Time Capsules in the Language of Science

In elementary school, I spent an art class layering greens. Jungle green fabric with a subtle coordinating stripe, delicate spring green tissue paper so translucent you could see through it, pieces of chunky emerald felt cut into the shape of leaves, sparkling seafoam and teal glitter, all of it pressed and glued onto a piece of tagboard in what my teacher called a monochromatic collage. All shades of one color. Mono: one. Chroma: color. I didn’t think about the word at the time because I was too busy glittering.

That same week, I took a science quiz on monocots and dicots and got the answer wrong. I couldn’t remember which plants had one seed leaf and which had two. When I got the test back and saw my error, it clicked. Of course a monocot has one seed leaf. I’d been using mono in art class while missing it on a science quiz down the hall. The root moved between rooms, but I hadn’t learned yet that it could.

That stuck with me. Although my formal education is in English and linguistics, my mind naturally sought out scientific connections. Greek and Latin roots were the place where those two interests didn’t have to compete. They had the precision of formulas, a combinatorial logic where twenty roots could unlock hundreds of words, and they worked on both sides of the hallway.

I write about science now, and the roots have remained my constant companion. A few weeks ago I was researching an organism called Rapaza viridis for a blog post on endosymbiosis. I’d never heard of it, but since viridis is Latin for green (the same root that gives us “verdant”), I already guessed this creature had something to do with photosynthesis. It does. R. viridis is a single-celled predator that steals chloroplasts from the algae it hunts and uses them to photosynthesize.

Learning more about the organism, I came across the term “transient chimerism.” Also new to me, but also immediately legible. The trans in “transient” is the same as in “transparent” and “transport”: ‘across,’ ‘through.’ Something passing through. Chimera: the Greek monster stitched together from a lion, a goat, and a serpent. Put together: a temporary state of being made from parts of more than one organism. The roots came through for me once again.

This keeps happening. I’ll hit a term I’ve never seen, and its pieces already feel familiar. I could spend this entire blog walking through terms and showing you their roots, but definitions only stay interesting for so long (and my family already compares me to the father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding). What I’ve become more interested in is something the roots do beyond defining. The roots that end up in a name tend to carry more than a definition. They carry an interpretation, an argument about the thing itself.

For years, I wondered about apoptosis. I knew apo meant ‘away from.’ I could see ptosis maybe shared something with “asymptote,” but I couldn’t figure out what cell death had to do with calculus. In 1972, John Kerr, an Australian pathologist, had been studying a form of cell death that looked nothing like anything he’d seen before. For most of pathology’s history, the only cell death anyone studied was the kind that showed up when something had gone wrong: a cell damaged by injury or infection or toxins, dying violently. That kind of death had a name: necrosis, from the Greek nekros (‘corpse’). The cell swells, ruptures, spills its contents, and triggers inflammation. Studying liver tissue, Kerr noticed a second kind of death happening quietly alongside it, in cells that hadn’t been damaged at all. The cell death he was watching was the opposite. The cell shrank, and its contents condensed. It broke apart into tidy packages that neighboring cells quietly absorbed. No mess. The body had planned this.

Continue reading “Time Capsules in the Language of Science”

What Counts as Evidence

This is the third post of three in a series leading up to the 16th annual International Forum on Consciousness, taking place in Madison this May. Hosted by the BTC Institute, Promega and Usona Institute, the forum gathers scientists, philosophers, and practitioners from dozens of different fields to investigate the nature of the mind. This yearโ€™s theme, โ€œUnspoken Intelligence,โ€ explores forms of perception and knowing that fall outside conventional cognition.

In 1845, mathematician Urbain Le Verrier calculated where an unseen planet had to be based on irregularities in Uranus’s orbit, wrote a letter to an observatory telling them where to point their telescope, and Neptune was there. He found a planet without ever looking up.

This is what third-person inquiry looks like at its best: observe from the outside, measure what anyone with the right instruments can measure, build a model precise enough to predict what no one has seen yet. Then look. The history of science is full of such moments, equations pointing to phenomena that hadn’t been detected, particles that hadn’t been observed, forces that hadn’t been measured. The method works because it is ruthlessly disciplined about what counts as evidence. The observer is removed, the conditions controlled, and the measurement trusted.

That discipline is not a limitation. It is the engine of over four centuries of extraordinary results. It gave us germ theory, the structure of DNA, and the sequenced human genome. Every time something seemed to resist physical explanation, the method eventually found the mechanism and the method held. The winning streak was long enough that the assumption underneath it stopped looking like an assumption. Outside-in, third-person, measurable evidence stopped looking like one way of knowing. It started looking like the definition of knowing itself.

The assumption felt safe because it had earned its confidence. Digestion, heredity, mental illness, each had seemed to resist physical explanation until it didn’t. The pattern was consistent enough that the method felt inevitable rather than chosen.

Then science turned toward consciousness, and the winning streak entered dangerous territory.


Here is the problem, what philosopher David Chalmers named the “hard problem” of consciousness in 1995.

To understand what Chalmers meant, it helps to start with his own illustration. When you see red, something measurable happens. Light hits the retina. Signals travel along the optic nerve. Specific regions of the visual cortex activate in patterns that neuroscientists can map with increasing precision. All of that is, in principle, fully describable by the third-person, outside-in approach. Given enough time and instruments, you can trace the whole sequence.

What you cannot describe from the outside is what red looks like. The redness of red, that specific quality of experience that exists only in the moment of seeing it, is not in the neural map. No better scanner will find it there, because the felt quality of the experience isn’t a physical thing hiding in the data. It exists only from the inside. The outside measurement, however precise, cannot reach it.

Chalmers used “hard” deliberately, in contrast to what he called the “easy problems” of consciousness: how the brain integrates information, focuses attention, produces behavior. Those are genuinely difficult, but the outside-in approach knows how to go after them. The hard problem is different in kind. It’s the question that remains even after you’ve solved all of the “easy” ones: why does any of it feel like anything at all?

Think of it this way: everything the brain does could, in principle, happen without any felt experience attached. Processing, responding, behaving, all of it could run like a machine in the dark, with no one home. The question Chalmers is asking is why it doesn’t. Philosophers ask it this way: why is there something it’s like to be you, right now, reading this?

No amount of outside-in evidence, however precise, touches that question, not because the science is insufficient but because the method was specifically designed to exclude first-person data. That exclusion was the whole point. It’s what made the outside-in approach so powerful everywhere else.

With consciousness, the method’s central design decision runs into a question it wasn’t built to answer: how do you study first-person experience when your method was built to exclude first-person data?

Continue reading “What Counts as Evidence”

Stolen Chloroplasts and the Chrysalis of Complex Lifeย 

Despite its many mysteries, a chrysalis is one of the most familiar transformations in nature. We know what goes in. We know what comes out. For a long time, what happened in between was essentially invisible to us. Not because we weren’t curious, but because the mechanism was sealed inside something the size of a thumbnail, and we had no way in.

This same invisibility exists on a much older and much larger scale.

Sometime around two billion years ago, a cell swallowed a bacterium and, instead of digesting it, kept it alive inside itself. This process, called endosymbiosis, is arguably the single most consequential event in the history of complex life. The bacterium became a permanent resident, and over billions of years of co-evolution, it became something else entirely: the mitochondria that power every complex cell on earth. Without it, the living world as we know it doesn’t exist.

Scientists have known for decades that this kind of cellular acquisition had to have occurred. What has proved harder to explain is not that it happened, but how it started. What did the earliest molecular steps actually look like from the inside?

In the ocean, there is a microscopic single-celled organism called Rapaza viridis. It hunts algae by propelling itself through the water on whip-like appendages called flagella. That hunt may be showing us the beginning of a modern endosymbiosis: the same process that gave every complex cell its mitochondria and every plant its chloroplasts.

Continue reading “Stolen Chloroplasts and the Chrysalis of Complex Lifeย “

From Gum Disease to Breast Cancer: An Oral Bacterium’s Unexpected Journey

You’re sitting in the dentist’s chair, nodding along to the familiar flossing lecture you’ve been politely ignoring for most of your adult life. Fair enough. It’s hard to get excited about gum health. But it turns out your dentist may have been underselling the pitch.

A study published in January 2026 in Cell Communication and Signaling shows that a common gum disease bacterium can promote breast cancer growth and spread in mice, and the findings hint at a particularly troubling link for people carrying BRCA1 mutations (1). “Floss to help prevent cancer” probably wasnโ€™t on your 2026 bingo card, yet here we are.

Continue reading “From Gum Disease to Breast Cancer: An Oral Bacterium’s Unexpected Journey”

The Breakthrough Was There All Along

If you’ve ever played The New York Times game Connections, you know the feeling. You’re staring at a grid of words, knowing the solution is there, but unable to see how the pieces fit together. All you can do is work with the words in front of you. There are no extra clues, no new information coming. The only option is to shuffle, to look at the same information in a different arrangement until patterns begin to appear.

Nothing about the problem changes. Then something about how you see it does.

In 2014, a third-year medical student named David Fajgenbaum checked himself into the emergency room mid-exam. He felt off. By the time anyone understood why, he was in the ICU with multiple organ failure from a disease so rare it wasn’t taught in medical school: Castleman disease. The only approved drug didn’t work. A priest came to his bedside and read him his last rites. He was 25.

Fajgenbaum survived that relapse, and four more after it. As he recounted in a recent episode of NPRโ€™s Radiolab, he understood that chemotherapy was keeping him alive without curing him, and that waiting for a new drug to be developed (a process that typically takes 10 to 15 years and billions of dollars) wasn’t an option he had. So he did something unusual. He started asking his doctors to save his blood samples, and he ran experiments on himself.

What he found was that a specific signaling pathway in his immune system, mTOR, was in overdrive. When he searched the existing pharmacological literature for something that could block it, he found an answer that had been sitting in pharmacies for 25 years. Sirolimus, a drug approved in 1999 to prevent organ transplant rejection, had never been used for Castleman disease. The biology of his disease hadn’t changed. The drug had always existed. The connection simply hadn’t been made.

He took it. It worked. He has been in remission for over a decade.

The detail worth holding onto isn’t the drug or the disease. It’s the instinct. Fajgenbaum didn’t wait for new knowledge to arrive. He looked differently at what already existed.

Continue reading “The Breakthrough Was There All Along”

Brewing Immunity: The Vaccine Beer Experiment

What if a vaccine didnโ€™t come in a vial or a syringe, but in a pint glass?

Itโ€™s the kind of question that sounds hypotheticalโ€“something meant to provoke discussion rather than describe a real experiment. And yet, itโ€™s one that a virologist claims to have taken seriously enough to test in his own kitchen.

Since publicly sharing his experiment and preliminary results, the idea of โ€œvaccine beerโ€ has drawn fascination, skepticism and no small amount of discomfort from across the scientific community.

Continue reading “Brewing Immunity: The Vaccine Beer Experiment”

Life on Mars? Proteomic Secrets of Bacterial Survival in Martian Brines

Could bacteria survive on Mars? While images of the red planet might spark thoughts of barren landscapes and lifeless deserts, Mars holds a fascinating possibility: under suitable conditions, pockets of salty, perchlorate-rich brines could temporarily form on or near its surface. These brines are formed by salts that naturally absorb water from their surroundings. By lowering the temperature at which water freezes, these salts can stabilize liquid water, raising intriguing questions about the potential for microbial life. But what exactly would it take for bacteria to survive there? New research from Kloss et al. published in Scientific Reports sheds light on this cosmic question.

Continue reading “Life on Mars? Proteomic Secrets of Bacterial Survival in Martian Brines”

The Long Road to a Norovirus Vaccine: How Close Are We?

This winter, norovirus outbreaks surged across the U.S., with cases nearly doubling from last year, according to the CDC. Schools, cruise ships, nursing homes and healthcare facilities saw widespread illness, underscoring the urgent need for a norovirus vaccine.

Each year, norovirus causes 685 million infections worldwide and is the leading cause of foodborne illness in the U.S., responsible for 21 million cases annually. Despite its massive impact, there is still no approved vaccineโ€”but recent advancements suggest that this could change.

Continue reading “The Long Road to a Norovirus Vaccine: How Close Are We?”

To Tweet or Not to Tweet: Microblogging for Science Communication

Microblogging is a form of blogging characterized by a shortened format and frequent posting schedule. Instead of personal websites, microblogs reside on social media platforms or apps, making them accessible to interact with and post on smartphones. Microblogs focus on interacting with audiences directly. With the ability to reply to or repost content, microblogging is more conversational and collaborative with audiences than long- form writing.  

Laptop with a newspaper inside of it. next to emoji people connected across the globe.

After its founding in 2006, Twitter (recently renamed โ€œXโ€ by its new owner) quickly became the face of microblogging platforms. Users publish content to the platform in posts of 280 characters that can include images, gifs, videos, and what the platform is most known for: hashtags. Hashtags enable users to search the platform by topic to connect with or follow other users who are writing about those topics. Users can also interact with each other by liking or retweeting tweets, which posts them to their own account. The open forum discussion style makes it possible for individuals to share their stories, offering first-hand accounts of breaking news and fueling political movements such as the Womenโ€™s March and Black Lives Matter.ย 

Continue reading “To Tweet or Not to Tweet: Microblogging for Science Communication”

Squid Games: Camouflage or Communication, It’s All Skin Deep

One Out winning image of Promega AG  Art + Science Competition shows baby squid communicating
One Out (winner Promega AG Swiss Art + Science Competition) by Urhs Albrecht, University of Fribourg

Squids are mysterious creatures roaming seas and oceans. They are also the subjects Urs Albrecht chose for his winning picture in the Swiss Art + Science competition, “One Out.” The photo shows squid juveniles, one of which displays striking colors in opposition to the rest. The bright individual is also physically removed from the group, may be scared or angry. The image is fascinating because we can see complex biology at play with the naked eye. Squids are Coleoid cephalopods, mollusks with arms attached to their heads. They have lost their shell and developed larger and highly differentiated brains and camera-type eyes through evolution. Their nervous system is highly organized. The central brain acts as the decision-making unit, and the peripheral nervous system processes motor and sensory information.

Continue reading “Squid Games: Camouflage or Communication, It’s All Skin Deep”