On April 19, 1966, Roberta Gibb became the first woman to (unofficially) finish the Boston marathon. Women were officially allowed to enter the race in 1971, and Boston medaled its first female winner in 1972 — the year that also saw the passage of Title IX — the amendment that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs or any program receiving federal funding. This year, 13,751 women crossed the Boston marathon finish line, making the finisher list 45 percent female. In the last 50 years, other sports have also welcomed in women, from weightlifting to rugby to wrestling. And of course, women exercise noncompetitively, lifting weights, holding yoga poses and putting in hours on the track and in the gym.

Women are making up for a historical bias against them in sports. Not surprisingly, there’s also historically been a bias in sports science. “If you went all the way back to the 1950s, a lot of exercise physiology studies about metabolism talk about the 150-pound-man,” says Bruce Gladden, an exercise physiologist at Auburn University in Alabama and the editor in chief of the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. “That was the average medical student.” It was a matter of convenience, studying the people nearest at hand, he explains.

Over time, athletes (and convenient student populations) have become more diverse, but diversity in studies of those athletes has continued to lag behind. When Joe Costello, an exercise physiologist at the University of Portsmouth in England, began studying the effects of extreme cold exposure on training recovery in athletes, he found that women were under-represented in the field compared to men. He wondered, he says, “is that the case across the board in sports science?”

Digging through three influential journals in the field — Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, the British Journal of Sports Medicine and the American Journal of Sports Medicine — Costello and his colleagues analyzed 1,382 articles published from 2011 to 2013, which added up to more than six million participants. The percentage of female participants per article was around 36 percent, and women represented 39 percent of the total participants, the scientists reported in April 2014 in the European Journal of Sport Science.

“In my opinion, it’s not enough,” he says. The numbers are relatively close to the gender breakdowns in competitive sport, he notes, but participation in noncompetitive exercise and casual running is a lot closer to a 50:50 breakdown, and the studies don’t reflect that.
Despite the gap, Costello’s study did show that women are represented in exercise science studies in general. But I wondered if the trend was improving — and if the type of study mattered. Are scientists studying women in, say, studies of metabolism, but neglecting them in studies of injury? I looked at published studies in two top exercise physiology journals and found that women remain under-studied, especially when it comes to studies of performance. Reasons for this under-representation abound, from menstrual cycles to funding to simple logistics. But with recent requirements for gender parity from funding agencies, reasons are no longer excuses. When it comes to the race to fitness, women are well out of the starting blocks, but the science still has some catching up to do.
Let’s look at the data
I followed Costello’s lead and looked at studies published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise and the American Journal of Sports Medicine, this time looking at the first five months of 2015(the former journals had articles available for free through May 2015; the latter granted me access. The third journal in the previous study, the British Journal of Sports Medicine, would only grant me access on a case-by-case basis). I excluded single case studies, animal studies, cell studies, studies involving cadavers and studies that dealt with coaches’ or doctors’ evaluations. I also excluded studies where the gender breakdown of participants wasn’t given (11 studies that included people didn’t mention the gender of the participants), and studies where there would be no reason to include women (such as those involving prostate cancer recovery).

That left me with 188 studies that included 254,813 participants. Of the 188 studies, 138, or 73 percent involved at least some women. But overall, women made up only 42 percent of participants. While 27 percent of the studies included only men, only 4 percent were studies of only women.

These results were similar to those Costello and his group showed in 2014. But I also wondered what, exactly, those women were being studied for. I took the 188 studies and divided them into six categories:

Studies on metabolism, obesity, sedentary behavior, weight loss and diabetes
Studies of nonmetabolic diseases
Basic physiology studies
Social studies, including uses of pedometers and group exercise
Sports injury
Performance studies.
In studies of metabolism, obesity, weight loss and diabetes (23 total studies), women were included in 87 percent of studies and represented 45 percent of participants, getting relatively close to gender parity. For nonmetabolic diseases (18 studies), 85 percent of studies included women, and they represented 44 percent of participants.
Out of 188 studies, the number of studies involving women ranged from 36 percent in performance to 100 percent in social studies.

In basic physiology studies (11 total studies), including studies of knee and muscle function and studies of people in microgravity, women were included in 45 percent of studies, and represented 42 percent of all participants.

Women were represented in 100 percent of social studies (seven papers) and made up 60 percent of the participants. These included studies such as self-cognition, how well people adhere to wearing activity trackers, and the influence of meet-up groups on exercise. “Women are more likely to take part in [or] be recruited to group training programs than men,” notes Charlotte Jelleyman, an exercise physiologist at the University of Leicester in England.

The most striking differences came when studying performance and sports injury. There were 102 studies of sports injury and recovery, from concussions and elbow and shoulder repair in baseball players to studies of injury in surfers. Women were present in 80 percent of these studies, but made up 40 percent of participants.

I was especially interested in the large number of studies (38 total) on knee and ACL repair. In these studies, women were present in 94 percent of studies, but were only about 42 percent of participants. “That’s a case where you would think there would be more emphasis,” Gladden notes. “ACL injuries are much more prevalent in female athletes.”
Out of more than 250,000 participants in the 188 studies analyzed, the majority were men, particularly in analyses of sports performance and injury.

But the biggest difference came in sports performance — training to get better, recover faster and perform stronger. Of 30 studies, 39 percent involved women, and women made up almost 40 percent of participants. But this result was heavily skewed by a single study of more than 90,000 participants, which examined sex differences in pacing during marathons. When this study was removed, the total number of participants in all performance studies dropped to 4,001. And the percentage of female participants dropped with it — to 3 percent. Scientists may be trying to get at the secrets of the best athletes, but to do so, they are mostly looking in men.

Time, money and menstrual cycles
There are many reasons why women might be under-represented in exercise science. One is the same reason that haunts many sex disparities in biological research — the menstrual cycle.

With monthly hormone cycles, “[we] have to test [women] at certain phases,” even if you’re studying something seemingly unrelated, such as knee pain, explained Mark Tarnopololsky, a neurometabolic specialist at McMaster University, who has extensively studied sex differences in exercise. “One has to choose which phase — follicular or luteal phase — so I think when physiologists are limited in their funds, it’s easier to get guys to come in at any time.”

For some types of studies, scientists note that no previous studies have found sex differences. So scientists just study men — with no menstrual cycle to worry about — and apply the results to women. But “it’s not good enough,” says Jelleyman. “Just to say that because it works in men and previous studies have found no sex differences we assume it will work on women too – you have to show it.”
Many scientists worry that cycling hormones means variable data points, so it’s easier to study men and state that the results probably apply to women, too. But that’s a cop out, says Marie Murphy, an exercise scientist at Ulster University in Northern Ireland. “If you revisit [women] in the same phase, they should be no more variable than a man,” she notes. “You return to them 28 days later and that’s easy enough. It’s not a difficult thing to do. But I think if you’re looking for an excuse you’ll find one.”

Using that excuse can mean missing important differences. Before Gibb’s Boston run in 1966, many people — including scientists — viewed distance running and extreme exercise as somehow unhealthy for women, Tarnopololsky explains. After his lab studied differences in metabolism in men and women during endurance exercise, his group found that “Women were at least as good, if not better able to withstand the rigors of the exercise.”

But menstrual cycles aside, studies are expensive, particularly studies involving people. In many cases, simplifying the study population is the only way to complete the work on time and within budget. As a member of the coaching teams associated with elite athletes, Louise Burke, a sports nutritionist at the Australian Institute of Sport, says she takes her research chances where she can find them. For a recent study of male race walkers, “when we decided to do the study I did think we’d have female race walkers,” she says. But she found that the pool of potential female participants was small. “We didn’t have a lot in Canberra,” she recalls. “Of that ones that were of the right caliber, we had people being injured, a couple who were doing a race that wouldn’t make them available.”

And when logistics shoot down one sex in a study, it will be the women who lose out. “Conference organizers are careful and include symposia on sex differences,” says John Hawley, an exercise physiologist at Australian Catholic University. But when it comes to actually doing studies, there can be challenges. Many of Hawley’s studies are invasive, involving biopsies that leave scars. And many women aren’t willing to get scarred for science. “If I go out to a triathlon and say to the females, ‘we’d like to do invasive work,’ they’re like ‘ooh, no biopsies,’” Hawley says. “It’s a legitimate practical issue.”

Finally, there are also cultural reasons that women end up underrepresented. Female athletes don’t get the same TV time as male athletes, and the players don’t get paid as much, even though, as in soccer, the women’s national team is more highly ranked than the men’s. This disparity might also result in [gender] disparity in performance studies, Gladden suggests. “Science unfortunately isn’t immune to those same problems.”

Leveling the playing field
Calls for equality in exercise research continue. In a recent article in The Sport and Exercise Scientist, Murphy looked at the March issue of the Journal of Sports Sciences, and found that the 13 papers in the issue included 852 participants, but only 103 women, a dismal participation rate of only 12 percent.

While Murphy notes that other fields of study may have similar findings, exercise science needs to do better. “It’s quite simple,” she says. “If we want to apply the findings to men and women, we need to test our hypotheses and do our measures in research involving men and women.”

The lack of parity for female research participants “should be alarming,” Hawley says. He notes that while scientists bear some responsibility, “the funding bodies and editors of journals should be asking more serious questions.” Scientists who peer-review each other’s work should also ask hard questions, he says. “Peer review is failing as well….The typical responses [are] ‘unfortunately the budget does not permit females’ (a complete white lie of course), and time and practicalities. It’s not an excuse.”

As is true in many areas of science, as more women join the ranks of scientists studying exercise, they are more likely to include women in their studies. But Murphy notes that it won’t solve the problem. “I don’t think scientists think of it unless they have a particular interest in the area,” she says. “There are really good women researchers [in exercise science], but they study men, and the men study men! We’re not doing ourselves any favors.”

The broader impact of this gender imbalance is that training, fitness and diet recommendations for performance and recovery are based on science that may have only been done in men, and then downsized to fit women. Sometimes it may make no difference. But what if it could? In the end, the road to stronger, better, faster and healthier is one with studies that include everyone. “It is important to show that the general principles of exercise effectiveness are applicable to all populations whether it be males or females, older or younger, ethnically different or diseased populations,” says Jelleyman. “Sometimes it emerges that there are differences, other times less so. But it is still important to know this so that recommendations can be based on relevant evidence.”

Dogs were domesticated at least twice, a new study suggests.

Genetic analyses of a 4,800-year-old Irish dog and 59 other ancient dogs suggest that canines and humans became pals in both Europe and East Asia long before the advent of farming, researchers report June 3 in Science. Later, dogs from East Asia accompanied their human companions to Europe, where their genetic legacy trumped that of dogs already living there, the team also concludes.

That muddled genetic legacy may help explain why previous studies have indicated that dogs were domesticated from wolves only once, although evidence hasn’t been clear about whether this took place in East Asia, Central Asia or Europe. The idea that dogs came from East Asia or Central Asia is mostly based on analysis of DNA from modern dogs, while claims for European origins have been staked on studies of prehistoric pups’ genetics. “This paper combines both types of data” to give a more complete picture of canine evolution, says Mietje Germonpré, a paleontologist at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels, who was not part of the study.

Understanding this domestication process may illuminate humans’ distant past — dogs were probably the first domesticated animal and may have paved the way for taming other animals and plants.

In the study, evolutionary geneticist Laurent Frantz of the University of Oxford and colleagues compiled the complete set of genes, or genome, of an ancient dog found in a tomb near Newgrange, Ireland. Researchers drilled into the hard-as-stone petrous portion of the dog’s temporal bone, which contains the inner ear, to get well-protected DNA, Frantz says.
The researchers don’t know much about what the midsize dog looked like; it doesn’t bear any genetic markers of particular modern dog breeds, Frantz says. “He wasn’t black. He wasn’t spotted. He wasn’t white.” Instead, the Newgrange dog was probably a mongrel with fur similar to a wolf’s.

But the ancient mutt has something special in his genes — a stretch of enigmatic DNA, says Germonpré. “This Irish dog has a component that can’t be found in recent dogs or recent wolves.” That distinct DNA could represent the genetic ancestry of indigenous European prehistoric dogs, she says. Or it could be a trace of an extinct ancient wolf that may have given rise to dogs (SN: 7/13/13, p. 14).
Unraveling the prehistoric mutt’s DNA may help researchers understand dogs’ history. Already, comparisons of the ancient Irish dog’s DNA with that of modern dogs reveal that East Asian dogs are genetically different from European and Middle Eastern dogs, the researchers have found. Other researchers may have missed the distinction between the two groups because they were working with subsets of the data that Frantz and colleagues amassed. Frantz’s team generated DNA data from the Newgrange dog and other ancient dogs, but also used data from previous studies of modern dogs, including the complete genomes of 80 dogs and less-complete sampling of DNA from 605 dogs, a collection of 48 breeds and village dogs of no particular breed.

The distinct genetic profiles of today’s Eastern and Western dogs suggests that two separate branches of the canine family tree once existed. The Newgrange dog’s DNA is more like that of the Western dogs. Since the Irish dog is 4,800 years old, the Eastern and Western dogs must have formed distinct groups before then, probably between about 6,400 to 14,000 years ago. The finding suggests that dogs may have been domesticated from local wolves in two separate locations during the Stone Age.

The ancient dog’s DNA may also help pinpoint when domestication happened. Using the Newgrange dog as a calibrator and the modern dogs to determine how much dogs have changed genetically in the past 4,800 years, Frantz and colleagues determined that dogs’ mutation rate is slower than researchers have previously calculated. Then, using the slower mutation rate to calculate when dogs became distinct from wolves, the researchers found that separate branches of the canine family tree formed between 20,000 and 60,000 years ago. Many previous calculations put the split between about 13,000 and about 30,000 years ago, but the new dates are consistent with figures from a study of an ancient wolf’s DNA (SN: 6/13/15, p. 10). Frantz and colleagues emphasize that their estimate doesn’t necessarily pinpoint the time of domestication. It could indicate that different populations of wolves were evolving into new species at that time. One of those could later have evolved into the ancestor of dogs.
Although the new study indicates there were two origin points for dogs, humans’ canine companions have since mixed and mingled. By comparing mitochondrial DNA, the genetic material inside energy-generating organelles, from 59 ancient European dogs and 167 modern dogs, the researchers determined that East Asian dogs at least partially genetically replaced European dogs in the distant past. Mitochondria are inherited from the mother. Ancient European dogs’ mitochondrial DNA varieties, or haplogroups, differed from those of modern dogs, the researchers found. Of the ancient dogs, 63 percent carried haplogroup C and 20 percent carried haplogroup D. But in present-day dogs, 64 percent carry haplogroup A and 22 percent carry haplogroup B. That shift and other evidence indicate that dogs from the East moved west with humans, and Eastern dogs passed more of their genetic heritage to descendants than Western dogs did.

Archaeological evidence backs up the dual origin story. Dogs as old as 12,500 years old have been found in East Asia. In Europe, dogs date back to 15,000 years ago. But there is a dearth of dog remains older than 8,000 years old in Central Eurasia. That lack possibly rules out this in-between region as a domestication site, despite some genetic evidence from village dogs that says otherwise (SN:11/28/15, p. 8). “The argument in this paper, pointing out a pattern in the archaeological data of an absence of early dog remains in the period [before] 10,000 years ago, should be taken very seriously,” says Pontus Skoglund, an evolutionary geneticist at Harvard University.

He’s not yet won over by the double-domestication hypothesis, though. The researchers admit they can’t yet rule out that dogs were domesticated once, then transported to different places where isolation, random chance and other factors caused them to drift apart genetically.

More ancient DNA may help clarify the still-hazy picture of dog domestication. Says Skoglund: “It’s going to be an exciting time going forward.”

Feeling good may help the body fight germs, experiments on mice suggest. When activated, nerve cells that help signal reward also boost the mice’s immune systems, scientists report July 4 in Nature Medicine. The study links positive feelings to a supercharged immune system, results that may partially explain the placebo effect.

Scientists artificially dialed up the activity of nerve cells in the ventral tegmental area — a part of the brain thought to help dole out rewarding feelings. This activation had a big effect on the mice’s immune systems, Tamar Ben-Shaanan of Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa and colleagues found.

A day after the nerve cells in the ventral tegmental area were activated, mice were infected with E. coli bacteria. Later tests revealed that mice with artificially activated nerve cells had less E. coli in their bodies than mice without the nerve cell activation. Certain immune cells seemed to be ramped up, too. Monocytes and macrophages were more powerful E. coli killers after the nerve cell activation.

If a similar effect is found in people, the results may offer a biological explanation for how positive thinking can influence health.

Zika should soon run its course in Latin America.

Within the next couple of years, the epidemic that has battered the region since 2015 will largely be over, researchers estimate in a paper online July 14 in Science.

“If we’re not past the peak already, we’re very close to it,” says study coauthor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London. After this outbreak winds down, it may be a decade ­— at least — before another large-scale Zika epidemic hits the region.
The new timeline could help vaccine researchers get a jump on future outbreaks, and might make health officials rethink advice to pregnant women trying to avoid Zika-related birth defects. Ferguson’s work also suggests something counterintuitive: Current efforts to kill Zika-carrying mosquitoes might actually make it easier for the virus to reemerge.

“It’s an important and timely analysis,” says infectious disease researcher Oliver Pybus of the University of Oxford. “Policy makers would be wise to read it carefully.”

Brazil reported the first cases of Zika in May 2015. Since then, the mosquito-borne virus has spread to 48 countries. Scientists have now widely accepted Zika as a cause of microcephaly, a devastating birth defect that leaves babies with shrunken heads and brains, as well as other serious problems (SN Online: 6/28/16).

Scientists and health officials have hustled to fight Zika, but they’ve had trouble keeping up. Mosquito-control efforts haven’t helped much, says Ferguson, and a safe and effective vaccine could still be years away. What’s more, advice to postpone pregnancy isn’t always realistic, he says.

Predicting the epidemic’s course could refine current Zika-fighting strategies.
Ferguson and colleagues made a computer simulation of Zika transmission within Latin America, using data from 35 countries that have reported cases. The team factored in such variables as seasonal climate variation, the ease with which Zika jumps from person to mosquito to person, and human travel patterns between countries.

After the current outbreak ends, simulations show that some 30 years could pass before Zika transmission picks up again. Once infected with Zika, people are immune to the virus, Ferguson says, capping an epidemic’s length and buying some time before a resurgence. He can’t say for sure that another major outbreak is still three decades away — but suspects a lull could last at least one decade.

Zika has “been burning through the population,” Ferguson says. “Sooner or later, it starts to run out of people to infect.”

The virus doesn’t need to infect everybody to peter out — just enough to generate herd immunity. At that point, so many people are immune to Zika that it can’t easily spread, protecting those still uninfected.

Killing mosquitoes — a strategy some countries have used to curb Zika’s reach — could actually hinder herd immunity, letting the next epidemic strike sooner, the team’s simulations suggest. With mosquito control that’s only marginally effective, a second wave of Zika hits about five years earlier than with no mosquito control at all, the simulations indicate.

“It makes sense theoretically,” says epidemiologist Mikkel Quam of Umeå University in Sweden. But considering that the cost of herd immunity might be more babies born with birth defects, he says, “any way to reduce infection is worth doing now, even if it means potentially more epidemics in years to come.”

Immunity to Zika could pose problems for vaccine development, Ferguson says. By the time researchers have something that’s safe to use, it will be hard to find a group of people to test it in. “This was a problem at the end of the Ebola epidemic as well,” he says.

Still, Ferguson says it’s an opportunity to think creatively. In the future, for instance, researchers could prequalify trial sites and get clinicians on the ground early, so when (and if) Zika hits somewhere else, say southeast Asia, they’re ready to go.

He also thinks his simulation could help health officials more clearly lay out the risks to pregnant women. Though the epidemic in Latin America will last roughly three years, his team estimates, individual outbreaks within the region can taper off after three to six months.

By tailoring recommendations to different locations, officials could limit the period of time they’re advising women to delay pregnancy.

Boeing Milestones of Flight Hall
Now open
After two years of renovations, some of the museum’s most cherished artifacts — including the Spirit of St. Louis and an Apollo Lunar Module — are now on display alongside new objects, including a studio model of the Starship Enterprise.

National Air & Space Museum, Washington, D.C.
Pterosaurs: Flight in the Age of Dinosaurs
Through October 2
Fossils, life-size models and a virtual flight lab transport visitors back to the time of these ancient fliers.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
DARPA: Redefining Possible
Through September 5
In this hands-on exhibit, see a humanlike robot, prosthetic arm, robotic exoskeleton and other high-tech innovations developed by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency over the last six decades.

Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago

Exercise may not erase old memories, as some studies in animals have previously suggested.

Running on an exercise wheel doesn’t make rats forget previous trips through an underwater maze, Ashok Shetty and colleagues report August 2 in the Journal of Neuroscience. Exercise or not, four weeks after learning how to find a hidden platform, rats seem to remember the location just fine, the team found.

The results conflict with two earlier papers that show that running triggers memory loss in some rodents by boosting the birth of new brain cells. Making new brain cells rejiggers memory circuits, and that can make it hard for animals to remember what they’ve learned, says Paul Frankland, a neuroscientist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. He has reported this phenomenon in mice, guinea pigs and degus (SN: 6/14/14, p. 7).
Maybe rats are the exception, he says, “but I’m not convinced.”

In 2014, Frankland and colleagues reported that brain cell genesis clears out fearful memories in three different kinds of rodents. Two years later, Frankland’s team found similar results with spatial memories. After exercising, mice had trouble remembering the location of a hidden platform in a water maze, the team reported in February in Nature Communications. Again, Frankland and colleagues pinned the memory wipeout on brain cell creation — like a chalkboard eraser that brushes away old information. The wipe seemed to clear the way for new memories to form.

Shetty, a neuroscientist at Texas A&M Health Science Center in Temple, wondered if the results held true in rats, too. “Rats are quite different from mice,” he says. “Their biology is similar to humans.”
Using a water maze similar to Frankland’s, Shetty’s team taught two groups of rats how to find a hidden platform in eight training sessions over eight days. Then rats in just one of the groups exercised on a running wheel. Four weeks later, rats in both groups performed the same in the maze test — despite the fact that running rats had 1.5 to 2 times more newly born brain cells in the hippocampus, a skinny strip of tissue that’s thought to help form new memories.
These results and other memory tests “clearly showed that exercise did not interfere with memory recall,” Shetty says. And it’s likely that exercise doesn’t harm human memories either, he says.

Frankland says it’s possible that Shetty’s rats just learned the water maze too well. Shetty’s team trained their rodents for longer than Frankland’s team did, perhaps etching memories more deeply in the brain.

“The stronger the memory is, the harder it is going to be to erase it,” Frankland says.

But he points out that erasing memories isn’t necessarily a bad thing. “People get hung up on this idea,” he says, but actually, clearing out old info from the brain — forgetting — is important. Without some sort of clearance process, “your memory is going to be full of junk.”

Manchester, England, is not the birthplace of graphene — the atom-thin, honeycomb-like layer of carbon known for its wondrous properties and seemingly limitless applications. But the city is the material’s main booster and, according to the University of Manchester, the official Home of Graphene. That’s because it was there that Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov figured out that you could isolate the elusive material from graphite (the “lead” in pencils) with repeated dabs of sticky tape.
The two-dimensional material also proved to be a peerless electrical conductor and superstrong, earning the two Manchester scientists the 2010 Nobel Prize in physics. So when the city played host to the EuroScience Open Forum conference late last month, it made sense that Geim, graphene and the material’s many evolving applications took center stage. At the local science museum’s new exhibit about graphene, I learned that Geim is the only Nobelist who has also been honored with an Ig Nobel (which has fun celebrating seemingly useless research in science). He contends many are more familiar with his Ig Nobel–winning device to levitate a tiny frog than with his work on graphene.

Notably, graphene comes up in both of the feature stories in this issue, adding some heft, perhaps, to Mancunian claims. In Thomas Sumner’s cover story “Quenching society’s thirst,” about the growing interest in desalination to meet the globe’s escalating need for freshwater, graphene oxide has a potentially starring role. New membranes made from this material may help increase the efficiency of separating salt from water. Cost and efficiency, Sumner reports, remain the biggest obstacles to the widespread use of desalination.

Graphene can serve as analogy and inspiration in physicists’ efforts to create solid metallic hydrogen, another theorized wonder material, which Emily Conover describes in “Chasing a devious metal.” “It’s a high-stakes, high-passion pursuit that sparks dreams of a coveted new material that could unlock enormous technological advances in electronics,” Conover writes. Solid hydrogen, which has been made, takes on a graphenelike structure when squeezed to high pressures. Solid metal hydrogen might be a superconductor at room temperature, an exciting prospect. Despite significant progress, so far no one has been able to create it.

Local celebrity or not, graphene did share the spotlight with other science superstars at the EuroScience meeting. The gene-editing tool CRISPR got lots of attention. In a review of the historic detection of gravitational waves, Sheila Rowan of the University of Glasgow offered a bevy of questions that gravitational astronomy might be able to answer in the coming years: Where and when do black holes form? What does that tell you about the large-scale formation of galaxies? Is general relativity still valid when gravity is very strong (such as near supermassive black holes)? A session on the human microbiome generated even more questions, as scientists described efforts to use microbial species as telltale signs of diseases such as cancer. And a debate about how to prevent food allergies left most agreeing that more data are needed. As answers come in on all of these and many more fascinating topics, you can be sure that Science News will be there to report on them.

Going for walks, playing fetch and now participating in genetic research are just a few things people and their dogs can do together.

Darwin’s Dogs, a citizen science project headquartered at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, is looking for good — and bad — dogs to donate DNA. The project aims to uncover genes that govern behavior, including those involved in mental illness in both people and pets.

Looking to dogs for clues about mental illness isn’t as strange as it may seem. Certain breeds are plagued by some of the same diseases and mental health issues that afflict people. Researchers have learned about the genetics of narcolepsy and obsessive compulsive disorder, as well as cancer, blindness and many other ailments from studying purebred dogs. Studies of purebreds are mainly useful when the problem is caused by mutations in a single gene. But most behaviors are the product of interactions between many genes and the environment. A search for those genes can’t be done with a small number of genetically similar dogs. So, Darwin’s Dogs hopes to gather data on a large number of canines, including many breeds and genetically diverse mutts.
Finding behavior-related genes, such as ones that lead dogs to chew up shoes or engage in marathon fetch sessions, may give clues to genes that affect human behavior. “It seemed to me that if we could understand how [changes in DNA] make a dog so excited about chasing a ball, we could learn something about how our brains work and what goes wrong in psychiatric disease,” says project leader Elinor Karlsson.

Karlsson and colleagues launched darwinsdogs.org, inviting people to answer questions about their dogs’ behavior and share their pets’ DNA. More than 7,000 dog owners have already signed up, and the researchers are still recruiting new volunteers.

The process is simple and can be done alone with your dog, or even as a family activity. First, take an online quiz about your canine companion. The quiz is divided into multiple sections. Some sections gather basic information about your dog’s appearance, exercise and eating habits; others ask about simple behaviors, such as whether your dog crosses its front paws when lying down or tilts its head. (Some questions are philosophical puzzles like whether your dog knows it is a dog.) Each question has a comment box in case you want to explain an answer. Plan to spend at least half an hour completing the questionnaire.

Once the questions are answered and the dog is registered, researchers send you a DNA sampling kit that comes with written instructions and an easy-to-follow picture guide. The kit contains a large sterile cotton swab for collecting DNA from your dog’s mouth. (It’s an easy procedure for the human involved, and Sally, the 14-year-old Irish setter “volunteer” Science News sampled, was rather stoic.) Also included is a tape measure for recording your dog’s height, length, nose and collar size. When you’re done, just seal the sample, measurement sheet and consent form inside the return mailer and drop it in a mailbox.

Dog owners don’t need to pay a fee to participate, but they do need patience, Karlsson says. It takes time to analyze DNA, and the researchers can’t say exactly how long it will be before owners (and Science News) learn their dogs’ results. These results will include the dog’s raw genetic data as well as information about the dog’s possible ancestry. Knowing ancestry or particular mutations a dog carries may help veterinarians personalize a dog’s care.
Dog trainers are being enlisted to give owners feedback on their dogs’ personalities and to suggest activities the dogs may enjoy. Karlsson hopes to create a way for impatient owners who are willing to donate money to the project to get their reports back faster.

As of today, antibacterial soaps have a short shelf life. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned soap products containing 19 active ingredients, including the notorious chemical triclosan, marketed as antiseptics.

While the term “antibacterial” suggests to consumers that such soaps prevent the spread of germs, evidence suggests otherwise. After asking companies to submit data on the safety and efficacy of their products back in 2013, the FDA noted in its September 2 final ruling that manufacturers failed to prove that these products were safe to use every day or that they were more effective than plain old soap and water at cutting infectious microbes.

“In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term,” Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Triclosan, in particular, has a pretty bad rap. Found in many household products, the chemical ends up everywhere from vegetables to our snot. It’s been associated with exposure to toxic compounds, risk of staph infections and mucking up sewage treatment. Over a decade of damning data had already prompted some companies to remove triclosan from their products. Others will have a year to remove it and other newly banned ingredients from their recipes.

The FDA ban does not include antibacterial hand sanitizers, which the agency is evaluating separately. In the meantime, the FDA recommends using hand sanitizers that are at least 60 percent alcohol, or washing with old-school soap and water.

Live long and prosper
In Science News’ special report on a­ging (SN: 7/23/16, p. 16), writers Laura Sanders, Tina Hesman Saey and Susan Milius explored the latest research — from the evolution of aging in the animal kingdom to scientists’ quest to delay the process in humans’ bodies and minds.

“I would very much like to know how research into aging may benefit people who are middle-aged or elderly now?” asked leftysrule200 in a Reddit Ask Me Anything about the special report. “Is there any research that can result in treatments in the very near future, or are the real-world applications only going to be visible in the distant future?”
Middle-aged and elderly people will be the first to benefit from aging research, Saey says. “A clinical trial using the diabetes drug metformin as an antiaging therapy will begin soon. That drug will be tested on healthy people aged 60 and older,” she says.

Sanders cautions that most antiaging treatments are still a long way off. But various studies in rodents and humans provide potential clues to aging’s secrets. Blood from young rats, for instance, has been shown to rejuvenate the bodies and brains of old rats. Based on those findings, a clinical study in humans is now under way that is looking at the effects of plasma from young donors on the brains of people with Alzheimer’s. “If scientists could pinpoint the compounds that give young blood its power, then they could presumably develop drugs that mimic that process,” Sanders says.
In the meantime, people may be able to slow the effects of aging by leading a healthy lifestyle. Sanders points to a long-term study of middle-aged women in Australia. Women who were more physically active had sharper memories 20 years later, the researchers found. Until proven antiaging treatments are available, “it seems that keeping the body physically active and strong is one of the best ways to keep your brain sharp as you age,” she says.
Dino spills its guts
Tiny tracks discovered in the blackened stomach contents of a 77-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur fossil suggest gut parasites infected dinosaurs, Meghan Rosen reported in “Parasites wormed way into dino’s gut” (SN: 7/23/16, p. 14).

Online reader Jim Stangle Dvm thought the worms may not have been parasites at all. “It is more likely that the tunnels were formed by a scavenger worm [after the dino had died]. Still I think the findings are way cool!” he wrote.

It’s hard to say definitively whether the burrows were made by parasites or not, says paleontologist Justin Tweet. Scavenger worms could have tunneled through the gut after the dino’s death, but his team found only one type of worm burrow “which suggests that either only one kind of scavenger had access to the carcass,” or “that these burrows were an inside job,” Tweet says.

That’s no moon!
A recently discovered asteroid appears to orbit Earth, but that’s just an illusion. The asteroid orbits the sun, but its constant proximity to Earth makes it the planet’s only known quasisatellite, Christopher Crockett reported in “Say What? Quasi­satellite” (SN: 7/23/16, p. 5).

Reader Mike Lieber wondered if the moon could also be a quasisatellite. “The gravitational attraction of the sun on the moon is twice that of the Earth,” he wrote. “It seems that the apparent looping of the moon around the Earth is also illusory.”

The moon is a true satellite, Crockett says. If the sun were to dis­appear, the moon would continue orbiting Earth. “The moon is within Earth’s ‘Hill sphere,’ the volume of space in which Earth’s gravity is the dominant influence,” he says. “The strength of the gravitational force isn’t as important as by how much it changes from one place to another.” Given the moon’s proximity to our planet, Earth prevails. “The moon orbits Earth and the Earth-moon s­ystem orbits the sun,” he says.