Such moments capture the imagination. But they also raise an important question: what do the majority of scientists actually think?

Surprisingly, we usually don’t know. When a scientific controversy or breakthrough dominates headlines, press officers and journalists often quote a handful of experts. These views may be insightful, but they rarely tell us what the wider scientific community thinks. And yet public discussions frequently rely on phrases such as “the science says” or “scientists believe”, as if there were a clear and measurable answer.

In reality, systematic evidence about scientific opinion is often missing. My colleagues and I recently tried to change that in the domain of astrobiology. Shortly after the two major announcements of possible extraterrestrial life in 2025, we surveyed astrobiologists to understand how expert judgment was distributed across the field.

The first case concerned the exoplanet K2-18b. In April 2025, researchers reported possible traces of molecules called dimethyl sulfide and/or dimethyl disulfide. On Earth, these are associated with biological activity. Media coverage was extensive, with many reports framing the finding as an extraordinary advance in the search for alien life.

The second case came in September, when NASA announced that Cheyava Falls appeared to preserve a potential biosignature – so-called “leopard spots” which are mineral rings that on Earth are often formed by microbial activity. Again, headlines, and NASA officials themselves, suggested something momentous.

What scientists actually thought

We surveyed hundreds of astrobiologists from across the global research community, within days of each announcement. We asked a simple question: did scientists think extraterrestrial life had probably been found?

The results revealed a rather cautious picture. For K2-18b, only 6.6% of surveyed astrobiologists agreed that scientists had probably found extraterrestrial life. Nearly two-thirds disagreed, while 28.0% remained neutral. For the Mars case, confidence was higher but still cautious: 15.1% agreed, disagreement fell to 44.6% and neutrality rose to 40.3%.

Looking only at agreement and disagreement, however, misses an important part of the story. The proportion of astrobiologists who strongly disagreed fell dramatically, from 35.1% in the K2-18b case to just 11.1% for Mars. Much of the movement was therefore not from rejection to endorsement, but from strong rejection towards more tentative positions.

In other words, expert opinion moved in structured ways. The shift from K2-18b to Mars was not a simple movement from “no” to “yes”. Instead, the community became more open to the possibility without embracing it outright.

One possible reason is that the two cases involved different kinds of evidence. The K2-18b claim relied on possible atmospheric signatures detected from across interstellar distances, whereas the Martian case concerned a rock that could be studied directly and in much greater detail. At the same time, astrobiologists have long been aware that apparently lifelike features can sometimes arise through non-biological processes. Often, the challenge is not imagining how life could produce a signal, but understanding all the ways nature might produce something similar without life.

Scientific opinion is rarely binary. Public discussion often treats science as though communities either agree or disagree. But the distribution of opinion matters too. Strong agreement, agreement, neutrality, disagreement and strong disagreement can each tell us something different about how a scientific community is responding to a claim.

A large neutral response can indicate several things. Scientists may judge the evidence genuinely inconclusive. They may hold an intermediate level of confidence. Or they may regard a claim as too speculative to endorse or reject decisively. Likewise, movement from strong disagreement towards ordinary disagreement may signal a softening of attitudes even when overall disagreement remains high. Treating scientific opinion as simply “for” or “against” risks flattening these important distinctions.

Beyond extraterrestrial life

The broader lesson extends well beyond extraterrestrial life. In areas such as climate science, pandemics, artificial intelligence or medical research, public conversations frequently invoke scientific consensus.

Sometimes strong agreement genuinely exists. Sometimes it does not. But we often lack systematic ways of measuring what scientists actually think, especially where evidence is emerging or uncertainty remains substantial. Instead, discussions rely heavily on selective quotation, vocal individuals or assumptions about community views.

Efforts to do this more systematically are beginning to emerge. At Durham University, our research group, C-Scope (the Centre for Scientific Community Opinion Polling and Evaluation), studies how expert opinion is distributed and how it changes over time. We are not trying to replace evidence with polling, nor to treat majority opinion as truth. Our aim is to better understand how scientific communities respond to uncertainty.

Scientific knowledge advances through uncertainty, disagreement and gradual revision. If public discussion, and perhaps political will, increasingly turns on claims about what scientists think, we should make more effort to find out.

“Observing 3I/ATLAS is like taking a fingerprint from another solar system,” shares Nathan Roth, lead author on this research, and a professor with American University, “The details reveal what it’s made of, and it’s bursting with methanol in a way we just don’t usually see in comets in our own solar system.”

A Chemical Fingerprint From Another Solar System

The research team used ALMA’s Atacama Compact Array in Chile to observe 3I/ATLAS on several dates in late 2025 as it moved closer to the Sun. As sunlight heated the comet’s icy surface, gas and dust escaped and created a bright cloud (or coma) around its core.

By studying the molecules in this coma, astronomers could identify the chemical makeup of material carried by the comet. Because 3I/ATLAS originated outside our solar system, those measurements provide a rare opportunity to investigate how small icy bodies may form in another planetary system without traveling beyond our own.

The scientists concentrated on the faint submillimeter signatures of two molecules: methanol (CH₃OH), a type of alcohol, and hydrogen cyanide (HCN), a nitrogen-bearing organic molecule commonly seen in comets.

ALMA revealed that 3I/ATLAS contains an unusually high amount of methanol relative to hydrogen cyanide. On two observation dates, researchers measured methanol-to-HCN ratios of roughly 70 and 120. Those values place 3I/ATLAS among the most methanol-rich solar system comets ever studied.

Unusual Chemistry Points to Different Origins

The measurements suggest that the ice inside 3I/ATLAS formed under, or was later exposed to, conditions very different from those experienced by most comets in our solar system.

Earlier observations with the James Webb Space Telescope found that 3I/ATLAS had a coma dominated by carbon dioxide while it was still far from the Sun. The new ALMA measurements now add abundant methanol to the growing list of unusual features in the comet’s chemical makeup.

ALMA’s high resolution for imaging also allowed astronomers to track how different molecules are released and travel away from the comet. The observations revealed a striking contrast between methanol and hydrogen cyanide.

Hydrogen cyanide appears to originate mostly from the comet’s central body, or nucleus. That behavior is common among comets in our solar system. Methanol, however, appears to come from both the nucleus AND from ice particles floating within the coma.

Tiny Ice Grains Act Like Mini-Comets

These small icy grains effectively behave like miniature comets. As 3I/ATLAS approaches the Sun and temperatures rise, ice within the grains turns into gas and releases additional methanol into the surrounding coma.

Astronomers have seen similar behavior in some comets from our own solar system. However, this is the first time researchers have traced the detailed physics of this type of outgassing in an object that originated in interstellar space.

Comet 3I/ATLAS is only the third confirmed object ever observed entering our solar system from interstellar space, following 1I/’Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov. Studies of those earlier visitors also uncovered unusual characteristics.

As astronomers find and examine more interstellar objects, each one offers another opportunity to compare our solar system with planetary systems elsewhere in the galaxy. The unusual chemistry of 3I/ATLAS is adding another intriguing piece to the broader picture of how planets, comets, and other small bodies form around distant stars.

The study, led by Curtin University in collaboration with the University of York, UK, is the first to pinpoint the geological source of the towering stones. Researchers traced them to Brimham Rocks, a rugged area in North Yorkshire.

Located near Boroughbridge in northern England, the Devil’s Arrows rise as high as seven meters (23 feet). They form an unusual stone alignment in a lowland landscape, and despite their striking size, scientists had not been able to determine where the stones originally came from.

Researchers believe the stones were transported and raised during the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age, possibly around 2000 BC.

A Distant Source for Britain’s Giant Stones

Lead author Dr. Anthony Clarke, from the Timescales of Mineral Systems Group within Curtin’s School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, said the discovery challenges previous ideas about the decisions prehistoric people made when constructing major monuments.

“Our research shows these stones weren’t simply taken from the nearest available source — they were deliberately chosen from a challenging landscape 18 kilometers away,” Dr. Clarke said.

“Plumpton Rocks, which is closer to the Devil’s Arrows, had previously been identified as the probable source of the stones. Our findings instead point to Brimham Rocks, showing that prehistoric builders transported these enormous stones significantly further than thought.

“Each stone weighs more than 25 tonnes, so moving them would have required incredible planning, coordination and engineering skill.

“This tells us prehistoric people placed real importance on the landscape itself. It wasn’t just about convenience — the location the stones came from likely held meaning for them.”

The findings suggest that the builders were not simply choosing the easiest or closest source of stone. Instead, the landscape around Brimham Rocks may have carried cultural, symbolic, or spiritual significance.

Co-author Dr. Jim Leary from the University of York said the discovery changes how researchers can interpret prehistoric monument building.

“These results show that ancient communities were making deliberate and meaningful choices about where their stones came from,” Dr. Leary said.

“It highlights the importance of landscape and shared belief systems, as well as the remarkable effort involved in transporting and raising stones of this size.”

Mineral Fingerprints Reveal the Stones’ Origin

To determine where the stones came from, the researchers used a new low-impact sampling technique. Adhesive tape allowed them to collect tiny mineral grains from the stones without damaging the monument.

They then analyzed the age “fingerprints” of those grains and compared them with geological samples from possible source locations. The results matched the Devil’s Arrows to Brimham Rocks.

The evidence also allowed the team to rule out natural explanations such as glacial movement. That means the enormous stones were intentionally moved to the monument site by people.

New Clues to Prehistoric Engineering

Dr. Clarke said the researchers now plan to use their non-invasive technique on other standing stones whose origins remain uncertain. They also hope to carry out targeted excavations at both the Devil’s Arrows and the newly identified source area.

“These next steps could help us better understand when the stones were moved and how these extraordinary monuments were constructed,” Dr. Clarke said.

Justin Scully, National Trust General Manager for Fountains Abbey & Studley Royal and Brimham Rocks, said the findings establish a direct connection between Brimham Rocks and the Devil’s Arrows, linking two distinctive Yorkshire landscapes.

“We’re incredibly grateful to the researchers for helping us uncover this new chapter in the stones’ story and deepen our understanding of the people who shaped this landscape thousands of years ago,” Mr. Scully said.

“The Devil’s Arrows are deeply cherished by local communities, and we’re delighted that this discovery adds a new chapter to their story.”

The study, “Deliberate Prehistoric Sourcing of the Devil’s Arrows, Britain’s Tallest Stone Row,” was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Nickel can change both its oxidation state and its atomic arrangement under the high-temperature redox conditions involved in POM. Until now, these changes have been difficult to track in detail, making it challenging to determine the true structure responsible for the reaction.

A Hidden Active Structure Forms During the Reaction

In a recent study published in Nature Catalysis, researchers found that highly active structures can form in situ when the surface of NiO reconstructs during POM. The results reveal the atomic-scale source of the catalytic activity and show why it is important to observe catalysts while they are operating under realistic reaction conditions.

The research was led by Profs. Tao Zhang, Aiqin Wang and Xiaoyan Liu from the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics (DICP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), together with Prof. Wei Liu from DICP, Prof. Tao Yang from Xi’an Jiaotong University, and Prof. Graham J. Hutchings from Cardiff University.

To investigate the process, the team created a Ni/Al₂O₃ catalyst containing only 0.8 wt% Ni using a microemulsion method. Despite its relatively low nickel content, the catalyst performed strongly during POM. It converted 92% of the methane, while CO and H₂ selectivities reached 87.0%, with the H₂/CO molar ratio remaining stable at about 2.0.

High Performance With Much Less Nickel

One of the most striking findings was that almost no metallic Ni could be detected in the catalyst after the reaction. Even so, its overall performance was comparable to that of an 8.0 wt% Ni/Al2O3 catalyst produced through impregnation, despite containing only one tenth as much nickel.

The low-loading catalyst also performed far better than another 0.8 wt% Ni/Al₂O₃ material prepared using the same impregnation method. Under identical conditions, that catalyst did not effectively carry out POM and instead showed only methane combustion activity.

The researchers also observed that metallic Ni nanoparticles present at the beginning of the reaction were quickly oxidized into the NiO phase under POM conditions. Yet NiO alone was not enough. A pre-formed pure-phase NiO catalyst showed no POM activity and instead catalyzed only the complete oxidation of methane.

Atomic Reconstruction Reveals the True Active Site

A closer examination revealed what was actually happening on the catalyst surface. During the reaction, the researchers captured the in situ formation of a reconstructed [Ni1O4Ni4] structural unit on the NiO(100) surface.

DFT calculations indicated that this newly formed motif makes it much easier to break the C-H bonds in methane, one of the key steps in activating the molecule. The calculated activation barrier was only 12.5 kcal·mol^-1.

That barrier was far lower than the value calculated for the intact NiO(100) surface (38.5 kcal·mol^-1) and also below the barrier for the metallic Ni(111) surface (15.7 kcal·mol^-1). This substantial kinetic advantage strongly supports the conclusion that the reconstructed structure is the true active center responsible for POM.

Together, the experimental observations and theoretical calculations show that catalytic activity does not come simply from metallic nickel or ordinary nickel oxide. Instead, it emerges from a specific atomic structure that forms dynamically while the reaction is taking place.

“Our study highlights the critical role of in situ characterization in identifying dynamic active structures under reaction conditions,” said Prof. Liu. “Dynamic reconstruction enables low-loading catalysts to achieve high performance, offering new opportunities for the rational design of efficient catalysts while reducing reliance on high metal loadings.”

By combining specific proteins found in rattlesnake blood, the researchers achieved unusually strong protection against venom from several dangerous snake species.

The study was led by Distinguished University Professor of BiologySean B. Carroll and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The findings could help researchers develop more powerful antivenoms for deadly snakebites, which remain a major health threat in some regions of the world.

“This is one of those great stories when nature has already solved a problem we’ve been grappling with for decades,” said Carroll, who also holds the Andrew and Mary Balo and Nicholas and Susan Simon Endowed Chair at UMD.

The Global Challenge of Snakebites

Snakebite is considered one of the world’s most neglected tropical diseases. According to the World Health Organization, venomous snakes kill an estimated 80,000 to 140,000 people annually, while hundreds of thousands of survivors are left with permanent disabilities. Many of those affected live in rural areas where effective antivenom can be difficult to obtain.

Existing antivenoms save lives, but they also have major drawbacks. They are typically produced by exposing large animals to snake venom and then collecting the antibodies those animals generate. Manufacturing these treatments can be costly, their quality and effectiveness can vary, and they may not work equally well against the many different toxins found in venom from different snake species. They can also cause serious immune reactions.

Those limitations have pushed scientists to search for better options. In this case, the researchers turned to snakes themselves for clues.

“We’ve known from anecdotes for 100 years that vipers tend to be resistant to their own venom,” Carroll said. “But for a long time, nobody knew what exactly was circulating in their blood that protected them.”

A Natural Defense Hidden in Rattlesnake Blood

In 2022, Carroll’s laboratory found part of the answer: a protein called FETUA-3. The researchers discovered that it could block the activity of many metalloproteinase toxins found in western diamondback rattlesnake venom. It could also bind to and inhibit toxins from the venoms of several other rattlesnake species.

“Here was evolution’s way for snakes to protect themselves from accidental self-envenomation,” he said, which prompted a follow-up question. “Why rely on horse antibodies when nature has packaged an effective antidote right there in the snake?”

For the new research, co-authors including Elda Sánchez, director of the National Natural Toxins Research Center at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, examined what each FETUA protein contributes to venom resistance.

The team found that individual proteins could counter certain effects of venom. One might reduce bleeding, for example, while another could interfere with enzyme activity. However, none of the FETUA proteins on its own was able to completely prevent death from a venomous bite.

Protein Combinations Dramatically Boost Protection

The results changed when researchers combined several FETUA proteins. These mixtures were far more effective at blocking the harmful effects of venom than the individual proteins alone.

Finding the best combinations is complicated because snake venom is extraordinarily complex. A single venom can contain around 100 toxin proteins belonging to multiple protein families, and venom composition differs from one snake species to another.

“The ingredients are there,” Carroll said. “We just have to keep testing various mixtures.”

In laboratory experiments, optimized combinations of the proteins were about 10 times more potent than the current sheep-derived rattlesnake antivenom. The mixtures completely neutralized the lethal effects of rattlesnake venom and also provided broad protection against venom from multiple viper species, including species separated by millions of years of evolution.

“The fact that parts of these inhibitors have been perfectly conserved over 50 million years of snake evolution tells you just how real a risk this is for these animals,” Carroll said, noting that how snakes envenomate themselves, whether through mouth tissue during a bite, by eating envenomated prey, through cannibalism or all of the above, isn’t well understood.

Toward a New Generation of Antivenoms

The present study concentrated on metalloproteinases, one important family of venom toxins. The researchers are now using the same general strategy to target other toxin families.

“We’re getting remarkably close to having effective solutions for the three major toxin families in vipers,” Carroll said. “What we’ve learned here, together with research we’re doing now, gives us real confidence that nature-based recombinant [lab-produced] antivenoms are within reach.”

Carroll expects that the first commercial applications of “nature’s antivenom” could be in veterinary medicine, with treatments for human snakebites potentially following later.

He envisions future antivenoms that protect against a wider range of venoms while also being safer, less expensive and easier to manufacture on a large scale than many current treatments.

“We could make train cars-worth of this stuff and help solve a massive global health problem,” Carroll said. “Many of our most important medicines have come from nature. I’m delighted that the components for a better-than-commercial antivenom were in these snakes all along.”

Along with Carroll, the UMD co-authors included Department of Biology visiting faculty specialists Fiona Ukken and Yetunde Ayinuola.

The research was funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Viper Resource Center (Grant #P40OD01960-22). This article does not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.

Diabetes, obesity, and bipolar disorder frequently occur together and may share some underlying biological mechanisms. According to the latest World Health Organization estimates, about one in 200 people worldwide, or roughly 37 million people, live with bipolar disorder.

GLP-1 medications are already established treatments for diabetes and obesity, but their possible effects on bipolar disorder have remained unclear.

Large Study Examines GLP-1 Drugs and Bipolar Disorder

To investigate the connection, researchers led by Professor Mark Taylor from Griffith’s School of Medicine and Dentistry analyzed nationwide Swedish data from nearly 15,000 people with bipolar disorder who had been prescribed GLP-1 medications over a 15-year period.

“People with bipolar disorder who were taking semaglutide (otherwise known as Ozempic or Wegovy), a type of GLP-1 medication, had significantly lower rates of psychiatric hospitalization compared with periods when they were not taking GLP-1 medicines,” Professor Taylor said.

“The findings add to growing evidence that GLP-1 receptor agonists may have benefits beyond diabetes and obesity treatment, and could represent a promising new avenue for bipolar research.”

The researchers found that semaglutide use was associated with a 21 percent lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization.

Semaglutide May Affect Brain-Related Processes

The findings suggest that GLP-1 signaling could help protect the brain by reducing inflammation, cellular stress, and other biological processes associated with bipolar disorder.

These effects could potentially contribute to greater mood stability and a lower risk of relapse.

However, the same pattern was not seen with every GLP-1 medication. Liraglutide and dulaglutide were not associated with a reduced risk of psychiatric hospitalization, indicating that any potential mental health benefit may not extend across the entire drug class.

Professor Taylor said he hopes the findings will now be examined in a randomized controlled trial, which would provide stronger evidence about whether semaglutide itself can improve psychiatric outcomes in people with bipolar disorder.

The paper ‘Use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and the associated risk of hospitalisation in bipolar disorder, from a nationwide cohort, 2009-2024’ has been published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica.

The species, named Dasosaurus tocantinensis, is described in a study published in the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. The animal measured about 20 meters long and lived roughly 120 million years ago. Its fossils were found at the site of a road rail terminal under construction in Davinópolis, a city in the state of Maranhão.

One of the most striking aspects of the discovery is the dinosaur’s evolutionary connection to Europe. Its closest known relative lived in what is now Spain, suggesting that these animals belonged to a broader lineage that once occupied regions that are now separated by the Atlantic Ocean.

Researchers propose that the ancestors of Dasosaurus tocantinensis reached South America by moving through North Africa sometime between 140 and 120 million years ago. At the time, these landmasses were still connected within the supercontinent Gondwana.

Maranhão’s Largest Known Dinosaur

“It’s the largest known dinosaur for Maranhão, which has other species, but not sauropods like this one; rather, it has smaller ones, such as the diplodocid Amazonsaurus maranhensis, which was about 10 meters long,” says Elver Luiz Mayer, a professor at the Federal University of the São Francisco Valley (UNIVASF) in the state of Bahia.

Mayer normally studies mammals from the Quaternary period, which is far more recent than the age of the dinosaur fossils. He became involved with the find in 2021 while working in São Félix do Xingu in the state of Pará, where he was then a professor at the Federal University of Southern and Southeastern Pará (UNIFESSPA)

The fossils had been uncovered by archaeologists who were monitoring the Davinópolis construction project as part of environmental licensing requirements. At first, the remains were thought to belong to large prehistoric mammals that may have lived alongside ancient humans.

Mayer quickly suspected that the bones were much older.

“Given its depth of about eight meters, I realized that it was much older. The age of the geological formation was already known from previous research and indicated that it was material from the transition from the Lower to the Upper Cretaceous, about 120 million years ago,” says Mayer. He then contacted various specialists and formed a multidisciplinary group to study the specimen.

A Remarkably Complete Fossil

The fossils went through an extensive preparation process before being analyzed in Pará. Afterward, the specimen was returned to Maranhão. It is now kept in São Luís, the state capital, at the State Center for Natural History and Archaeology Research, which also took part in the research.

The preserved skeleton includes several major bones, making it unusually informative for a dinosaur of its kind.

“Because it includes tail vertebrae, a 1.5-meter femur, ribs, foot bones, and arm and leg bones, this is considered a relatively complete specimen. We believe there are more fossils from this same specimen yet to be excavated at the site,” says Max Langer, a professor at the Ribeirão Preto School of Philosophy, Sciences, and Letters at the University of São Paulo (FFCLRP-USP), who participated in the study.

Langer coordinates the project “Exploring the Diversity of South American Cretaceous Dinosaurs and Their Associated Faunas,” which is supported by FAPESP.

Why the Dinosaur Was Named Dasosaurus

The species name reflects both the landscape of Maranhão and the location where the fossils were found.

“Daso” means “forest,” a reference to the region’s wooded environment. Early Portuguese colonizers described those forests as forming a dense tangle, or “maranhão.” The second part of the name, “Tocantinensis,” refers to the Tocantins River because the fossil site lies near its eastern bank.

Researchers also examined the microscopic structure of the dinosaur’s bones. The analysis, led by Tito Aureliano and Aline Ghilardi of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), revealed a growth pattern that combines traits seen in older sauropods with features found in titanosaurs, a group closely related to the newly discovered species.

The results indicate that some patterns of bone growth and remodeling may have appeared earlier in dinosaur evolution than scientists previously believed. That could help explain how certain sauropods were able to grow to such enormous sizes.

Construction Projects Can Reveal Hidden Fossils

The discovery of Dasosaurus also highlights a complicated reality for paleontology. Major construction projects can damage or destroy fossil deposits, but they can also expose layers of rock that scientists would otherwise have little chance of reaching with traditional excavation tools.

“Brazil is a tropical country with dense vegetation. Geologists and paleontologists rely heavily on human activity to excavate, expose the rocks, and reveal the fossils. If we map Brazil’s fossil sites, we’ll see highways and quarries. These projects are important for understanding our heritage. But it’s obvious that specialized monitoring and artifact recovery are necessary, which doesn’t always happen,” says Langer.

“That’s why it’s urgent to foster closer cooperation between the parties to reconcile construction projects with federal legislation on fossils and promote new discoveries while ensuring the proper preservation of our heritage,” Mayer comments.

The researchers are now negotiating with the construction company for permission to return to the site and continue excavating. Additional fossils could reveal more about Dasosaurus tocantinensis and the larger dinosaur group to which it belonged.

The work received support from FAPESP in the form of a doctoral scholarship, postdoctoral fellowship, and a grant under the Young Investigator modality.