Science
Scientists Detect Shape-Shifting Along Earth’s Solid Inner Core
The inner core at the center of the Earth, a ball of iron and nickel about 1,500 miles wide, may not be perfectly solid.
A new study finds evidence that the inner core’s outer boundary has noticeably changed shape over the past few decades.
“The most likely thing is the outer core is kind of tugging on the inner core and making it move a little bit,” said John Vidale, a professor of earth sciences at the University of Southern California.
Dr. Vidale and his colleagues reported their findings on Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience.
That adds to the mysteries about the planet’s center. Geophysicists have previously reported that the inner core does not spin at exactly the same rate as the rest of Earth. They also showed that the pace of rotation changes — the inner core appeared to be spinning slightly faster than the outer layers a couple of decades ago, and now it is spinning slightly slower.
The inner core is the deepest of Earth’s geological layers. The crust — the layer that we live on — is just a few miles thick. Below that, filling up 84 percent of the planet, is the 1,800-mile-thick mantle, which is soft enough in places to flow up and down and generate the forces that push the continents around. Between the mantle and the inner core is the liquid outer core.
Scientists of course cannot cut into Earth and directly observe its insides. Instead, their knowledge is inferred from the vibrations generated by earthquakes that pass through the planet. The speed and the direction of the seismic vibrations change depending on the density and the elasticity of the rocks.
For this study, Dr. Vidale and his colleagues looked at earthquakes in the South Sandwich Islands, a volcanic chain in the South Atlantic Ocean.
So many earthquakes happen there that sometimes a new event is almost identical in magnitude and location to one that occurred years earlier.
The scientists identified more than 100 such “earthquake pairs,” analyzing readings from 1991 to 2004 at two arrays of seismometers more than 8,000 miles away from the islands, one near Fairbanks, Alaska, the other in Yellowknife, Canada.
The analysis originally aimed to improve on earlier work that suggested a slowing of the inner core’s spin. But the scientists did not understand aspects of the signals at the Yellowknife array.
“Basically, the wiggles are different,” Dr. Vidale said.
By coincidence, for some of the pairs, the inner core was in the same orientation during both quakes.
Identical earthquake vibrations passing through the identical part of the Earth should have produced identical seismic signals at Fairbanks and Yellowknife. At Fairbanks, that was true, but at Yellowknife the signals were different.
Because Yellowknife is somewhat closer to the South Sandwich Islands than Fairbanks is, the seismic waves from the islands’ earthquakes did not travel as deeply into the inner core as those reaching Fairbanks. That suggested something had changed near the outer boundary of the inner core.
Turbulent flow in the outer core or gravitational pull from denser parts of the mantle could have deformed the inner core boundary, which might account for the change in the seismic signals, Dr. Vidale said.
“We expect it’s soft because it’s near melting point,” he said. “So it’s no surprise if it deforms.”
The new findings will not be the last on the subject. “The offered interpretation is sound,” said Hrvoje Tkalcic, a professor of geophysics at the Australian National University who was not involved with the research, “although it is not the only possible explanation, as the authors acknowledge.”
In recent years, geophysicists have argued over whether differences in the seismic signals are caused by a change in the rotation rate or by a change in the shape of the inner core. “This study thus reconciles the last debate by proposing a combination of both causes,” Dr. Tkalcic said.
Lianxing Wen, a professor of geosciences at Stony Brook University in New York who in 2006 reported possible changes of shape at the inner-core boundary, remains unconvinced that the inner core spins at a rate different from that of the rest of Earth.
Dr. Wen said the Yellowknife data was inconsistent with that hypothesis. “Ordinarily, such inconsistencies should lead to an abandonment of the original inconsistent interpretation,” he said.
A change in shape, without any change in the rotation rate, was enough to explain the seismic data, Dr. Wen said.
Even Dr. Vidale is not completely convinced he is correct. “We’re pretty sure we were right, but this isn’t a bulletproof paper,” he said. “How sure? I sort of put it at 90 percent.”
Dr. Tkalcic said more data was needed to resolve the question, which “can be achieved by building seismological infrastructure in remote areas of the planet, including the ocean floor.”
Xiaodong Song, a professor at Peking University in China who in the mid-1990s was one of the first to propose that the inner core was spinning at a different speed from that of the Earth’s surface, agreed.
“This new study,” Dr. Song said, “should motivate a new round of exploration into strange behaviors at the heart of the planet.”
Science
New Gene Therapy Enables Children With a Rare Form of Deafness to Hear
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved a gene therapy that can cure a rare, inherited form of deafness. The treatment is the first to restore normal hearing in children who were born deaf.
The maker of the therapy, Regeneron, plans to provide it free to any child who needs it. “We wanted to make a statement,” Dr. George Yancopoulos, Regeneron’s chief scientific officer said on Thursday morning.
He explained that the company wants to be sure its treatment “would be able to reach its full potential and help as many people as possible.”
Some gene therapies for other diseases, priced in the millions of dollars, have had dismal sales.
The therapy called Otarmeni, is intended for children with otoferlin deafness, a rare form of hearing loss caused by a mutation in a single gene. The mutation destroys a protein in the inner ear that is needed to transmit sound to the brain.
Although otoferlin deafness accounts for just 2 percent to 8 percent of congenital hearing loss, the new treatment “is groundbreaking,” Dr. Dylan Chan, a pediatric otolaryngologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said.
He added, “This is the first time in history that there has been a medical therapy that has enabled deaf children to hear.”
Dr. Chan has been a paid adviser to Regeneron and to Eli Lilly, which is also developing a gene therapy for otoferlin deafness. He is also a principal investigator for Lilly’s clinical trial of the treatment.
Dr. Daniel Lee, the director of pediatric otology and neurotology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, said he also viewed the therapy as groundbreaking. “We have now entered the era of biological treatment for inner ear hearing loss,” he said.
Dr. Lee is on the advisory board of a small biotech company, Skylark Bio, that is developing gene therapy for a different form of inherited deafness.
Until now, the only treatment for otoferlin deafness was a cochlear implant, an electronic device placed in the inner ear. The implants can restore sound but not normal hearing. And the sounds come through as robotic or tinny.
People with cochlear implants have difficulty in noisy environments. They do not hear high frequencies. And at night they have to recharge the batteries, leaving them deaf until the morning.
In addition to Regeneron and Lilly, two other companies, in China and in France, are also developing gene therapies for otoferlin deafness.
Dr. Eliot Shearer, a pediatric surgeon who specializes in hearing loss at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the otoferlin gene therapy is only the beginning of treatments for deafness. “There are over 150 known genetic causes of hearing loss, and thousands of mutations in those genes,” Dr. Shearer said. “Now that it is known that it’s possible to correct genetic hearing loss, new possibilities open up.”
Dr. Shearer is a principal investigator of both the Regeneron and Lilly otoferlin clinical trials.
To treat deafness with gene therapy, researchers had to solve a problem: getting the genes to the cochlea, a spiral shaped cavity almost at the center of the skull. The cochlea is filled with fluid and lined with 3,500 inner hair cells, each tuned to a specific pitch.
Sound vibrations ripple through the fluid, bending the microscopic hairs. When a hair cell bends, it fires. An electric signal travels along the auditory nerve to the brain, and the person hears the sound.
Researchers chose to focus on otoferlin deafness because its cause was straightforward. The otoferlin gene is expressed only in the hair cells of the inner ear. The inner ear structures, including the hair cells, are intact. So to allow patients to hear, doctors simply needed to deliver a working copy of the otoferlin gene.
Otolaryngologists had long thought that injecting a medicine into the inner ear would inevitably damage the delicate cells and membranes of the cochlea.
But children with otoferlin deafness are already unable to hear. Even if an attempt at gene therapy damaged their inner ears, they could still receive cochlear implants.
“It was the perfect target,” Dr. Chan said.
Kerri M., whose baby, Miles, had otoferlin deafness, said gene therapy “completely changed our lives.” She spoke on condition of anonymity because she wanted to protect her son’s diagnosis from appearing on the internet.
Dr. Shearer said Miles’s hearing loss was so profound that he could not hear a jet engine if it were next to him.
Miles was given the Regeneron therapy on May 19, 2025, when he was 13 months old. At his last visit, his hearing was normal.
“We are so fortunate,” his mother said. “Our baby was born deaf, and now he can hear.”
Most children who received the gene therapy have had hearing restored, but not all have been as fortunate as Miles. So far, Dr. Chan said, about 80 percent of the patients who have been treated successfully in clinical trials were able to hear well without needing cochlear implants.
Most still needed a hearing aid, but about 30 percent of those who could hear after the treatment were like Miles — their hearing was in the normal range.
The next target for the scientists working on gene therapies to correct deafness is mutations in the GJB2 gene. It causes the most common form of congenital hearing loss in children and accounts for about 20 percent of cases.
Dr. Lee explained that the biology of GJB2 deafness is more complex than that of otoferlin, because cells in the cochlea are damaged. Otoferlin’s gene therapy, in contrast, is like fixing a broken wire — the cells are normal, they just can’t transmit a signal.
Dr. Lee said Skylark Bio hopes to start a gene therapy clinical trial this year for GJB2-related deafness in children 9 months old to 7 years old in the United States.
Dr. John Germiller, a pediatric otology surgeon at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, predicted that the next frontier will be people with genes that cause progressive hearing loss, not necessarily babies.
Hearing loss and the loss of hair cells in the cochlea tend to occur together, he said. The goal will be to use gene therapy to save the hair cells that are remaining.
Dr. Germiller is a principal investigator for the Lilly otoferlin trial and treated the first patient in the United States two years ago.
Dr. Chan offered an even more ambitious hope for the future — the end of most forms of deafness.
“A lot of people are working on how to reprogram cells of the inner ear to rebuild themselves,” Dr. Chan said. The hope is to recreate the cochlea.
“That,” Dr. Chan added, is “the ultimate holy grail.”
Science
RFK Jr. Says His Department Advises All Children to Get Measles Vaccine
Over four days and nearly 20 hours of testimony, under harsh questioning from Democrats, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly backed away from his longstanding criticism of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. On Wednesday, he made his strongest statement yet — albeit on behalf of his department and not himself.
“We promote the M.M.R.,” Mr. Kennedy told the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday morning, referring to the combined vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. “We have advised every child to get the M.M.R. That’s what we do.”
The comment stands in stark contrast to Mr. Kennedy’s past advice, and senators wondered aloud why he hasn’t told the public what he said on Capitol Hill this week. Last week, he conceded the measles vaccine is “safe and effective” for most people.
When measles broke out in Texas last year, Mr. Kennedy did not recommend vaccination; he said it should be “a personal choice.” Last year, asked if he would advise parents to vaccinate newborns, he said it was not up to him to provide medical advice. His advice, he said, was: “Do your own research.”
But even as he shifted on measles, Mr. Kennedy stuck by his longstanding assertion that improvements in hygiene and sanitation, and not vaccination, fueled the decline in deaths from infectious diseases during the 20th century.
“If you want to talk about what, why disease mortality has disappeared in the 20th century, it was not vaccines,” he said, testifying before the Senate health committee Wednesday afternoon.
As proof, Mr. Kennedy cited a study published in the journal Pediatrics in 2000. But he failed to note that the study also reported that vaccines introduced in the second half of the 20th century had “virtually eliminated” deaths from diseases including polio and measles. In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed vaccination as one of “ten great public health achievements” of the 20th century.
After Mr. Kennedy made the assertion, Senator Bill Cassidy, the Republican chairman of the Senate health committee, asked about the author of the study; Mr. Kennedy gave him the author’s name. Later in the hearing, Mr. Cassidy produced the paper and told Mr. Kennedy he had taken it out of context.
Science
Contributor: Regulate the ‘Enhanced Games’ as a medical experiment and a marketing stunt
It felt like the Olympics. Crowds cheering. The American flag standing tall above the bleachers. Trainers jumping with anticipation. A swimmer staring in disbelief at the clock after his final stroke. The Jumbotron announced: Kristian Gkolomeev — 20.89 seconds. A new world record in the 50-meter freestyle.
Well, kind of.
I’ve left out some details. There was only one swimmer. The crowd? Just doctors, trainers and filmmakers. This was not in an Olympic city nor an Olympic year, but in Greensboro, N.C., in 2025. And there were no iconic rings on the banners, just “Enhanced Games.”
Yes, Gkolomeev swam faster than César Cielo, the official record holder at the time (20.91 seconds). But he did it “enhanced” — a polite way to say that he used performance-enhancing drugs. At the Enhanced Games, doping isn’t punished. It’s required.
The concept, as described by the organization: “to create the definitive scientific, cultural and sporting movement that safely evolves mankind into a new superhumanity.”
Backed by investors such as Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr.’s 1789 Capital, the Enhanced Games embodies a techno-utopian ideal: athletes as canvases for chemical optimization, testing the limits of human health for a lot of money. Gkolomeev earned $1 million for his record.
So far, the competition has happened at one-off pop-up events. But in May, Las Vegas will host the first full-scale Enhanced Games, a four-day meet in swimming, track and field, and weightlifting. The group advertises a “potential prize purse of $7.5 million for just a single day of competition,” plus appearance fees.
Does it need to be said? Apparently yes: The Enhanced Games glorifies the risky use of enhancement drugs.
Steroids can harden arteries, elevate stroke risk, damage the liver and permanently alter hormone systems. They are not electrolyte tablets or a little preworkout creatine. If Lance Armstrong had been rewarded — rather than sanctioned — for doping, what would have happened to competitive cycling?
Fans — and especially kids — mimic their idols. As risky as the drugs are for athletes at the Enhanced Games, with its “medical commission” to give the illusion of safety, the substances are even more dangerous when used by people without medical supervision.
The games also expose the economic neglect that drives athletes toward such competition. As Benjamin Proud, the British silver medalist who recently joined the Enhanced Games, put it: “It would have taken me 13 years of winning a World Championship title in order to win what I could win in one race at these games.”
Indeed, the Enhanced Games might look like an easy way out. Only nine swimmers worldwide received prize money and performance bonuses above $75,000 in 2025, according to World Aquatics.
Investors clearly hope to make money off the games as well. The organization is moving closer to becoming a publicly traded company. The economics are not mysterious.
But the Enhanced Games are not just another sporting event. They are an arena for biomedical experimentation and should be regulated as such. The games should face limits similar to those imposed on other high-risk industries, including age restrictions and strict advertising rules.
We already know how to govern legal, profitable activities that carry serious health risks.
In the United States, that means oversight from the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission — bodies that regulate drug protocols and police misleading commercial claims. A steroid-based competition should not be treated as a sport but as a medical experiment and a marketing stunt.
Regulations on pharmaceutical advertising offer a useful model for the Enhanced Games. Prescription drugs are advertised every night on television, but only under strict rules. They require fair balance (content must present benefits and risks with comparable prominence, readability and duration) and a “major statement” of risks (most serious risks must be spoken aloud and not obscured by visuals or music).
Right now, when you play Gkolomeev’s “world-record” video on YouTube, a medical-risk warning appears for barely five seconds — then vanishes. If a cholesterol drug must audibly warn viewers of stroke risk, why shouldn’t a steroid-based competition do the same?
Enhanced Games content should be accompanied by clear warnings of the risks of performance-enhancing drugs and be clearly labeled, age-gated and distributed as high-risk content more akin to pornography than to a boxing match.
Prohibition is not the answer. Trying to shut down these games only fuels a controversy-driven brand. Just recently, the Enhanced Games sued organizations such as World Aquatics and the World Anti-Doping Agency, alleging antitrust violations and that blocking athletes from participating at the Enhanced Games is illegal. As those organizations fight back, they will be seeking to protect the integrity of mainstream sports, but they will also inadvertently be promoting the Enhanced Games.
If we want kids to admire clean athletes rather than those using banned drugs, the Las Vegas launch must not reach the world as a Super Bowl would. The Enhanced Games should not be televised or allowed to stream online to minors. Otherwise, Las Vegas, in May, risks becoming an unregulated public-health experiment mislabeled as a sporting event.
Fabricio Ramos dos Santos is a lawyer, entrepreneur and sports investor.
-
Detroit, MI1 minute agoBlake Miller has high floor, big upside, says Lions GM Brad Holmes
-
San Francisco, CA13 minutes agoHighway 1 closure in San Francisco expected to snarl Sunset traffic all weekend
-
Dallas, TX19 minutes agoHow UCF EDGE Malachi Lawrence Fits With The Dallas Cowboys
-
Miami, FL25 minutes ago
Dolphins Select Two Players in The First Round of The 2026 NFL Draft
-
Boston, MA31 minutes agoIn-Store Only
-
Denver, CO37 minutes agoWolves Back Up the Big Talk With Blowout Win Over Denver in Game 3
-
Seattle, WA43 minutes ago‘Rare’ Tiny-Home Compound Featuring 3 Adorable Abodes Hits the Market in Seattle for Just $900K
-
San Diego, CA49 minutes agoSan Diego Care Facility Owner Sentenced To House Arrest For Elder Abuse