EUSci Issue 33 website

SciencEd

Curiosity

www.eusci.org.uk | FREE

19-21 МАҮ 2025

36 TALKS | 3 NIGHTS | 6 VENUES

A Selection of Our Events:

DIVING INTO

DATA

How can data be used responsibly to

help improve society? A focus of

Nursing and Education

The Old Bell Inn,

233-235 Causewayside,

EH9 1PH

ОUR SOCIETY

19/05/2025

How can AI help us navigate

datasets? A focus on publishing and

Parkinson’s Disease progression?

Leith Depot,

138-142 Leith Walk,

EH6 5DT

TECH ME OUT

THE BIG

DATA MAZE

19/05/2025

WНАТ’Ѕ ОΝ?

Come along for a pint and

listen to the latest

discoveries shaping our

world.

TALKS, ACTIVIES, QUIZES

AND PRIZES TO BE WON!

DOORS: 19:00

EVENTS: 19:30-21:30

ATOMS TO

GALAXIES

ATOMIC

DISCOVERIES

From whisky to renewable energy,

how does chemistry shape our world?

Bar 50,

50 Blackfriars St,

EH1 1NE

20/05/2025

BEAUTIFUL

MIND

RESILIENT

MIND

How does the brain compensate

during dementia, and what are the

recent advances in treatment?

Monkey Barrel Comedy,

9-12 Blair St, EH1 1QR

20/05/2025

UNEARTHING

THE PAST

What does the research tell us about

the evolution of dinosaur brains and

behaviour?

Malones Edinburgh,

242 Morrison St,

EH3 8DT

PLANET EARTH

BODY FREE

BIOLOGY

How do we study the human body

without the use of animals?

Levels Cafe & Lounge,

9C Holyrood Rd,

EH8 8FQ

20/05/2025 ОUR ВОDҮ 21/05/2025

ТӏСКЕТЅ АΝD ӏΝFО

РӏΝТОFЅСӏЕΝСЕ.СО.UК

@ РӏΝТОFЅСӏЕΝСЕ

#PINT25

Issue 33

SciencEd

Spring

2025

Inside this issue

Cover illustration by

Emma Dumble

Being curious is one of the most important human assets - we apply it to

every facet of our lives, including in how we make social, cultural and

technological advancements. But it is often cast aside too quickly,

particularly in scientific research, when there isn’t an immediate

application or financial benefit for being curious about scientific

mechanisms. Most innovations that have brought us to where we are

today started with someone questioning certain aspects about the world

and often getting completely different answers to what they set out to

find. In this new issue we want to remind you that we should never

disconnect from our inherent curiosity – in science and in day-to-day life!

We will take you on a journey through the history of human curiosity,

and how being curious has impacted our daily life and the research we do

- grab a copy and we hope we inspire you to never stop asking ‘why’!

Sara and Elena (both she/her), Co-Editors in Chief

Euscireka!

04 A collection of short news articles

Curiosity

The importance of curiosity in research

07 Rediscovering Discovery Science

10 Are There Two Types of Researchers?

13 EACR - Curiosity Rebranded

A brief journey through the history and neuroscience of curiosity

15 A Brief History of Curiosity and Exploration of the Human Mind

18 The Neuroscience of Curiosity

20 Psychedelics - A Trip Down Curiosity Lane

Prefer to listen?

Check out audio

versions

on the EUSci

Readouts Podcast

Advances from discovery research

22 CRISPR Uncut

26 Martians or Microbes - The Curiosity Rover’s Quest for Life on Mars

28 Navigating the Connection Between Einstein and GPS

Pointless research or valuable science?

30 Ig Nobel Prize

32 Cold Fusion for a Hot Planet: A Scientific Scandal Revisited

Does curiosity kill the cat - or us?

34 The Pioneer Fund - Where Curiosity Turns Vicious

38 Curiosity’s Cost: How Space Junk Endangers the Future of Exploration

40

41

Puzzles and games

Meet EUSci

Euscireka!

euscireka!

Harnessing Quantum Light for Microscopic Biomechanical Imaging of Cells and Tissues

Gabrielle Jawer

The way biological materials squish or stretch reveals a lot. The stiffness of a cell wall can signify cancer; the flexibility of a

neuron unveils how brain injuries heal. One leading method of measuring such properties at a microscopic scale is called

Brillouin spectroscopy, whereby light from a laser scatters off the sample, and how that light changes after scattering indicates

the sample’s properties.

Unlike other methods, Brillouin spectroscopy is not invasive and can perform 3D imaging of unmodified living issues, but it’s not

perfect – use of high-intensity light can damage and bleach the samples. However, a new method utilizes quantum “squeezed

light” to minimize damage while increasing precision and accuracy! This new method tripled samples’ survival rates, even after

three hours of continuous illumination.

What’s “squeezed light?” Well, light behaves like a wave, and quantum mechanics – more specifically, Heisenberg's uncertainty

principle – dictates we can’t reduce noise in both amplitude and frequency for a single wave. If we reduce the former, the latter

increases, and vice versa. Think of it like a balloon: if you squeeze it in the middle, the balloon elongates up and down; squeeze

it from top and bottom, it elongates out the sides. Hence the name “squeezed light.”

In this instance, “squeezing” the light resulted in two beams of light that were quantum-correlated. This means the beams were

statistically interconnected beyond what’s normally possible.These “quantum” beams shone into the sample from opposite

directions, and depending on the sample’s properties, bounced off with certain changes. By measuring these changes,

researchers were able to determine important information about the sample while keeping it unharmed.

This quantum-enhanced imaging technique has countless applications from cancer biology to neuroscience. By minimizing

problems with sample damage, researchers can dive deeper into the mechanics of the most miniscule realms of the human

body and beyond.

Do the Wikipedia Waltz

Clare McDonald

For those of us with two left feet, it may be that we are dancers after all, just on a slightly unexpected dancefloor. A recent

study by Zhou et al., published in Science Advances, used data from half a million people browsing Wikipedia, the world’s

largest encyclopaedia, through which they uncovered three distinct styles of curiosity. Users are either ‘Hunters’,

‘Busybodies’, or ‘Dancers’.

‘Hunters’ are those who seek specific answers, navigating efficiently between pages in a very goal-oriented manner.

‘Busybodies’ seek widespread new knowledge but move between pages logically, as though following a trail. ‘Dancers’,

however, make connections and browse between unrelated concepts in a way that is quite creative.

This suggests that people have different styles of curiosity (although a person may use different browsing styles depending

on their different reasons for using Wikipedia).

The researchers also found an intriguing correlation between browsing style and the level of equality in that person’s

country. For example, curiosity-driven styles (‘Busybodies’ and ‘Dancers’) are more common in countries where there is

higher gender and education equality. The researchers suggest several hypotheses to explain this correlation, including

that unequal societies may create conditions that inhibit curiosity, thereby dampening peoples’ appetite to seek

knowledge.

The implications of this work are wider than Wikipedia – this research demonstrates that people have different styles of

curiosity, including different ways of asking and answering questions. Are you tapdancing with your research while your

coworker is out with a rifle? A greater understanding of these styles will almost certainly help to improve teamwork and

collaboration in general.

4 Spring 2025 | eusci.org.uk

Euscireka!

euscireka!

X-Rays From Nuclear Blasts Could Defend Earth From Asteroids

Jaromar von der Osten

Asteroids rarely threaten Earth, but when they do, the consequences could be existential and catastrophic. Although most

pass by unnoticed, history shows us the risk is real, the Chicxulub asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs serves as a

reminder. Recent advances in planetary defence with NASA’s recent DART mission have shown the possibility of deflecting

smaller asteroids by crashing a spacecraft into them. For larger ones, a different approach may be needed.

Scientists at the US Sandia National Laboratories are exploring how X-rays from a nuclear explosion detonated near an

asteroid could push an asteroid off its course. Instead of smashing into the asteroid or blowing it apart, the intense

radiation would vaporize a small part of its surface. The resulting vapor would act like a natural rocket and propel the

asteroid in the opposite direction. To test this, researchers used the Institutes’ ‘Z-Machine’, the Earth’s most powerful

pulsed-power X-ray generator, which is so powerful it can melt diamonds. They suspended tiny quartz and silica-fused

targets in a vacuum and blasted them with X-rays to simulate a nuclear explosion. The targets’ surfaces vaporized, and the

reaction pushed the solid targets back at speeds of around 250 kilometres per hour. If scaled up, this method could

potentially redirect city-sized asteroids if enough warning time is given.

However, challenges and limitations remain, as Asteroid compositions vary widely, from dense metals to loose clusters of

packed rubble. These differences and oversimplification could affect how well the X-rays actually work. More testing will

be needed to understand how different asteroid materials respond and precise targeting will be necessary to avoid

breaking the asteroid into fragments, which would create a new set of dangers. However, if Earth ever finds itself in the

path of an asteroid, X-rays might just be the tool that saves the day.

Car-Sized Millipede Finally Gets a Face

Finn McElrue-Inch

Though it may be hard to believe, 345 million years ago Scotland was an equatorial swampland, dominated by huge

horsetail-like trees, early amphibians and monstrously sized bugs. These ancient invertebrates included gigantic

dragonfly-like predators, and Scotland’s very own cat-sized scorpion that prowled the marshy forests of Carboniferous

West Lothian. And yet, trumping them all as the creepy-crawly king of the Carboniferous period, was Arthropleura, a

group of behemoth millipede-like arthropods that could’ve grown up to 2.5m long. Its easy to presume such a giant

would leave an obvious trace, but beyond some trackways and fragmentary fossils, the palaeontological community

knew little of their anatomy.

This was until a recent work by Lhéritier et al. (2024) recovered some fascinating remains from France, finally detailing

Arthopleura’s head anatomy. Two juvenile specimens were scanned and assessed using micro-computed tomography

imagery, which detailed physical attributes that appeared to be a mosaic of millipede and centipede-like traits. With the

presence of gnathal lobes (referring to mouth appendices) and similar antennae to that of today’s millipedes, but with

the mandibular structure like that of the more voracious carnivorous centipedes, Arthopleura appears to be a unique

chimaera of two very different organisms. The team concluded however, that this gentle-giant likely had a similar diet to

extant millipedes, feeding on decaying organic matter. This new morphological analysis has ensured a more certain

phylogenetic placement of Arthopleura closer to modern millipedes than centipedes. This, alongside stalked eyes, were

among numerous groundbreaking insights provided by Lhéritier and his team’s findings.

Their study shines a light on Arthopleura in a way never done before, producing the most detailed picture of one of the

Carboniferous’ most enigmatic creatures. We now have a far better view of what was crawling around the ancient

swamps of Scotland and beyond, millions of years ago.

5 Spring 2025| eusci.org.uk

Curiosity


IIlustration by Lisa Edelmaier

Curiosity

Rediscovering

Discovery

Science

Emma Dumble

explores the critical

role of curiosity-driven

research in the history

of science, and the

recent rise of research

applied to real-life

problems.

IIlustration by Caterina Lue

What do TV, mobile phones, and WiFi all have in common? They wouldn’t exist without

the pioneering curiosity-driven research conducted by Scottish physicist James Clerk

Maxwell. His groundbreaking explorations into electromagnetic (EM) radiation

revolutionised the possibilities of technology.

Did Maxwell realise the future importance of his work when he embarked on it? No. He was

merely following his curiosity and passion for understanding the fundamental rules of nature.


Curiosity

This is the essence of curiosity-driven research

aimed at discovering and understanding the laws

of the natural world. As such, it encompasses

every domain of science, from theoretical physics

to anthropology, and forms the backbone of

collective science knowledge. As it is curiositydriven,

scientists often do not know what the

practical applications of their research may be.

In the 19th century Gregor Mendel sought to

understand how pea plant traits were passed

down through generations. His curiosity-driven

research uncovered the principles of inheritance,

such as dominant and recessive traits. Mendel

simply wanted to know how traits are inherited in

plants; he could not have known that decades

later he would be known as the “father of

modern genetics”, with his work revolutionising

modern medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology.

Similarly, Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of

continental drift when he was driven simply to

understand why continents seemed to fit

together like puzzle pieces. This curiosity-driven

research later became critical in fields like

earthquake prediction, resource exploration, and

in understanding climate patterns. Yet, despite

its critical role, curiosity-driven research like

Wegener’s, Mendel’s, and Maxwell’s is becoming

increasingly overshadowed by applied research.

Applied research leverages curiosity-driven

research to find practical solutions to real-life

problems, like finding a cure for cancer,

developing more efficient wind turbines, or

building faster silicon chips, all of which highlight

the importance of applied research in our

everyday lives. In recent years, there has been a

shift in focus to applied research. Funders,

publishers and the media celebrate the practical

applications of science, often overlooking the

vital role of curiosity-driven research in shaping

those innovations.

Despite UKRI (United Kingdom Research and

Innovation, a national funding agency) stating

that discovery/curiosity-driven science accounts

for half of all funding they give, this is not

applicable to all sectors.

“If we only value

science based on its

perceived immediate

usefulness, or on its

money-making

potential, we might

miss out on

significant

discoveries.”

In the health sector, translational (applied)

research has risen by 13% from 2004 to 2022.

From the binary lens of business value, the

reason why applied research is favoured is clear.

It is lower-risk and higher-reward. It produces

outcomes which are often easier to quantify and

it appears to provide immediate positive impact

on society, whereas the aims of curiosity-driven

research are exploratory. This means that the

outcomes are often unknown, and we cannot

determine its benefit to society upfront, if there is

any benefit at all.

Trends in media coverage have also shown a

surge in press releases for applied research since

2021. Before 2021, the number of press releases

on the EurekAlert! service for basic/curiositydriven

research and for applied research was the

same (see graphs below). However, 2021 was

the year of the COVID-19 Pandemic; perhaps the

surge of applied research into finding a vaccine

during the pandemic resulted in greater

perceived importance of applied research. This

effect is exaggerated in the medical domain,

where there were around four times as many

press releases for applied biomedical research

compared to discovery/curiosity-driven research.

It remains to be seen how long this trend will

persist. On the other hand, in physical science

and engineering there were around 30% more

releases for discovery/curiosity-driven research.


Curiosity

A B C D

E

F

Graphs by Zhang et al. (2024) - The number of EurekAlert! press releases reporting basic (blue line) vs applied (yellow

line) research from 2015 to 2022, shown as the total number (A) or in biomedical and health sciences (B), social sciences

and humanities (C), mathematics and computer science (D), physical sciences and engineering (E) and life and earth

sciences (F).

However, it is not just funders and the media who

are showing a preference for applied research;

publishers are too. In fact, a study in 2013 found

that only 25.9% of research papers globally

focused on basic research. But what is the issue

with focusing on applied research?

Well, let’s pause for a minute… Imagine a world

where Watson and Crick did not discover the

structure of DNA. The ramifications would be far

greater than you might initially think. We would

not have the entire domain of molecular biology.

We would not have developed CRISPR/Cas9 gene

editing, which has allowed for life-saving

treatments of sickle cell disease. We would not be

able to solve crimes using forensic DNA tests. The

potential loss of such pivotal discoveries

highlights the dangers of overlooking curiositydriven

science. If we only value science based on

its perceived immediate usefulness, or on its

money-making potential, we might miss out on

significant discoveries.

The overlooking of curiosity-driven science also

has consequences for the next generation of

scientists. Pigeonholing young scientists into

applied science may prevent them from learning

to explore the unknown. They might miss the

chance to ask questions no one has asked yet, or

to follow a hunch that could lead to the next big

breakthrough. Science isn’t just about solving

problems; it’s about asking new questions, taking

risks, and following your intuition through the

twists and turns of research.

“Science isn’t just about

solving problems; it’s

about asking new

questions, taking risks,

and following your

intuition through the

twists and turns of

research.”

Isaac Newton once said, “What we know is a drop,

what we don’t know is an ocean”; there is still so

much to discover. We need to recommit to

discovery science and start fostering curiositydriven

research, even when the payoff is unclear.

We should support the kind of science that

doesn’t just chase the next trend, but digs deeper

into the mysteries of the universe. This is how we

will inspire the next generation of scientists. And,

who knows, maybe it will even lead to the next

Maxwell-level discovery.

Emma Dumble is a 3rd year Neuroscience PhD Student.

She is curious about how the brain forms, more

specifically how glial cells (traditionally thought of as

the ‘glue’ of the brain) shape the form and function of

neuronal circuits.


Curiosity

Are there

two types of

researchers

?

Tara Best asks whether there are two types of researchers - or

whether the line between applied and basic research has always

been rather blurry.

hy is the sky blue? This seemingly

simple question asked by John

Tyndall in the late 1850s became a

symbol for serendipitous research

Wspurred on solely by curiosity driven exploration

rather than a strict hypothesis.

Tyndall’s discovery - that the light scattered by

particles in the atmosphere appears blue to our

eyes - incidentally laid the foundation for the

advances in ultramicroscopy and turbidimetry (a

technique for counting the number of cells grown

in culture). Both techniques rely on the principles

of light scattering that Tyndall discovered. These

findings are counted among the many

unanticipated discoveries used to highlight the

importance and sometimes defend the place of

curiosity-driven, fundamental research, now often

referred to as 'blue skies' research after Tyndall’s

discoveries. This research underscores the

importance of pursuing knowledge for its own

sake to advance society and increase our

understanding of the world around us.

“...by telling scientists

directly to advance a certain

field of research, it is

unlikely they will come to

the same conclusions as if

they discovered something

tangentially…”

The argument for blue skies research is

summed up nicely in a 2018 TED talk by Dr

Suzie Sheehy, a physicist at the Universities

of Oxford and Melbourne. She argues that by

telling scientists directly to advance a certain

field of research, it is unlikely they will come

to the same conclusions as if they discovered

something tangentially which then goes on to

have a remarkable application in another

field.

Her example: when JJ. Thompson

researched the cathode ray and identified

cathode rays as electrons, little did he know

this would lead to X-ray imaging, a

cornerstone of modern medicine. Sheehy

suggests that if you had specifically

challenged a team of researchers to advance

the field of medical imaging, such a discovery

may not have occurred. This underscores the

unpredictability and value of research driven

by curiosity.

However, there are also many who believe

researching without plan and sometimes

purpose poses a risk of squandering taxpayer

money. They would favour an approach

which asks “How can we solve the problem

at hand?”. Especially when time is of

essence, this way of tackling science may be

the favoured one, having brought us a Covid-

19 vaccine and the Manhattan Project’s

nuclear bomb, to name a few.


Curiosity

Philosophy Professor Steve Fuller of the University

of Warwick argues that in times with lesser public

funding for research, applied research should take

precedence over basic research which has

potentially not been advocated for by funding

bodies, the government or the public. His opinion

being: If a blue skies discovery is made through a

research process with very little efficiency, should

it still be seen as a triumph? Or simply stated: is

the risk worth the reward?

Taking this into consideration it would seem there

is a stark divide between an applied and a basic

researcher and that the two research streams do

not mix. But is this really the case and if so, how

did it come to be this way?

“If a blue skies discovery

is made through a

research process with

very little efficiency,

should it still be seen as a

triumph?”

There is perhaps a preconception that research

spurred on purely by curiosity is a thing of the

past, when eccentric “mad professors” conducted

experiments without regulatory and funding

constraints dictating what could and couldn’t be

done in a lab. The modern laboratory as we know

it today took a few centuries to develop, starting in

the UK with the conversion of the basement of the

original Ashmolean museum to a chemistry

laboratory in Oxford in 1677. Yet, for another

century or two longer, laboratories were still

mostly confined to residences. When Thomas

Beddoes and Humphry Davy ran the Pneumatic

Institution to study the medical effects of gases

from 1799-1802 they did so in a Bristol

townhouse and in 1868, when William Armstrong

built the first hydroelectric power station, he did

so at his Northumberland estate.

Scientific questions were answered, and

engineering innovation could happen, only when

people had the money to experiment in their own

residences or in the event they happened to have

a wealthy benefactor supporting them. Naturally,

no one would wish to instruct these people on

how to spend their own money and so research

could be conducted on the whims of curiosity.

The mainstream applied researcher had not been

born yet. As scientific research slowly began to be

viewed as a necessary part of society, something

deserving of public funding, it also became a more

accessible profession in its own right rather than

an addition to an already illustrious career. Elias

Ashmole, for one, trained as a solicitor and only

began researching after his appointment as Royal

commissioner of Excise allowed him to accrue the

wealth needed for it. With arguably more

specialisation in the workplace than ever, such a

career journey would surely be deemed

superfluous today.

The building of specialised research institutes in

the 20th century changed the face of research to a

structured and organised entity operating on

many levels in the public sector. As such, funding

is allocated extremely competitively by funding

bodies such as CRUK or the Wellcome Trust,

generally by a process known as peer review:

evaluation by external parties without any of their

own interest in the funding matter.

According to a report from the nonprofit research

organisation RAND, funding bodies have used

peer review to allocate roughly 80-90% of grants

received in the UK and US over the last decade.

This heavily takes into account the expected

success of a project before deeming it worthy of

being allocated funding over another and often

has a prerequisite for the type of project it will

fund. It therefore faces much backlash from those

defending the role of the curious researcher in

society.

But is there a fairer alternative when funding is

sparse? Compared to Elias Ashmole’s basementto-laboratory

conversion or Armstrong’s home

power station today’s research landscape has

become a worldwide network of inter-laboratory

collaboration, visiting students and conferences.

With widening participation schemes, we are

aiming towards a society where truly anyone

could be a researcher, many of them supported by

grants with a specific aim in place to justify the

financial investments. So - is there still a place for

basic research in society?

Personally, I think the two have co-existed from

the very start, and remain equally necessary.

Ultimately, William Armstrong built the first

hydroelectric power station because he wanted to

light his house.


Curiosity

IIlustration by Geraldine Gavigan

Additionally, despite having a clear goal in the

development of an atomic bomb, the researchers

in the Manhattan project were allowed to undergo

their studies in a strikingly free and unchallenged

manner, something very reminiscent of basic

research. And one shouldn’t forget that the project

was greatly influenced by the splitting of the atom

a few years earlier by Hahn and Strassman, likely

without any thought of weapon development.

Modern research needs curiosity built into its

framework just as it needs research for

foreseeable, profitable applications which nudge

the field forward all the same, and luckily this

foresight has not been lost. In 1980, Donald

Braben set up a venture research initiative with

British Petroleum (BP) looking to identify blue

skies research and fund those who he called

“scientific mavericks”, whose blue skies research

would struggle to achieve funding by traditional

means. The venture research unit ran for 10 years

and by Braben’s own assessment, 14 of the 26

groups funded by the initiative made a

transformative impact on society with no

guarantee of such success from the outset.

More recently, in the UK’s March 2020 budget, the

government announced a £800 million investment

of the government’s public research funding

specifically into blue skies research. This may only

represent 5% of the total £17.1 billion public R&D

expenditure in 2020, according to the House of

Commons, however, it is a start. In addition, other

private funding bodies such as the UKRI, the

Leverhulme Trust and the Wellcome Trust have all

pledged to fund a proportion of blue skies

research.

Despite these types of initiatives being on the

fringes of academic funding allocation, this leaves

the opportunity for a researcher to choose the

type of research they do and for curiosity in

research to reflect itself in an individual’s choice to

follow a more exploratory rather than

confirmatory hypothesis. This would echo the

individuality of the past but differ in the sense that

they would still be one cog in the well-oiled

machine of the modern research sector.

So arguably yes, there are two types of

researchers. But the two have never been

mutually exclusive and both types are needed to

make fruitful discoveries for society. While the

extent to which blue skies research should be

funded by taxpayer money remains a contentious

debate, there is always the possibility of private

funding initiatives, such as Braben’s Venture

Research Unit. The “gold standard” of research

directions would then put more emphasis on an

individual’s choice to pursue either one type of

research over the other - or maybe to blur the

lines between the two.

Tara Best completed her Masters in Biomedical

Sciences last year and is now working as a Research

Technician in reproductive biology. She is curious

about all things concerning cancer and the immune

system and has always loved space and aviation.


Curiosity

Curiosity

Rebranded

Clare McDonald reports about the EACR’s campaign to highlight

curiosity-driven research and about the many different ways this may

be encouraged amongst scientists and science enthusiasts.

uriosity deserves a rebranding. Too

often it’s known for its unfortunate

effects on feline household pets, but

“curiosity cures cancer” … now,

doesn’t that sound good? It even

Calliterates.

And it’s true, curiosity does cure cancer. One

example involves two biochemists in the 1970s,

Cesar Milstein and Georges Köhler, who wanted

to know more about antibodies – these are the

way that the immune system recognises and

remembers diseases with such specificity. But to

study antibodies, they needed to produce lots of

them in the lab, and eventually they found a way

to clone large quantities of individual antibodies

with known specificities. Their motivations were

solely academic, curiosity-driven; they never

intended for these “monoclonal antibodies” to

have any medical benefits. But several years

later, the scientific community realised that

monoclonal antibodies could be used to help

people’s immune systems recognise (and attack)

their own cancer cells. This was the birth of

immunotherapy.

“but “curiosity cures

cancer” … now, doesn’t that

sound good? It even

alliterates. “

the European Association for Cancer Research

(EACR) is giving curiosity-driven research the

recognition it derves through the recent

campaign #KeepResearchCurious. The EACR is

an international community for those who work

and study in the field of cancer research. I spoke

with Rachel Warden, their communications and

marketing manager, about the campaign.

Since its launch in October 2023, the

#KeepResearchCurious campaign has involved a

wide array of activities. An episode on the

EACR’s The Cancer Researcher Podcast, “Freeing

Scientists to Explore: The Role of Curiosity in

Cancer Research,” is a thought-provoking discussion

between several cancer scientists from

across Europe. After sharing several surprising

examples of when curiosity-driven study led to

discoveries in cancer research, the scientists’

conversation turned to the issue of funding for

such research. Funding agencies are increasingly

pressuring scientists to focus on research that

will quickly translate into patient benefits.

Unfortunately, in Rachel’s words, “the road

between […] curiosity-driven research and actual

treatment is very long and winding,” so funding

is increasingly out of reach.

In response, the #KeepResearchCurious

campaign spotlights the importance of

maintaining curiosity-driven exploration, even if

it has no immediately obvious links to new

treatment discoveries. It’s important to play the

long game because these “fundamental

discoveries are the […] foundation stones on

which lifesaving research and treatment are

built”.


Curiosity

#KeepResearchCurious has inspired a series of

articles in the EACR’s online magazine, The Cancer

Researcher, telling the stories of how curiositydriven

research in the most improbable places

(frogs…? yeasts…? hot springs…?) led to life-saving

breakthroughs in cancer treatments.

“..curiosity-driven research

favours the chance which

favours the prepared mind.”

Another component of the campaign was a recent

webinar, which can be found on the EACR’s YouTube

channel, and in which top cancer researcher René

Bernards showed how curiosity-driven research

creates chances that may not otherwise occur. He

told the story of how his lab’s curiosity-driven

research into the MAP kinase pathway (an important

signalling pathway in all cells) led to coincidental

discoveries that had useful applications for cancer

treatments, quoting Louis Pasteur: “Chance favours

the prepared mind.” I agree, and in fact, I offer my

own addition: curiosity-driven research favours the

chance which favours the prepared mind.

Another part of #KeepResearchCurious was the

EACR 2024 Science Communication Prize. Cancer

researchers at all levels got involved by writing short

blog posts reflecting on the indispensability of

curiosity in the ongoing battle against cancer. The

magazine received many high-quality entries from

around the world.

The winning blog, “Be Curious

like a Child; Be Ready as a Pro,”

and other short-listed entries

were published in the

magazine. If you’re starting to

find yourself a little curious, all

of these articles are available

on their website. They’re well

worth a read.

Another way that scientists have loved getting

involved with #KeepResearchCurious is the giant

selfie sign that travels with the EACR to all their

conferences. This is Rachel’s personal favourite

part of the whole campaign. She adores seeing

scientists so excited to join in the conversation by

posting their selfies on social media – “People

love the selfie sign!” Unsurprisingly, the selfie sign

was very popular at the EACR 2024 Congress in

Rotterdam. As was a graffiti wall where members

could write notes about what curiosity-driven

research means to them and why they find it

important.

Rachel tells me that the cancer research

community has been very enthusiastic about the

campaign, “We’ve had great feedback on social

media and in person about the importance of

[curiosity-driven research].” She is currently

talking to other cancer organisations about how

they could potentially become involved next year

before the #KeepResearchCurious campaign

concludes at the EACR 2025 Congress in Lisbon

(where she assures me the selfie sign will make a

reappearance).

While the #KeepResearchCurious campaign will

come to an end eventually, the importance of its

message will not. Indulge in your curiosity. Who

knows? You may end up curing cancer. (But I

recommend doing so at a safe distance from any

feline friends).

Clare McDonald graduated from Edinburgh University

in 2024 with an MSc in Science Communication and

Public Engagement. She is particularly passionate

about sneaking a sprinkle of science fact into fictional

stories.


Curiosity

A Brief History of Curiosity

and Exploration of the

Human Mind

Elena Hein examines how the perception of curiosity

changed throughout time and how it was influenced by

the fluctuating political, social and religious agendas.

If we think about the early beginnings of

western science and thought, we are likely

to picture bearded Greek philosophers in

white tunics debating on the foundations of

being and existence over wine and food. In the

western world, ancient Greece is often

associated with a boom of intellectual inquiry

and deep curiosity about the natural world,

morality, and the nature of reality and belief

(see Socrates’ famous quote “Wisdom Begins

in Wonder”). While many ancient Greek beliefs

about nature and science differed from what

we now know about the world today, we often

turn back to old literature and notes of wellknown

philosophers and thinkers as a sign of

our own fascination for the unknown. In fact,

Socrates’ encouragement for enquiry and

wonder later resulted in the ‘Socrates Method’:

a technique to ask questions, stimulate critical

thinking and reveal the underlying beliefs,

assumptions and logic of an individual or a

group. This was not only widely used in

teaching and education but it established a first

framework for curiosity, so that it would be

steered away from aimless wondering, and

rather become a disciplined intellectual

pursuit.

When the term ‘curiosity’ (or periergia) first

appeared in Ancient Greek philosophical texts

(around 490 B.C.E.), it was mostly associated

with a negative perception of excessive

knowledge or an interest in things that are

irrelevant and do not concern anyone directly.

“The term ‘curiosity’ had

a new meaning: ‘for the

love of learning’”

Image by Deleece Cook on Unsplash


Curiosity

“Where does the virtue we

call ‘curiosity’ turn into a

vice?”

Image by Daniel Tran on Unsplash

Similar views were already

present 200 years earlier, when

the Greek mythology of Pandora

appeared; stories like these

were used to remind people of

the dangers that unbound

curiosity might have. Pandora,

“the first woman to walk earth”,

was created by the gods to serve

humanity (or punish them,

depending on which story you

read). She was sent on her

earthly way with a jar which she

was told to always keep closed,

as well as several ‘human’

characteristics such as beauty,

desire, a mischievous nature,

and curiosity. Even though she

had promised to never open the

box, the godly gift of curiosity

eventually overpowered her

obedience, and as she opened

the lid all evils contained inside

were released, causing a lasting

cycle of suffering and hopelessness

upon the world.

Similar messages can also later

be found in biblical texts, such

as when Adam and Eve are

banned from the Garden of Eden

for eating the forbidden fruit.


Medieval Christian belief was

that any form of knowledge and

learning other than to find faith

in God and the human soul was

seen as sin and ‘morbid’

temptation to seek knowledge

merely for its own sake - a view

which St. Augustine, one of the

most significant Christian

thinkers and Saints, never shied

away from expressing in his

works.

Even during the Renaissance

and Enlightenment (1300s to

1800s) conservative authorities

attempted to depict people who

were ‘too curious’ as rebels -

social transgressions from the

norm. Being curious often came

along with questioning of

religious, political, and social

concepts and beliefs and thus

warning of curiosity was a

prominent way of suppressing

intellectual enquiry into the

status-quo.

Nevertheless, while back in

ancient Greece philosophers like

Socrates, Aristotle and Plato

were imprinting their thoughts

and beliefs onto the population,

the general perception of

curiosity started to slowly

shift from being seen as an

aimless way of getting involved

in things that didn’t concern

anyone towards acknowledging

the need for being inquisitive.

Just over 70 years after

Socrates’ death, Greek writers

began describing curiosity as a

desire for knowledge and

intellectual advancement; The

term ‘curiosity’ had a new

meaning: ‘for the love of

learning’; which continued

through the Greco-Roman and

Roman empire over several

hundreds of years, translating

the Greek term periergia into the

latin curiosita.

Besides the initial encouragement

for information-seeking, in

both ancient Greek and later

Latin texts from around 170 AD,

curiosity was not only seen as a

desire to learn, but also to

travel. Not for any particular

reason, one might need to often

make long and tiresome

journeys, such as family visits,

court citations, music festivals

and the like; but for the mere

sake of seeing and experiencing

other places.

Travels such as these were called peregrinations–

remember the Greek word for curiosity?

This spurt of wonder and enquiry in Greek literature

not only spilled over to the Romans, but also

brought inspiration to civilisations further east.

Between the mid 7th and 13th century, works

originating from ancient Greece, China, Africa and

ancient Rome were translated into Arabic and built

upon, creating a major centre of science and

philosophy. This contributed substantially to what

was later known as the Islamic Golden Age, during

which the first texts and ideas from all over the

world were united. Here, curiosity was seen as a

path to divine and worldly understanding, serving

both scientific as well as religious purposes, which

contrasted the widely successful Christian

endeavours in western Europe at the time of

demonising any form of ‘unfaithful’ knowledge

accumulation.

Curiosity

Children are being taught to be inquisitive from a

young age, free to think and express opinions,

which is now widely considered a basic human

right. Nevertheless, the negative connotations of

During the early to mid 15th century, however, the curiosity have not been fully eradicated, and may

invention of the printing press allowed for even be experiencing a resurgence with new

widespread dissemination and thus discussion and

democratisation of ideas. Curiosity experienced a

political shifts. Our intrinsic desire to explore our

planet, its various life forms, and beyond, has

(re)surge of attention and was no longer solely a resulted in the displacement of indigenous

subject for philosophers, the wealthy or the sinful,

Image

communities,

by FlyD on

destruction

Unsplash

of habitats, growing

but rather a driving force within the arts and

sciences, resulting in revolutionising works from Da

Vinci, Michelangelo, Galileo and Copernicus - to

only mention a few. People within the middle-class

and socialist groups of society started questioning

the status quo and found more and more interest in

enquiring about ‘forbidden’ topics, such as physics,

sex, religion, social customs, human nature and the

history and hierarchy of wealth. During the

Enlightenment, universities and other academic

institutions spread a general enthusiasm for

curiosity, creating a perception that was now widely

more good than bad. This was helped by numerous

‘Enlightenment thinkers’ around the world, such as

John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Voltaire, driving

philosophical and political revolution in the UK,

Germany and France, respectively.

Simultaneously, scientific and technological discoveries

accelerated and revolutionised our

modern societies.

In the last 200 years, curiosity has been

increasingly accepted as a positive virtue and driver

of societal, scientific and technological progress.

Image by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

amounts of debris in space and global viral

outbreaks.

Where does the virtue we call ‘curiosity’ turn into a

vice? Clearly, we are wired to question and inquire

about the world and our reality, which is a very

unique ability that sets us apart from other life

forms on this planet. And with cultural, societal

and political changes, our own perception of this

capability will often change too. Blind curiosity

may not always be the way to go, and being

inquisitive does bear some responsibility. But

without it, if we keep that jar closed, don’t eat that

fruit or press that button - just because we were

told to do so - how do we ever experience

something new? How do we progress? If curiosity

killed the cat, I’d say inquiry, exploration and

knowledge may bring it back to life.

Elena Hein is a Research Assistant at the University of

Edinburgh. She is curious about the molecular

mechanisms underlying neurodevelopment and brain

function, and more generally fascinated by the complex

molecular mechanisms that enable life on earth.

Illustration by Apple Chew


Curiosity

The Neuroscience of Curiosity

How learning helps us survive and keeps us happy

Tamsin Baxter discusses the complex connections

between curiosity, motivation and brain activation.

ave you ever found yourself down a rabbit hole on a new

topic, wanting to learn everything you can? The

answer to why this happens can be found in Hour brain chemistry. Most studies on curiosity use

trivia questions. One such study got volunteers to

answer questions, and then to self-report on

how curious they were about each one.

The conclusion was that being curious

activated the same parts of the brain as

those activated when we anticipate

a reward, called the midbrain and

the nucleus accumbens. Once

the answers were revealed, an

area of the brain called the

hippocampus was activated,

which is linked to learning

and memory.

A second experiment showed

blurry photographs to volunteers

to pique their curiosity. It showed

that when we are curious, the areas

of our brain associated with aversive

conditions, such as when we are faced

with conflict or a complex cognitive task,

can be activated: the anterior cingulate cortex and

the anterior insula. This indicates that being curious

may help protect us from dangerous situations. This is

a common explanation as to why people enjoy true

crime stories; learning about the most dangerous

situations may help protect us from them.

It is worth noting what brain activation means on a

molecular level, as this helps to demonstrate how

complex of a process curiosity is. Brain activation

refers to changes in genes, signals sent by neuronal

cells, receptor proteins, and neuronal activation.

Illustration by Elizabeth Carmichael

This can show up like

physical hunger on an MRI -

literally being hungry for

knowledge.

However, curiosity is more than just information-seeking and survival, especially when we

consider the motivation to learn. There are two types of motivation to learn new information. One

is external, for example our teachers or bosses requiring us to find a particular piece of

information; the other is internal motivation: learning just because we want to.


When we become curious

with internal motivation,

those areas of the brain

associated with aversive

conditions are activated,

because the brain is

stressed by a lack of knowledge

we have become

aware of, and we want to fill

this gap. This can show up

like physical hunger on an

MRI - literally being hungry

for knowledge. After we

have answers, the hippocampus

is activated, and

we learn the new information.

Alongside this, the

neurons in the brain will

release dopamine, which is

linked to pleasure circuits,

keeping us curious to hunt

for more information, thus

releasing more dopamine.

This type of internal

motivation is called

epistemic curiosity: in our

real lives it can often be

described as going down a

rabbit hole. The science

behind “rabbit holes” has

become relevant in the age

of social media. This

phenomenon has been

studied by splitting

volunteers into two groups:

one that watched two nature

videos and another that

watched two music videos

on YouTube. After watching,

participants were asked if

they wanted to watch a

music or nature video for

their third viewing. Almost

all participants chose what

matched their two previous

watches.

In contrast, the other type of

internal curiosity is called

empathic curiosity. This is

when dopamine is released as

we learn what people around

us are thinking and feeling. A

good example is when we ask

friends and loved ones

questions about their lives or

follow up on opinions they

share. Our brain rewards us

when we learn about others,

and this helps to strengthen

our relationships.

While we may get dopamine

from short-term curiosity,

knowing the answer to all

these questions may not help

our long-term survival.

Alongside reward-seeking

and learning, the brain also

uses our control circuits to

manage our curiosity, to stop

our behaviour from becoming

dangerously risky. These

control circuits are found in

the part of the brain

associated with aversive

conditions. Control is

necessary to hold a balance

between short-term reward

and long-term benefit.

Curiosity is a complex

process, involving three main

circuits in the brain – rewardseeking,

learning, and control.

These come together to

create a unique situation

whereby we learn new

information not because we

have to, but because it makes

our brains fill with dopamine

– keeping us happy.

Curiosity

Our brain

rewards us

when we learn

about others,

and this helps

to strengthen

our

relationships.

Tamsin Baxter is a 3rd Year PhD student in drug development for

neurodevelopmental disorders. She is curious about how the basic

biochemistry of life can give rise to the vast diversity seen in the

natural world.

Image by Bhautik Patel on

Unsplash

19 Spring 2025| eusci.org.uk

Curiosity

Psychedelics

A Trip Down Curiosity Lane

Emma Walsh delves into the potential of psychedelic

drugs for inspiring curiosity.

“

P

sychedelics, used responsibly and with

proper caution, would be for psychiatry,

what the microscope is for biology”

~ Dr Stanislav Grof

While psychedelics have been used variously for

thousands of years, the connotations in the Western

world have fluctuated continually over the past

couple centuries. Only recently are these

compounds being considered for their medicinal

properties again. These include psilocybin,

ayahuasca, MDMA and lysergic acid diethylamide.

The Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann was the first to

research lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD-25, in the

Western world. The story told is that this discovery

was accidental, while he was experimenting with

ergot – a fungus. Initially, LSD-25 was not deemed

important, until Hofmann absorbed a small dose of

the substance through his skin and experienced a

hallucinatory experience – a “cosmic sensation”.

Later, on a ‘heroic dose’, Hofmann described cycling

around town. This bike ride was an exploration of

consciousness!



As seen with Hofmann, psychedelics are known for

altering a person’s state of consciousness: an

enigmatic topic that constantly intrigues scientists.

So, what role can psychedelics play in exploring

consciousness?

“Perhaps psychedelics

have the potential to

inspire scientific curiosity”

Psychedelics mostly activate serotonin receptors in

the brain that trigger signalling cascades. These

result in altered perception, cognition and emotion,

often presented as hallucinations. Further, this has

been linked to encouraging neuroplasticity, which

refers to the brain’s ability to adapt and form new

neural pathways. This facilitates the role of

psychedelics in disrupting the default mode network

(DMN): the neural network associated with a

person’s awareness of their present state of

consciousness. Put more simply, psychedelics cause

the line between the self and the external world to

blur!

Curiosity

“So, what role can psychedelics play in

exploring consciousness?“

Image by Dima Pechurin on Unsplash

These altered states of consciousness have long

been considered as a gateway for generating

scientific creativity, new perspectives and aiding

problem-solving. Anecdotal evidence of

psychedelics contribution in the process of

scientific breakthroughs support this, as well as the

historical precedent in indigenous cultures. For

example, Kary Mullis considers LSD to have

attributed to his work in the development of

Polymerase Chain Reaction, PCR. This won him the

Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993! It should be

mentioned here that highlighting cases of anecdotal

psychedelic success for creativity does incur

selection bias. So, can psychedelics really broaden

a scientist’s thinking process and induce greater

creative curiosity?

Psychedelic states are concomitant to the

conscious state of dreaming and hypnagogia – the

transitional state between sleep and being awake.

These have been linked to more dynamic, fluid

thinking processes as well as increased mental

imagery. Researchers have attempted to explore

the effects of psychedelic state in these terms. In a

pilot study conducted by Willis Harman and

colleagues in the 1960s, the effect of mescaline

sulphate on creative problem solving was

investigated. Each participant was trying to solve a

work-related creative issue. Psychometric tests

were completed to assess creativity, and it was

found that every participant exhibited enhanced

creativity during the session! However, while the

findings were overall compelling, robust

conclusions were limited through a lack of controls

such as no double blinding. Further, subjects were

all male, hence no information on the female

response.

In more recent research, increases in divergent

thinking have been associated with psychedelic

use, particularly ayahuasca and psilocybin.

Divergent thinking is a cognitive process where

someone generates numerous approaches to an

issue and is strongly linked to creativity. With the

resurgence of psychedelics in research,

understanding in this area is more promising.

Perhaps psychedelics have the potential to inspire

scientific curiosity through this approach.

The possibility of these substances is also exciting

in psychiatric treatments. Part of this is due to the

low addiction potential as well as the potential for

only one or few doses to be taken for fundamental

effects. After the Misuse of Drugs Act in 1971 in

the UK, the majority of psychedelics were named

Class A substances. This basically stripped

psychedelics from research. However, since the

psychedelic renaissance in the 1990s, researchers

have started to look at psilocybin for resistant

depression, MDMA for PTSD treatment and

ayahuasca for addiction, to name just a few.

It is very clear that psychedelics have great

promise and will continue to drive scientists’

curiosity. While a substantial amount of research is

still needed, the big question is whether we can

reach a point where psychedelics are

commonplace amongst clinical treatment, and

whether they really can be used to inspire

scientific creativity to new heights?

Emma Walsh is endlessly curious about

neuroscience, and is in the second year of a

biomedical science degree.


Curiosity

CRISPR

Uncut

Finn Weddle asks if we can be trusted to wield nature’s

gene editing technology.

ou need not be a geneticist in 2025 to be

familiar with the term CRISPR (pronounced

'crisp-er'). The acronym can refer to: the

Ysophisticated gene editing tool

‘CRISPR-Cas9’, a shorthand for the field of genetic

engineering, or unique DNA features in some life

forms. Despite being described in exulting tones,

you won't find any dazzling machines in a CRISPR

lab; the genius of this discovery lies not in slick

gadgetry, but in the elegant manipulation of

microscopic cellular machinery that has existed in

nature for billions of years.

Illustration by Ewa Ozga

Hidden in Plain Sight

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic

Repeats – a name well-deserving of its acronym –

are sequences found in non-coding regions of DNA

in prokaryotes. ‘Prokaryotes’ encompasses all

bacteria and their single-celled cousins, the

archaea. A non-coding region of DNA is any section

which is not directly involved in protein production,

while coding regions are known as genes. CRISPR

sequences consist of an alternating ‘A-B-A-B-…-A’

pattern of nucleotides – the building blocks of DNA

– where the A sections are identical palindromic

sequences, reading the same forwards and

backwards, and where each B ‘interspace’

sequence is unique. These “highly unusual”

regions, first described in 1987 by Ishino et. al of

Osaka University, Japan, were stumbled upon

entirely by chance in the early days of gene

sequencing.

Of Palindromes and Prokaryotes

The function of CRISPR regions was unconfirmed

for years after their discovery. Microbiologists

continued to find unique CRISPRs in different

bacterial species, such as M. tuberculosis and S.

pyogenes, each with their own distinct palindrome

sequences. Despite being only a few hundred bases

long – a minuscule fraction of a bacteria’s genome

– these regions caught the attention of

bacteriologists for two key reasons.

Molecular biologists typically disregarded noncoding

DNA sequences since before the term “junk

DNA” was coined in 1972; however, it was also

understood that prokaryotes rarely retain

unnecessary DNA sequences due to evolutionary

pressure to maintain a small genome. In an era

when sequencing a single gene took months of

teamwork, even small clues about bacterial

genetics were precious (by comparison, a lone

researcher today could expect to decode multiple

bacterial genes within a week). The second reason

was more pragmatic: the palindrome sequences

enabled medical researchers to identify species and

strains of bacteria in clinical settings by genotype, a

new and increasingly-crucial tool in modern

medicine. When CRISPRs were found in H.

mediterranei, an archaeal species, in 1995, it

allowed Francisco Mojica of the University of

Alicante to argue that the wide distribution of this

genomic feature amongst prokaryotes suggested an

important biological function. The timing of Mojica’s

idea coincided with efforts elsewhere to find

evidence that non-coding DNA could play

unexpected and important roles in the cell,

particularly through RNA molecules: the

intermediaries between a genome and protein

production.


Clues in the Code

Intrigued by CRISPR’s potential

function, Mojica’s team focused

investigations on the unique

interspace sequences. Having

identified that these sequences

closely matched fragments of

foreign DNA, such as transferable

plasmids and viruses, in

2005 they proposed that the

interspaces consisted of

‘borrowed’ DNA. Two French

teams independently reached

similar conclusions in the same

year, with Bolotin et al. proposing

that these genomic guests could

be “traces of past invasions”.

However, unique to Mojica’s

research was the discovery that

cells containing specific CRISPR

sequences were more resistant to

the uptake of corresponding

plasmids or viral particles than

cells without. A picture was

beginning to emerge of a novel

immune system in prokaryotes.

“perhaps crRNA

was the bounty

hunter, a finelytuned

targeting

molecule seeking

cellular imposters.”

Curiosity


From Puzzle to Precision

Catching the scent of a significant

breakthrough, efforts to characterise

the mechanisms of the

CRISPR defence system accelerated

apace. In 2002, Tang et

al. had shown that CRISPRs

provided instructions to produce

a molecule of CRISPR-RNA, or

crRNA. If this defence system

was involved in cell immunity,

and if it was true that the CRISPR

sequence found in DNA was a

library of ‘WANTED’ posters, then

perhaps crRNA was the bounty

hunter, a finely-tuned targeting

molecule seeking cellular imposters.

In 2008, Marraffini and Sontheimer

demonstrated that this

system targeted foreign DNA and

not an intermediate molecule,

such as RNA, as some experts

had expected.

In the same year, Brouns and van

der Oost found that a bundle of

proteins, or ‘complex’, which they

named Cascade (Cas, for short),

was required to process crRNA

into its final functional form. In

further experiments they also

showed that some Cas proteins

and crRNA remained attached

after the initial interaction, and

that both were required to

successfully repel an intruder;

one without the other did not

produce an immune response.

The method fit the motive, and

CRISPR’s proposed involvement

in the recognition and destruction

of threatening DNA was becoming

clearer: these sequences represented

a learning, adaptive

immune system - the first of its

kind across evolutionary history.

In the years that followed, many

of the individual proteins within

the Cas complex were identified

and characterised. This included

the Cas9 protein, an enzyme

which appeared to be the main

molecule responsible for the

cleavage of the target DNA

strands. In a 2011 paper published

in Nature, Emmanuelle

Charpentier from Umeå University,

Sweden, and her team

also identified a new RNA

molecule, dubbed tracrRNA,

which was found to be essential

in directing the CRISPR-Cas

complex. While researchers’

attempts to reproduce CRISPR-

Cas immune activity in the lab

were mostly unsuccessful, Charpentier

found that introducing

tracrRNA into the complex made

all the difference. Finally, the last

piece of the targeting system had

clicked into place.


Curiosity

Image by Warren Umoh on Unsplash


The Dawn of a New RNA

This academic endeavour, by a

collection of teams across three

continents and over two decades,

primarily sought to explain a minor

quirk in the genome of the world’s

simplest and most ancient

organisms. As well as contributing

an intriguing puzzle piece to the

evolutionary history of prokaryotes,

a handful of useful medical and

research applications had been

found in the process. However, as

the work progressed, the significant

implications of the discovery were

becoming apparent. Once the basic

mechanism was understood to

involve the direct cleavage of DNA

strands, the ears of the world’s most

attentive molecular and genetic

biologists could not help but be

pricked up.

In 2012, Emmanuelle Charpentier

and UC Berkely-based biochemist

Jennifer Doudna published a

collaborative piece exploring the

biochemical mechanisms most

critical to the process of targeted

DNA strand cleavage. The French

and American duo was able to strip

the process down to its nuts and

bolts until they eventually realised

that a single strand of RNA bound to

a Cas9 protein would suffice. By

combining the roles of crRNA and

tracrRNA into a bespoke, synthetically-produced

single guide

RNA – dubbed sgRNA – designed

with a specific target in mind, they

found they could instruct a Cas9

enzyme to cleave almost any DNA

molecule with pinpoint accuracy.

This was not the first gene editing

technology, but the new ability to

introduce changes at any location on

any double-stranded DNA had

unimaginable potential. This newfound

precision, while revolutionary,

also raised the temperature on

questions about the ethical

boundaries of genetic editing.

Opening The Box

Doudna and Charpentier had

invented the CRISPR-Cas9 scissors,

for which they were awarded the

2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The

simplicity of CRISPR-Cas9 put it

within reach of anyone trained in

fundamental laboratory techniques.

This accessibility, achieved only

decades after DNA's structure was

discovered, underscores the urgency

of addressing its ethical implications.

Doudna was initially very outspoken,

using her expertise and clout to raise

concerns about the potential for her

invention to push the boundaries of

what is acceptable in bioengineering.

To this end, she has even recounted

a dream she had shortly after the

development of CRISPR-Cas9 in

which she was approached by Hitler

seeking the technology to aid in his

eugenic mission. Doudna coauthored

a paper in Science calling

for a moratorium on CRISPRmediated

changes to embryos in

2015 (a view that is expanded on in

her book, A Crack in Creation),

drawing a clear line in the sand

between curiosity and misuse. The

potential consequences of pursuing

incautious progress became starkly

evident when a human zygote

underwent “gene surgery” in 2018.

Although studies have highlighted

that editing zygotes is fraught with

danger and complications for the

humans into which they develop,

two apparently healthy twins were

born after a procedure involving

CRISPR-Cas9 scissors was used to

protect an embryo from contracting

HIV from the father’s sperm. Doudna

and Charpentier were both appalled

and He Jiankui, the apparently wellmeaning

geneticist responsible, was

shunned by the scientific community

for bypassing ethical oversight, and

was imprisoned in China in 2019 for

“illegal medical practices”.

Curiosity

Curious minds can often be hasty, but while this

case highlights the dangers of rushing ahead of

the consensus, it also underscores the potential of

CRISPR-Cas9 to address pressing health challenges.

In a landmark review of gene editing

technologies and their application, published in

Nature in 2025, leading geneticists are asking

researchers and the public to be aware and

prepared for the realistic prospect of heritable

gene editing becoming a commonplace medical

procedure within our lifetime.

Realising CRISPR’s Potential

We are already seeing the positive impacts of

CRISPR research. In humans, CRISPR-enabled

gene therapies are being developed to help with a

range of previously-untreatable conditions such as

sickle cell anaemia, with a treatment having

recently been licensed for use in the USA, and, as

of January 2025, also approved for use in the UK

by the NHS. Other conditions such as hereditary

angioedema, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and

cystic fibrosis have CRISPR-enabled treatments in

the works. This adds to an existing body of non-

CRISPR-enabled gene therapies which are

becoming increasingly popular for debilitating and

life-shortening conditions. Beyond directly-human

application, genetic engineering has already been

used to make crop plants resistant to pests and

herbicides with concomitant yield increases, as

well as having applications in the acceleration of

research and development into industrial biosynthetic

processes. CRISPR-Cas9 provides

researchers with one of the most powerful tools

yet to develop the next generation of improved

foods and medicines.


“Curious minds

can often be

hasty”

Curiosity, Caution and CRISPR

The future of gene editing is not yet written. While

the story of CRISPR-Cas9 exemplifies how

scientific inquiry into niche fields, such as the

peculiarities of a bacteria’s genome, can lead to

unforeseen and transformational discoveries, it

also highlights scientists’ unique ability to push

the boundaries of nature itself. This journey from

basic research to biotechnology should remind us

that society will always expect the scientific

community to take responsibility for considering

the ethical boundaries of their work, as much as

they do their physical limits. For any rationalist,

the primary technologies are reason, argument

and evidence, and their use ought to extend far

beyond the lab.

st

Finn Weddle is a 1 year BSc Biological Sciences

(Biotechnology) and is curious about all things

microbial, biotechnology and public health.


Curiosity

Martians or Microbes

The Curiosity Rover’s Quest for Life on Mars

Rhiannon Williams introduces us to 'Curiosity', a NASA

rover for Mars exploration, and its quest to find life on Mars.

David Bowie once asked the question: is

there life on Mars? Whether it is possible

for life to exist on other planets has

plagued both scientists and the general public for

decades. This curiosity has prompted immense

funding and a variety of missions dedicated to

exploring the planets in our solar system and

beyond, searching for signs that something is out

there - that we are not alone in the universe.

Our neighbouring planet, subject of Bowie’s

fascination, is no different. It is generally thought

that there is no life on Mars, though this may not

always have been the case. Currently, the red

planet’s lack of atmosphere and cold, desert-like

conditions make it inhospitable to terrestrial life.

However, in 2011, NASA sent the rover Curiosity

to explore Mars, looking for signs that it was

possibly habitable in the past, such as carbon and

liquid water. By extension, we asked ourselves

whether the terrifying Doctor Who episode “The

Waters of Mars” (2009) was ever plausible.

Especially with the prominence of aliens in

popular culture, it may be the dream of many

Earthlings to discover intelligent or humanoid life

on other planets. However, NASA’s hunt on

Mars is searching specifically for

evidence of

microbial life. This may initially be thought of as a

downgrade from little green men or the giant

invaders from H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds,

but it is exciting that we may share the universe

with other lifeforms, even if they are, or were,

microbes. Any sign of this conveyed by Curiosity

could have vast implications for the assessment of

exoplanets: planets beyond our solar system. It

may impact the terrains, chemicals, and

techniques we choose to explore as we expand the

search for life - perhaps life that is concurrent with

ours.

On Mars, Curiosity looked for elements that qualify

as the chemical building blocks of life. Samples

drilled from mudstone in Mars’ Yellowknife Bay

revealed several key components which may

facilitate microbial life: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,

nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. Furthermore,

Curiosity aimed to identify signs that biological

processes took place, such as iron- and sulfurbased

minerals embedded in the mudstone, which

are typical products of chemical reactions carried

out by microbes to produce energy.

Fortunately, Doctor Who’s

concept of a virus-like

alien that infects

water-based organisms

is still purely fictional.

“...geographical evidence paints a picture of hip-deep

rivers, shallow, mud-floored lakes, and ancient valleys

carved by liquid water billions of years ago.”


Image by Gabriele Catalano on Unsplash

Curiosity

The mudstone samples from Yellowknife Bay

indicated the widespread presence of flowing

freshwater, due to their fine texture and low

levels of salt, which suggests that the water on

Mars was potentially drinkable. On a more

macroscopic level, geographical evidence paints

a picture of hip-deep rivers, shallow, mudfloored

lakes, and ancient valleys carved by

liquid water billions of years ago.

The next question was, logically, why is the water

no longer there? How did its presence and

eventual disappearance affect any potential life?

As recently as 2024, Curiosity looked for the

answers. Its instruments measured the isotopic

composition of carbon-rich minerals, which

refers to the proportions of carbon atoms of

different masses within a compound. This could

indicate how the climate on Mars evolved, by

indicating the water and atmospheric conditions

in which these carbon compounds formed. For

example, higher proportions of heavier versions

of carbon could indicate a period of evaporating

water, as lighter isotopes are more likely to

disappear into the atmosphere with evaporation.

The results supported two possible scenarios

regarding the ancient climate on Mars. Firstly,

that a series of wet-dry cycles persisted when

these compounds formed, meaning habitability

on Mars fluctuated. Secondly, that these

compounds formed during a colder, lesshabitable

period when most water was locked up

in ice, and that any freshwater on Mars existed

before this formation; the likelihood that

freshwater was previously present cannot be

determined by these later mineral samples. Both

options suggest that Mars dried out over several

climatic cycles, but which stage of these cycles

could correspond to a habitable period for

microbes is undetermined. Research is still being

conducted to reveal the details of this - how Mars

changed so dramatically from a nursery for life

into a veritable graveyard.

Illustration by Angel Loi

“Research is still being

conducted to reveal the

details of this - how Mars

changed so dramatically

from a nursery for life into a

veritable graveyard.”

So, is there life on Mars? Not that we know of, to the

disappointment of scientists, science fiction nerds,

and Bowie fans. Were there ever tiny microbes on

Mars, billions of years ago, embedded in mineralrich

mud or floating in rivers of fresh water?

Perhaps, but there is no clear answer yet. Not only

could the ongoing work of the Curiosity rover reveal

new insights into this possibility, but it may also be

crucial in studying exoplanets that appear

potentially habitable. Rovers like Curiosity

symbolise our fascination with the possibility of life

beyond our planet, and their research is the closest

we have been to determining whether Planet Earth

is as special as it might seem to us.

Rhiannon Williams is a 3rd year BSc Biological Sciences (Evolutionary Biology) student. She is curious about

evolution and behavior of humans and animals, particularly relating to intelligence and social structures.


Curiosity

Navigating the Connection

Between Einstein and GPS

Illustration by Lai Ling Berthoud

Joshua Nelson delves into the initially unapparent link

between Einstein's theory of general relativity and GPS.


Curiosity

Despite the 63 year difference between

the 1973 launch of the first satellite in

the Global Positioning System (GPS)

and Einstein’s proposal of the theory of general

relativity, these events are inextricably linked.

Einstein’s theories of relativity propagated a wave

of curiosity throughout the scientific community,

leading to the production of countless outbreaks of

new research, including the Big Bang theory from

the late Professor Stephen Hawking, and

groundbreaking inventions such as GPS.

Einstein’s first of two theories on relativity provided

insight into the interactions between space and

time, eventually developing this to incorporate

gravity’s role in this relationship. In short summary,

the theories state that objects moving faster

through space, will also move slower through time.

Factoring gravity into this, the greater the force of

gravity an object is exposed to, the slower that time

will pass for it. These theories were put to the test

and illustrated in 1971 by Hafele and Keating,

demonstrating that time passes slower for objects

on airplanes moving faster than those stationary on

Earth.

Thankfully, for the sake of navigational systems, the

US Navy team behind GPS’s invention which was

lead by Draper prize winner Dr Ivan Getting,

recognised that information regarding signals to and

from satellites must incorporate these factors to

produce accurate information. Acknowledging the

effect of gravity and speed on time ensures the

reliable translation of information in today's

applications of GPS; not limited to SatN3av in cars

and phones, but also more trivial applications like

tracking of sporting activities via smartwatches.

Inaccuracies would have widespread disruptive

effects on everyday things like navigation, but also

on industries such as agriculture and finance, in

which GPS is essential for the monitoring the

precise timing of transactions.

The idea of curiosity is rooted deep throughout this

story. Einstein’s original theory omitted gravity into

its equations until he was struck with an epiphany –

how would gravity factor into this model? This

question drove his work for several years until the

second model was successfully proposed. There is

no doubt that, when carrying out this research, the

idea that it would one day be translated into its

modern-day applications was far beyond Einstein’s

expectations for it, he was merely seeking to

develop a better understanding of the world. Over

half a decade later, Getting’s team and previous

researchers in the field, used their inquisitiveness to

develop a system locating fixed signals on Earth

with research that initially appears completely

unrelated.

~

"Curiosity led to the

creation of GPS and now

has the potential to drive

its future development."

~

Curiosity led to the creation of GPS and now has the

potential to drive its future development. For

example, with the advances being made into AI,

these could be applied to potentially improve

navigation systems and the responsiveness of these

systems to changes in the immediate environment.

Curiosity can, and should, be used as a powerful

tool for elucidating applications of research from

decades or even centuries prior, as seen through

Einsteins’ applications of Isaac Newton’s work in

discovering gravity.

Joshua Nelson is a 4th year Biological Science student. He is curious about how

developmental biology research can be applied for future treatments and how

science as a whole can cooperate to solve some of science’s biggest questions.


Curiosity

Ig Nobel

Prize:

Rewarding strange,

curious, and down-right

silly research

Illustration by Muminah Koleoso

Angelica Leach explores the

history and the winners of the

prize for the most pointless

research of the year.

onouring “achievements so surprising that they make people LAUGH, then THINK” was the aim

that founder Marc Abrahams had in mind when he created the Ig Nobel Prize. A playful twist on

the word “ignoble”, meaning “not honourable in character or purpose”, 10 winners are

awarded every year for their delightfully odd research. Questions like, “Why don’t woodpeckers

get headaches?” or “How do pregnant women stay upright?” have been answered and awarded

since the first ceremony in 1991.

HInitially created with almost zero budget, as a tool to

revive the dying Journal of Irreproducible Results (now

Annals of Improbable Research), the Igs were seen as

an “anti-prize” and a mockery to the scientists that

were awarded it. Out of the seven laureates who won in

the first year, only three were “real scientists”, and the

rest so-called “inventors and discoverers”. The prize

was so ridiculed that, in 1995, the British Government’s

scientific advisor, Robert May, requested that the Ig

Nobel Committee stop awarding British scientists the

prize and discrediting their research. However, from its

dismissed beginnings, the Ig Nobels have become

increasingly recognised, and its name ever more ironic.

Not to be confused with the highly-renowned Nobel

Prize, this not-so-serious scientific ceremony

celebrates only the most curious shower thoughts of

the scientific mind.

Paper airplanes whizz above the audience in the

lecture hall at MIT, moving toward a giant human

target on stage. The 34th annual Ig awards have

begun. A ceremony like no other, the paper airplane

deluge is just the beginning of the chaos that is yet to

unfold. Kees Moeliker, a previous winner who

documented the presence of homosexual necrophilia

in mallard ducks, stands at the podium to read the

safety announcement, holding his taxidermied victim

up high. No Ig ceremony is complete without the

yearly theme: 2024 honoured Murphy’s Law -

whatever can go wrong, will go wrong - and the

audience must shout out whenever it applies.

"After all, curiosity

is the root of all

great science"


"These achievements

highlight curiosity in

research, the

foundation for

groundbreaking

discovery, all while

bridging the gap

between the scientific

community and the

public "

Illustration by Muminah Koleoso

Curiosity

The ten unexpected winners parade onto the stage one

by one to give their 60-second speeches in the form of

skits, often accompanied by live accordion and piano

music, and winners are handed their prizes from

genuine Nobel laureates. But what do you win? Well,

you get an Ig Nobel prize of course! A different

makeshift prize every year, kept in tradition with their

low budget beginnings, “made from extremely cheap

materials”. And of course, this is not without the prize

money of 10 trillion Zimbabwean dollars—a relic from

the country’s hyperinflation crisis in 2008, worth about

30p. This year’s roll of (dis-)honour included: Botany to

Jacob White and Felipe Yamashita for finding that

Boquila trifoliolata can mimic the leaf shape of nearby

artificial plants, thus concluding that “plant vision” is

plausible; Chemistry to Tess Heeremans, Antoine

Deblais, Daniel Bonn, and Sander Woutersen for using

chromatography to separate drunk worms from sober

worms; and Physiology to Takanori Takebe for finding

that mammals can breathe through their anus. Whilst

strange, researchers in Tokyo have found that this

feature can help treat patients with respiratory failure.

Ironically, the Ig Nobel Prize was awarded the Heinz

Oberhammer Prize in 2022, a science communication

prize awarding a hefty €20,000. The Igs finally gained

some well-deserved recognition for its “outstanding”

science communication, giving the spotlight to research

that displays inquisition at its finest

Whether treating respiratory failure via the rectum, or

giving cows names to boost milk production, the Ig

Nobel Prize reminds people that real scientific

advancement can be very unpredictable and that every

question and hypothesis matters. These achievements

celebrate and encourage curiosity in research, the

foundation for groundbreaking discovery, all while

highlighting the fun in science via its impeccable

comedy. As we marvel at these quirky discoveries, we

might wonder: what other oddities of the world are

waiting to be explored? After all, curiosity is the root of

all great science.

Angelica Leach is a 2nd-year Biological Science student. She is curious about how science, biotechnology in particular,

can be used to tackle global health problems such as noncommunicable and communicable disease, obesity, and

water/air pollution.


Curiosity

Cold Fusion for a Hot

Planet: A scientific

scandal revisited

Ellie Dempsey explains why cold fusion went from being

one of the most promising novel energy sources to a bad

case of scientific practice.

What if we could produce all the world’s

energy supply using a very simple chemistry

experiment? Something which could replace

all fossil fuels for good and wouldn’t be

reliant on the weather or produce radioactive

waste. If you think this seems too good to be

true then you might be right, however this is

exactly what was claimed by two chemists in

1989. The controversial story of cold fusion

has become synonymous with bad scientific

practice, but what went wrong? And has this

field been cast aside unfairly?

Though tiny, the nucleus of just a single atom

has the potential to release huge amounts of

energy. Splitting the atom, known as nuclear

fission, is the process behind nuclear power

plants, but it has many well-known

downsides such as the associated safety risks

and the resulting nuclear waste. An

alternative process, nuclear fusion, is when

atoms are pushed together with enough force

that they fuse into a new heavier atom. This

process powers our sun and is where all the

elements in our universe came from.

Although some of the concerns of nuclear

energy remain, the fuel required and waste

production from nuclear fusion are much

lower than traditional fission. Fusion

technology is therefore likely to play a key

role in eliminating fossil fuels. Scientists have

successfully performed nuclear fusion by

colliding tiny deuterium atoms - essentially a

heavier isotope of the hydrogen atom. This

produces a huge amount of excess energy but

can only happen at very high temperatures of

millions of degrees, and we are yet to produce

fusion reactors which could function as a

power source.

Illustration by Ellie Dempsey

“Cold fusion was hailed as the

scientific discovery of the

decade”

In 1989, two chemists at the University of Utah held a

press conference claiming they had unlocked the key to

cold fusion - nuclear fusion without the need for massive

temperatures or complex equipment. Martin Fleischmann

and Stanley Pons had come up with a way to utilize

palladium metal to bring deuterium atoms together.

Palladium likes to absorb large amounts of deuterium and

they imagined this effect could be used to compress the

deuterium atoms together inside the palladium structure.

The two scientists constructed a simple ‘fusion cell’ with a

palladium electrode. When they ran the experiment, they

measured a large increase in temperature and assumed

this to be confirmation of successful cold fusion.


Curiosity

This announcement took the world by storm

making the front page of Time and Newsweek.

Cold fusion was hailed as the scientific discovery

of the decade, but those in the scientific

community were more skeptical. Scientists

around the world rushed to try and replicate this

groundbreaking experiment but found little

success. Pons’ and Fleischmann’s refusal to share

details of their experimental set-up or collaborate

with other researchers complicated the scientific

acceptance of their claims. After many failed

attempts to confirm the cold fusion results, the

work was widely denounced by the scientific

community and funding quickly dropped. Cold

fusion became a cautionary tale of bad scientific

practice and severely damaged the public’s trust

in science.

In 2025, cold fusion research has largely lost

credibility amongst scientists but there is still a

small isolated community invested in the field,

now rebranded as low-energy nuclear reactions.

As recently as 2019, a research article appeared

in the prestigious journal Nature entitled

‘Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion’. Although

evidence for successful cold fusion was not found,

the team concluded that using hydrogen and

palladium still held an exciting potential; There

are promising applications in many fields such as

the use of hydrogen as an alternative to fossil

fuels, requiring safe and efficient hydrogen

storage. In their view, the toxicity of the cold

fusion debate has held back research into the

interesting physics of these processes which have

not yet been fully explored.

Today, there are many lessons to be learned from

the Pons and Fleischmann case about the

importance of collaboration, good scientific

practice and the damage of over-hyped media

claims. Despite this, finding new clean energy

sources is one of the biggest scientific challenges

faced by the world today. Cold fusion may not be

the answer it promised, but open-minded, cuttingedge

research into the fundamentals of matter

has already changed the world we live in. There is

no reason to think a dramatic scientific

breakthrough couldn’t happen again - and

something big will be needed to address our

planet’s future.


Ellie Dempsey (she/her) is a final year PhD student

in Materials Chemistry. She can be found on X or

Bluesky under @EllieDChem.


,

The Pioneer Fund:

Where Curiosity Turns

Vicious

Image by Xime FT on Unsplash

Edward Buckton explores whether scientific curiosity is

always good, and how it can be used for darker

purposes.


Curiosity

C

utting off fundamental, curiosity-driven science is like eating the seed corn. We may have a

little more to eat next winter, but what will we plant so we and our children will have enough

to get through the winters to come?”

So opines Carl Sagan in The Demon Haunted World. Curiosity is typically taken to be a virtue in science;

certainly, my inclinations lean that way. For anybody studying or working in STEM (science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics), or STEM-adjacent fields, it’s a decent bet that the intellectual heroes will

themselves have celebrated curiosity as the bedrock of scientific inquiry. If there's one thing science

teaches us – beyond “have a spare pen around” and “ensure that nobody is inside the collider” – it’s

nuance. In the laboratory and the classroom, common sense and personal opinions are fallacies, and one

has to disregard them to understand fundamental truths about the world. It’s sensible to ask, then:

Is curiosity always good?

Welcome to the stage, the Pioneer fund. A scientific

organisation that dates back to the 1930s, and

which has funnelled money into science

continuously since its conception. Thanks to their

generous and frequent donations, studies,

experiments, journals, publications, and even films

across hundreds of institutions globally have

received funding. More recently, they rebranded as

the “Human Diversity Foundation”; their singlepaged,

largely blank website states only that they

“are a non-profit organisation which specialises in

researching human diversity”.

At this point, more sceptical readers may have

raised an eyebrow. The Pioneer fund is not for-profit

and investigates “diversity” – they sound

benevolent. Suspiciously so. In practical terms, what

does “researching human diversity” actually mean?

This is the subject of several works of journalistic

science communication. A principle example is

Angela Saini’s “Superior: The Return of Race

Science”. As she illustrates comprehensively and

irrefutably, the Pioneer Fund exists largely to fund

research into links between intelligence and

ethnicity. They have funded these studies for almost

a century. One sociologist was supported in writing a

paper that argued that ethnic minorities should be

funded not to “breed”. Another funding recipient, a

philosopher, argued that ethnicity should be a factor

in how police choose to allocate resources. The

former head of the fund, J. Philippe Rushton (who

was shunned by his employers when he was found to

have paid 150 black and Asian people in a local

shopping centre for their answers to questions

including “how far can you ejaculate?” and “how

large is your penis?”) believed adamantly in the

cognitive superiority of white people.

To be absolutely clear, these notions aren't

supported by scientific consensus. This isn’t

author bias or even a matter of opinion. Saini

reminds us that study after study, experiment

after experiment, we conclude the same:

ethnicity does not have causative (or even

notably correlative) links to intelligence in any

manner. There is no rational reason, with the

knowledge available to our species, to link

ethnicity to cognitive ability; this is less a

perspective, and better described as a fact.

Similarly, geneticist Adam Rutherford reminds

us that whilst race is a real sociological

phenomenon, it doesn’t have a strict biological

basis; the lines we draw between different

groups, even in terms of raw genetic markers,

are arbitrary, based on faulty 19th century

science, and, crucially, don’t function in the way

that most Pioneer-funded studies require them

to - to form a sensical argument.

Image by Janay Peters on Unsplash


Curiosity

“When, then, does

curiosity pass that

threshold - when

does “free inquiry”

transmute into

something less

admirable?”

Image by Giammarco Boscaro on Unsplash

The Pioneer Fund themselves would disagree. An

archived version of their website’s “controversies”

page rebuts such accusations in curiously shallow

detail: “Pioneer grantees are not interested in

‘proving’ that any one group has a particular

average IQ or anything else”, claims the group that

funds millions of dollars’ worth of studies into that

very idea.

Several other paragraphs go to great effort to

explain how every academic involved with the

Pioneer Fund is a respectable “race realist”, rather

than a bigot – and how their consistent association

with eugenics, white supremacy and literal

Naziism is a series of miraculous coincidences. As

if it were a punchline, the very first person listed

on the archived ‘Grantees’ page - Hans Eysenck, a

psychologist – openly advocated for

parapsychology and astrology. Yes, the man who

wants you to believe that ethnic minorities are

unintelligent earnestly trusted horoscopes. For the

Zodiac-sympathetic, please also note that Eysenck

had over a dozen papers retracted for being

fraudulently funded by the Tobacco industry. But,

hey, he was a Pisces.

At the foot of this tome of controversies, there is a

more thought-provoking note:

“Despite strong pressure to do otherwise, the

Pioneer Fund continues to act on the belief that it

is a cardinal sin for scientists to suppress scientific

knowledge … We believe that ignorance, fear, and

suppression of free enquiry have never served

humanity well …”. This is difficult to argue. It is

true that scientists should never “hide”

knowledge, and that its suppression has only ever

caused problems. Equally, it’s clear that the

Pioneer fund are guilty of something. When, then,

does curiosity pass that threshold - when does

“free inquiry” transmute into something less

admirable?

Well, that depends on subjective judgment, but my

intuition suggests that it changes when questions

are asked in bad faith. To be curious as to whether

there are substantial racial differences – even in

intelligence – is perfectly sensible. After all, people

across the world differ in appearance, culture, and

history, at least superficially. And the question is

“falsifiable”; the answer can be a nice round “yes”

or “no”, which scientists tend to value.

But we have that answer: “No”. Intelligence is not

linked to ethnic background, and this answer has

been found time and time again. A negative result

has been reproduced almost every time the matter

has been investigated. If not as robust as

knowledge of gravity or Darwinian evolution, it’s

sufficiently close. An actual “race realist”, to take

the term literally, wouldn’t pay attention to the idea

at all.

To push inquiry when the answer is available is to

betray a better instinct. Curiosity has been swapped

for something similarly human, but far more

insidious.

Curiosity is a vital part of science. But so is

evidence, and they can only work in tandem.

Unfortunately, in academia, intelligence is no more

linked to accepting said evidence than it is to race,

and very intelligent people can be susceptible to

their worst instincts. For science to be an effective

tool for good, scientists and science enthusiasts

must do their best to disregard ideas which are

appealing or seem intuitive, if they’re untrue. Only

then can they be pioneers.

Edward Buckton is a MSc Philosophy student

(2024-25) and is curious about the Fermi Paradox

(or where in Hell's name are all of our extraterrestrial

neighbours?!).


Curiosity

Curiosity’s Cost:

How Space Junk Endangers

the Future of Exploration

Ami John delves into how our initial unrestrained

curiosity into space could limit our future space ventures.

S

ince the dawn of space exploration,

humanity has ventured beyond Earth,

sending probes and satellites into the void

to uncover the mysteries of the universe. The same

insatiable curiosity that once drove us to explore

space has now created a minefield in orbit. Decades

of debris now threaten to obstruct future missions,

hindering our progress into the cosmos.

In March 2024, a piece of space junk measuring just

10 centimetres long and weighing 0.7 kilograms

crashed through the roof of a home in Naples,

Florida. This metal chunk was later confirmed by

NASA to be a piece of hardware from the

International Space Station (ISS). Even a small

fragment plummeting to Earth at high speed can

cause major damage.

So, what exactly is space junk and where does it

come from?


Image by Solen Feyissa on Unsplash

Space junk, also known as orbital debris, refers to

any man-made object that no longer serves a

useful purpose, for example a defunct satellite that

has been left in (predominantly low-Earth) orbit

(LEO).

LEO is the closest orbital region to Earth, spanning

between 160 and 2,000 kilometers above the

Earth’s surface. It is the easiest orbit to reach in

terms of energy and rocket power.

We are essentially transforming this region into a

scrapyard in space; there are innumerable pieces

of debris orbiting the Earth, including defunct

satellites, small parts of rockets, fragments from

explosions, and even tiny paint flecks.

They move at an incredible speed, reaching around

18,000 miles per hour. These velocities are around

seven times faster than a bullet from a rifle and 32

times faster than a cruising commercial aeroplane,

which travels at around 550 miles per hour.

Curiosity

“The same insatiable

curiosity that once drove

us to explore space has

now created a minefield in

orbit.”

The consequences of such velocities are grave.

Imagine cars travelling at 18,000 miles per hour;

any collision would be instantly catastrophic. If

even a small piece of this debris were to strike an

object or spacecraft, the damage could be

devastating.

As well as its potential to cause damage on Earth,

space junk is a big threat to orbiting satellites.

There are roughly 30-40,000 pieces of space junk

larger than 10 centimetres in orbit, with the

number increasing to a whopping 170 million

pieces larger than 1 millimetre, though estimates

vary. The problem arises as these satellites must

navigate their way around millions of debris

pieces, guarding themselves against impact. The

collision risk extends to spacecrafts as well,

endangering the lives of any astronauts onboard.

Whilst this doesn't initially seem like an everyday

problem, recent reports suggest otherwise.

The ISS already carries out continual safety

checks to avoid collisions. In 2021, the Chinese

satellite Yunhai-1 (02) broke into pieces following

a crash with a fragment from the Russian Zenit-2

rocket, launched in 1996, likely between 4 and 20

inches in size.

A study conducted by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that

about 10% of our stratosphere (the secondlowest

layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, around 20

kilometres from the surface) contains aluminium,

copper, and the very rare metals niobium and

hafnium, from the combustion of space junk.

Whilst we haven't yet witnessed direct impacts

from these changes, they could have serious

implications down the line.

More than 100,000 new spacecrafts are in motion

to be launched by the year 2030, and with each

launch, the risks escalate. Navigating through all

the space junk will be much more complicated,

and one crash could set off a chain reaction,

known as Kessler Syndrome. First proposed by

NASA scientists in 1978, Kessler Syndrome refers

to a scenario in which fragments from collisions

between space debris create a cascade of further

collisions, worsening the problem.

“If even a small piece of

this debris were to strike

an object or spacecraft,

the damage could be

devastating.”

To prevent this, some suggest using missiles to

break up larger pieces, though this could risk

adding even more debris to the orbit. It's clear

that this issue requires urgent attention from

space agencies. With the rise of private space

ventures like SpaceX, uncertainty looms over our

safety and the future of space exploration.

However, there have been attempts to combat

this, as in 2023 the Federal Communications

Commission fined Dish Network $150,000 for

“failing to move an old satellite far enough away

from others in use”. Ultimately, addressing the

threat of space junk is vital for ensuring that the

study of our universe remains a secure endeavour.

Ami John is a 3rd-year student of Classical

Archaeology and Ancient History. Her interest in

space started after watching the Alien series and the

film Space Sweepers, which got her thinking about

space debris. That curiosity has since grown, and in

this article, Ami explores some of the environmental

and tech-related challenges that come with it.


Tangents

Crossword

DOWN

1. Bacteria that can lead to food poisoning from meat,

eggs and milk (10).

2. Furthest planet in our Solar System from the sun (7).

7. Science conducted by the general public (7).

8. Organism that only survives by causing harm to its

host (8).

11. Biomolecule that makes up proteins (5,4).

10. Rodent recently reintroduced to Dorset in England

(6).

4

2

6

5

7

3

1

8

across

3. Primary food source of blue whales (5).

4. Collective name for the microorganisms in the digestive system

(3,10).

5. Component of waves measured in Hertz (9).

6. Astronomical object at the centre of the milky way galaxy (5,4).

9. World’s largest space agency (4).

10. Slow moving mass of ice, snow and rock that originates on

land (7).

12. Volcano that destroyed Pompeii (8).

14. Elon Musk’s space technology company (5,1).

15. Penguin species that shares it’s name with a pasta shape (8).

10

15

13

12

14

11

9

Sudoku (Easy)

Sudoku (Difficult)


Meet EUSci

TAMSIN

President

ELENA &

SARA

Co-editors in Chief

Anna

Copy-editor

Alice

&

Sub-editors

Tanja

Colleen

Head marketing

officer

Amelie &

Jolina

Marketing officers

Tallulah

Website manager

Elly

&

Emma

Online editors

Juda

Art editor

elizabeth & Angel

Layout editors

Wan Gee

Podcast editor

Emily

&

Erin

Podcast co-hosts

Dylan

&

Treasurers

Beth

Alisha

Secretary

Anthea

Social secretary

SciencEd is written, edited and illustrated by volunteers. In this issue:

Writers: Gabrielle Jawer, Clare McDonald, Jaromar von der Osten, Finn McElrue-Inch, Emma Dumble, Tara Best,

Elena Hein, Tamsin Baxter, Emma Walsh, Finn Weddle , Rhiannon Williams, Joshua Nelson, Angelica Leach, Ellie

Dempsey, Edward Buckton, Ami John.

Editors: Emma Dumble, Eleanor Stamp, Gabrielle Jawer, Tara Best, Alissa Lui, Serafina Soehianto, Niki Chan,

Priscilla Wong, Joshua Nelson, Muminah Koleoso, Clare McDonald, Beth McGregor, Lex Shackley.

Illustrators: Emma Dumble, Lisa Edelmaier, Caterina Lue, Geraldine Gavigan, Elizabeth Carmichael, Ewa Ozga,

Angel Loi, Lai Ling Berthoud, Muminah Koleoso, Ellie Dempsey.

All articles were reviewed and edited by Elena Hein, Sara Teles, Alice Buckner, Anna Morris and Tanja Holc

Layout and art editing was done by Elizabeth Carmichael, Juda Milvidaite, and Angel Loi

Where photographs, illustrations or collages have been uncredited, they were crafted by Art editor Juda


Listen to articles!

Join our mailing list to stay

up to date with the latest

opportunities!

Get Involved!

Our community is open to anyone – you don’t have to be a

science student (or even a student at all) to join us as a writer,

editor or illustrator.

Let us showcase and publish your art and your work.

Head to our website or social media channels to find out more.

eusci.org.uk

euscimedia

EUSci

EUSci


Join our hosts as they talk to

staff and students about all of

the fascinating research and

projects happening around

Scotland!

the latest episodes:

Cover art by Elizabeth Carmichael


eusci.org.uk

euscimedia

EUSci

EUSci

EUSci Issue 33 website

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?