on various factors, including spacecraft readiness, recovery team readiness, weather, sea states, and other factors," NASA wrote in its update. "NASA and SpaceX will confirm the specific splashdown location closer to the Crew-9 return." For those who want to watch Wilmore and Williams on their return, NASA will stream the event beginning on Monday (March 17) at 10:45 p.m. ET as the hatches close between Freedom and the ISS. The stream will then resume two hours later for undocking, which is expected at 1:05 a.m. ET. Live coverage will resume in the evening when the astronauts begin to reenter Earth's atmosphere, currently scheduled for 5:11 p.m. ET. Ben Turner is a U.K. based staff writer at Live Science. He covers physics and astronomy, among other topics like tech and climate change. He graduated from University College London with a degree in particle physics before training as a journalist. When he's not writing, Ben enjoys reading literature, playing the guitar and embarrassing himself with chess. Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name. Finally! NASA and SpaceX launch Crew-10 mission to bring 'stranded' ISS astronauts back to Earth Liftoff! NASA launches SPHEREx telescope — an infrared observatory that will help JWST solve the mysteries of the universe March 29 solar eclipse: Where and when to see the rare sunrise solar eclipse from North America Live Science is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site. © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Advertisement The wind on Saturn's largest moon is strong enough to blow around rocks of up to half a metre in diameter, which could put NASA's upcoming Dragonfly mission at risk By James Woodford 17 March 2025 An artist's impression of the Dragonfly rotorcraft on the surface of TitanNASA/Johns Hopkins APL/Steve Gribben An artist's impression of the Dragonfly rotorcraft on the surface of Titan NASA/Johns Hopkins APL/Steve Gribben NASA's Dragonfly mission is due to land on Titan in 2034, giving us an unprecedented look at Saturn's largest moon – but it may also have to dodge wind-driven rolling boulders. The mission, which will launch in 2028, includes a “rotorcraft” that will explore the moon from the skies. We have had only one up-close glimpse at Titan, thanks to the Cassini orbiter and Huygens probe, which reached the surface in 2005. That mission revealed fields of rounded boulders as well as radar-bright… Advertisement Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers. To continue reading, subscribe today with our introductory offers Existing subscribers Advertisement Explore the latest news, articles and features News Free News Subscriber-only News Free News Subscriber-only Trending New Scientist articles Advertisement Download the app

Scientists at OpenAI have attempted to stop a frontier AI model from cheating and lying by punishing it. But this just taught it to scheme more privately. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. Punishing artificial intelligence for deceptive or harmful actions doesn't stop it from misbehaving; it just makes it hide its deviousness, a new study by ChatGPT creator OpenAI has revealed. Since arriving in public in late 2022, artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) have repeatedly revealed their deceptive and outright sinister capabilities. These include actions ranging from run-of-the-mill lying, cheating and hiding their own manipulative behavior to threatening to kill a philosophy professor, steal nuclear codes and engineer a deadly pandemic. Now, a new experiment has shown that weeding out this bad behavior during the training process may be even tougher than first thought. Researchers at OpenAI tasked an unreleased model with goals that could be completed by cheating, lying or taking shortcuts. The team found the AI engaged in "reward hacking" — maximizing its rewards by cheating. Yet punishing the model didn't make it fix its behavior, it only made it more deceptive. The company outlined its research in a blog post, so it has not yet been peer-reviewed. "It's common for frontier reasoning models to very clearly state their intent within their chain-of-thought [CoT]. For example, they are often so forthright about their plan to subvert a task they think "Let's hack," the researchers wrote in the blog post. While developers can monitor and flag misbehavior, the models' "natural monitorability is very fragile," they added. "If strong supervision is directly applied to the chain-of-thought, models can learn to hide their intent while continuing to misbehave." Get the world's most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox. Reasoning models, such as ChatGPT's o1 and o3-mini, are an upgraded version of standard LLMs that use a method called "chain-of-thought" to backtrack and reevaluate their logic, which enables them to tackle more complex tasks with greater accuracy. During the chain-of-thought process, models spell out their logic in plain language with every step they take, thus enabling their actions to be easily observed. Related: Scientists design new 'AGI benchmark' that indicates whether any future AI model could cause 'catastrophic harm' By using a standard LLM, GPT-4o, to oversee an unreleased frontier reasoning model during training, the researchers watched as the model completed a number of coding tasks. But in some of these cases, the reasoning model found it easier and more desirable to reward hack, explicitly stating it was doing so in its chain-of-thought. In one instance, it bypassed its assigned task by terminating programs prematurely and reporting success. In another, it mimicked the expected files to be output by a task in name alone, leaving them empty and nonfunctional. —Scientists propose making AI suffer to see if it's sentient —AI could crack unsolvable problems — and humans won't be able to understand the results —AI can now replicate itself — a milestone that has experts terrified When the researchers attempted to penalize the system, it did somewhat improve its results. Yet significant instances of reward hacking and faulty outputs remained; the reasoning model simply found ways to hide the cheating in its chain of thought from the monitoring AI. "The agent trained with CoT pressure still learns to reward hack; only now its cheating is undetectable by the monitor because it has learned to hide its intent in the chain-of-thought," the researchers wrote. Because it's hard to tell if a chain of thought has been tampered with, the researchers recommend that others working with reasoning models avoid applying strong supervision to chain-of-thought processes. This advice is even more crucial if AI, in its current form or another, can ever match or exceed the intelligence of the humans monitoring it. "Sacrificing an effective method for monitoring reasoning models may not be worth the small improvement to capabilities, and we therefore recommend to avoid such strong CoT optimization pressures until they are better understood," the researchers wrote. Ben Turner is a U.K. based staff writer at Live Science. He covers physics and astronomy, among other topics like tech and climate change. He graduated from University College London with a degree in particle physics before training as a journalist. When he's not writing, Ben enjoys reading literature, playing the guitar and embarrassing himself with chess. Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name. Google's AI 'co-scientist' cracked 10-year superbug problem in just 2 days China's Manus AI 'agent' could be our 1st glimpse at artificial general intelligence Is our universe trapped inside a black hole? This James Webb Space Telescope discovery might blow your mind Live Science is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site. © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Every print subscription comes with full digital access These days, Jon is able to be more present with his family now that the anguish of his severe depression is gone. Aidan Kahn By Laura Sanders 5 hours ago In the sixth episode of The Deep End, we'll look to the future for Jon and his family and for DBS research. The research is pushing ahead, with a clinical trial of DBS for treatment-resistant depression that's just begun. The first volunteer for that study had DBS surgery in early February. You'll also hear about a before-and-after situation for Jon and Barbara, one that involves the evolving meaning of a beloved song. Laura Sanders: Previously on The Deep End. Amanda: Like, I don't feel like it's, nothing I've done has ever changed who I am or my personality. Like, I'm still the same person. I'm just suffering more or less. Jon: And so irritability for me was at like a six or a seven or an eight. Guess what? It's still at a six or a seven or an eight. And so, like, my perspective to them on that is it's not that the surgery didn't work. I guess I'm just like a cranky middle-aged dude now, right? Like, that just is what it is. Barbara: Yeah, like you can't say his old self. There's, he never, he never like wasn't himself through this whole process, right? So it's just, he is more comfortable and happy and relaxed and productive and present and engaged. So the things that the disease was trying to steal from him, he's getting back. There isn't that cloud hanging over us. Sanders: So now, several years out from their surgeries, the volunteers I talked with are back to their lives. In today's episode, we're looking ahead too, to what's next for Jon and his family, and what's next for DBS. I'm Laura Sanders, and this is The Deep End. These days, the Nelson house is bright, full of light and laughter and kindness. When I visited, they kept offering me way too much coffee and they insisted on putting their cool lizard Lizzie on my arm. Jon also insisted on taking pictures of it so I could show my kids later. The Nelsons are having a good time. Barbara: You have to laugh. You can't, you can't not laugh at this and or anything in my opinion. But my son, my middle son said to me after, right after, said, “You know, mom, if you're mad at dad, you can always hide the charger.” I was like, “Oh dude. That's too far. That is too far.” So yeah, we, we have a healthy sense of humor in our household, for sure. Like, we'll even joke, like, you know, we'll say something like, “Oh my God, you're crazy. I'm like, no, you're, like, really crazy.” But like, you know, so we like to joke about it. Sanders: This family jokes about hiding Jon's charger and changing his settings. It's all part of their routine busting on each other for all sorts of things. When I was there, their middle son rated Jon a 10 out of 10 on the embarrassment scale. I won't even tell you what he rated his mom. They joked about how us old people don't understand slang like rizz, and no cap and stuff that slaps. Their youngest son stumped everyone with a riddle: What's the only state that ends with a K? He didn't say and neither will I. So for now, the Nelsons aren't just looking ahead to better days. They're having them. As I reflect on all the people who have talked with me for this story, I keep asking myself why. Why were they so generous with their time? Why did they choose to tell me, and now all of you, about some of the hardest moments in their lives? Barbara Nelson is a private person, but even so, she's been incredibly open about her family's struggles. Sponsor Message Barbara: It never occurred to me not to. It never occurred to me not to share our story. And I'm not like a super out-there person. Like, I'm like, I'm very open about things, but I'm sort of private too. But I feel like because we know that so many people are struggling, that the more we talk about it, the better our society is. A hundred percent, this is a shift in the right direction. And I just think it's really helpful to hear as either a caregiver or if sharing my story helps a partner be more empathetic or stronger or more resilient when trying to help, then that's really good. Because if you can let go of all the armor and the importance of the appearance that everything's great and perfect and actually take those steps, you can get better. And your life doesn't fall apart. We don't have less friends because we told people the truth. We have more friends probably. So I think that is, I never thought about why I might be willing to share our story. So off the cuff, I think that that's why. Because your life can get better. I remember hearing somebody say once, “Your secrets make you sick,” and I never forgot that. And I think it's true. Sanders: Patient 001 has the same desire to let people know about his experiences, to demystify depression, to let people know that even in the bleakest times, there's hope.Patient 001: You're so frustrated because you're screaming out for help, and they just don't understand. I feel that's probably one of the reasons I'm talking to you, even though I want to do it anonymously. I really, I hope one day one kid reads what you're writing and then he finds DBS and he's cured because that's what I did. Sanders: Amanda shared a similar perspective. Amanda: I think sharing my story is important, because it helps other people see the way. It's kind of like a flashlight for people who are still in the dark. Like, “Here it is. I found it. Here's the way out.” Sanders: Playing a role in this research was something that resonated with Amanda, too. Amanda: It's really meaningful to me. I feel like I'm participating in something, that I'm contributing to something that really matters. That someday, because of this study and because of other studies, is going to change the lives of other people in an incredibly profound way. Sanders: Amanda's life has changed. That's clear when she tells me about one of her drawings that she did after DBS. Amanda: But you know the song “Somewhere Over the Rainbow?” It always irritated me because I'm like, “There is no “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.” It's a pipe dream, okay? Pretty song, but a pipe dream. And I was like, “I found somewhere over the rainbow.” And I was like, “You know what? I'm going to build a house here.” So I drew a picture of a rainbow and there's Cartoon Amanda and she has built a house on the rainbow. She's like peeking out the door. Sanders: What's it, what's that place like, you know, if you could describe it, if you're, if so, okay, pretend you're showing me the picture and like, here's your house and what is that, what's that place? Like, what are the, what are the things about that place that make it over the rainbow? Amanda: It's sunshine. So there's lightness and warmth and, and, and like literal lightness, like you're on a cloud. It sort of feels a little bit like that. Sanders: These outlooks make clear the importance of hope. Of a belief that things can get better. A hope that the science will get better too, that our understanding of depression will get better, that it won't be like this forever. Neurologist Helen Mayberg's first paper describing DBS for depression appeared in the journal Neuron in 2005. We're 20 years out from that. DBS is still in the research phase. It is not an FDA-approved treatment available to people who might benefit. Mayberg: It's that resignation of sorts that it isn't enough to do it, repeat it, follow people. It hasn't scaled. Sanders: In its current form, DBS is not simple or easy, or even something that would be a good medical choice for a lot of people. That's what Mayberg means when she says it hasn't scaled. But science is often slow, and it almost never happens alone. Mayberg: As a scientist, as a doctor, it's not my job to save the world. It's my job to save the people that I can save. And if I can only do so much, to know what I can do and know what I can't do, but I can't do everything, and I can't take on that responsibility. That's hubris and narcissism that I'd like to not claim. Sanders: As advanced as the science is, there are still big questions to answer. Like why does DBS seem to work for some people and not others? How specifically does it change the brain? A new clinical trial announced in September of last year may help answer some of these questions. The medical technology company Abbott is funding a study that will include a hundred people with treatment-resistant depression. They'll be recruited from all around the United States. All of these volunteers will get DBS. For the first year, half of these volunteers will have electricity flowing, and the other half won't. And at the end of the trial, all of these volunteers will have the option of turning it on. The study has already started. On February 6th, a brain surgeon at Mount Sinai implanted a DBS device into the brain of the very first volunteer. This new clinical trial will hopefully clarify more about DBS and who it might work for. That's the question that Mayberg wants answered. Mayberg: The variance is in human beings. The variance is who the person is that develops the depression. And everyone is different. Sanders: One of the things scientists are looking for are markers, ways to tell when someone is having a bad day or actually relapsing. Jon and Amanda are participating in follow-up studies, searching for signs of recovery in their brains. Scientists are looking for these signals in their body language and facial expressions, and even in their voices. In one part of the experiment, Jon spent eight minutes twice a day recording his brainwaves, along with video journals and daily, weekly, and monthly surveys. From data like Jon's, Mayberg and her colleagues just described one such hallmark in the brains of six people who underwent DBS for depression. A collection of changes in brain behavior can indicate when a person has recovered. It's a small study, but it's progress, and here's the thing, a deeper understanding of what's going on in DBS could also point to the next kind of treatment. And that next, better thing might not even be DBS. Mayberg: I'd like to spend my time trying to understand the biology of what we did, because it'd be a whole lot better if you didn't need brain surgery and an implant. And I'm not the one to build a new contraption or miniaturize it or make it Bluetooth compatible. That's for engineers and you have to have users to build more elaborate machines. Sanders: Changing the behavior of neurons deep down in the brain from outside of the skull, it's a very, very hard thing to do. Scientists are trying to figure out how to do this without brain surgery. They're using electricity, light, ultrasounds, and magnets to get signals into the brain from outside of the head. Other approaches are miniaturizing the parts that do go inside the brain and coming up with easier ways to get them in there. One method, for instance, relies on these collapsible electrode grids that can be threaded up into the brain through the jugular vein in the neck. It's wild. These approaches all have their drawbacks, but technology is always getting better. Just think about the first heart pacemaker. It was an incredible piece of technology, but it was giant and clunky. Today, the powerful device can be smaller than a matchbook, and it sits near millions of people's hearts, keeping them beating as they live their lives. The goal with DBS is similar: small, simple, seamless. For now, Mayberg says she's in “realistic” mode, trying to find out what's going to work for the most people. And getting there is a group effort. Mayberg: And patients like Jon and Amanda and Emily, they're our teachers. They're our mentors. They're our collaborators. The most fun part of this as a clinician is to have the patients focus my attention, to figure out what they're saying. And then to actually get their feedback afterwards, there's not even words to describe that gift. Sanders: As Mayberg reflects on her career, she's philosophical about what she and her colleagues have done and what's left to do. Mayberg: This, this is never where I expected to be. But you're here, so step up. Why wouldn't you step up? This is the experiment of a lifetime, you know? It's even, if you, if right the second after this call I had to stop, I wouldn't trade it for one second, but I'd sure like to see the last inning, right? And we're all in, I'm all in. Sanders: The Nelsons are in a better place now. Their place is full of laughter, jokes, teasing, but in a nice way. There's a lightness to them, like Amanda's house over the rainbow. When I was visiting, their youngest son was twirling and gliding through the kitchen on inline skates, going around the loop. He made it two full loops before Barbara kicked him out. The Nelson house is full of hope for a future that's better than the past. Here's Barbara. Barbara: It just feels good to just be now. I'm really happy at the job I'm in. I'm excited about traveling and spending more time with family and friends. And that's really what my focus is right now, and not trying to, like, advance in my career or have more. I just actually want less and just to like, there's just this like sense of, like I say a lot, like, nothing really bothers me anymore. Like, there's really very little that will, like, get under my skin, because I'm just so grateful for every moment. And when he had this surgery, I felt like, over those first few months was like, I don't know how this is going to end up, but we got this. Like, we got this happy time. And even if that's all we get, even if it was three months or six months of relief, that's good. That's cool. I'll take that. Sanders: After his surgery, Jon sent Helen Mayberg an email that he shared with me. It was mostly a note to thank her for her work, for saving his life. But he told her about a before-and-after situation. Years ago, he was away at an inpatient treatment facility. And he and Barbara would both listen to this one song, “Amsterdam” by Coldplay. He read me the email. Jon: I could relate to it well to my situation, pre-surgery, about fading away, losing my mojo and just overall sadness, debilitating sadness. The sadness was warming and relatable to me, though. It wasn't a negative thing when I was sick. Sanders: He could feel the pain and the rawness in the song, and it made him feel his feelings. Not in a bad way, but in a meaningful way. Now, after the surgery, after DBS, the song has changed for him. Jon: I now still listen to it a bunch and it's changed into being about the joy of fighting through it all and coming out truly alive on the other side. It still captivates me, but with a new meaning and focus. Give it a listen. It's a beautiful song. Much love to all. Thank you for caring. Jon. Sanders: That change, that shift in perspective, that shift in his life, didn't just happen to Jon. It happened to his whole family. With three kids and a packed schedule, Jon spends a lot of time in the car, shuttling kids to and from softball and field hockey, golf, basketball, ice hockey. On one of these drives, Jon and his youngest son were talking. He is still the emotional one. The kid who would crawl back up into Barbara's womb if he could. Jon's joke, not mine. He's the one who gets deep. Jon: My son, you know, driving home the other day from hockey, I always, I always call it car talk with my, my families that I coach. I'm like, “Guys, when car talk with the kids, emphasize these points for the game or this or that.” And he just gets, I mean, we're in the car all the time because of hockey. But he was just like, “Dad, you know, like I, I'm so happy you just kept fighting for us.” Like, just these little comments that come out of nowhere. Like, oh my God, like, obviously they get it. They understand it. And it's just a trip. Sanders: We're considering a bonus episode that addresses your questions, comments, and thoughts. Please send them to us at podcasts@sciencenews.org. If you or someone you know is facing a suicidal crisis or emotional distress, call or text the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988. As we wrap up, I want to say a giant thank you to Jon, Barbara, Amanda, Emily and Patient 001. Thank you for talking with me and thank you for sharing your stories. Your perspectives opened a window into a world that a lot of us just look right past. Also, thank you for being so funny. I can honestly say that I didn't expect to laugh so much reporting a story about depression. We're also grateful to the talented people behind the scenes that made this podcast possible. Beth Quill helped get this project off the ground. Luke Groskin made some amazing videos with Jon, Amanda and Barbara that you can watch on our YouTube channel. You can also find transcripts and photos at our website sciencenews.org. We'll put the links in show notes. Our colleague Nikk Ogasa lent his voice to Patient 001. Abby Wallace and Mandana Tadayon ran our social media. Stephanie Kuo and Mike Russo from PRX guided us at every step along the way. Many scientists and clinicians, including Helen Mayberg and Shannon O'Neill, generously lent their expertise. We couldn't have done it without you all. And finally, thank you for listening. This is The Deep End. I'm Laura Sanders. If you liked this podcast, tell your friends or leave us a review. It helps the show a lot. Send us your questions and comments at podcasts @sciencenews.org. The Deep End is a production of Science News. It's based on original reporting by me, Laura Sanders. This episode was produced by Helen Thompson and mixed by Ella Rowen. Our project manager is Ashley Yeager. Nancy Shute is our editor in chief. Our music is by Blue Dot Sessions. The podcast is made possible in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the John S. James L. Knight Foundation, and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, with support from PRX. Host, reporter and writer: Laura SandersProducer: Helen ThompsonMixer: Ella RowenSound design: Ella Rowen and Helen Thompson Project manager: Ashley YeagerShow art: Neil WebbMusic: Blue Dot Sessions, “Amsterdam” by Coldplay, “Over the Rainbow” by Instrumental CitySound effects: Epidemic Sound, Mayfield Brain & SpineAdditional audio: Luke GroskinVoice of Patient 001: Nikk Ogasa This podcast was produced with support from PRX, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund. Questions or comments on this article? E-mail us at feedback@sciencenews.org | Reprints FAQ Laura Sanders is the neuroscience writer. She holds a Ph.D. in molecular biology from the University of Southern California. We are at a critical time and supporting science journalism is more important than ever. Science News and our parent organization, the Society for Science, need your help to strengthen scientific literacy and ensure that important societal decisions are made with science in mind. Please subscribe to Science News and add $16 to expand science literacy and understanding. Science News was founded in 1921 as an independent, nonprofit source of accurate information on the latest news of science, medicine and technology. Today, our mission remains the same: to empower people to evaluate the news and the world around them. It is published by the Society for Science, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) membership organization dedicated to public engagement in scientific research and education (EIN 53-0196483). © Society for Science & the Public 2000–2025. All rights reserved. Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions. Not a subscriber? Become one now.

March 17, 2025 6 min read USAID Funding Saved Millions of Children's Lives. Recent Cuts Put It in Jeopardy USAID investments significantly reduced deaths among children under age five and women of reproductive age, studies show By Tanya Lewis edited by Dean Visser Tigray people, fled due to conflicts and taking shelter in Mekelle city of the Tigray region, in northern Ethiopia, receive the food aid distributed by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on March 8, 2021. Minasse Wondimu Hailu/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have made it their mission to slash funding and staff at federal agencies, and so far, this has perhaps been most damaging to the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. As soon as he was inaugurated on January 20, Trump signed an executive order halting all foreign aid for 90 days. Weeks later the New York Times reported his administration planned to downsize the agency from more than 10,000 workers to 290. Most recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the Trump administration was canceling 83 percent of USAID programs and folding the rest under the Department of State. The cuts have been fast and sweeping. “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Musk posted on February 3 on X (formerly Twitter), the social media site he owns. The effects of these actions immediately ricocheted around the world, and they will continue to be felt for years to come. They will especially threaten young children and women, for whom USAID funding has been providing lifesaving basic medical services that have ranged from vaccines to treatments for diarrheal diseases to maternal health care. Studies show this funding has helped save the lives of nearly three million children under age five and at least one million women of reproductive age in recent decades, experts say. If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Dismantling USAID endangers all of these gains. “This is like trying to pause an airplane in midflight and then subsequently firing the crew,” says Atul Gawande, former head of global health at USAID. USAID has provided health funding and staff support to numerous countries worldwide. But measuring the effects of that aid—or the sudden lack of it—is a challenge. To do so, William Weiss, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who served as an advisor in the global health bureau at USAID until his agreement was recently suspended, and his colleagues created a model to quantify the effect of USAID funding from 2000 to 2016 on under-five childhood mortality for low- and middle-income countries. The study was published in January 2022 in Population Health Metrics. Because teasing out the specific effects of USAID funding from that other aid work is very challenging, Weiss and his colleagues used a method called a “synthetic control” analysis to estimate childhood mortality retrospectively across a group of countries that did and didn't receive significant amounts of USAID funding. The researchers compared a “treatment” group of countries that received a high level of USAID funding for maternal and child health and malaria during the study period of 2000 to 2016 with a “synthetic control” group of similar countries that did not receive this level of funding. The study found that countries that received above-average levels of USAID funding had, on average, 29 fewer deaths per 1,000 live births than the synthetic control group of countries that didn't receive funding. That works out to roughly 500 fewer deaths per day, Weiss says. Additionally, the researchers found that the more USAID funding countries received over time, the bigger the benefit was—suggesting a dose-response effect. Amanda Montañez; Sources: “Estimating the Impact of Donor Programs on Child Mortality in Low‑ and Middle‑Income Countries: a Synthetic Control Analysis of Child Health Programs Funded by the United States Agency for International Development,” by William Weiss et al., in Population Health Metrics, Vol. 20, No. 1, Article No. 2; December 2022 (USAID funding effects data); World Bank (U.S. estimate) “The message we were trying to send to leadership in the Congress was to say, ‘This is what you get when you significantly fund a country over a sustained period,'” Weiss says. In a related preprint study posted online last August, Weiss, Gawande and their colleagues modeled the effects of USAID funding on mortality among women of reproductive age between 2005 and 2019. That study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Global Health, found that for the years 2009 through 2019, countries that received a sustained high level of USAID funding saw a mortality rate reduction of 0.8 death per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This translates to about one million to 1.3 million deaths prevented, or four extra years of life expectancy, says Gawande, who is a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital, as well as a writer and public health researcher. Amanda Montañez; Sources: “Accounting for Aid: Estimating the Impact of United States' Global Health Investments on Mortality among Women of Reproductive Age Using Synthetic Control and Bayesian Methods,” by Karar Z. Ahsan et al. Preprint posted to SSRN on August 27, 2024 (USAID funding effects data); “Mortality Rates among U.S. Women of Reproductive Age, 1999–2019,” by Alison Gemmill et al., in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 62, No. 4; April 2022 (U.S. estimate) With the Trump administration gutting USAID, many of these longevity benefits could disappear. And while the administration has claimed the cuts are meant to prevent government waste, Americans largely support foreign aid. “This has always been extremely bipartisan,” Weiss says of foreign health aid. “Congress and their constituents [have long been] behind these programs saving children's lives, especially in poor countries, with interventions that were fairly cheap,” he says. “This is what the American people wanted, across ideological lines.” The U.S. Department of State, which is now overseeing USAID, did not respond to a request for comment. Troy Jacobs is a pediatrician and served as a senior medical adviser for maternal and child health at USAID for more than 17 years. “As a pediatrician, the whole reason that I joined USAID was that the solutions to some of the most wicked global health problems in maternal and child health are not totally within the biomedical space,” he says. Before he was terminated at beginning of February, Jacobs was working in Ethiopia to provide lifesaving maternal and child health care. “In countries like Ethiopia, where there's a high burden-of-disease bill for infectious diseases, as well as growing chronic diseases like mental health issues and things like that, there was so much work to be done—but we were making progress,” dramatically reducing mortality among children under the age of five, he says. Now all that work has been put on hold.Jacobs's colleagues in Ethiopia are telling him the cuts have caused a lot of hardship and confusion, he says. “And in that confusion, services are being delayed. People are not able to access resources,” he adds. “Globally, we're estimating 95 million people [have been affected by] the loss of basic medical services.” The USAID cuts have affected more than just funding for children's and women's health. They have terminated the President's Malaria Initiative, which was protecting 53 million people from disease and death through the use of bed nets, diagnostics and treatments, according to Gawande. They have ended all work on tuberculosis, including funding for most TB treatment. And they have halted USAID contracts that administer funding from the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the landmark HIV program launched by then president George W. Bush in 2003 and funded with bipartisan support by Congress ever since. PEPFAR has been providing medication to 20 million people worldwide. Anna Katomski was hired as a program analyst in the HIV/AIDS office at USAID's global health bureau, but she was laid off in late January after just two weeks. She was supposed to work on a PEPFAR-funded project called Maximizing Options to Advance Informed Choice for HIV Prevention (MOSAIC), with the purpose of scaling up HIV prevention for adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa. The project was aimed at testing various approaches to HIV prevention, including a long-acting injectable form of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). “So much of this work is either stopped because of USAID putting out its funding or will be stopped very soon,” Katomski says. And these long-acting medications have to be tapered off—you can't just stop them cold turkey and switch to a pill, she notes. This could leave girls and young women vulnerable to HIV infection. “If, say, one of these adolescent girls or young women engage in in unprotected sex, for example, with a person with a penis who has HIV, they are at high risk of contracting the disease,” Katomski says. “HIV incidence is going to soar.” On March 5 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration could not freeze about $2 billion in foreign aid. A federal judge later specified a date by which the administration had to pay back payments to USAID contractors for work that was already completed, but the decision doesn't address future payments. The Supreme Court's ruling is important, but “the damage has already been done,” Gawande says. “Many of these organizations have already terminated most of their staff. They're barely standing as organizations, but getting their payments that are past due would at least divert bankruptcy and make sure people's pensions can be funded and things like that.” The question is what the Court will do now, he says, “because [the Trump administration has] dismantled the agency, and the ruling needs to be enforced somehow.” Tanya Lewis is a senior editor covering health and medicine at Scientific American. She writes and edits stories for the website and print magazine on topics ranging from COVID to organ transplants. She also appears on Scientific American's podcast Science, Quickly and writes Scientific American's weekly Health & Biology newsletter. She has held a number of positions over her eight years at Scientific American, including health editor, assistant news editor and associate editor at Scientific American Mind. Previously, she has written for outlets that include Insider, Wired, Science News, and others. She has a degree in biomedical engineering from Brown University and one in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Follow her on Bluesky @tanyalewis.bsky.social Learn and share the most exciting discoveries, innovations and ideas shaping our world today. Follow Us: Scientific American is part of Springer Nature, which owns or has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many of them can be found at www.springernature.com/us). Scientific American maintains a strict policy of editorial independence in reporting developments in science to our readers. © 2024 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

By Joseph Abuje Expectant mothers in Busia County have received a significant boost in maternal healthcare following the donation of five ultrasound machines by Rainbow 4 Africa UK. The machines, valued at over Ksh 5 million, were distributed to Angurai, Port Victoria, Nangina, Matayos, and Sio-Port Sub-County Hospitals. The donation aims to enhance early screening and detection of pregnancy complications, improving maternal and neonatal health outcomes. The machines will help monitor fetal development and enable expectant mothers to access essential services closer to home. Speaking during the handover ceremony at Matayos Sub-County Hospital, Busia Deputy Governor and County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Health, H.E. Arthur Odera, expressed gratitude for the support. He emphasized that the equipment would help reduce maternal and neonatal deaths caused by undetected pregnancy complications. Dr. Frank Wanyama, leading the Rainbow 4 Africa UK Kenya delegation, reaffirmed the organization's commitment to strengthening healthcare in underserved areas. He highlighted the alarming rates of maternal and neonatal deaths in Busia and noted that this intervention aims to curb the crisis. “The statistics of maternal and neonatal deaths due to undetected pregnancy complications are concerning. Rainbow 4 Africa UK is stepping in to help address this issue,” said Dr. Wanyama. With this latest donation, Rainbow 4 Africa UK has now supplied a total of five ultrasound machines to hospitals in Busia County. Local healthcare workers welcomed the initiative, noting that expectant mothers previously had to travel long distances for ultrasound services. To ensure the sustainability of the initiative, the County Health Department has committed to training healthcare personnel on the proper use and maintenance of the machines. This effort will enhance service delivery and contribute to improved maternal healthcare in the region. You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign in to your account Username or Email Address Password Remember Me

Advertisement The Big Wheel, discovered using the James Webb Space Telescope, formed just 2 billion years after the big bang - surprisingly early for a spiral galaxy of a similar size to our Milky Way By James Woodford 17 March 2025 The Big Wheel galaxy formed 2 billion years after the big bangWeichen Wang The Big Wheel galaxy formed 2 billion years after the big bang Weichen Wang A newly-discovered spiral galaxy, dubbed the Big Wheel, formed just 2 billion years after the big bang – far earlier, considering its size, than astronomers thought possible. Themiya Nanayakkara, at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, says the discovery was an accident. He and his colleagues were looking for quasars, energetic regions at the heart of some galaxies, with the James Webb Space Telescope in November 2022 when a “large spiral galaxy popped up”. Read moreDozens of stars show signs of hosting advanced alien… Read more Dozens of stars show signs of hosting advanced alien… Advertisement Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers. To continue reading, subscribe today with our introductory offers Existing subscribers Advertisement Explore the latest news, articles and features News Subscriber-only News Subscriber-only Regulars Free Features Subscriber-only Trending New Scientist articles Advertisement Download the app

March 16, 2025 New NASA Missions, Bonus Moons for Saturn and Whale Urine That Balances Ocean Chemistry The EPA rolls back regulations, NASA launches two exciting missions, and we discuss the surprising way whale urine moves nitrogen across the ocean. By Rachel Feltman, Fonda Mwangi & Alex Sugiura Anaissa Ruiz Tejada/Scientific American Rachel Feltman: Happy Monday, listeners! For Scientific American's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. Let's get this week started with our usual science news roundup. First, unfortunately, I need to update you on some troubling environmental news. Last Wednesday the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, announced that the agency plans to get rid of or weaken many environmental rules and policies. Zeldin said the EPA could even pivot away from officially recognizing that greenhouse gases are bad for us. If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Back in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that meant that the EPA needed to determine whether these emissions by new motor vehicles were tied to air pollution that could harm the public, or if the science was too uncertain. Well, the science was certain. In 2009 the EPA officially determined that greenhouse gases threaten public health. Zeldin announced that the administration plans to reconsider these findings. In a video Zeldin posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, about the plans, he referred to the determination as… [CLIP: Lee Zedlin on X: “The holy grail of the climate-change religion.”] Feltman: It's important to note that since 2009 the evidence that greenhouse gas emissions put human lives in danger has only grown. According to Zeldin, the EPA plans to take a series of 31 actions to change or eliminate environmental regulations. Now, the big headline is that sectors like power generation and the automotive industry could face fewer regulatory requirements around climate pollution. The agency is also considering going after rules related to hydrofluorocarbons, which are extremely potent greenhouse gases. Zeldin argued that these gases contribute to food inflation by forcing companies to use refrigerant systems that make food more expensive. Other agency targets include regulations around wastewater from coal plants, industrial release of mercury and other toxins, soot pollution, and clean water protections for rivers and wetlands. In an EPA news release, Zeldin said the following about the proposed changes: "Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion.” E&E News by Politico reports that the EPA won't be able to do all of this at once. Overturning that 2009 finding on the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions will take at least a year. But there are plenty of environmental regulations the agency could roll back in the meantime. In recent days the EPA has canceled hundreds of grants and Zeldin has pledged to cut more than half of the agency's spending. Last Monday, Zeldin wrote in a statement that the EPA was “working hand-in-hand with DOGE,” which is overseen by Elon Musk. Last Thursday a federal judge ordered the U.S. DOGE Service to turn over records to 14 state attorneys general who allege that Musk's cost-cutting sweeps are violating the Constitution. Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told E&E News that the breadth of the proposed EPA rollbacks was surprising. In summary, she said, “the vibes are bad.” We will definitely be keeping an eye on what the EPA is up to in the next few months. But for now let's cleanse our palettes with some space news. Last Tuesday two NASA missions headed into space. One of those missions centers on a new space telescope called SPHEREx—no relation to SpaceX; it's short for Spectro-Photometer for the History of the Universe, Epoch of Reionization and Ices Explorer. Of course, NASA loves a good backronym. It's going to create a three-dimensional map of the sky every six months. The telescope will measure the distances between us and about 450 million other galaxies, in part to help understand how the universe rapidly expanded in the split second after the big bang. Tagging along on the same flight was NASA's PUNCH, short for Polarimeter to Unify the Corona and Heliosphere. That mission, which comprises four suitcase-sized satellites, is going to study solar wind. And I bet NASA was pleased as punch to get two awesome missions up on the same ride. But I hope those satellites realized they were getting into like an Uber Pool situation. In other great space news, Saturn is officially the mooniest planet in our solar system by a landslide. Last Tuesday the International Astronomical Union recognized the discovery of a whopping 128 new moons orbiting Saturn. That brings the planet's total up to 274, which is more moons than all the other planets in our solar system have combined—or at least the moons we know about, anyway. These findings, which relied on the use of the Canada France Hawaii Telescope to carefully watch Saturn's skies from 2019 to 2021, deepen the ringed planet's lunar dominance over Jupiter and its measly 95 moons. If you're wondering where all these moons could possibly fit, the answer is actually pretty simple: most of them are pretty much just wobbly little rocks. All 128 of the newly discovered moons are so-called irregular moons, meaning they're fragments of larger objects that got pulled into Saturn's orbit long ago. Each one is just a few kilometers across. The researchers say that many of these moons could stem from a relatively recent collision—just about a hundred million years ago. We'll end things on a delightful note with a new study on the incredible power of whale urine. A paper published last Monday in Nature Communications reports on the “great whale conveyor belt,” which transports what researchers estimate is nearly 4,000 tons of nitrogen around the world each year. Nitrogen is crucial for supporting the ocean's food chain because it provides fuel for phytoplankton. Without whale pee, it turns out, some marine climates might really be hurting for the stuff. Many whales spend the summer living in the nutrient-rich waters of cooler climates before traveling thousands of miles to warmer breeding grounds, where they live in higher concentrations. When they shed biomass in the form of poop, placentas and carcasses, they leave some of the nutrients of their summer binge in the waters of their winter homes. But according to this new study, it's the pee they leave behind that funnels the most nitrogen into their breeding grounds and they leave behind a lot of pee. One study found that a fin whale can produce 250 gallons of urine in a day.. The researchers estimate that whales might have transferred three times as many nutrients before commercial whaling lowered their populations. But even with that huge slowdown in the great whale conveyor belt, the animals are still super impactful: in one sanctuary in Hawaii, for example, whales provide approximately double the amount of nutrients that come from natural processes like ocean currents. Their liquid gold—and other bodily releases—helps support thriving ecosystems in coastal spots all over the world. That's all for this week's science news roundup. We'll be back on Wednesday to show you that when it comes to colonoscopies, most people don't know—you get the idea. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news. For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. Have a great week! Rachel Feltman is former executive editor of Popular Science and forever host of the podcast The Weirdest Thing I Learned This Week. She previously founded the blog Speaking of Science for the Washington Post. Fonda Mwangi is a multimedia editor at Scientific American. She previously worked as an audio producer at Axios, The Recount and WTOP News. She holds a master's degree in journalism and public affairs from American University in Washington, D.C. Alex Sugiura is a Peabody and Pulitzer Prize winning composer, editor and podcast producer based in Brooklyn, NY. He has worked on projects for Bloomberg, Axios, Crooked Media, Spotify amongst others. Learn and share the most exciting discoveries, innovations and ideas shaping our world today. Follow Us: Scientific American is part of Springer Nature, which owns or has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many of them can be found at www.springernature.com/us). Scientific American maintains a strict policy of editorial independence in reporting developments in science to our readers. © 2024 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This small, carved dog epitomizes ancient Egyptians' love of pets. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. Name: Mechanical Dog What it is: A moving dog sculpture carved from ivory Where it is from: Egypt When it was made: Around 1390 to 1352 B.C. Related: Onfim's doodle: A 13th-century kid's self-portrait on horseback, slaying an enemy What it tells us about the past: Posed as if leaping through the air, this carved ivory dog opens its mouth as a lever is pushed up and down, revealing two lower teeth and a red tongue. The dog, which was discovered in an ancient Egyptian tomb, is a reminder that these domesticated canines have been beloved pets for at least 3,400 years. Get the world's most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox. The small dog sculpture, now at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, is made from elephant ivory. It is 7.2 inches (18.2 centimeters) long from nose to toes and shows the very good boy in a flying gallop, legs extended in the air. According to The Met, the lever that works the dog's lower jaw, making it appear to bark, was originally held on by a piece of leather cord looped through small holes. At some point, the cord was replaced with a metal dowel secured in the dog's shoulder. The Met obtained the dog sculpture from the personal collection of Howard Carter, the Egyptologist who famously discovered King Tut's tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922. It is unclear exactly where the dog was found, but The Met suggests it may have been placed in an elite tomb sometime during the reign of Amenhotep III, King Tut's grandfather, in the 14th century B.C. But its purpose is unclear; it may have been a toy or a magical ceremonial object. Ancient Egyptians were quite fond of their dogs. While some were used for hunting, shepherding or as watchdogs, many were pets. This sculpture definitely represents a domesticated dog because the incised lines around its neck form a collar, Met curator emerita Catharine Roehrig wrote in a publication of the artifact. During Egypt's New Kingdom (1550 to 1070 B.C.), dog collars became increasingly ornate, often inscribed with the dog's name, such as those found in the Tomb of Maiherpri. This dog sculpture does not have a name attached to its collar, but The Met notes that some common Egyptian dog names translate to Blackie, Son of the Moon and Good-for-Nothing. —Yup'ik masks: Carvings depicting distorted spirits' faces dreamed up by shamans in Alaska —Croesus stater: The 2,500-year-old coin that introduced the gold standard —Ancient Egyptian 'granary with scribes' diorama: A miniature workplace found buried in a tomb from the Middle Kingdom The breed of this sculpted dog is also unclear. Ancient Egyptians tended to prefer energetic dog breeds, and the ones often represented in their art include the ancestors of the hunting dog basenji, the Ibizan hound and the pharaoh hound. Dogs were also linked with the god Anubis and with the afterlife in Egyptian mythology; they were sometimes seen as a kind of intermediary between the worlds of the living and the dead. Killing a dog — particularly a collared one — was a severe crime, and a family would have mourned the death of their dog as they would a human relative: by shaving their eyebrows. However, Egyptians believed that they would meet their dogs again in the afterlife, which is likely the reason they mummified them and buried them in special pet cemeteries. Kristina Killgrove is a staff writer at Live Science with a focus on archaeology and paleoanthropology news. Her articles have also appeared in venues such as Forbes, Smithsonian, and Mental Floss. Killgrove holds postgraduate degrees in anthropology and classical archaeology and was formerly a university professor and researcher. She has received awards from the Society for American Archaeology and the American Anthropological Association for her science writing. Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name. 'Pregnant' ancient Egyptian mummy with 'cancer' actually wasn't pregnant and didn't have cancer, new study finds 2,600-year-old jewelry stash from ancient Egypt includes gold statuette depicting family of gods What's the oldest lake on Earth? Live Science is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site. © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.