Anew study claims that AI models like ChatGPT and Claude now outperform PhD-level virologists in problem-solving in wet labs, where scientists analyze chemicals and biological material. This discovery is a double-edged sword, experts say. Ultra-smart AI models could help researchers prevent the spread of infectious diseases. But non-experts could also weaponize the models to create deadly bioweapons. The study, shared exclusively with TIME, was conducted by researchers at the Center for AI Safety, MIT’s Media Lab, the Brazilian university UFABC, and the pandemic prevention nonprofit SecureBio. The authors consulted virologists to create an extremely difficult practical test which measured the ability to troubleshoot complex lab procedures and protocols. While PhD-level virologists scored an average of 22.1% in their declared areas of expertise, OpenAI’s o3 reached 43.8% accuracy. Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 37.6%. Advertisement Seth Donoughe, a research scientist at SecureBio and a co-author of the paper, says that the results make him a “little nervous,” because for the first time in history, virtually anyone has access to a non-judgmental AI virology expert which might walk them through complex lab processes to create bioweapons. “Throughout history, there are a fair number of cases where someone attempted to make a bioweapon—and one of the major reasons why they didn’t succeed is because they didn’t have access to the right level of expertise,” he says. “So it seems worthwhile to be cautious about how these capabilities are being distributed.” Months ago, the paper’s authors sent the results to the major AI labs. In response, xAI published a risk management framework pledging its intention to implement virology safeguards for future versions of its AI model Grok. OpenAI told TIME that it "deployed new system-level mitigations for biological risks" for its new models released last week. Anthropic included model performance results on the paper in recent system cards, but did not propose specific mitigation measures. Google’s Gemini declined to comment to TIME.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has shone a spotlight on autism, pledging in a recent press conference to figure out the “cause” of autism and calling the increased incidence of the disorder a “tragedy.” But he and other members of the Trump Administration have also reduced funding available for autism research, imperiling key projects—some of which were midway through completion, according to scientists in the field. “Funding for autism research is actually disappearing at a time when we see the director of HHS talking a lot about autism as though they think it is important,” says Micheal Paige Sandbank, an autism researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Behind the scenes, they are taking a hammer to the whole apparatus for autism research.” The cuts come at a time when the incidence of autism is up; a study published April 17 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one in 31 children studied had been diagnosed with autism, up from one in 150 in 2000. The Department of Education (DOE) slashed autism funding One of the biggest places where cuts have occurred is at the DOE, which the Trump Administration has vowed to close. A big funder of autism research has historically been the DOE’s Institute of Education Sciences, says Sandbank. But the institute, which has a budget of $800 million, was gutted in the Trump Administration’s layoffs, with only a skeleton staff remaining. Autism research at the institute focused on developing and evaluating school-based interventions to improve outcomes for students with autism. Many U.S. researchers who focus on autism and other disabilities—including Sandbank and Kristen Bottema-Beutel, a professor of special education at Boston College—had their doctoral studies funded by a development program within the DOE. The idea behind the grant is to train the next generation of special education teachers, speech language pathologists, and occupational therapists to work with autistic students in the classroom, as well as the professors teaching those therapists. The program was called the Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—Preparation of Special Education, Early Intervention, and Related Services Leadership Personnel. But Bottema-Beutel, who applied for the grant in November, said she received an email on April 2 that the DOE would not fund the grant this year in order to ensure that the department’s 2025 grant competitions “align with the objectives established by the Trump Administration.” Bottema-Beutel and colleagues had wanted to fund 12 doctoral students with disability-related interests in a collaboration between Boston College, Boston University, and the University of Massachusetts Boston. Now, those positions won’t be funded, she says. The grant application took months to complete, and Bottema-Beutel says she’s hesitant to apply for more grants in her speciality, autism research. “It seems like a big risk to take at the time because it’s unclear if it's going to be funded,” she says. Charting My Path for Future Success, a DOE program, lost funding because of government cuts. It helped students with disabilities, including those with autism, transition from high school into college or work. A DOE spokesperson told NPR in April that Charting My Path had “questionable implementation” and that too much of the $43 million in funding was going to contractors, but some students were extremely upset that the program had disappeared, NPR reported, because it matched them with trained instructors who checked in with them and their families to assist in the transition from high school. The DOE did not provide a comment by publication time. But American Institute for Research, which oversaw Charting My Path for Future Success, confirmed that the program was "canceled for convenience by the federal government" on Feb. 10. "It was one of dozens of contracts that were canceled that day," said spokesperson Dana Tofig in an email. A gutted program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) Another canceled grant from the NSF funded autism programs in schools and universities. The Frist Center for Autism and Innovation at Vanderbilt University lost $7.7 million in funding because its grant application, which was initially approved, included the terms “inclusion” and “accessibility,” according to Jessica Schonhut-Stasik, who runs communications for the Frist Center and was also a student in the program. The program offered grants for neurodivergent students or people studying neurodivergent students, says Schonhut-Stasik. The grant also sponsored a summer summit for autistic students, says Schonhut-Stasik, who is herself autistic. “This is just so deeply sad,” she says. “To be given this money, to be told, ‘Here is the money to pursue your dreams,’ is just so big for any autistic person,” she says. The Department of Defense (DOD) cut autism funding DOD also funded a lot of autism research, Sandbank says, but a reorganization there has left future projects in jeopardy. The DOD funding was through something called Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. In each of the last five years, the Autism Research Program under that bucket has received $15 million dollars, according to DOD press releases. The DOD studies autism in part because it affects children of military families. In 2025, though, a number of the same research programs received funding as they had in the past, including breast cancer research. But autism was not among the programs listed to receive funding in 2025 announcements. Because autism is not included, Sandbank, who was going to submit a grant for this funding, no longer plans to, she says. A spokesperson for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs confirmed that autism is not one of the 12 research programs funded this year, but said that autism is included as a “topic area” for a separate bucket of funding, the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. There are more than 50 topics listed in that funding area, including autism. An abrupt halt at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) NIH is also a huge funder of autism research. But shifting priorities there have ended or delayed some of these projects, says David Mandell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania who studies autism. The Trump Administration has begun to review and cancel grants that have what it deems diversity, equity, or inclusion terms in them because of a Trump executive order seeking to end what it called “radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.” Grant applicants are being told, Mandell says, that their research no longer meets “agency priorities.” One public HHS document shows at least two autism grants canceled in the sweep: a project looking at biomarkers of late autism diagnosis in female and gender-diverse people, and one preventing suicide among autistic adults. There’s a problem with stopping researchers from looking at autism in trans adults, says Bottema-Beutel: they are overrepresented in the autistic population. “If you’re recruiting autistic people” for a study, she says, “there’s a large chance they’re also going to be trans people.” Projects funded by the NIH have also been delayed because the Trump Administration temporarily stopped travel, meetings, communication, and hiring at the NIH. Scholars meet on federal advisory committees to approve funding NIH research, but those meetings were paused in the early days of the Trump Administration. Though the meetings resumed in April, the delay has caused some universities to cancel positions for doctoral students this year because schools can’t guarantee them funding, says Mandell, of Penn. He had a grant that was supposed to be reviewed in February that is now being reviewed in April. “We are destroying a generation of researchers and clinicians, by either not accepting them or not having opportunities for them to pursue this kind of research,” he says. There’s also a huge backlog of meetings because they have to be posted in the Federal Register in advance, Mandell says, and new postings in the Federal Register were frozen by the Trump Administration since mid-January. Even though meetings can now resume, many haven’t been scheduled yet or have been pushed back months, he says. Other personnel cuts to departments like the National Institute of Mental Health, part of NIH, are slowing down the process of getting grants approved, Mandell says, because staff are overworked and unable to process the grants as quickly as usual. Overall, the slowdowns and changes are making it difficult for researchers like Mandell, to propose studies or plan at all. “Right now, there is no system in place—everything is in a constant state of flux,” he says. “I can’t plan a study if I have no idea if it will be consistent with the Administration’s priorities a month from now. It has a huge chilling effect.” HHS which oversees NIH, did not return a request for comment. He and other autism researchers say they worry about the effects of further Trump Administration cuts in their area. People with autism rely heavily on both special education and Medicaid, but the Trump Administration has vowed to get rid of the DOE, and Congress may have to consider cutting Medicaid funding to pay for tax cuts. “On the one hand, you are saying we want to help families of autistic kids,” Mandell says. “And on the other hand, you are taking away exactly the supports that these families most rely on.

Four House Democrats traveled to El Salvador on Monday to pressure President Nayib Bukele and the Trump administration to release Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident who was deported last month despite a federal court order protecting him from removal. But after being denied access to Ábrego García during their visit, the lawmakers said they were now demanding the Trump administration produce “daily proof of life,” as well as access to counsel and his immediate release. “Since we were not able to get the answers we need today from the embassy, we have written a letter just as of 30 minutes ago to Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding daily proof of life for Mr. Ábrego García,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, one of the House Democrats who traveled to the Central American country, at a press conference on Monday afternoon. “And of course, finally, demanding his safe return home.” The visit by the delegation—which included Reps. Robert Garcia of California, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Maxine Dexter of Oregon, and Ansari—is the latest effort by Democrats to bring attention to Ábrego García’s case, which some legal scholars say has brought the U.S. to the brink of a constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court this month ordered the federal government to “facilitate” Ábrego García’s return to the United States, but the Trump administration has declined to do so, citing lack of jurisdiction. The Democratic lawmakers said their request to see Ábrego García was denied by the Salvadorian government as it was not an official trip, though they did meet with the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador. “There is no reason for me to believe that the Trump administration is doing anything to facilitate his safe return home,” Ansari said. “And that is simply unacceptable.” The visit follows one last week by Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who after two days of negotiations was permitted to meet briefly with Ábrego García. Van Hollen described Ábrego García as “traumatized” from being held at the notorious CECOT maximum-security prison, where Bukele’s government houses alleged terrorists and gang members. Van Hollen said Ábrego García has since been transferred to a less severe detention center. But the photo of that encounter—showing Van Hollen and Ábrego García speaking across a table—has come under scrutiny from Democrats and his family’s legal team, who now question whether it was a staged photo opportunity by the Bukele government. “We know nothing of Mr. Ábrego García's whereabouts since the staged photo op on Thursday,” said Chris Newman, the attorney representing his family, at Monday’s press conference. “Unfortunately, we are no longer able to trust the representations about this case made either by the United States government or by the Salvadorian government." Ábrego García was deported on March 15, one of over 200 individuals swept up in a mass deportation order by the Trump administration. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify expedited removals, despite widespread legal challenges and mounting bipartisan concern over its use outside of wartime. Though Ábrego García entered the U.S. illegally years ago, a judge in 2019 granted him "withholding of removal" status, after determining that his fears of persecution if he were returned to El Salvador were credible. Nonetheless, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported him in March in what the Justice Department initially described as an “administrative error.” Since then, both a federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court have affirmed that the government must help bring him back—a mandate that administration officials say they cannot fulfill without El Salvador’s cooperation. “If this can happen to Ábrego García it can happen to people from Venezuela…our constituents, and any day now, it can happen to citizens, because the President himself said that in the Oval Office,” Frost said. “This is a front to our laws, and that's why we're here.” Read More: Can a U.S. Citizen Be Deported? Trump’s Comments Raise Legal Alarms Republican leaders have accused Democrats of defending criminals, pointing to unverified allegations that Ábrego García is tied to MS-13. The White House referred to the Democrats’ visit as an “apology tour for a deported illegal immigrant gang member.” “Today, four more Democrats ... are in El Salvador, picking up their party’s mantle of prioritizing a deported illegal immigrant MS-13 gang member over the Americans they represent,” the White House said in a press release. Yet the only evidence produced linking Ábrego García to gang activity is a 2019 police report that has long been questioned in court. His family and attorneys have denied the claims, and judges reviewing his case have repeatedly upheld protections for him. Court documents reviewed by TIME found that Trump’s administration had a chance to challenge Ábrego García’s protection from deportation during his first term, but didn’t take it. Frost said their visit was in part to ensure that the public doesn’t forget about the Trump administration’s deportations: “They do so much to make sure people forget about them breaking the law, forget about them completely ignoring the Supreme Court,” he said. Democrats at the press conference also raised concerns about Andry José Hernández Romero, a Venezuelan asylum-seeker deported to El Salvador after the Trump administration accused him of gang affiliations based solely on his tattoos. Romero, a gay makeup artist, fled Venezuela fearing persecution and legally applied for asylum through a U.S. government app. “We know that he has had no gang affiliations that anyone is aware of, or that they presented in a court of law,” Garcia said. “This is our plea to the Embassy here—confirm that he is alive.” The Democratic lawmakers say they requested an official congressional delegation (CODEL) to visit both men, but House Oversight Chair James Comer and Homeland Security Chair Mark Green, both Republicans, denied the request, citing costs and accusing Democrats of defending gang members. “No Democrat has been allowed to go [on official delegations],” Garcia said. “There have been CODELs that have just been Republican members of Congress only.” Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Ábrego García, said in a statement that she was “deeply grateful” that four members of Congress had arrived in the country to push for her husband’s release from prison, and that she was concerned about his health. “Their presence sends a powerful message: The fight to bring Kilmar home isn’t over,” she said, adding, “We need Congress to keep showing up.” Frost added that more lawmakers will be visiting El Salvador soon to keep a spotlight on the issue. “We're not going to be the last members of Congress and senators that are here to make sure that he's released,” he said. “The book is not closed on our Constitution and our laws—no matter what Donald Trump says.”

Pope Francis passed away at age 88 on April 21, just a day after an Easter Sunday appearance at St. Peter’s Square, where he gave well-wishes to thousands of Catholic supporters. The Vatican said Monday that Francis died after a stroke. Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Francis was elected Pope in 2013 after his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI became the first Pope to resign in about 600 years. Francis, chosen as TIME’s 2013 Person of the Year, became the first Latin American pontiff when he took the reins of the religious institution. Over his term, Francis became known for his humility and calls for peace during major global challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the Gaza humanitarian crisis. As the world mourns Francis and commemorates his life’s legacy, his death also kickstarts a leadership transition period at the Vatican known as the interregnum, during which there is no Pope in power (referred to as sede vacante, or the “vacant seat”). Here’s what to know about how the next Pope will be selected—and who some of the frontrunners are. What happens when a Pope dies? After the Pope dies, the Vatican’s traditional nine days of mourning called the novendiales begin. The election of a new Pope begins between 15 to 20 days after the death. The camerlengo, a cardinal in the Catholic Church, is in charge of organizing the election in a process known as the conclave, which was recently dramatized in the award-winning 2024 film Conclave. Cardinals are special bishops and other Vatican officials who serve as the Pope’s counselors and visually distinguish themselves with a red cloak. There are more than 250 total cardinals, all of whom are men and most of whom come from Europe, according to the Vatican. While all cardinals can participate in the daily meetings that occur prior to the election, only 120 cardinals—all of whom have to be under the age of 80—can actually vote in the conclave. It is not clear how the 120 voters are selected. In December, Francis appointed 21 new Cardinals, hailing from six different continents and many of whom reflect more modern and progressive ideals, such as support for inclusivity of LGBTQ+ Catholics, according to NPR. Overall, it is believed that Francis will have personally selected about 80% of those who will choose his successor. Typically, the electorate holds a mass to ask for spiritual guidance before the papal election takes place, according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). How does the voting process work? At the Vatican, the electors stay in the Domus Sanctae Marthae. It’s where Francis chose to live, in a two-room suite, rather than the posh papal apartments of the Apostolic Palace. Typically, the electorate begins its work with a mass to ask for spiritual guidance, according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The conclave is an act of supreme secrecy. Vatican City becomes extremely regulated, as cardinals are not permitted to communicate with anyone “outside the area where the election is taking place, except in cases of proven and urgent necessity,” per the Apostolic Constitution. Following the funeral rites and mass for a deceased Pope, the electors then process to the Sistine Chapel, where they take an oath of discretion, and close the doors to the public. Electors all vote secretly via ballots that read in summum pontificem, or “I elect as supreme pontiff. ”The twice-folded ballots are placed in urns and counted by three cardinals chosen by a random draw from the electors to be scrutineers. Votes are then recorded and read aloud to all cardinals present. The process continues until a candidate receives two-thirds of the vote, per USCCB. The process is governed by the Vatican constitution known in Latin as Universi Dominici Gregis, or “the Lord’s whole flock.” First issued by St. John Paul II in 1996, it used to allow for a new pope to be elected by a simple majority—rather than two-thirds—after 33 rounds of ballots starting on the second day of the conclave. But it was amended by Benedict XVI to remove the provision in 2007. Instead, a long-drawn conclave would be decided by a runoff between the top two candidates (that excludes the two candidates from voting) until one receives a two-thirds majority. The public is kept abreast of the voting process through smoke signals created by the burning of ballots. White smoke means that cardinals have selected a new Pope, while black smoke means another round of voting has to take place. Once the conclave elects a Pope, the dean of the College of Cardinals—currently, Italian Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re—asks him if he accepts the title, and the candidate is dressed and picks his papal name before he walks out to the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica. There, the senior cardinal deacon—who at the time of Francis’ death was French Cardinal Dominique Mamberti—tells the crowd assembled below, “Habemus Papam,” (Latin for “we have a Pope”) and introduces the Church’s new leader by the name he has chosen. Who is eligible to become the next Pope? The College of Cardinal’s Report, a website aimed at providing more information on potential successors, has identified 22 cardinals who it believes are “papabili,” or most likely to be elected Pope. Some of the qualities a cardinal considered papabili should possess include humility, zeal for the Catholic faith, and the promotion of goodness, according to the report. “But predicting the next Pope is notoriously precarious and he may be none of those we propose,” it caveats. Pope Francis, for example, was not on many papabili lists in 2013, because many considered him to be too old. Despite calls for greater leadership opportunities for women within the Catholic Church during last year’s synod, a summit among Catholic leaders, women are still ineligible to be ordained as priests and therefore are also ineligible for the papacy. While not explicitly outlined in any specific Church regulations, every Pope has had the status of a cardinal before they took their role as pontiff. Here are some of the most discussed candidates who may be considered to be the next Pope: Jean-Marc Aveline Jean-Marc Aveline, 66, is well-known for his support for migrants. That stance is personal, as the cardinal himself fled his home due to war when he was just four years old. His family eventually settled in Marseille, France, a city with a substantial Muslim population, making him keen to interfaith dialogues. Aveline has a doctorate in theology. He is reportedly Pope Francis’ “favorite” possible successor, according to the College of Cardinals Report, though he differs from Francis in that he expressed caution at blessings for same-sex couples, as opposed to individuals. Joseph Tobin Joseph Tobin, 72, is a highly progressive candidate for the Church and has amassed substantial influence in the U.S. Tobin has voiced avid support for LGBTQ+ Catholics, women in the Church, and migrants, even going against then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence over the politician’s efforts to stop the resettlement of Syrian refugees. He previously worked in the role of a second-in-command of the Vatican office before his current role as the Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey. In that position, he’s dealt with the high-profile Theodore McCarrick sexual assault scandal. Juan Jose Omella Juan Jose Omella, 79, worked as an advisor to Pope Francis prior to his passing. The Spanish cardinal earned his red cloak just one year after he was given the title of archbishop. He has spoken strongly against abortion, but has made controversial comments regarding reports of sexual abuse within the Catholic Chruch in Spain, calling the estimated figures that fell in the hundreds of thousands “lies.” He followed that by saying that “We will not tire of asking for forgiveness from the victims and working for their healing.” Omella studied theology and philosophy at the Seminary of Zaragoza. Pietro Parolin Italian Pietro Parolin, 70, has been serving as the Vatican’s Secretary of State since 2013 and is the highest-ranking cardinal in the electing conclave. He is considered an expert on a number of geo-political issues. From 2002 to 2009, he was undersecretary of state for Relations with States and directed relations with Vietnam, North Korea, Israel, and China. Péter Erdő Péter Erdő, 72, would be a more conservative pick for the top post. In 2003, at 51, the Hungarian national was made one of the Church’s youngest cardinals after being appointed by John Paul II. He has opposed divorced and remarried individuals taking communion, believing that marriage is indissoluble, and is against same-sex marriage. His stance on immigration, a key issue in Hungary, has also come under fire in the past: he once compared taking in refugees to human smuggling, but is said to have changed his stance after a meeting with Pope Francis, who was much more liberal on issues of immigration and refugees. Peter Turkson Peter Turkson, 76, would be a progressive pick for the Church. Turkson, an archbishop from Ghana, was first named cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2003. Turkson was selected by Pope Francis to help lead special assemblies advocating for development in the pan-Amazon region, and a council for justice and peace. In March, the University of Dayton announced that Turkson would be receiving an honorary doctorate this year, calling him a “tireless advocate for the poor and marginalized, championing the cause of human dignity.” At least six other colleges have also recognized him with an honorary doctorate. Luis Antonio Tagle If elected, Luis Antonio Tagle, 67, of the Philippines, would be the first modern-day Asian Pope. Currently serving as pro-prefect of the Dicastery for Evangelization, Tagle is more left-leaning, having spoken out against the isolating impact of the Church’s harsh language against same-sex marriage. “Yes, I think even the language has changed already, the harsh words that were used in the past to refer to gays and divorced and separated people, the unwed mothers etc, in the past they were quite severe,” he said in 2015. “Many people who belonged to those groups were branded and that led to their isolation from the wider society. Mario Grech Mario Grech, 68, is the secretary general of the Synod. The Malta-born cardinal has expressed his disapproval of divorce and in vitro fertilization, but in the same breath called on the Catholic church to accept divorced and gay couples. The Church should be “an experience of God” instead of a “moral agency” he told the Sunday Times of Malta in a 2015 interview. Under his current role in the church, Grech was in charge of overseeing the Synod of Synodality—when religious leaders gather to consult on the future direction of the Church—making him well-connected among bishops and cardinals. He has been outspoken in his support of migrants, calling on Europe to better address the humanitarian issue at-hand. He added: “It is also important in such a delicate sector not to allow institutional discrimination between the well-off foreigners and the poor, those coming from the East and those coming from Africa.” Matteo Maria Zuppi Italian Matteo Maria Zuppi, 69, has taken the lead from Francis in his attempts to foster a more inclusive environment within the church. He served as special envoy to Russia and Ukraine, and has engaged in dialogue with leaders in Kyiv, Moscow, Washington D.C., the West Bank, and Beijing. He has been open about his acceptance of homosexuality and is also supportive of prisoners rights and the abolition of the death penalty, and in June 2023 he called for a “legal system that guarantees protection and welcome for all.”

It’s axiomatic that you can’t solve a problem if you don’t admit it exists—and the best way to admit it exists is to talk about it. That’s particularly true when it comes to climate change. For more than four decades, the state of the climate has been part of the national conversation—especially when severe weather events linked to a warming world such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and hurricanes occur. Between those emergencies, climate often retreats to a secondary issue—or less. A pair of studies—one from 2015, one from 2021— found that only 35% of Americans discuss climate change even occasionally. Since 2009, respondents to surveys have been more likely to say they discuss climate “rarely” or “never” than “occasionally” or “often.” Now, a new study in PLOS Climate explores what the authors term the “climate silence” and offers insights into how to break it. Any public discussion of a political or social issue can be subject to what’s known as a "spiral of silence.” The less people hear a topic talked about, the less likely they are to bring it up themselves, which just leads to even fewer people discussing it and fewer still to raise the issue. The opposite is also true: the more that people discuss and debate a topic, the likelier it is that other people will join the conversation. In the case of climate change, the latter leads to what the researchers call a “proclimate social feedback loop.” It’s that loop—or lack of it—that the authors of the PLOS One paper were looking for. To conduct their research, they analyzed three existing studies by different research teams conducted in 2020 and 2021 in which a total of more than 3,000 people were asked for their beliefs and feelings about climate change. Across the surveys, the subjects responded to questions about whether they believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening; how certain they themselves are that global warming is real; assuming they accept that it is indeed real, whether they believe humans are responsible for it; how much they worry about global warming; how much of a risk global warming poses to themselves, their families, and their communities; whether they think global warming is a bad or good thing; how much of an effort their families and friends make to combat the problem; how important it is for their family, friends, and, significantly, themselves to take such action; and how often they hear about global warming in the media. Finally, they were asked how often they discuss global warming with family and friends. What the surveys didn’t address was whether it was all of the initial variables that led to the discussions—an important measure of causation—or if they just existed side by side. The new study conducted statistical analyses of the surveys to make that determination. “Those surveys did not analyze how much the independent variables influence climate discussion,” says Margaret Orr, a PhD student in George Mason University’s department of communications and the lead author of the paper. “They just report survey results without looking at any interactions between variables.” Across the entire sample group, the researchers found that all but three of the variables led to increased discussions about climate change. Those three that sparked little or no conversation were: how convinced the respondents themselves were that climate change is happening; belief in a scientific consensus that it is; and belief that humans are causing the problem. Those are three pretty powerful factors—ones that ought to spark concern and conversation. The researchers have some idea about why they don’t. Advertisement “One potential reason for these [variables] not being significant predictors of climate discussion is the potential for indirect effects,” says Orr. Each of the three factors that don’t directly lead to climate conversations, she says, may nonetheless lead to worry, which in turn may spark conversations. The more of those conversations that happen, the better. “Previous research has shown that people are more likely to take actions if asked to do so by someone they like and respect," says Orr. “Climate conversations will help reverse the spiral of silence: the more people realize that others are concerned about climate change and support climate action, the more people will talk about it.”

Our universe might be chock-full of cosmic wonder, but you can observe only a fraction of astronomical phenomena with your naked eye. Meteor showers, natural fireworks that streak brightly across the night sky, are one of them. The latest observable meteor shower will be the Lyrids, which has been active since April 15 and is forecast to continue until April 30. The shower reaches its peak April 21 to 22, or Monday night into Tuesday morning. Best seen from the Northern Hemisphere, the Lyrids are caused by the dusty debris from a comet named Thatcher and spring from the constellation Lyra. During this year’s period of peak activity, viewers may have a more difficult time seeing meteors from this shower because the moon will be 40 percent full. States bordering the western bank of the Mississippi River may have good odds of glimpsing a few fireballs. But thick cloud cover is expected over all the states east of the river. Tuesday night, when the shower is still active but past its peak, looks slightly better for the eastern half of the U.S. Apart from high clouds in the Texas Panhandle and low clouds hugging the Gulf Coast, the Lone Star State may be one of the best places to see this evening. Cloud cover will create viewing obstacles above the Northern Plains, the Desert Southwest and also up through the central and northern Rocky Mountains. There is more hope out west, primarily in Northern California, Nevada and Utah. To get a hint at when to watch, you can use a meter that relies on data from the Global Meteor Network showing when real-time fireball activity levels increase in the coming days. Where meteor showers come from There is a chance you might see a meteor on any given night, but you are most likely to catch one during a shower. Meteor showers are caused by Earth passing through the rubble trailing a comet or asteroid as it swings around the sun. This debris, which can be as small as a grain of sand, leaves behind a glowing stream of light as it burns up in Earth’s atmosphere. Meteor showers occur around the same time every year and can last for days or weeks. But there is only a small window when each shower is at its peak, which happens when Earth reaches the densest part of the cosmic debris. The peak is the best time to look for a shower. From our point of view on Earth, the meteors will appear to come from the same point in the sky. The Perseid meteor shower, for example, peaks in mid-August from the constellation Perseus. The Geminids, which occur every December, radiate from the constellation Gemini. Bookmark the Times Space and Astronomy Calendar for reminders about meteor showers throughout the year. How to watch a meteor shower Michelle Nichols, the director of public observing at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, recommends forgoing the use of telescopes or binoculars while watching a meteor shower. “You just need your eyes and, ideally, a dark sky,” she said. That’s because meteors can shoot across large swaths of the sky, so observing equipment can limit your field of view. Some showers are strong enough to produce up to 100 streaks an hour, according to the American Meteor Society, though you likely won’t see that many. “Almost everybody is under a light polluted sky,” Ms. Nichols said. “You may think you’re under a dark sky, but in reality, even in a small town, you can have bright lights nearby.” Planetariums, local astronomy clubs or even maps like this one can help you figure out where to get away from excessive light. The best conditions for catching a meteor shower are a clear sky with no moon or cloud cover, at sometime between midnight and sunrise. (Moonlight affects visibility in the same way as light pollution, washing out fainter sources of light in the sky.) Make sure to give your eyes at least 30 minutes to adjust to seeing in the dark. Ms. Nichols also recommends wearing layers, even during the summer. “You’re going to be sitting there for quite a while, watching,” she said. “It’s going to get chilly, even in August.” Bring a cup of cocoa or tea for even more warmth. Then lie back, scan the sky and enjoy the show.

It’s axiomatic that you can’t solve a problem if you don’t admit it exists—and the best way to admit it exists is to talk about it. That’s particularly true when it comes to climate change. For more than four decades, the state of the climate has been part of the national conversation—especially when severe weather events linked to a warming world such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and hurricanes occur. Between those emergencies, climate often retreats to a secondary issue—or less. A pair of studies—one from 2015, one from 2021— found that only 35% of Americans discuss climate change even occasionally. Since 2009, respondents to surveys have been more likely to say they discuss climate “rarely” or “never” than “occasionally” or “often.” Now, a new study in PLOS Climate explores what the authors term the “climate silence” and offers insights into how to break it. Any public discussion of a political or social issue can be subject to what’s known as a "spiral of silence.” The less people hear a topic talked about, the less likely they are to bring it up themselves, which just leads to even fewer people discussing it and fewer still to raise the issue. The opposite is also true: the more that people discuss and debate a topic, the likelier it is that other people will join the conversation. In the case of climate change, the latter leads to what the researchers call a “proclimate social feedback loop.” It’s that loop—or lack of it—that the authors of the PLOS One paper were looking for. To conduct their research, they analyzed three existing studies by different research teams conducted in 2020 and 2021 in which a total of more than 3,000 people were asked for their beliefs and feelings about climate change. Across the surveys, the subjects responded to questions about whether they believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening; how certain they themselves are that global warming is real; assuming they accept that it is indeed real, whether they believe humans are responsible for it; how much they worry about global warming; how much of a risk global warming poses to themselves, their families, and their communities; whether they think global warming is a bad or good thing; how much of an effort their families and friends make to combat the problem; how important it is for their family, friends, and, significantly, themselves to take such action; and how often they hear about global warming in the media. Finally, they were asked how often they discuss global warming with family and friends. What the surveys didn’t address was whether it was all of the initial variables that led to the discussions—an important measure of causation—or if they just existed side by side. The new study conducted statistical analyses of the surveys to make that determination. “Those surveys did not analyze how much the independent variables influence climate discussion,” says Margaret Orr, a PhD student in George Mason University’s department of communications and the lead author of the paper. “They just report survey results without looking at any interactions between variables.” Across the entire sample group, the researchers found that all but three of the variables led to increased discussions about climate change. Those three that sparked little or no conversation were: how convinced the respondents themselves were that climate change is happening; belief in a scientific consensus that it is; and belief that humans are causing the problem. Those are three pretty powerful factors—ones that ought to spark concern and conversation. The researchers have some idea about why they don’t. “One potential reason for these [variables] not being significant predictors of climate discussion is the potential for indirect effects,” says Orr. Each of the three factors that don’t directly lead to climate conversations, she says, may nonetheless lead to worry, which in turn may spark conversations. The more of those conversations that happen, the better. “Previous research has shown that people are more likely to take actions if asked to do so by someone they like and respect," says Orr. “Climate conversations will help reverse the spiral of silence: the more people realize that others are concerned about climate change and support climate action, the more people will talk about it.” This story is part of The 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.

Eons ago, humans living in the wild were exposed to every germ nature could throw at them—mud, microbes, and whatever drifted around the communal waterhole. We’ve traded tree canopies for roofs, but the germs are still showing up, hiding in our household possessions. We often overlook the dirtiest items in our homes because grime is invisible (think bacteria) or accumulates too gradually for us to notice. Another factor: our brains tend to tune out the appearance of familiar, everyday objects, in a phenomenon called attentional blindness. This means we’re least likely to scrutinize the things we touch the most, even as they become swamped by bacteria. Advertisement Some argue that chronic immune conditions that plague modern humans stem in part from our tendency to avoid beneficial germs that would train the immune system to fight off pathogens. (This is called the hygiene hypothesis.) “There’s some truth to that,” says Kelly Reynolds, professor of environmental risk at the University of Arizona. “But we do need to reduce risk and exposure to bad bacteria that can drive sickness,” she says, including colds and skin infections. Here, experts reveal which items in your house are harboring the most bacteria—and how to clean them

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Aboard Air Force One back in January, Joe Biden must have wondered if the cosmos was conspiring against him. With just a few days left in office, Biden had hoped to fulfill a personal wish: one last presidential meeting with Pope Francis. As Biden flew back from a California besieged by a fast-growing series of wildfires, he dialed into a meeting underway with aides huddled around a conference table back in the West Wing. The trip out West went about as off-schedule as any presidential trip could, with detours and delays plaguing their plans. Now, they were discussing his upcoming three-day trip to Europe, which was set to include time for Biden to surprise Francis with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. But the crisis situation on the West Coast had now made the notion of Biden leaving the country politically untenable. When he returned to the White House that evening, he told aides to scrap the planned trip, which was due to start the next day. Biden personally called Pope Francis to explain the situation and inform him that he would be receiving an unexpected honor by way of the Vatican’s diplomatic reps in Washington. It was that last conversation, on Jan. 11, that stung the President particularly hard, according to two people who were involved in that decision. The Pope is now back on Biden’s agenda, but in a very different way. The leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics died Monday, less than a month after a lengthy hospital stay for pneumonia. Biden—only the second Catholic to serve as President and one who still celebrates Mass most weekends—will likely want to attend Francis’ funeral, according to those in his inner circle. The politics of that might get tricky, as it’s not at all clear whether the current President has any interest in paying respects to a spiritual leader with whom he repeatedly clashed. The funeral of a Pope—especially the first from the Americas, not to mention the first Jesuit—tends to be one of those events that dominates the diplomatic calendar. Its significance is up there with the deaths of icons like Nelson Mandela or a British monarch. It’s a moment that demands delicacy, and that is not exactly a skillset radiating from those in power in Official Washington. In the early days of Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign, Trump seemed to relish picking a fight with Francis—who was on his way to visit the United States with Biden as his de facto chaperone—suggesting the pontiff was weak and was offering an opening for ISIS to take over the Vatican. During the 2016 South Carolina primary, Trump and the Pope got into a full-blown skirmish from afar, with Francis questioning if Trump was even Christian and the real estate tycoon suggesting the pontiff was a tool of the Mexican government. (Trump’s aides eventually convinced him the fight was not a net gain as he tried to convince voters of faith to take a chance on the thrice-married billionaire.) The rift continued through Trump’s first term, although the pair’s meeting during Trump’s first foreign trip in office went pleasantly enough. Pope Francis, born in Buenos Aires to an Italian family fleeing fascism in Mussolini’s era, had little regard to Trump’s hard-line immigration views and never shied from criticizing his plans for a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. “Builders of walls sow fear,” Pope Francis said during a visit to Panama. On a flight back from another trip, he told reporters that border walls were not the answer: “Those who build walls will become prisoners of the walls they put up.” The enmity did not fade. Earlier this year, Trump’s top enforcer on border issues, Tom Homan, suggested the Pope was a hypocrite. "They have a wall around the Vatican. If you illegally enter the Vatican, the crime is serious. You'll be charged with a serious crime and jailed," Homan said. Trump’s nominee to be his Ambassador to the Vatican, Brian Burch, has been a partisan operative and vocal papal critic, making it an awkward fit if he is confirmed as expected. On another timeline, the White House might have made better use of Vice President J.D. Vance, who was baptized as a Catholic in 2019, to smooth things over with one of the world’s top religious leaders. But Vance’s aggressive cheerleading of Trump’s policies complicated that approach, so much so that Pope Francis dressed-down U.S. Bishops in a letter in February for not doing more to object to Vance’s defense of the deportation program on theological grounds. The skirmish continued, with Cardinal Timothy Dolan denouncing Vance’s suggestions that financial incentives were behind Catholic bishops’ defense of migrants as “nasty.” On Sunday, the day before Francis’ passing, Vance exchanged Easter greetings with an ailing Pope. Vance’s motorcade, according to the Associated Press, was on Vatican territory for just 17 minutes. Contrast all that to Biden, who met three times with Francis while Biden spent eight years as Vice President and twice when he became President. During a 2021 visit, the pair spent an astonishing 90 minutes together as aides from both delegations kept looking at each other, as if to ask which side wanted to interrupt the bosses. Those close to Biden say his humility toward Francis is genuine, with Biden often reminding his priest pals here in the United States that the Pope himself referred to him as a “good Catholic.” The last trip to the Vatican was meant as a reward for both men, who recognize they are often out-of-step with those around them and too often counted out. Biden advisers say the boss and the Pope would occasionally trade phone calls, often with informal gut-checks and spiritual check-ins. In a December call, the Pope lobbied Biden to soften death-row sentences for convicts. Biden ultimately commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row, tampering Trump’s plans to resume executions once back in office. There were no immediate details about Trump’s plans around the funeral. (Francis revised his funeral plans last year to be buried in Santa Maria Maggiore basilica, not in the grottoes beneath St. Peter’s Basilica where most Popes find their final resting place.) State affairs like a papal funeral typically bring even warring political rivals together. When Mandela passed away in 2013, then-President Barack Obama invited former President George W. Bush to join him on a whirlwind trip to South Africa where they were on the ground for just 13 hours. Even though Obama spent much of his 2008 presidential campaign eviscerating Bush, the two men were professional enough to bury the hatchet; Bush even showed off some of his post-White House paintings from his iPad, and Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, and Hillary Clinton all made pleasant conversations in the Air Force One conference room. Trump is no Obama, to put it mildly. Trump’s capacity for grievance knows no limit, throwing uncertainty over whether he is willing to travel to attend Francis’ funeral. The prospect of him viewing Biden’s possible effort to attend in a positive light seems improbable. So, in an unexpected way, Pope Francis one last time is holding a mirror up to this world and forcing us to take a look at two very different Presidents who represent vastly different approaches to the job. In the incumbent, there is a figure who has little regard for anyone who dares question his infallibility. In the former, there lies a sorrowed soul who thought of the Pope as the ultimate counselor to a President who wanted advice on what doing the right thing looked like in practice. In those two pews, America’s civic religion shows itself, with Biden and Trump clearly sitting on different sides of the chapel.

“Another day, another old story,” said Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell in a statement. But while the news he was responding to on Sunday may have sounded familiar, it was in fact new. After Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Cabinet officials were revealed last month to have discussed U.S. military strikes on Yemen in a Signal chat group that mistakenly included the Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, new reports suggest Hegseth may have shared similar attack details in another chat on the same commercial messaging platform—this time, with a group that reportedly included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer. The New York Times first reported on Hegseth’s second sensitive Signal chat, citing four unnamed sources with knowledge of the chat. CNN also reported on it, citing three unnamed sources familiar with the chat, while the Associated Press confirmed the Times’ reporting, citing an anonymous source familiar with the chat’s contents and participants. Hegseth and the Trump Administration faced heavy criticism about the implications for national security after the initial leak report last month, with some Congress members even calling on the Defense Secretary to step down. The Administration and GOP allies, however, downplayed the controversy, with President Trump himself accusing critics of making “a big deal” out of his Administration’s “only glitch in two months.” “The details keep coming out,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer posted on X after the latest reports. “We keep learning how Pete Hegseth put lives at risk. But Trump is still too weak to fire him. Pete Hegseth must be fired.” Parnell, the Pentagon spokesperson who was also reportedly a member of the second chat group, insisted there was “no classified information in any Signal chat” and that the reports are evidence that the “Trump-hating media continues to be obsessed with destroying anyone committed to President Trump’s agenda.” Here’s what to know. What information was in the second Signal chat? The Times reported that some of the information in the newly revealed Signal chat group, which was named “Defense | Team Huddle,” included flight schedules for F/A-18 Hornet combat aircraft targeting the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The report described it as “essentially the same attack plans” that Hegseth had shared in the Signal group chat called “Houthi PC small group” that included top national security officials as well as the Atlantic’s Goldberg. Hegseth reportedly accessed the chat on a private phone distinct from his government-issued device. He created it to discuss “routine administrative or scheduling information,” according to two of the Times’ sources, who noted that the Defense Secretary did not typically use the chat to discuss sensitive military operations. Who was in the second Signal chat? Besides Hegseth and Parnell, the “Defense | Team Huddle” chat also reportedly included Hegseth’s younger brother Phil, who works in the Pentagon as a Department of Homeland Security senior adviser and liaison. It also reportedly included Tim Parlatore, Hegseth’s personal lawyer, whom Hegseth commissioned last month as a Navy commander in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. It’s unclear what level of security clearance Phil Hegseth or Parlatore may have, given their government roles, but Hegseth’s wife Jennifer, a former Fox News producer who was also reportedly a member of the chat, does not have an official government role. The Defense Secretary has been previously scrutinized for including his wife in sensitive meetings with foreign officials. The chat also reportedly included two former senior advisers to Hegseth: Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick. Caldwell and Selnick, along with former deputy defense secretary chief of staff Colin Carroll, were fired days earlier, ostensibly after an investigation into leaks. The three issued a statement asserting their innocence and claiming they’ve been “slandered” while maintaining that they “remain supportive of the Trump-Vance Administration’s mission to make the Pentagon great again.” The “Defense | Team Huddle” chat also reportedly included Joe Kasper, the Defense Secretary’s chief of staff who reportedly requested the leak investigation and is set to leave his post for a new role at the Pentagon amid the turmoil. Why is the Trump Administration blaming disgruntled ex-employees? Parnell, in his statement, criticized the Times “and all other Fake News that repeat their garbage” for “enthusiastically taking the grievances of disgruntled former employees as the sole sources for their article.” The Times as well as CNN and the AP did not name their sources. “They relied only on the words of people who were fired this week and appear to have a motive to sabotage the Secretary and the President’s agenda,” Parnell claimed. White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly similarly dismissed the reports, saying in a statement to the AP: “No matter how many times the legacy media tries to resurrect the same non-story, they can’t change the fact that no classified information was shared.” Kelly also blamed disgruntled ex-employees, adding: “Recently-fired ‘leakers’ are continuing to misrepresent the truth to soothe their shattered egos and undermine the President’s agenda, but the administration will continue to hold them accountable.” Hours after the Times reported on the existence of the second sensitive Signal group chat, John Ullyot, who resigned as acting Defense Department press secretary last week, published a tell-all op-ed for Politico in which he painted a portrait of “total chaos” and “disarray” at the Pentagon under Hegseth. Ullyot described Hegseth’s recent firing of Caldwell, Selnick, and Carroll—“three of his most loyal senior staffers”—as “strange and baffling” and potentially just the beginning of a broader “purge.” He also suggested that the leak allegations against the three officials were unfounded. “Unfortunately, Hegseth’s team has developed a habit of spreading flat-out, easily debunked falsehoods anonymously about their colleagues on their way out the door,” Ullyot wrote. “The dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president,” Ullyot asserted, warning that there may yet be “more shoes to drop in short order” and “even bigger bombshell stories coming this week.” Given Trump’s “strong record of holding his top officials to account,” he added, “it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer.” What are the reactions so far? The fresh news of Hegseth potentially disclosing sensitive information in another Signal chat has already prompted sharp rebuke from some Democratic lawmakers. Sen. Jack Reed (D, R.I.), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that Hegseth “must immediately explain” and urged the Defense Department’s Inspector General Office to include the latest allegations in its ongoing investigation of Hegseth’s mishandling of classified information. “If true, this incident is another troubling example of Secretary Hegseth’s reckless disregard for the laws and protocols that every other military servicemember is required to follow,” Reed said. Sen. Andy Kim. (D., N.J.) posted on X: “I’ll say it again—Hegseth needs to resign. There was more than enough from the last Signal leak to show he is not fit to lead our military.” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D, N.Y.) posted on X that Hegseth “recklessly used an unsecured app to discuss war plans with senior officials. Now we know he also shared those sensitive details with his family over Signal, even after being explicitly warned not to. Republicans must join me in calling on him to resign immediately.” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D, Ill.) also called on Hegseth to resign, posting on X: “How many times does Pete Hegseth need to leak classified intelligence before Donald Trump and Republicans understand that he isn’t only a f*cking liar, he is a threat to our national security? Every day he stays in his job is another day our troops’ lives are endangered by his singular stupidity.”