Have you ever wondered what life would be like if it were possible to revive extinct animals? To see a woolly mammoth, or a dodo bird? Thanks to a new modern-day technology, these doors are being opened.
A dire wolf is a species of canine that went extinct about 13,000 years ago, differing from the modern gray wolf in its larger body, more massive skull, and smaller brain. In 2021, a company called Colossus Biosciences was able to extract dire wolf DNA from ancient fossils. Using this DNA to find the specific dire wolf genes, the scientists made 20 edits to a gray wolf gene, the closest living relative, until they produced an animal with the same key features as a dire wolf. After creating embryos from these genes, they implanted them into surrogate canine mothers.
Soon after this, three healthy baby wolves were born, carrying the key traits of dire wolves. These three wolves are now known as the first successful use of de-extinction, sparking much debate over whether this practice should be continued.
The Pros of De-extinction:
De-extinction is a powerful tool for animal conservation and ecosystem restoration. Bringing back extinct keystone species could restore degraded habitats that have withered without them, opening doors to revive grasslands and other ecosystems. Along with ecosystem restoration, keystone species could impact the climate and weather in their habitat by impacting carbon storage and moisture regulation.
This technology could also target endangered species, allowing scientists to save and protect animals at risk. By altering extinct genes to restore genetic diversity in a threatened species, scientists could avoid the extinction of important keystone species, keeping the ecosystem’s equilibrium steady.
Along with these two pros, de-extinction has led to significant scientific breakthroughs, specifically in biology and genetics. If it continues to be explored, it de-extinction could lead to other discoveries and raise awareness around the importance of protecting species and biodiversity.
Cons of De-Extinction:
Yet, this useful new technology also harbors many risks. Dr. Meachen, a vertebrate paleontologist and morphologist, stated that she is wary of this new process, saying,
“I have questions. We have trouble with the wolves we have today.”
The de-extinction process is costly and requires funds that the private sector may not be able to provide, meaning governments may have to assume funding. In this case, resources used in this process would come from the government’s conservation budget, making present conservation efforts lose funding. This would mean that existing endangered species facing immediate threats would be at risk, resulting in biodiversity loss.
Placing extinct animals back into their environments might also have drawbacks, as most extinct animals’ ecosystems have changed since they became extinct, and there is no guarantee that they will be able to adapt back. This could lead to potentially invasive species, as their habitats may lack natural predators to keep the revived population in check. Reintroducing a species might also create conflict within the ecosystem, impacting the stability and equilibrium.
Finally, many ethical questions come with de-extinction. By providing a way to return past life to the planet, there may be consequences of falsely condoning extinction and pardoning harm to species. Many critics also believe it is not our responsibility to “play God” and create new life.
In Conclusion:
De-extinction has provided substantial progress in science and has opened doors to new ways to conserve animals and habitats. However, many disadvantages come with it, posing the question: should de-extinction be further used, and if so, should there be limitations to what scientists can and can’t do with the genetic engineering of extinct animals?
While the concepts of space and time were fundamental to the Newtonian world, centuries of digging deeper into the mechanics of our universe have uncovered that it isn’t all as simple as it seems. From Einstein’s Special Relativity to theories of multi-dimensional time, the science behind space and time has evolved into a complex field.
Why Extra Temporal Dimensions?
The search for extra spatial dimensions raises questions of the potential for extra temporal dimensions. If space can have more dimensions, why can’t time? The motivations to explore the potential for extra temporal dimensions arise from a desire to better understand the nature of time and the symmetries between them.
Another reason to study these extra-temporal dimensions is the desire to unify seemingly disconnected parts of time. Many frameworks for extra temporal dimensions have revealed previously unnoticed symmetries and relationships between different temporal systems that would not be discovered while only working in one dimension.
The concept of “complex time” is used to fix some of the problems of quantum mechanics. This idea suggests that time should be represented as a complex value rather than a real number. It would allow more ways to represent wave-particle duality, entanglement, and other fundamental concepts of quantum physics.
2T-Physics
Proposed by physicist Itzhak Bars, 2T-Physics suggests that the one dimension of time we experience is really just a “shadow” of the real two dimensions of time. The core motivation of 2T-Physics is to reveal the deeper temporal connections that we don’t see in our one-dimensional perspective. In 2T-Physics, two seemingly disconnected temporal systems are actually connected and represent different views or ‘shadows’ of the same two-dimensional time.
2T-Physics unifies a wide range of physical systems using “gauge symmetry,” which is the property of a system where a set of transformations, called gauge transformations, can be used on a system without changing any of the physical properties of that system. Bars also illustrated that the Standard Model could be explained by 2T-Physics with four spatial dimensions. Not only can this model predict most of the Standard Model, but it also provides a solution to some quantum issues.
An interesting difference between the Standard Model and the predictions of 2T-Physics is the gravitational constant. While it is currently established that the coefficient in gravitational equations is a constant 6.67⋅10-11, the mathematics of 2T-Physics means that the gravitational constant has different values for different periods of our universe (inflation, grand unification, etc). This allows new possibilities for early expansion of our universe that General Relativity and the Standard Model do not. Through its new perspectives, 2T-Physics allows a more complete framework of gravity, especially at higher dimensions.
While 2T-Physics is well-established, it remains highly theoretical and has little to no practical impact. While there is no evidence directly supporting the theory, 2T-Physics predicts certain connections between different physical systems that could potentially be verified through complex experiments, though none have been conducted so far. Above all, 2T-Physics provides a new perspective on time and the nature of the laws of physics that has opened the eyes of many scientists and will likely inspire future discoveries.
3D Time
One of the most recent papers in the field, Kletetschka, proposes a mathematical framework of spacetime that includes temporal dimensions. Kletetschka provides a new perspective on combining gravity and quantum mechanics. Instead of having two hidden dimensions of time, Kletetschka theorizes that each of these dimensions is used to represent time at different scales: the quantum scale, the interaction scale, and the cosmological scale. He explains that the other two dimensions are not visible in our daily life because they occur at very small (quantum) levels or very large (cosmological) levels.
A massive difference between this theory and conventional physics is that while conventional physics considers space to be something vastly different from time, Kletetschka proposes that space is a byproduct of time in each of these dimensions, rather than an entirely separate entity. What we experience as mass or energy actually arises from the curvature of time in these three dimensions. As Kletetschka explored more into this, he discovered surprising consistency in the mathematics, leading to a deeper exploration into the concept.
The key to not creating causality issues and instability in the theory was the usage of regular geometry and spatial dimensions instead of exotic situations that are hard to prove or test. This theory aimed to address many of the long-standing issues in quantum mechanics, and its success thus far makes it a prominent theory in the field.
The theory is able to add extra temporal dimensions without causing causality issues, something very few theories of its type have been able to grapple with. This is due to its structure. The theory is designed so that the three axes share an ordered flow, preventing an event from happening before its cause. Furthermore, these three axes operate at very different scales, leaving very little overlap between them. The mathematics of the framework does not allow for the alteration of events in the past, something that many other theories allow.
The theory is able to offer physical significance and a connection to our world alongside mathematical consistency. Things such as finite quantum corrections, which other theories were not able to predict, were mechanized by this model without creating extra complexity.
This mathematical framework is able to predict several properties and new phenomena that can be experimentally tested, allowing pathways to prove or disprove it soon. Meanwhile, many scientists have spoken in support of the theory, considering it a promising candidate for a near “Theory of Everything” just a few months after its publication.
Conclusion
While the theoretical motivation for extra dimensions is compelling, the reality of their existence remains unconfirmed. Meanwhile, the scientific community works to experimentally prove or disprove their existence through observational evidence.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is one of the major players on the experimental side. They engage in many experiments, a few of which I have highlighted below.
Tests for Microscopic Black Holes: Many of the theories that propose extra dimensions lead to increased gravitational power within short distances. This manifests physically as microscopic black holes that would dissipate near instantaneously due to Hawking Radiation. However, the byproduct of this dissipation would be particles detected through the LHC.
The Graviton Disappearance: Another common feature of extra-dimensional theories is the manifestation of gravity as a particle called a graviton. That particle would disappear into these extra dimensions, taking energy with it. This would result in an imbalance in the total energy of the system.
While experiments have managed to provide more limitations for potential values that would work in certain theories, they have yet to prove or disprove them.
Meanwhile, it is important to consider what extra dimensions would mean for us and the way we live. The concept of extra dimensions provides multiple philosophical considerations for us as humans. This concept completely changes our worldview and affects our perception of the universe. Dr. Michio Kaku explains this through the analogy of a fish in a pond, unaware of the world outside its simple reality. Our perception of reality is limited, not only by our understanding of physics, but also by the biology of our brains.
The work towards a “Theory of Everything” is not only a physical goal but a philosophical one as well. We strive to understand our universe and everything within it in the simplest way possible. It embodies human desire for ultimate knowledge and drives centuries of physical progress.
Overall, the concept of extra dimensions represents one of the most arduous and ambitious goals in human history. While they lack proof, these theories motivate people to search more into the nature of our universe and question the very fabric of our reality. The exploration into further discoveries about our universe truly shows who we are as humans and will continue to motivate centuries of physicists to question the very nature of everything.
DUFF, M. J. (1996). M THEORY (THE THEORY FORMERLY KNOWN AS STRINGS). International Journal of Modern Physics A, 11(32), 5623–5641. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217751x96002583
Gunther Kletetschka. (2025). Three-Dimensional Time: A Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Physics. Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences, 09. https://doi.org/10.1142/s2424942425500045
Kalligas, D., S, W. P., & Everitt,. (1995). The classical tests in Kaluza-Klein gravity. The Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, 439(2). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950044695
Lloyd, S., Maccone, L., Garcia-Patron, R., Giovannetti, V., Shikano, Y., Pirandola, S., Rozema, L. A., Darabi, A., Soudagar, Y., Shalm, L. K., & Steinberg, A. M. (2011). Closed Timelike Curves via Postselection: Theory and Experimental Test of Consistency. Physical Review Letters, 106(4). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.106.040403
While the concepts of space and time were fundamental to the Newtonian world, centuries of digging deeper into the mechanics of our universe have uncovered that it isn’t all as simple as it seems. From Einstein’s Special Relativity to theories of multi-dimensional time, the science behind space and time has evolved into a complex field.
What are Extra Spatial Dimensions?
As scientists explored further into spacetime, theories of more dimensions of space, beyond the three we know, were suggested as a way to explain many of the phenomena that we cannot explain with only three dimensions. These ideas gained most of their traction from the pursuit to combine quantum mechanics with General Relativity, especially issues such as quantum gravity. These theories also attempt to address the rapid growth of the universe after the Big Bang.
What were the motivations to search for Extra Dimensions?
The idea of more dimensions began as a way to unify the fundamental forces of our universe. Modern theories regarding these ideas come from a drive to resolve some of the unaddressed issues of the Standard Model of physics. While the Standard Model is able to describe fundamental particles and the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces, it is unable to describe gravity. In addition, the Standard Model cannot address dark matter and dark energy, which make up the majority of our universe.
One of the most significant problems in physics is the Hierarchy problem. It refers to the massive gap in strength between gravity and the other three fundamental forces. This extreme difference comes from the small scale of the strength of gravity in comparison to the other forces. Extra-Dimensions have attempted to resolve this by suggesting that while gravity may be just as strong as the other forces, its strength is leaked into the other dimensions, thus weakening it.
This search to discover extra dimensions is not only about solving these specific technical issues; it’s about the centuries-long quest to find a Theory of Everything. Physicists constantly strive to find simpler solutions to describe our universe rather than leaning on hyperspecific coefficients/constants.
While there are many theories involving extra-spatial dimensions, part 2 will focus on a few of the biggest and most influential theories so far.
Kaluza-Klein Theory
In 1919, Theodor Kaluza proposed his theory of four-dimensional space as an attempt to combine gravity and electromagnetism. This theory was later built upon by Oscar Klein in 1926.
In Kaluza’s attempt to combine these fundamental forces, he suggested a fourth, unseen spatial dimension. To create this system, he used Einstein’s equations and extended them into a fifth dimension. He found that the five-dimensional version of Einstein’s equations naturally created the four-dimensional version in one part. The equation had fifteen components, ten of which described our four-dimensional General Relativity. Four of the remaining five described the electromagnetic force through Maxwell’s equations, while the last dimension was the scalar field, which had no known use.
A key concept of Kaluza-Klein theory is that, rather than seeing electric charge as simply an event or calculation, it is represented as the motion of the fifth dimension. The attempt to create the simplest mathematical structure that could represent the five dimensions led to the assumption that no part of the five-dimensional Einstein equations relied explicitly on this fifth dimension. Instead, its presence was there to alleviate other issues in the Standard Model without disrupting the basic functions of Einstein’s equations. In order to do this, Kaluza created the cylinder condition, where he described all coordinate values in the fifth dimension to be zero, effectively hiding it at a macroscopic level, preserving the four dimensions that we experience.
Oscar Klein produced a physical explanation for the cylinder condition in 1926. He suggested that the fifth dimension was compactified and curled up into an unobservable circle with an incredibly small radius, explaining that this is why we are unable to witness the fifth dimension.
An interesting way to understand this is to think of a hose. From a distance, the hose looks like a single-dimensional line. However, the hose actually has two dimensions, both a dimension of length as well as a circular dimension.
This theory revolutionized how physicists thought about spacetime. In a letter to Kaluza that same year, Einstein wrote,
“The idea of achieving unification by means of a five-dimensional cylinder world never dawned on me […]. At first glance, I like your idea enormously. The formal unity of your theory is startling.” (Einstein, 1919)
Over time, Kaluza-Klein theory has been disproven due to its several fundamental flaws. Scientists have tested for Kaluza-Klein resonances, particles that would have to exist if the theory were to be true, and have found none. In addition, Kaluza-Klein theory only addresses gravity and electromagnetism but excludes the strong and weak forces. When incorporated with quantum mechanics, Kaluza-Klein theory predicts many incorrect values for otherwise known constants, showing massive discrepancies. Despite these issues, Kaluza-Klein theory has long been considered the first step into the exploration of extra-dimensions, becoming the precursor to many theories in the decades after. Its core idea- that hidden dimensions cause forces in our four dimensions-has been crucial to further exploration into the concept of spacetime.
String Theory is a very common term, but few people actually know what it means. String theory proposed that instead of the universe being made up of zero-dimensional points, it is made up of strings that vibrate. The specific vibration of these strings would determine what they would be (photon, quark, etc.). The theory aimed to unify all of these different particles and properties into one thing: the string.
When physicists first began to work on String Theory, they found many mathematical issues, such as negative probabilities. In four dimensions, these strings don’t have enough space to produce the wide range of vibrations needed to create all the particles in the standard model. Thus, Superstring Theory suggests that these strings are ten-dimensional objects (nine dimensions of space and one of time). A major reason why physicists were happy with string theory at the time was that it naturally predicted a particle called a ‘graviton’. This particle would have the same effect as the force of gravity. Theoretical physicist Edward Witten has commented on this by saying,
“Not only does [string theory] make it possible for gravity and quantum mechanics to work together, but it […] forces them upon you.” (Edward Witten, NOVA, PBS)
M-Theory is an extension of String Theory that adds one more spatial dimension. Prior to its creation, different groups of physicists had created five versions of String Theory.
However, a true “Theory of Everything” should be one theory, not five possibilities.
M-Theory was created as an attempt to unify these five types of string theory. The key to the development of M-Theory was the discovery of mathematical transformations that took you from one version of String Theory to another, showing that these were not truly separate theories. M-theory theorized that these different versions were just different approximations of the same theory that could be unified by adding another dimension. M-Theory’s eleven-dimensional framework allowed for the unification of these five theories alongside the theory of supergravity.
M-Theory, similarly to Kaluza-Klein Theory, also proposes that the extra dimensions are curled up and compacted. M-Theory uses a specific geometric shape, known as a Calabi-Yau manifold, to create the physical effects we observe in our four dimensions from the other hidden seven. Calabi-Yau manifolds are a highly compact and complex type of manifold that are the foundation of M-Theory because they allow complex folding without affecting the overall curvature of our universe through a property called “Ricci-flatness”. The Calabi-Yau manifolds also have “holes” within their shapes that are thought to connect to the number of families of particles we experience in the Standard Model. This introduces the key concept that, instead of the fundamental laws of physics just being rules, they are actually geometric properties of our universe.
The biggest challenge that M-Theory is facing is its lack of experimental evidence. Predictions made by this model are not testable by currently available or foreseeable technology due to the high-dimensional microscopic levels required. Without making testable predictions, the theory remains just a theory for the time being.
Despite this lack of proof, many physicists still see M-Theory as a prominent candidate in our search for a “Theory of Everything”. Its mathematical consistency and its ability to unify both gravitational and quantum effects lead to it being considered highly promising.
However, while the math behind M-Theory is highly developed, it is not yet complete. The theory is still a work in progress as research is being conducted to better understand its structure and significance.
Meanwhile, critics believe that M-Theory is fundamentally flawed. Many of them believe that the “Landscape” problem is a significant reason that M-Theory is untrue. The “Landscape” problem is described as the fact that the theory predicts many different universes, each with its own set of physical laws. Critics believe that this prediction proves the unreliability of M-Theory and that a true “Theory of Everything” would be applicable only to our universe.
Overall, M-Theory has neither been proven nor disproven and remains a crucial area for future exploration.
While the concepts of space and time were fundamental to the Newtonian world, centuries of digging deeper into the mechanics of our universe have uncovered that it isn’t all as simple as it seems. From Einstein’s Special Relativity to theories of multi-dimensional time, the science behind space and time has evolved into a complex field.
Newtonian Absolutism
At the dawn of classical mechanics, Newton created the foundation upon which all of modern spacetime theory is built. Space and time were considered to be entirely unrelated and absolute concepts. There was no question in his mind that time moves forward and space exists around us. Space was considered a static body within which we exist, while time was described as flowing in only one direction at a steady rate. Imagine space as a box, where events are contained within, and time as a river whose current pulls us along.
Newton coined the terms ‘absolute space’ and ‘absolute time’ to describe the absolutes from the relativity we measure. For centuries, this theory remained unquestioned, so physicists didn’t consider time and space to be real entities, but rather our human way of interpreting the world around us.
Einstein’s Revolution:
Special Relativity
The first true challenge to the Newtonian perspective of space and time came in the form of Einstein’s Special Relativity. He introduced one key revolutionary concept: everything, including space and time, is relative, depending only upon the observer’s frame of reference.
The motivations for Einstein’s work arose from the desire to eliminate the contradiction between Maxwell’s equations and Newtonian Mechanics. A simple way to visualize this contradiction is by imagining the following scenario:
Two rockets in space are flying towards each other at a speed of 500 miles per hour. This would result in a relative speed of 1000 miles per hour. Now, if you were to throw a rock from one ship to another at a speed of 10 miles per hour, it would reach the other ship with a relative speed of 510 miles per hour. However, the substitution of light into this situation instead of a rock changes this because the speed of light is constant. No matter how fast you travel towards light, it will always come towards you at the same constant speed: 3·108m/s, or the speed of light.
Many tests were done to prove that the wave-particle duality of light was the reason for this phenomenon. Rather than trying to disprove or explain away the theory, Einstein decided to take the constant speed of light as a fundamental property. He didn’t explain the speed of light, but used it to explain other things. Einstein was willing to give up the time-honored fundamentals of Newton’s laws in favor of the constant speed of light.
He began with the basic definition of speed as the distance divided by the time. If the speed of light remains constant as this rocket reduces the distance to be travelled, then the time must also decrease to preserve this equality. When mathematically calculating this, Einstein discovered the concept of time dilation, where objects in motion experience time more slowly than objects at rest. Continuing with similar methods for other properties, such as conservation, he discovered that mass would increase with speed and length would decrease. The true genius in Einstein was his willingness to question his own assumptions and give up some of the most basic qualities of the universe, in favor of the speed of light.
General Relativity
Special Relativity, however, did not incorporate gravity. Before Einstein, physicists believed that gravity was an invisible force that dragged objects towards one another. However, Einstein’s general relativity suggested that the ‘dragging’ was not gravity, but rather an effect of gravity. He theorized that objects in space bent the space around them, inadvertently bringing objects closer to one another.
General Relativity defines spacetime as a 4D entity that has to obey a series of equations known as Einstein’s equations. He used these equations to suggest that gravity isn’t a force but instead a name we use to describe the effects of curved spacetime on the distance between objects. Einstein proved a correlation between the mass and energy of an object and the curvature of the spacetime around it.
His work allowed him to prove that:
“When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” -Einstein.
Einstein’s General Relativity predicted many things that were only observationally noticed years later. A famous example of this is gravitational lensing, which is when the path of light curves as it passes a massive object. This effect was noticed by Sir Arthur Eddington in 1919 during a solar eclipse, yet Einstein managed to predict it with no physical proof in 1912.
Closed-Timelike-Curves (CTCs)
Another major prediction made by Einstein’s General Relativity is Closed-Timelike-Curves (CTCs), which arise from mathematical solutions to Einstein’s equations. Some specific solutions to these equations, such as massive, spinning objects, create situations in which time could loop.
In physics, objects are considered to have a specific trajectory through spacetime that will indicate the object’s position in space and time at all times. When these positions in spacetime are connected, they form a story of an object’s past, present, and future. An object that is sitting still will have a worldline that goes straight in the time direction. Meanwhile, an object in motion will also have an element of spatial position. Diagrams of a worldline are drawn as two light cones, one into the future and one into the past, with a spatial dimension on the other axis, as seen in figure 1.
CTCs are created when the worldline of an object is a loop, meaning that the object will go backwards in time at some point to reconnect to its starting point. Closed-Timelike-Curves are, in essence, exactly what they sound like: closed curving loops that travel in a timelike way. Traveling in a timelike way, meaning that their change in time is greater than their change in space, suggests that these objects would have to be static or nearly static. As seen in Figure 2, the worldline of a CTC would be a loop, as there is some point in space and time that connects the end and the beginning.
Two major examples of famous CTC solutions are the Gödel Universe and the Tipler Cylinder:
Gödel Universe: Suggested by mathematician Kurt Gödel in 1949, the Gödel Universe is a rotating universe filled with swirling dust. The rotation must be powerful enough that it can pull the spacetime around it as it spins. The curvature would become the CTC. This was the first solution found that suggested the potential for time-travel to be a legitimate possibility, not just a hypothetical scenario.
Tipler Cylinder: In the 1970s, physicist Frank Tipler suggested an infinitely long, massive cylinder spinning along the vertical axis at an extremely high speed. This spinning would twist the fabric of spacetime around the cylinder, creating a CTC.
Closed timelike curves bring many paradoxes with them, the most famous of which is the grandfather paradox. It states that if a man has a granddaughter who goes back in time to kill her grandfather before her parents are born, then she wouldn’t exist. However, if she doesn’t exist, then there is no one to kill her grandfather, thus meaning that she must exist. Yet if she exists, then her grandfather doesn’t.
Most importantly, CTCs drove further exploration and directed significant attention to the spacetime field for decades. Scientists who didn’t fully believe Einstein’s General Relativity pointed to CTCs as proof of why it couldn’t be true, leaving those who supported Einstein to search extensively for a way to explain them. This further exploration into the field has laid the foundation for many theories throughout the years.
The belief amongst scientists is that CTCs simply don’t exist because, while they are hypothetically possible, the energy requirements to create them are not yet feasible. Many of these setups require objects with negative energy density and other types of ‘exotic matter’ that have not been proven to even exist yet. Furthermore, even if CTCs were to be formed, the specific region of spacetime where they form would be highly unstable, meaning that these CTCs would not sustain themselves. The situations in which CTCs would be feasible require types of fields of energy that would approach infinity and the Cauchy Horizon (the limit at which causality no longer exists, therefore making these situations physically unviable).
Though seemingly unrelated, cow farts, climate change, and coffee have unexpected connections. For starters, cow farts produce methane – and lots of it. In fact, a single cow can produce a massive amount of methane – usually 250-500 liters per day. Now, think of how many cows we have here on Earth (I’ll give you a hint: it’s 1.5 billion). And while CO2 gets all the attention when it comes to climate change, methane has twice the effect on a per-unit basis. But we can’t just blame climate change on the cows: other livestock also contribute to the greenhouse gases that warm our planet. Well, it’s a good thing that climate change is a widely known issue around the world, right? We know that these gases will cause the heating of the Earth, resulting in ice melting and oceans rising. However, while these problems may take years to manifest, other negative effects won’t be nearly as delayed. One impending problem is the devastation that this heat will bring to both weather patterns and crops. Warmer temperatures cause more evaporation, meaning more water in the atmosphere and more storms. Many plants, coffee included, can’t grow in these changing and unstable climates. And while scientists are doing all that they can to fix these problems, individual citizens are unlikely to act unless they understand the full extent of what is going on.
What Is Climate Change?
Climate change is a universal issue backed by scientific evidence and recognized by most of the public. The Earth is warming, and rapidly at that. According to NASA, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880, and the majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade. It may not seem like much, but the environment is not accustomed to adapting quickly, and if this goes on, the results could be devastating.
Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases – let’s call them GHGs for short – are essential for our survival, but could very well be the key to our doom. The most common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. They absorb heat from the Sun and trap the warmth, preventing it from escaping into space. It’s the reason why life on Earth is possible: just like their name, these gases basically function as the glass in a greenhouse, raising the temperature so that we can thrive.
But greenhouses can also get too hot. The more gases in the atmosphere, the more effective the heat-trapping process is. This excess heat-trapping is precisely what has been occurring over the past few decades, especially since the Industrial Revolution
So, what is causing the surplus of GHGs warming our Earth?
One cause is transportation, which accounts for 14% of GHGs. Cars, buses, trains, airplanes – most of them use gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel to function. Burning these materials releases many harmful gases, the most relevant of them carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide. In some countries, like the US, transportation may be the leading cause of GHG emissions. However, there are many ways to combat these effects. You’ve most likely heard that walking and public transportation will reduce emissions, and they can! Even electric vehicles will help if you’re using clean electricity. Additionally, biofuels and hydrogen can replace fossil fuels in aviation and shipping.
Another significant cause is electricity and heat production, which accounts for a fourth of total GHGs alone. These processes still rely heavily on burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Now that more and more homes and buildings are being constructed, there is a higher electricity demand than before. As a result, more fuel is burned – unless we switch to cleaner sources such as wind, solar, or hydro power. Transmission losses (electricity lost as it travels over power lines) require extra generation, further increasing emissions. Therefore, improving efficiency in buildings and the power grid could reduce the demand and associated GHGs.
Buildings can cause around 6-7% of GHG emissions. The production of materials like cement, steel, and aluminum all release gases such as carbon dioxide, and use the process of burning fossil fuels. According to the BBC, cement production contributes 8% of global GHGs. Not to mention, transporting those materials and the use of heavy machinery and equipment while building them also adds to emissions.
These are all large and well-known reasons that contribute to GHG emissions, so let’s take a look at something lesser known. Agriculture.
What About Cows?
Let’s be honest: your answer to the question about major sources of GHGs was probably not cows. But, in truth, these adorable creatures that we raise account for around 14.5 percent of greenhouse gases that warm our planet. Of course, it’s not cows alone: other livestock, including chickens, horses, pigs, and more, are all included in that percentage. We’re looking at cows specifically because a breakthrough with them could lead to resulting solutions with the other animals, and cows are large and easy to work with.
Cows make methane in two ways: through their digestive process and their waste. They are part of a group of animals called ruminants, with four distinct stomach chambers. The first is called the rumen, a home for microorganisms that break down the starch and sugar from plants. The next chamber is called the reticulum, where hard-to-digest plant materials are stored. The next chamber is called the omasum, which mechanically breaks the food down further. Finally, the last chamber is called the abomasum, which absorbs the nutrients from the food.
In the rumen, a process called enteric fermentation takes place. This is where the previously stated microorganisms and bacteria break down complex carbohydrates and turn them into sugars. The resulting products include volatile fatty acids (used as a major energy source for the cows), as well as GHGs such as carbon dioxide and methane. The gases are released from the cows either as burps or farts.
Scientists are attempting to find the most effective solution to this large problem. There have been many different approaches to this issue, some of which are below.
One method that has been used is seaweed in the cow feed. A 2018 study focused on mixing a seaweed species called Asparagopsis armata with hay and small amounts of molasses. Animal science professor Ermias Kebreab says they’re hoping that the seaweed can inhibit an enzyme that’s involved in producing methane in a cow’s gut, a chemical reaction discovered by researchers in Australia. After a day of eating this feed, the cow’s methane emission dropped by a drastic 50%. However, they also discovered a small dent in the amount of food consumed, as well as milk produced, due to the seaweed’s ocean smell. The next steps of this experiment are to find ways so the cows don’t notice the seaweed, and plan an experiment to use beef cattle instead of dairy cattle. Though there is still a long way before this can be implemented on a large scale, even the smallest start can lead to a bigger solution.
Another study from 2019 discovered that selective breeding can lead to a “cleaner cow.” Project’s leaders and co-author Professor John Williams says: “What we showed is that the level and type of methane-producing microbes in the cow is to a large extent controlled by the cow’s genetic makeup.” By selecting cattle that produce less methane than their counterparts, it may be possible to create a livestock industry that generates fewer GHGs. However, the breeding will also depend on other desired characteristics, such as meat quality, milk, and disease resistance.
Finally, Argentina’s National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) created the cow-fart-backpack (the picture shown above). This device captures the methane from these cows through a tube in their skin, which scientists claim is painless. The gas is then condensed and ready to provide power for the farm. By utilizing this gas for power, farms would consume less purchased gas and thereby reduce the total emissions.
Where Does Coffee Come In?
Even with all these solutions, climate change is still one of the biggest issues out there. One common outcome that you may have heard of is the rising ocean levels. Because of the rapid heating, the northern and southern reaches of the planet are warming faster than any area on Earth, with the temperatures there rising twice as much as elsewhere. This damages the fragile ecosystems there, leaving less space for animals such as polar bears, seals, and penguins to venture. Not only that, but the sheer amount of ice that is melting each year has increased ocean levels drastically. According to NASA, the ocean levels have risen 10.1 centimeters since 1992.
But there’s another effect that’s less heard of. Agriculture will also be greatly impacted by climate change, as some plants need very specific temperatures and weather conditions to grow.
Let’s take a closer look at coffee.
Some plants need very specific temperatures and weather conditions to grow, and now that it’s all changing, the locations where the plants grow would need to change with it. For example, the coffee plant grows in temperatures of around 15-24 C, or 60-70 F. Areas such as Hawaii, Africa, and Brazil are all large coffee exporters, but if the temperatures keep rising, coffee would cease to grow in those places. Coffee plants are highly sensitive to temperature and moisture changes, and stress leads to lower yields and flavor quality. But, it’s okay, right? We can just plant coffee in different areas that are now suitable for coffee growth!
Not quite. Coffee takes 3-4 years to grow, and needs to be processed after. Processing plants will take even longer to build, not to mention the cost and GHG emissions. So, in that time, global coffee supply shortages would lead to higher coffee prices, affecting consumers and businesses. Millions of jobs in farming, processing, transport, and retail depend on coffee, leading to unemployment in producing regions. Countries that rely on coffee exports would suffer major losses in GDP and stability.
Now think of this on a large scale. Not just coffee, but other plants as well. The world would be in chaos: jobs lost, prices increased drastically, and businesses shut down. These are the results of climate change.
Conclusion
Ultimately, climate change is affecting our world fast. With the temperatures rising each year and GHG emissions growing, the world is in dire need of a solution. Though there isn’t a single “correct” fix to this problem, everything that we do to prevent it counts. The effects of climate change can be disastrous – environments are being destroyed, oceans are rising, and plants are dying. But…if everyone helps, if everyone contributes, and understands just how dangerous and volatile climate change can be…perhaps we can prevent the problem that we are causing in the first place.
References
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2019. “Main Greenhouse Gases | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. June 6, 2019. https://www.c2es.org/content/main-greenhouse-gases/.
Advancements in genetic engineering have brought revolutionary tools to the forefront of biotechnology, with CRISPR leading as one of the most precise and cost-effective methods of gene editing. CRISPR, which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, allows scientists to alter DNA sequences by targeting specific sections of the genome. Originally discovered as part of a bacterial immune system, CRISPR systems have now been adapted to serve as programmable gene-editing platforms. This paper explores how CRISPR works, its current uses, its future potential, and the ethical considerations surrounding its application in both human and non-human systems.
How CRISPR System Works
The CRISPR-Cas system operates by combining a specially designed RNA molecule with a CRISPR-associated protein, such as Cas9 or Cas12a. The RNA guides the protein to a specific sequence in the genome, where the protein then cuts the DNA. Once the strand is cut, natural repair mechanisms within the cell are activated. Researchers can either allow the cell to disable the gene or insert a new gene into the gap. As described by researchers at Stanford University,
“The system is remarkably versatile, allowing scientists to silence genes, replace defective segments, or even insert entirely new sequences.” (CRISPR Gene Editing and Beyond)
This mechanism has been compared to a pair of molecular scissors that can cut with precision. For example, the Cas9 protein is programmed with a guide RNA to recognize a DNA sequence of about 20 nucleotides. Once it finds the target, it makes a double-stranded cut. The repair process that follows enables gene knockouts, insertions, or corrections. This technology has dramatically reduced the time and cost associated with gene editing, making previously complex tasks achievable in weeks rather than months. According to a 2020 review,
“CRISPR/Cas9 offers researchers a user-friendly, relatively inexpensive, and highly efficient method for editing the genome.” (Computational Tools and Resources Supporting CRISPR-Cas Experiments)
CRISPR’s influence extends across many fields, but its role in medicine has attracted the most attention. Scientists are using CRISPR to treat genetic diseases such as sickle cell anemia by editing patients’ own stem cells outside the body and then reinserting them. In 2023, researchers published results showing that a single treatment could permanently alleviate symptoms for some patients with these genetic diseases (Zhang 4.) Another area of exploration includes its potential for treating cancers by modifying immune cells to better recognize and destroy cancerous tissue. According to Molecular Cancer,
“Gene editing technologies have successfully demonstrated the correction of mutations in hematopoietic stem cells, offering hope for long-term cures.” (Zhang 3)
Beyond human health, CRISPR has transformed agricultural practices. Scientists are using it to develop crops that resist pests, drought, or disease without the need for traditional genetic modification methods that insert foreign DNA. One of the longer processes of traditional modifications in DNA could include conjugation. This is moving genetic material through bacterial cells in a direct contact. Conjugation is just one example of many of the traditional genetic modification methods.
CRISPR has been used to produce tomatoes with longer shelf lives and rice varieties that can survive in low-water environments. According to the World Economic Forum,
“CRISPR can help build food security by making crops more resilient and nutritious.” (CRISPR Gene Editing for a Better World)
Such developments are increasingly critical in addressing global food demands and climate challenges.
Research is also underway to apply CRISPR in animal breeding and disease control. In mosquitoes, scientists are testing ways to spread genes that reduce malaria transmission. In livestock, researchers are working to produce animals that are more resistant to disease. These experiments, while promising, require cautious monitoring to ensure ecosystem stability and safety.
Future Potential
Looking ahead, new techniques are refining CRISPR’s capabilities. Base editing allows researchers to change a single letter of DNA without cutting the strand entirely, reducing the off-targeting effect such as prime editing, a newer method that uses an engineered protein to insert new genetic material without causing double-stranded breaks. These tools provide even more control. According to the Stanford report,
“Prime editing may become the preferred approach for correcting single-point mutations, which are responsible for many inherited diseases.” (CRISPR Gene Editing and Beyond)
Possible Concerns
Despite its potential, CRISPR also raises important ethical concerns. One of the most debated topics is germline editing, or the modification of genes in human embryos or reproductive cells. Changes made at this level can be passed down to future generations, leading to unknown consequences. In 2018, the birth of twin girls in China following germline editing sparked international outrage and led to widespread calls for stricter regulation. The scientific community responded swiftly, with many organizations calling for a global prohibition on clinical germline editing. As CRISPR & Ethics – Innovative Genomics Institute (IGI) states,
“Without clear guidelines, genome editing can rapidly veer into ethically gray areas, particularly in germline applications.”
Another concern is the potential for unintended consequences, known as off-target effects. These are accidental changes to parts of the genome that were not intended to be edited, which could lead to harmful mutations or unforeseen health problems. I will expand on this later in the article. Researchers are actively developing tools to better predict and detect such errors, but long-term safety remains a topic of study. The possibility of using CRISPR for non-therapeutic purposes, such as enhancing physical or cognitive traits.
Cost and accessibility are also significant factors. Although the CRISPR tools themselves are affordable for research institutions, the cost of CRISPR-based therapies remains high. According to Integrated DNA Technologies,
“Therapies based on CRISPR currently cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient, limiting their availability.” (CRISPR-Cas9: Pros and Cons)
Bridging this gap requires investments in infrastructure, policy development, and global partnerships to ensure that developing countries are not left behind.
In conclusion, CRISPR is reshaping the landscape of genetics and biotechnology. It has already brought major advances to medicine, agriculture, and environmental science. While the technology is still evolving, its precision offers a glimpse into the future of human health. CRISPR the potential to unlock solutions to some of humanity’s most pressing challenges.
Lino, Cathryn A., et al. “Delivering CRISPR: A Review of Methods and Applications.” Drug Delivery and Translational Research, vol. 8, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1–14. PubMed Central, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427626/. Accessed 31 July 2025.
“Not only are plastics polluting our oceans and waterways and killing marine life – it’s in all of us and we can’t escape consuming plastics,” says Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF International [20].
The emergence of plastic and its accumulation in people and the environment has been a rising global concern for over 80 years, since it first caught the attention of scientists in the 1960s due to the observed effects in marine species [7]. Even more concerning, plastics continue to accumulate on the planet year after year. In 2019, there were a predicted 22 million tons of plastic worldwide, with a projected 44 million tons of plastic polluting our earth within the next 35 years [5].
In particular, humans inhale about 53,700 particles of plastic a year and orally ingest anywhere between 74,000 and 121,000 annually [5]. Plastics production and environmental buildup are surging with modern prosperity and efficiency, posing a serious threat to human reproductive health as they accumulate in critical reproductive organs like the placenta.
Microplastics
“Microplastics could become the most dangerous environmental contamination of the 21st century, with plastic in everything we consume, it may seem helpless.” [18]
Microplastics are tiny particles of plastic that are contained in the air, plastic dust, food, fabrics, table salt, trash, and nearly every part of modern life. They can range from five millimeters to one micrometer (µm) [11]. Even smaller sizes of microplastics, called nanoplastics, pose a threat to human cells. Less than 100 nm in size, nanoplastics can cross all organs, including the placenta and blood system [11]. Microplastics of size ≤ 20 µm can enter any organ, and; ≤ 100 µm can be absorbed from the gut to the liver [11]. Scientists have discovered microplastics in many parts of the human body, including the liver, blood, and other reproductive organs, including the placenta [15].
Microplastics have multiple routes of getting into the body, which makes them a challenging threat for humans to overcome. To begin, they can be absorbed into the body by wearing clothes with fabrics containing plastic, like polyester. Although this most commonly occurs via inhalation of microplastics in the air, emerging theories also suggest that with long enough exposure to intact or open wounds, absorption of nanoplastics through the skin is possible as well. Inhalation can also occur from air pollution, specifically in areas with high carbon dioxide and dust levels.
In addition, microplastics can be consumed through foods we eat, or plastics we drink or touch, like plastic straws. Marine life also consumes a significant amount of microplastics from pollution in the ocean. Importantly for humans, this is an entry point to the food supply, as the contaminated marine life will then pass the microplastics up the food chain to humans when we eat seafood [11]. Moreover, cleaning products and cosmetics can contain a high amount of plastics that are absorbed into the skin [11]. Some estimates say that a credit card’s worth of microplastics is inhaled by an individual human every week [2].
A practical solution would be to pass the microplastics in the stool; however, the plastics do not always leave the body via waste. Sometimes, microplastics accumulate in the body over long periods of time and absorb into the intestines, bloodstream, and other tissues. Microplastics tend to find their way into crucial arteries and tissues due to their molecular composition.
They are made of synthetic polymers, a series of repeating monomers. The monomers in microplastics are made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms and occasionally have oxygen, nitrogen, chlorine, or sulfur atoms inside [3]. Some of the main components of microplastics are their polymer chains because, like polyethylene, they contain monomers like (–CH₂–CH₂–)ₙ [3]. Also, plastics usually contain additives to enhance their usual properties, but they also have harmful effects on humans. For example, phthalates, which make polyethylene flexible, negatively impact reproductive signals, while colorants are not chemically bonded to the polymer, and thus escape into the environment [3]. Most importantly, microplastics are mostly hydrophobic, which means they repel against water. This causes them to bind with oily substances and bioaccumulate in human tissues [3].
Female Reproductive System
The reproductive system is a highly complex system requiring the coordination between several organ systems and the endocrine system to ensure the human body is an adequate environment for fetal development. The hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, located between the brain and reproductive organs helps to control ovulation and coordinate reproductive behavior [8].
First, a primary signal called the GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) is produced by the hypothalamic neurons, which stimulates the pituitary gland to release two important hormones: FSH (follicle–a fluid filled sac in the ovary that contains the immature egg–stimulating hormone) and LH (luteinizing hormone) [8]. These hormones lead to ovarian growth, egg maturation, and preparation of the uterine lining for pregnancy [8]. As the follicles grow, they start to make a form of estrogen known as estradiol, which will ultimately slow down the production of GnRH and FSH [8]. Once there is an adequate amount of estradiol, the GnRH and FSH will burst and surge, leading to ovulation. These reproductive hormones, such as GnRH, regulate the proper timing of a woman’s reproductive cycle [8].
However, foreign chemicals, microplastics, and agents can interfere with hormonal signals, either blocking or mimicking them. This disruption can cause infertility, irregular menstrual cycles, and complications in fetal development, since hormones are key to regulating and protecting the growth of vital organs like the baby’s brain and heart [8].
The placenta forms in a woman during pregnancy. The placenta is crucial for fetal development as it connects the fetal and maternal circulations via the umbilical cord. It supports the baby’s growth and development by providing nutrition and removing waste from the baby’s blood. In addition, the organ plays a major role in immunity because it helps the fetus identify self versus non-self cells and antigens. The placenta is located on the wall of the uterus lining and usually on the top, side, and sometimes even the lower area. When the placenta is too low, it raises a risk known as placenta previa, which is caused when the organ covers the cervical opening, and it can develop this way if microplastics were to block and change growth signaling for the placenta [14].
Microplastics in Female Reproduction
Microplastics enter the human placenta through many of the same pathways they use to accumulate in other tissues. First, they can be introduced through food consumption or inhalation [2]. Then, particles are absorbed through the gut and travel into the bloodstream, where they find their way into the placenta during pregnancy.
On a molecular level, after entering the body, their hydrophobic polymer chains prevent normal decomposition [2]. This means microplastics can proceed and bind to other toxins such as heavy metals, which can enhance the harmful effects in living organisms. Once inside the body, the microplastics can cross membranes such as those in the gut, like the M-cells in the intestinal lining, through the cellular process of endocytosis, which can take in foreign particles [2]. From there, they can enter the lymphatic system and/or the bloodstream [2].
Another pathway for microplastics is that sometimes they can bypass the digestive system completely through cells or between cells transport, which is also known as trans-cellular and paracellular transport [2]. Once in the bloodstream, microplastics can circulate to any part of the body, including the placenta. While the placenta does have a layer to protect it from harmful substances called a syncytiotrophoblast layer, nanoplastics can bypass this layer through endocytosis or passive diffusion through functional surfaces coated with proteins [2].
Once inside, the microplastics may interact with intracellular structures like the mitochondria, which can affect energy production, the endoplasmic reticulum, and as a result impact protein synthesis and lysosomes, ultimately leading to cell damage [2]. Studies show high levels of microplastics in human placental tissue:
In a 2024 study led by Dr. Matthew Campen and colleagues, microplastics were found in all 64 placentas studied, with amounts ranging from 6.5 to 790 micrograms per gram of tissue. Moreover, it was found that 54% of the plastic was polyethylene, the plastic that makes up plastic bags and bottles, with polyvinyl chloride and nylon being 10%, and the rest being nine other polymers [13]. This suggests that a majority of the placental microplastics are likely inhaled due to direct contact with the plastics on our mouth, nose, hands, etc.
Another study showed that 10.9% of all microplastics found in a human body were in the placenta, demonstrating how common microplastic exposure is during human development [5]. Thus, microplastics can enter the developing fetus through the placenta [13]. Multiple international studies have found microplastics within the placenta and neonatal samples, suggesting a widespread exposure of microplastics globally [4]. Between 2021 and 2023, seven studies were conducted in four countries, which showed a high percentage of microplastics in the placental tissue.
In 2021, an Italian study identified microplastics in four out of six placentas from vaginal births using light microscopy and Raman microspectroscopy [9]. In another Italian study, all ten placentas (from both vaginal and Cesarean section births) contained microplastics [9]. Electron microscopy revealed cellular damage, although the association with microplastics was not definitive [9]. Importantly, higher microplastics and polymer levels were linked to greater water consumption and frequent use of certain personal care products [9].
In 2022, an Iranian study detected microplastics in 13/13 placentas from the intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) group and only 4/30 in the normal group [9]. This study implied that microplastic exposure may affect fetal development and normal growth. More studies also showed the presence of microplastics in cord blood samples [4]. However, only a few were tested since there is no commercially available test to find microplastics in placentas. These studies demonstrate that, as reproduction continues, this cycle could lead to a growing buildup of microplastics in future offspring and a possibility of new illnesses that will go unnoticed.
Placental microplastics affect reproduction and early fetal development. Fetal development begins from the first stage of pregnancy, often before many women realize they are pregnant [19]. There are three stages of fetal development: germinal, embryonic, and fetal [19]. The germinal stage is where the sperm and egg combine to form the zygote [19]. From there, the zygote turns into a blastocyst, where it is implanted into the uterus [19]. Next is the embryonic stage, usually from around the third week of pregnancy to the eighth week [19]. During this stage, the blastocyst becomes an embryo as the baby develops human characteristics such as organs [19]. At weeks five to six, the heart is recognized in the baby, and little arm and leg stubs are also discoverable [19]. Finally, the fetal stage begins around the ninth week and lasts until birth. During the fetal stage, the baby develops its primary sex characteristics that officially turn the embryo into a fetus. The fetus also grows hair and fingernails at this time and can start to move [19].
Microplastics can affect fetal development in several ways. Ultimately, babies are born pre-polluted [12].
“If we are seeing effects on placentas, then all mammalian life on this planet could be impacted,” says Dr. Matthew Campen, Regents’ Professor, UNM Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences.
Once the microplastics and nanoplastics enter cells, including both germ and somatic cells, they can cause oxidative damage, which can lead to DNA damage and cell death [16].
Microplastics can lead to cell death through pyroptosis [16], a highly inflammatory form of lytic programmed cell death caused by microbial infection [17]. When microplastics are detected, there is trafficking of immune cells like natural killer, T cells, and uterine dendritic cells to extinguish them as they are detected as non-self [16]. In mouse models, placental microplastics were shown to reduce the number of live births, alter the sex ratio of offspring, and cause fetal growth restriction, all effects that have also been observed in humans.
If one of these effects is already seen in humans, it raises the possibility that the others could follow. Since microplastics are present in human tissues, the outcomes seen in animal models like hormonal disruption, reduced sperm count and viability, decreased egg quality, neurophysiological and cognitive deficits, and disrupted embryonic development, [1] could also emerge in humans.
Furthermore, microplastics can change the gut microbiome and hormonal signaling, which can directly impact normal physiology and alter the signals sent between the uterus and embryo [1]. They do this by changing the balance and composition of the gut, which can lead to dysbiosis, an imbalance of the gut bacteria [10]. Some changes to the delicate gut microbiome could cause a condition called leaky gut, which shifts the previously semi-permeable membrane into a hyperpermeable one [10]. Emerging research demonstrates increasing rates of infertility, with scientists implicating environmental exposures, including microplastics.
Microplastics may also affect the endocrine system, which leads to neurodevelopmental issues in the offspring [1]. Another feature of abnormal pregnancies can be high blood pressure in mothers (like preeclampsia), which can result in organ failure and severe problems in the mother [1]. The endocrine system is the hormone-regulating system in your body that directly involves the glands of the gonads (ovaries and testes). Microplastics can interfere with the production of these hormones due to the additive factors the polymers carry, like Bisphenol A (BPA), which is used to harden the plastic [1].
These chemicals are known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In addition to this, it can directly bind to the hormone receptors and block normal signaling [1]. Such effects can change gene expression, cause hormone-related cancers, and most importantly, impact fetal endocrine function and development, including lower birth weight and reproductive disorders [1]. Ovarian cysts—fluid-filled sacs that develop on or in the ovaries—can also be caused by microplastics in the reproductive system [15]. When a hormone signal is out of balance, it can trigger the egg not to be released, which can persist to form a cyst [15]. Although this is still being researched by scientists today, there has been a direct correlation in mice, suggesting microplastics disrupt ovarian follicle development.
While the immediate effects of microplastics in placentas are concerning, there are other long-term concerns, such as a generational impact, that raise a sense of urgency to the issue. First, microplastics do not disappear once a person dies [6]. The synthetic particles of microplastics resist biodegradation when the body is buried or even cremated [6]. This means it can reenter the ecosystem and harm other organisms [6]. On the other hand, microplastics are also being passed from generation to generation through parental gametes and the placenta. Microplastics can lead to more detrimental impacts that haven’t even been discovered yet. With more and more accumulation, the body can respond in many different ways that are hard to predict. However, it can be assumed that populations with more microplastics are more likely to be infertile in the future. One can imagine a scenario in which natural selection might occur, as people with less microplastics or who are less affected by their presence will be better able to survive and reproduce.
Summary and Conclusion
Microplastics lead to hormone imbalances of estrogen and other hormones in female bodies by disrupting hormone signaling (activating and blocking), and altering reproductive organ function and development, including infant birth weight, length, and head circumference [10]. Microplastics can interfere with gene expression or epigenetic markers, which can alter the way a fetus develops [10]. They can cut gene readings short, which could lead to affecting their length or head circumference [10]. Impaired egg development and follicular growth can impair fertility and have been linked with microplastic exposure [10]. Similarities can be seen in male fertility as microplastics affect the inflammatory response, change hormone levels with their disrupting and toxic chemicals, and cause cellular damage to the development of the gametes [5]. Overall, the effects of microplastics on reproductive systems have grave consequences, with evidence suggesting infertility in humans.
In addition to understanding the effects of microplastics on human health and reproduction, scientists are working to rid the body of microplastics. By studying plastic-eating microorganisms, they can examine the enzymes they have that allow them to process microplastics naturally [10]. Additionally, as there is increasing understanding of methods of exposure, such as inhalation or absorption, [10], there are ways to reduce the chance of microplastic exposure to your body. For example, humans face the biggest possibility of exposure from food. Fish is a great source of nutrients and protein, however, it is extremely crucial to know that fish carry large quantities of microplastics ingested in the ocean. By ensuring trash and plastics do not end up in aquatic ecosystems, humans can reduce the chance of microplastics entering the food chain. Scientists are also advocating for the elimination of single-use plastic and finding a more sustainable way to save the human population and the environment.
A Simple Technique for Studying the Interaction of Polypropylene-Based Microplastics with Adherent Mammalian Cells Using a Holder. Feb. 2025, research.ebsco.com/c/3uzxq3/search/details/hul46wuiu5?isDashboardExpanded=true&limiters=FT1%3AY&q=DE%20%22MICROPLASTICS%22.
Chemical Analysis of Microplastics and Nanoplastics: Challenges, Advanced Methods, and Perspectives. 26 Aug. 2021, pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00178.
Cleveland Clinic. “Fetal Development.” Cleveland Clinic, 19 Mar. 2024, my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth.
Comparison of Microplastic Levels in Placenta and Cord Blood Samples of Pregnant Women With Fetal Growth Retardation and Healthy Pregnant Women. Kutahya Health Sciences University, 1 Apr. 2022. clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05070715?cond=placenta&term=microplastics&rank=1.
Exposure to Microplastics and Human Reproductive Outcomes: A Systematic Review. 29 Jan. 2024, obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17756.
Haederle, Michael. “Microplastics in Every Human Placenta, New UNM Health Sciences Research Discovers.” UNM HSC Newsroom, 2024, hscnews.unm.edu/news/hsc-newsroom-post-microplastics.
Hunt K, Davies A, Fraser A, Burden C, Howell A, Buckley K, et al. Exposure to microplastics and human reproductive outcomes: A systematic review. BJOG. 2024; 131(5): 675–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17756.
Leaky Gut Syndrome. Cleveland Clinic, 6 Apr. 2022, my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22724-leaky-gut-syndrome.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. STEM. These cornerstones of development drive 69% of America’s GDP, fuel two-thirds of national jobs, and bring in 2.3 trillion dollars of tax revenue according to IEEE USA 2020. One critical engine lies within these numbers: education.
Strong STEM programs like the Every Student Succeeds Act powered generations of American workforce and provided the U.S. with an edge in global competition. As the Fiscal Year 2026 “skinny budget” jeopardizes funding at the Department of Education, it becomes crucial to protect funding that supports national progress (Haring 2025).
Graph showing funding cuts at the National Science Foundation through May 21, 2025 / New York Times
The Problem:
As the United States continues to cut STEM from its federal budget, America faces barriers in empowering underserved populations and boosting national advancements. The FY 2026 federal budget reflects how national priorities are shifting away from education: In 2025: the government cut nearly five billion dollars from the National Science Foundation, which aims to increase STEM access (Acenet 2025). Additionally, 773 million dollars in research grants were cut at the NSF (Miller 2025).
But why do education cuts hit STEM the most? Science and technology require hands-on labs, updated equipment, and specialized teachers. These factors demand substantial investment. If funding evaporates, so does support for minorities in STEM; programs serving Black students and those with autism have already been cut (Miller 2025). Educational budget cuts harm minorities considerably, as they often rely the most on federal funding. Other underprivileged populations, including women, are also on the chopping block.
Moreover, cuts to the support for academics interfere with national interests. STEM increases America’s global competitiveness and supports domestic economies as it drives technological innovations that set America as the leader in tech. When STEM declines federally, talented innovators may relocate to another country for better funding. Without STEM education funding, America risks deepening existing inequities in education and a fall from grace in the global race for innovation.
President Obama signing the Every Student Succeeds Act into effect on Dec. 10, 2015 / USA Today
Diving Into STEM Programs:
One of the most effective federal education programs is the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which upholds education for high-need students (Office for Civil Rights 2025). Specifically, Title IV Part A of the act is a Student Support and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) program that funds state and local agencies. SSAE grants provide an estimated $1.38 billion of funding to improve learning conditions and boost technology use (OESE 2025).
Despite the program’s benefits, it faces severe challenges in funding. Although the program was authorized in Congress to receive up to $1.6 billion, it only reached $1.38 billion in 2024 (Sutton 2020). Falling short of the authorized amount means less funding for each district. Even worse, the federal budget for FY 2026 dissolves the program through its consolidation with seventeen other grants. The grants will be merged into one K-12 Simplified Funding initiative, eliminating $4.5 billion of funding (Lieberman & Stone, 2025). The removal of SSAE grants means a lack of federal enforcement on STEM-related spending. Wealthier districts may still support STEM initiatives through other channels, but low-income districts relying on federal funds are left further behind.
Students using school Chromebooks at Andrew Lewis Middle School / Virginia Department of Education
Even when SSAE was active, Section 4109 of ESSA restricted funds for purchasing devices, software, or planning digital learning activities to 15% (“Title IV, Part A Statute,” 2025). In America, 92% of jobs require digital skills, and pay increases by 45% for workers who have them (National Skills Coalition 2023).The 15% cap is a deadly trap for low-income students and limits their career opportunities and economic mobility. Issues with SSAE perpetuate a cycle of inequity, entrenching students further in poverty and weakening America’s future workforce.
The Solution:
Addressing the decline in SSAE programming requires a two-pronged legislative solution:
Revive SSAE grant and raise to authorized 1.6 billion level.
Lift the 15% cap on tech spending
Together, these actions allow for more funding allocation to STEM. More funding directly counters cuts in STEM spending. The steps protect specialized programs funded by SSAE and close the education wealth gap. Districts will receive adequate support and decide how to prioritize STEM. Low-income districts may choose to upgrade student Chromebooks, while wealthier ones may choose to hire more STEM teachers. All states can prepare the future workforce well and maintain America’s global competitive edge.
The status quo of underfunded classrooms, outdated technology, and limited opportunity leaves millions of students behind and weakens national economic foundations. The education of today is the workforce of tomorrow. We must not trade long-term growth for short-term cuts – the time to act is now.
National Skills Coalition. (2023, February 6). New Report: 92% of Jobs Require Digital Skills, One-Third of Workers Have Low or No Digital Skills Due to Historic Underinvestment, Structural Inequities. https://nationalskillscoalition.org/news/press-releases/new- report-92-of-jobs-require-digital-skills-one-third-of-workers-have-low-or-no-digital-skills-due-to-historic-underinvestment-structural-inequities/.
The United States is currently facing its greatest measles surge in almost thirty years, with 1200+ Americans testing positive for the disease so far this year. While some experts blame international travel, others believe vaccine hesitancy is the primary reason for this surge. However, to stay protected and stop the spread, we must first understand the science behind measles and what it takes to stay protected.
What is measles?
First documented in the early 12th century, measles ran rampant for centuries with hundreds of millions infected every year. An endemic disease, measles perpetually circulated and would flare up into cyclical outbreaks every 2-3 years. According to the National Library of Medicine,
“Measles […] caused more than 6 million deaths globally each year.”
To put this tremendous number into perspective, 6 million annual deaths is comparable to the population of the entire Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex getting wiped out every single year. Children under 15 were most vulnerable, and it was almost expectation that kids would experience the routine fever, cough, and blotchy rash before reaching adulthood.
How the Virus Spreads
Often confused with smallpox and chickenpox, measles is an airborne pathogen that attacks cells in your respiratory tract as you breathe in the disease. The virus itself is composed of a single negative-sense RNA strand that is unreadable to human cells. However, measles carries a special enzyme that converts the previously unreadable virus into a positive-sense RNA, allowing proteins in our body to replicate and spread the disease.
The speed at which measles hijacks cells prevents the immune system from responding immediately, and groups measles together with other fast, aggressive negative-sense RNA viruses including influenza, rabies, and ebola.
Furthermore, measles is categorized as an enveloped virus. This means a lipid membrane envelops each cell and allows for easier access to infect healthy host cells. However, the measles virus exhibits one key vulnerability: soap and detergent can easily break down the fatty envelope, destroying its ability to infect.
Washing your hands and clothes significantly reduces the risk of virus from ever reaching your system, but remember, because measles is primarily airborne, sanitation does not completely prevent transmission.
How does the vaccine counteract the virus?
Though measles took the world by storm for centuries, in 1963 Dr. John Enders and his team developed the first measles vaccine. Often coined ‘the father of modern vaccines,’ Enders formulated the Edmonston-B strain, a killed virus vaccine.
The vaccine took the live measles virus and deactivated the disease’s genetic RNA so it could not reproduce, while preserving the outer proteins of the cell so the immune system could produce antibodies to combat the virus.
Despite its revolutionary effects, the Edmonston-B vaccination also presented major drawbacks. Immunity wore off over time, and people even developed ‘atypical measles,’ a form of measles with heightened symptoms including higher fevers, pneumonitis, and pain not typical of regular measles.
Therefore, 5 years after the initial Edmonston-B strain was drafted, in 1968 microbiologist Dr. Maurice Hilleman developed the Edmonston-Enders strain. This vaccine used an attenuated form of the 1963 Edmonston-B strain, by allowing the virus to grow in chick embryos, first. As the measles virus mutated to survive in chick cells, it slowly lost the ability to cause full-blown disease in human cells.
The final product? A live virus that infected your cells enough to train your immune system, but not enough to cause the atypical disease and heightened side-effects of the 1963 Edmonston-B strain.
A few years later, the MMR vaccine was created, combining defense against measles, mumps, and rubella in one shot. Two doses produced a 97% chance of protection against the diseases. Today, it is still recommended that children take two doses of the MMR vaccine; one dose as an infant, and another between 4 and 6 years old.
So why is there suddenly a spike in US measles cases?
As I write this article, there have been 1227 confirmed measles cases so far this year, with the biggest outbreak taking place in West Texas. There, 97 people have contracted the disease with two unvaccinated children dying, the first measles-related deaths in the US since 2015.
Overall, this spike in cases is accredited to decreased vaccination rates since the COVID-19 pandemic. According to John Hopkins University,
“Out of 2,066 studied [U.S.] counties, [in] 1,614 counties, 78%, reported drops in vaccinations and the average county-level vaccination rate fell 93.92% pre-pandemic to 91.26% post-pandemic-an average decline of 2.67%, moving further away from the 95% herd immunity threshold to predict or limit the spread of measles.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health staff were pulled from routine duties like immunizations to focus on COVID testing, contact tracing, and hospital coordination. According to UNICEF USA,
“As access to health services and immunization outreach were curtailed [due to the pandemic], the number of children not receiving even their very first vaccinations increased in all regions. As compared with 2019, […] 3 million more children missed their first measles dose.”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention / New York Times
Going forward, efforts to close the immunity gap will depend on identifying under-vaccinated populations and ensuring routine and follow-up vaccinations. As more people understand measles transmission and how the vaccine works, we will be better equipped to respond, and the risk of future outbreaks can be reduced significantly.
Gastañaduy, P. A., Goodson, J. L., Panagiotakopoulos, L., Rota, P. A., Orenstein, W. A., & Patel, M. (2021, September 30). Measles in the 21st century: Progress toward achieving and sustaining elimination. The Journal of infectious diseases. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8482021/
Sabsay, K. R., & Te Velthuis, A. J. W. (2023, December 20). Negative and ambisense RNA virus ribonucleocapsids: More than protective armor. Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10732063/
Youth Stemline 