Solving the Logical Conundrum of Inductive Inferences

Highly polar pesticides such as glyphosate are notoriously difficult to detect in food due to their chemical properties and interference from natural food compounds. A new method developed by Dr Michelangelo Anastassiades and Ann‑Kathrin Schäfer of CVUA Stuttgart, and their colleagues, offers a more accurate and practical way to identify residues of these pesticides. By simplifying sample preparation and reducing interference, the method delivers reliable results across a wide range of foods. This development improves routine food safety testing and strengthens our ability to monitor potentially harmful pesticides.

If you stroll into a McDonald’s fast-food restaurant in Paris, Tokyo, or New York, you’ll notice that the Big Mac tastes the same, the menu looks familiar, and the process is quick and efficient. You order your food, wait a short while, and you get exactly what you expect. In the 1990s, American sociologist George Ritzer gave a name to this phenomenon: McDonaldization. He identified four principles behind the model’s success. The first is Efficiency, in terms of getting things done in the fastest, least expensive way possible. Second comes Calculability, which involves valuing numerical metrics, such as how many burgers sold and how fast they were served, over subjective qualities such as taste or ambiance. The third factor is Predictability, which involves making sure the experience is the same way everywhere. The final aspect is Control, where the corporation uses refined rules, technology, and systems to achieve the preceding three principles. While these ideas may work for burgers and fries, can they work if applied to something very different, such as healthcare? In a thought-provoking review, Professor Dr. Frederik Wenz of the University of Freiburg explores how these fast-food-inspired principles are transforming hospitals, clinics, and even the role of patients themselves. This phenomenon doesn’t just involve faster patient registrations or standardized treatments. It’s about a fundamental shift in how we think about healing, and how much responsibility patients are willing (or able) to take on themselves.

Research from Dr. Adam W. Carrico at the Florida International University, and his colleagues, explores innovative approaches to address HIV prevention and treatment challenges among sexual minority men who use stimulants. Three interconnected studies examine how behavioral interventions can reduce HIV viral load, alter gene expression in immune cells, and increase the use of preventive medication in this high-priority population. Collectively, these randomized controlled trials provide compelling evidence of the potential of behavioral interventions to improve health behaviors and outcomes.

When we reach into a medicine cabinet we aim to find something to relieve our symptoms and treat our ailments. This could be a painkiller for a headache, an antibiotic for an infection, or insulin for diabetes. Typically, we assume that what's inside that blister pack, bottle or vial is real, safe, and effective. But what if it’s not, and not only may it be ineffective at relieving our symptoms, but it could even cause harm? That unsettling question is at the heart of a groundbreaking new study from the University of Plymouth. Led by Dr Maysa Falah and Dr Michael Dillon, the research team explored an underreported problem that quietly afflicts health systems worldwide: substandard and falsified medicines, or SF medicines for short. Through their research in Jordan, they offer a glimpse into how widespread and misunderstood the issue truly is, not just among the public, but also in pharmacies and clinics, revealing both the prevalence of poor-quality medicines and the deep uncertainty around what we trust to put in our bodies.

Research from Professor Juliane Reinecke at the University of Oxford and Professor Jimmy Donaghey at the University of South Australia reveals how strategic ambiguity in international agreements can paradoxically strengthen rather than weaken collective action. Their eight-year study of the Bangladesh Accord for Fire and Building Safety demonstrates how deliberately vague language that initially enables difficult negotiations can evolve into robust, expanding commitments that exceed original expectations.

Research from Dr. Bernhard Reinsberg at the University of Glasgow and Dr. Christoph Valentin Steinert at the University of Zurich reveals how France's groundbreaking mandatory due diligence law defied business predictions of economic harm. Through analysis of 11,504 French companies over fifteen years, their study demonstrates that requiring firms to monitor human rights and environmental standards in their supply chains had no significant impact on profitability. Their findings challenge widespread industry claims that such regulations threaten competitiveness and provide crucial evidence for policymakers considering similar legislation worldwide.

Training walls and entrance breakwaters have long been used to keep estuary entrances clear of shoals that threaten boat navigation and increase flood risks for nearby communities. But new research by Alexander Nielsen of Worley Consulting and coastal engineer Angus Gordon reveals that these structures may be causing long-term damage. Their study uncovers how engineered inlets are reshaping the flow of water through estuaries, disrupting wetland ecosystems and triggering costly maintenance challenges.

In the 18th century, Scottish philosopher David Hume posed a confounding question about the nature of the scientific method. By questioning the logic behind making predictions based on past observations, he exposed a fundamental problem that has vexed logicians to this day. But now, through a new analysis, philosophers Prof. Gerhard Schurz and Dr. Paul Thorn at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf offer a fresh perspective – one that could finally help us escape Hume’s logical trap, through a concept known as regret-based meta-induction.

For over a century, Einstein’s theory of general relativity has underpinned our understanding of gravity. However, it still hasn’t been able to explain some of the most enduring mysteries in cosmology, including the need for vast quantities of dark matter, which has gone undetected for decades. Today, this need has been explained by Conformal Gravity: a framework which modifies Einstein’s theory by requiring that the laws of physics must stay the same, even if all fields are scaled up or down at every point in space and time. Through his research, Robert Nesbet of IBM’s Almaden Research Center argues that this principle – named ‘universal conformal symmetry’ – should apply to all fundamental fields. If correct, this framework could eliminate the need for dark matter and dark energy.

We typically take our skulls for granted, beyond their basic function in keeping our brain safe and sound within our head. When you look in the mirror, the shape of your skull, which forms the very structure beneath your face, is something you may not have considered in much detail. However, the story of how your skull came to be, and how bone spread across your embryonic head in perfect symmetry to form a complete and protective dome over your brain, is a marvel of biology that scientists are only just beginning to understand. In a new study led by Dr. Jacqueline Tabler at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, researchers have uncovered a surprising and elegant mechanism behind how skull bones grow that is different to how we typically think of cell movement and migration in the body. Published in the open-access journal Nature Communications, this latest research rewrites what we thought we knew about cell movement, tissue development, and the mechanics of morphogenesis, the process through which an organism takes shape.