From translating thoughts into words to allowing paralyzed people to walk, the field of neurotechnology has been quietly surging ahead, raising hopes of medical breakthroughs—and profound ethical concerns.
Some observers even think that neurotech could end up being as revolutionary as the far more hyped rise of artificial intelligence (AI).
“People do not realize how much we’re already living in science fiction,” King’s College London researcher Anne Vanhoestenberghe told AFP.
“One of the most surprising findings was that participants disclosed more and felt more comforted by a chatbot introduced as a human, even though almost everyone knew they were still talking to a chatbot. This means the effect wasn’t driven by deception or belief that the chatbot was human, but rather by the framing itself, how the chatbot was introduced and named. That subtle change alone was enough to activate more social and affective responses. Therefore, people’s behaviour toward chatbots can be shaped not just by what the chatbot does, but by what they expect it to be, showing how powerful simple context cues are in guiding our interactions with AI.”
Not all the differences favored the chatbot presented as a human. Although participants disclosed less to Chatbot D12, they rated it as slightly friendlier. Their answers to D12 were also more sentimental, meaning they expressed stronger emotions, both positive and negative. Despite these differences, participants did not rate either chatbot as significantly more trustworthy, and both were rated similarly in terms of overall interaction quality.
“When framing a chatbot more like a person, by giving it a human name and introducing it as a human, people tend to open up more, attribute social traits to it, and feel more comforted when speaking with it, even when they suspect it’s still a bot. But there’s a catch: when a ‘human-like’ chatbot doesn’t fully meet our social expectations, people judge it as less friendly or trustworthy. So, design cues that make chatbots feel human can encourage self-disclosure, but they need to be balanced with transparency and realistic expectations.”
The ability to respond to changing surroundings was once considered exclusive to complex living organisms. Then came computers, specially designed for stimulus–response tasks, which can take in signals from their environment and choose what to do next based on the instructions already written into them.
Scientists have long wanted to replicate this kind of behavior in chemical systems. Life and computers both need many parts working in sync to make decisions, so expecting a handful of chemicals in a test tube to do the same seemed quite far-fetched.
Not anymore. A team of researchers from the Netherlands and Australia has developed a novel chemical network where different peptides compete for enzymes—specifically proteases arranged in a network. This competition causes the chemical mixture to reorganize itself, forming an enzymatic network that adapts to the external environment.
Using ESA’s XMM-Newton satellite, European astronomers have observed ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) in the galaxy NGC 4631. As a result, they detected a new pulsating ULX, which received the designation X-8. The research is published November 6 on the arXiv preprint server.
ULXs are point sources in the sky that are so bright in X-rays that each emits more radiation than a million suns emit at all wavelengths. They are less luminous than active galactic nuclei, but more consistently luminous than any known stellar process. Although numerous studies of ULXs have been conducted, the basic nature of these sources still remains unknown.
Some persistent ULXs exhibit pulsations and therefore are categorized as ultraluminous X-ray pulsars (ULXPs). Discovering and studying objects of this type could be crucial for advancing our understanding of accretion physics—for instance, mechanisms that enable the sustained X-ray luminosities of ULXs which exceed the Eddington limit.
Cancer cases among under-50s around the world appear to have risen sharply in the past 30 years. Studies show there are rising numbers of breast, colorectal and other cancers in people in their 20s, 30s and 40s. But what is driving the increase and can anything be done to stop it?
Presenter Jonny Dymond speaks to freelance health journalist David Cox about what scientists think could be driving this worrying trend.
00:00 Intro.
01:20 Natalie’s story.
02:24 When did we find this trend?
03:36 Types of cancer.
04:53 Testing in younger people.
05:54 Where is this happening?
06:29 Why is this happening?
07:45 What are the causes?
11:05 Cancer risk for women.
13:26 What is being done?
17:18 Goodbye.
Image credit: Getty Images/Choja.
Watch more episodes of The Global Story here 👉🏽 • The Global Story.
You can listen to more episodes of The Global Story here. Making sense of the news with our experts around the world. Insights you can trust, Monday to Friday, from the BBC 👉🏽 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13x… This is the official BBC World Service YouTube channel. If you like what we do, you can also find us here: Instagram 👉🏽 / bbcworldservice Twitter 👉🏽
/ bbcworldservice Facebook 👉🏽
/ bbcworldservice BBC World Service website 👉🏽 https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldserviceradio Thanks for watching and subscribing! #BBCWorldService #WorldService #cancer.
The team’s solution hinges on a clever trick of synthetic biology called “growth-coupled biosynthesis.” Most biomanufacturing efforts try to coax microbes into making a product as a side gig. But the bacteria often resist, directing their resources toward survival instead.
This research flipped the incentive. The scientists engineered a strain of Pseudomonas putida that could only survive if it produced xanthommatin—or more precisely, if it also made a byproduct called formic acid in the process. This formate, a one-carbon molecule, fuels critical metabolic cycles. No formate, no growth.
