March 4, 2025: What happens when people quit Ozempic? Plus, a new fuzzy mouse created in a lab, and why language is not required for thought. —Andrea Gawrylewski, Chief Newsletter Editor | | | • A biotech company has created a new species of mouse by splicing ancient mammoth DNA for shaggy fur into a mouse's genome. They call it the "woolly mouse." | 6 min read | | | • A former Trump official who alarmed scientists years ago when he attempted to meddle with a congressionally mandated climate report will now serve as associate director for natural resources, energy, science, and water in the Office of Management and Budget. | 5 min read | | | David Petrus Ibars/Getty Images | | | The vast majority of people taking weight-loss drugs like Wegovy or Ozempic quit within two years. A new study surveyed more than 120,000 people, with and without type 2 diabetes, who were taking a GLP-1 medication. The researchers found that half of the participants stopped treatment within a year of starting it, and nearly three quarters did so by the second year. The rate was even higher for those without type 2 diabetes: nearly 85 percent quit after two years.
What this means: People who stop weight-loss drugs inevitably gain back the majority of the weight they lost. Plus, other metabolic improvements they experienced on the drugs like reduced blood pressure, cholesterol or overall inflammation bounce back as well. Only a few completed studies have investigated the effects of stopping GLP-1s, so researchers can't say if there are other long-term effects on health.
What the experts say: Cost is likely a factor making people quit these drugs. Most insurance companies don't cover weight-loss medicine for people without type 2 diabetes. Brands like Wegovy and Ozempic can cost $1000 per month, out-of-pocket. Side effects are another likely reason people quit (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain). "Sometimes [GLP-1 medications] are painted as a cosmetic drug, and obesity [is presented] as a cosmetic problem," says Sadiya Khan, a professor of cardiovascular epidemiology and preventive cardiologist at Northwestern University. "I think that stigma creates problems, for both patients and clinicians." | | | Language and thinking are separate brain activities. Dozens of studies tracking brain activity have shown that language regions are quiet while people engage in cognitive activities like puzzles. Other research has found that people with severe language impairments, like so-called global aphasia where they completely lose their ability to understand language or speak, can nonetheless perform fine on cognitive tasks.
Why this matters: For a long time, researchers believed that language was essential for humans' higher-brain functions like problem solving and completing complex mental tasks. Linguists reasoned that we require words or syntax as scaffolding to construct the things we think about. But with the newest findings, language seems to be purely a method of transmitting information. Essential for survival and building culture, yes, but not required.
What the experts say: Large Language Models like ChatGPT are offering the first real chance to study the interactions of language and thought. "They're basically the first model organism for researchers studying the neuroscience of language," says Evelina Fedorenko, a neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "They are not a biological organism, but until these models came about, we just didn't have anything other than the human brain that does language. And so what's happening is incredibly exciting." | | | • Neuroscience research in the last 40 years has amassed a pile of studies claiming that human free will doesn't exist. "Not so fast," writes a group of professors of neuroscience and philosophy. Past studies were likely misinterpreted and didn't do enough to disprove voluntary will, they say. "Many cognitive neuroscientists in the field, including former 'no-free-will' proponents, now acknowledge that the supposed neuroscientific evidence against it is dubious." | 5 min read | | | In 2021, Harvard geneticist George Church co-founded the biotech company Colossal Biosciences. Its mission is to "de-extinct" long-lost species, including the woolly mammoth, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger (for now, they've begun with creating the "woolly mouse"). The tantalizing premise of Jurassic Park seems more real than ever. But, like the film, Colossal scientists are grappling with grave questions: the world of today is very different from the world when many now-extinct species thrived. What factors must scientists consider if they choose to resurrect these creatures? | —Andrea Gawrylewski, Chief Newsletter 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 | | | | | | | | | |
