March 26, 2024: We're covering cancer conversations, remote scientific collaborations and this morning's collapse of Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.
—Robin Lloyd, Contributing Editor | | | News that Catherine, Princess of Wales, recently held difficult conversations with her children about her cancer diagnosis prompted many people to imagine—or recall—the challenges of such a discussion. In a piece by Scientific American news intern Riis Williams, a social worker in a breast cancer clinic provides some advice. First, it's ideal for a parent to inform kids sooner rather than later, because children are observant and will notice that something's off at home.
Key guidance: Parents of children who are preschool age or younger might discuss only very basic information about their diagnosis because kids this age probably cannot understand in-depth details. Reserve details for children who are around kindergarten age and above, the social worker says. And acknowledge to kids who go online that although they might read about cancer on the web, they should know that every individual case differs. Children should be encouraged to bring to their parents any questions that arise.
What not to say: Parents should find a balance between acknowledging fears of their cancer and not making kids feel that they must become a parent's emotional caretaker. It's important to "speak truthfully to your child and answer their questions without making them the sole recipient of your feelings. Sometimes incorporating a trusted friend or family member into the conversation can help," the social worker advises. | | | Long-distance collaboration is a standard feature of many jobs these days, but a new study suggests it might not serve up a flood of innovative scientific research. Teams that collaborate remotely produce fewer breakthroughs, according to the analysis of millions of research papers and patent filings. The researchers found that as the distance between authors' workplaces increases from zero to at least 600 kilometers, their papers' probability of being disruptive, in the sense of innovative and unconventional, falls by roughly a quarter. A look into the researchers' self-reported roles in each piece of work revealed that those working together in person were more likely to focus on conceptual tasks—the kind of work apt to produce disruptive new ideas, reports freelance science journalist Simon Makin.
How they did it: They looked for "disruptive" features in 20 million research papers published between 1960 and 2020, as well as four million patents filed between 1976 and 2020. Disruption was defined as whether a piece of work eclipsed earlier work and opened new avenues of research. Papers and patents that were cited in subsequent research without also citing prior studies upon which they built were scored as more disruptive.
What the experts say: "If you want to encourage radical innovation, you've got to bring people together. You cannot just rely on digital infrastructure," says social scientist Lingfei Wu, co-author of the study. | | | Credit: Pascal Kiszon/Getty Images | | | AI helped write award-winning song Machine-learning algorithms allow composers to create all-new instruments, reports Scientific American editor Allison Parshall. Learn more in this recent episode of Science, Quickly, in which we cover hot science topics of the day, all in 10 minutes or less. | | | Credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images | | | • Cement, steel—and pasta—are about to get greener. | 3 min read | | | • The Congressional hearing and public discourse that resulted in the resignation of two college presidents who are both women of color provide insights into the war against justice in the U.S., concludes a long-time observer of attacks on academia. "We must recognize that education is inherently political," writes sociologist Abby L. Ferber. "Who can teach, who can learn, and what gets taught are ultimately questions about whose lives matter." | 6 min read | | | A couple years ago, I felt new twinges in my joints during and after running. Guidelines that recommend twice weekly strength-training are covered now and then in the media, but such activity is often derided elsewhere or overshadowed by advice to "do cardio." I decided to give strength-training a serious try, knowing I'd lost significant muscle and bone mass at this point in life. With online guidance from a coach with a doctoral degree in physical therapy (I found her through Instagram and a podcast, no joke), I learned how to use free weights properly to gain strength. Within a few weeks, my aches diminished or vanished on runs, and it got a lot easier to carry groceries. What's more, I felt unanticipated joy as I performed my "progressive-overload" workouts. In a recent essay, Scientific American contributing editor Lydia Denworth details the science behind strength-training benefits including one that is less publicized: She cites a 2022 analysis of several studies concluding that muscle-strengthening exercises were associated with a 10 to 17 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality than in people who didn't do such exercises. So to live long and prosper, you might consider adding some prudent, strength-training to your routine. Before long, you might bust some frailty and age myths.
| —Robin Lloyd, Contributing Editor | | Subscribe to this and all of our newsletters . | | | | Scientific American
One New York Plaza, New York, NY, 10004 | | | | | | Support our mission, subscribe to Scientific American | | | | | | | | | |
