17 minutes agoShareSaveEleanor LawrieSocial affairs reporterShareSaveBBC

Researchers studied data from a million people and found evidence that a height gene shared by both sexes is amplified in men.Men are taller than women, by an average of about five inches. But why? It’s not a genetic inevitability — there are many species in the tree of life where females outclass males.A new study, published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that involved genetic data from a million people, has found a partial explanation.It involves a gene called SHOX, which is known to be associated with height. SHOX is present on both the X chromosome — females have two X chromosomes — and the Y chromosome; males have one X and one Y.The researchers suspected that SHOX might explain differences in male and female height, but there was a problem with that hypothesis. Since SHOX is on both the X and Y chromosomes, it would need to have a different effect on each chromosome.Does it, the researchers asked?To investigate the hypothesis, they asked if an extra Y chromosome boosted a person’s height more than an extra X chromosome.There are rare conditions in which people are born with an extra X or an extra Y, or have a missing X or Y. To find people with these conditions, researchers plumbed data from three biobanks, or repositories of deidentified genetic and medical data from individuals. One biobank was from Britain, and the other two were from the United States.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Some of the sunscreen you slather on this summer will end up in lakes, streams or the ocean, even if you don’t go swimming. And a growing body of evidence suggests that ultraviolet filters, the active ingredients in sunscreens, can harm creatures that live in the water.Some products are marketed as “reef safe” or friendly to aquatic life. But has that been proved? We talked to a dermatologist, several ecologists and toxicologists, and a chemical engineer to find out the best way to protect your skin and the environment, too.Your sunscreen optionsThere are two kinds of UV filters in sunscreens on the market today.Mineral sunscreens create a physical barrier on your skin that reflects UV rays like a mirror, while chemical sunscreens are absorbed into the skin and convert the UV radiation into harmless heat. (Chemical sunscreens are also sometimes labeled “organic,” but that’s a chemistry term, not a claim of environmental friendliness.)Any sunscreen you apply will eventually end up in water. Researchers estimate that between 25 and 50 percent of sunscreen comes off during a dip. The rest goes down the drain when you shower or enters the wastewater system through the laundry when you wash your beach towels.Most standard treatment plants aren’t effective at removing trace levels of UV filters from wastewater, said Dunia Santiago, a chemical engineer at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in Spain who studies how treatment plants process contaminants. That means the chemicals are still in the water that flows out of the plant and into the world.And, since many UV filters don’t biodegrade well, levels can build up over time in the environment, floating around, settling into sediment and being eaten by animals, especially in shallow areas popular with swimmers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The administration is not only allowing more greenhouse gases. It is undermining the nation’s ability to understand and respond to a hotter planet.When the Trump administration declared two weeks ago that it would largely disregard the economic cost of climate change as it sets policies and regulations, it was just the latest step in a multipronged effort to erase global warming from the American agenda.But President Trump is doing more than just turning a blind eye to the fact that the planet is growing hotter. He is weakening the country’s capacity to understand global warming and to prepare for its consequences.The administration has dismantled climate research, firing some of the nation’s top scientists, and gutted efforts to chart how fast greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere and what that means for the economy, employment, agriculture, health and other aspects of American society. The government will no longer track major sources of greenhouse gases, data that has been used to measure the scale and identify sources of the problem for the past 15 years.“We’re not doing that climate change, you know, crud, anymore,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told Fox Business on May 8.By getting rid of data, the administration is trying to halt the national discussion about how to deal with global warming, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The notion of there being any shared factual reality just seems to be completely out the window,” he said.At the same time, through cuts to the National Weather Service and by denying disaster relief through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the administration has weakened the country’s ability to prepare for and recover from hurricanes, wildfires, droughts and other extreme weather that is being made worse by climate change.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

33 minutes agoShareSaveYang Tian and James ChaterBBC NewsShareSaveReutersFormer US President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones.Biden received the news on Friday after he saw a doctor last week for urinary symptoms.Here’s what you need to know about prostate cancer and its treatment options.What is prostate cancer?Prostate cancer affects tissue of the prostate gland, the part of the male reproductive system that helps make semen. It is located between the penis and the bladder.According to the NHS, it usually develops slowly, so it can often grow unnoticed for years. That means some people can live for decades without needing treatment. But it also means symptoms often don’t appear until the cancer is already advanced.Biden was diagnosed following urinary symptoms, one of the most common signs of prostate cancer. That’s because it is often detected only when the prostate is big enough to have impacted the urethra, the tube that connects the bladder to the penis.Those symptoms can include needing to urinate more frequently, as well as a slow or weak urinary stream.Screening for prostate cancer is part of routine presidential health inspections, according to Dr Jeffrey Kuhlman, former White House doctor under President Barack Obama.Prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death in American men, according to the American Cancer Society, behind lung cancer.There will be more than 300,000 new cases in the US this year, according to projections by the American Cancer Society. About one in 8 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime.While it is “not uncommon” for men in their 80s to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, the grade and stage of Biden’s cancer are “more advanced than most men would encounter” at diagnosis, Dr Ryan Cleary, urologist at MedStar Health, told the BBC.What is the Gleason score? The former president’s prostate cancer is “characterised by a Gleason score of 9”, his office said in the statement announcing his diagnosis.The Gleason score is the most common way of grading how likely the disease will advance and spread – also known as metastatic cancer.Specifically, it refers to how abnormal the cancer cells look in a sample under a microscope. The scale runs from six to 10, with a higher number indicating a more aggressive cancer.The scale starts at six because it is calculated by combining the two most common patterns of cancer cells found in a patient. The lowest score assigned to cancerous cells is three. That’s why the lowest Gleason score for a cancer diagnosis is six.A Gleason score of nine, such as Biden’s, means it is a “high-grade cancer”. Cancer cells with a score of nine look very abnormal and are likely to grow quickly.What are Biden’s treatment options?In Biden’s case, the cancer is aggressive in nature and has already spread to his bones.According to Dr Jamin Vinod Brahmbhatt, a urologist at Orlando Health Medical Group, this level of spread does limit the treatment options.While there are medical based treatments such as chemotherapy, steroids and hormone therapy available, none of them are “curative”, he said.”There are more medical options to stabilise the patient and control the cancer, but it never gets rid of the cancer completely.”Biden’s cancer is also said to be hormone sensitive, which means the cancer uses hormones to grow or develop.These types of cancers can be managed by drugs that block or lower the amount of hormones in the body.Dr Brahmbhatt said while this “opens up the toolkit” of treatment options for Biden, it was going to take “weeks or months” to see how he responds.Dr Kuhlman said Biden could also have the option of entering “clinical trials for advanced disease” if he meets the inclusion criteria.Biden and his family are said to be reviewing treatment options.What is his prognosis?In Sunday’s statement, Biden’s office said since the cancer appeared to be hormone-sensitive, that “allows for effective management”.The full details of Biden’s case is not known. Dr Cleary said: “Generally about a third of patients will still be alive after five years of metastatic prostate cancer.”Advanced stages of prostate cancer can limit a person’s lifespan and lead to symptoms that make daily life harder.Dr Kuhlman describes “10 to 15 years of function” when looking at aggressive cancer treatments and said it was important to consider treatments that maintain Biden’s quality of life in the next few years.”If there’s any inspiration in this, it is to go and get yourself checked out whether you have symptoms or not,” Dr Brahmbhatt said.

The cancer has metastasized to the bone, according to a statement from Mr. Biden’s personal office.Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was diagnosed on Friday with an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones, his office said in a statement on Sunday.The diagnosis came after Mr. Biden reported urinary symptoms, which led doctors to find a “small nodule” on his prostate. Mr. Biden’s cancer is “characterized by a Gleason score of 9” with “metastasis to the bone,” the statement said.The Gleason score is used to describe how prostate cancers look under a microscope; 9 and 10 are the most aggressive. The cancer is Stage 4, which means it has spread.“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,” according to the statement from Mr. Biden’s office, which was unsigned. “The president and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”Mr. Biden, 82, left office in January as the oldest-serving president in American history. Throughout his presidency, Mr. Biden faced questions about his age and his health, ultimately leading him to abandon his re-election campaign under pressure from his own party.Prostate cancer experts say that Mr. Biden’s diagnosis is serious, and that once the cancer has spread to the bones — where it tends to go — it cannot be cured. But Dr. Judd Moul, a prostate cancer expert at Duke University, said men whose prostate cancer has spread “can live five, seven, 10 or more years.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

While prognoses for prostate cancer patients were once measured in months, experts say that advances in treatment and diagnosis now improve survival by years.Prostate cancer experts say that former President Joseph R. Biden’s diagnosis is serious. Announced on Sunday by his office, the cancer has spread to his bones. And it is Stage 4, the most deadly of stages for the illness. It cannot be cured.But the good news, prostate cancer specialists said, is that recent advances in diagnosing and treating prostate cancer — based in large part on research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Defense Department — have changed what was once an exceedingly grim picture for men with advanced disease.“Life is measured in years now, not months,” said Dr. Daniel W. Lin, a prostate cancer specialist at the University of Washington.Dr. Judd Moul, a prostate cancer expert at Duke University, said that men whose prostate cancer has spread to their bones, “can live 5, 7, 10 or more years” with current treatments. A man like Mr. Biden, in his 80s, “could hopefully pass away from natural causes and not from prostate cancer,” he said.Mr. Biden’s office said the former president had urinary symptoms, which led him to seek medical attention.But, Dr. Lin said, “I highly doubt his symptoms were due to cancer.”Instead, he said, the most likely scenario is that a doctor did an exam, noticed a nodule on Mr. Biden’s prostate and did a blood test, the prostate-specific antigen test. The PSA test looks for a protein released by cancer cells, and can be followed up by an M.R.I. The blood test and the M.R.I. would have pointed to the cancer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

GPs in England are to help the NHS find more undiagnosed patients affected by the contaminated blood scandal.It is thought thousands of people could have been exposed to the hepatitis C virus through contaminated blood transfusions in the 1970s, 80s and 90s; part of a scandal which affected more than 30,000 people in the UK.From June, patients signing up to a GP practice, who received a blood transfusion before 1996, will be offered a test for hepatitis C.The BBC revealed the scale of undiagnosed cases last year, as people with life-threatening liver damage caused by the virus over many years continue to be identified.Hepatitis C can now be treated by modern anti-viral drugs to eliminate the virus for most patients.But if it goes undetected and undiagnosed there may not be any noticeable symptoms for some time and it can infect the liver and cause serious damage, leaving the organ beyond repair.Maureen Arkley, who died last year, was diagnosed with hepatitis C and cirrhosis of the liver in 2023, more than 40 years after she had an operation involving multiple blood transfusions. These were on her medical records but she was not told by her GP or anyone in the NHS that she could have been exposed to the virus.BBC News highlighted her case as one of many people let down by the lack of testing following the infected blood scandal.It is one of the biggest treatment disasters in NHS history – 3,000 people who were infected with HIV and hepatitis C after being given contaminated blood products have died.Many of the victims were haemophiliacs, who were given infected blood products as part of their treatment.Many thousands more were given transfusions using contaminated blood after accidents, emergencies or childbirth.Maureen died in February 2024, five months after her diagnosis and 47 years after a blood transfusion infected her. “The end was utterly horrific, she weighed less than four stone when she died,” her daughter Victoria told the BBC.NHS England says around 400,000 people each year, born before 1996, will be asked if they have ever had a blood transfusion through the online GP registration form.This was a move recommended in the Infected Blood Inquiry report, published in May 2024.If a previous blood transfusion is confirmed, patients will be able to test themselves for hepatitis C at home, using a finger prick blood test which is then posted to a lab for analysis.Tests can also be carried out at GP surgeries, sexual health clinics and other places, NHS England says.The charity Hepatitis C Trust is also encouraging anyone who had a blood transfusion before 1996, including current GP patients, to get tested.”Every two weeks we hear from someone infected with hepatitis C through a transfusion who is only now finding out,” said the charity’s chief executive, Rachel Halford.”All of these people have had hepatitis C for more than three decades; some are very ill. A more proactive approach is critical to reaching and diagnosing those who remain unaware of their infection.”NHS England medical director Prof Stephen Powis said the “simple change” to the GP registration process was “a vital step forward” to ensure nobody affected by contaminated blood is “undiagnosed and unsupported”.”The failures of the contaminated blood scandal have had a horrifying impact for patients and their families for decades, and I would like to reiterate our deepest apologies for the role the health service played in the suffering and loss for so many,” he added.Health officials say the risk of getting an infection from a blood transfusion or from blood products since screening of blood donations was introduced, is very low.All blood donations have been screened for HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C since September 1991.

The voluntary recall was prompted after routine testing. It is the second such recall recently of baby food over possible lead contamination.One of the nation’s largest supermarket chains has voluntarily recalled pouches of baby food sold in its stores after routine testing found it may be contaminated with lead, according to the company.In a May 9 statement, the supermarket chain, Publix, said that a batch of GreenWise Pear, Kiwi, Spinach & Pea Baby Food it was selling had “the potential to be contaminated with elevated levels of lead.”“As part of our commitment to food safety, potentially impacted products have been removed from all store shelves,” Maria Brous, a Publix representative, said in a statement, adding that no illness had been reported.Publix said the recall was “initiated as a result of routine sampling,” though it was unclear who did the sampling. The maker of the product, Bowman Andros, could not be reached for comment on Sunday. The Food and Drug Administration was notified of the recall.Publix, which operates about 1,400 stores in eight states, did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday.The company did not disclose how many units were affected or whether the recalled product was distributed across all of its stores.The F.D.A. maintains a public database that tracks recalls and safety alerts but it did not have additional information about this recall.Lead exposure can be especially harmful to infants and young children, potentially leading to developmental delays and other long-term health effects, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.“Lead is extremely harmful to children younger than 6 years, and no safe blood lead level has been identified,” according to the C.D.C. website.This is the second recall in recent months involving baby food and possible lead contamination.In March, Target voluntarily pulled its Good & Gather Baby Pea, Zucchini, Kale & Thyme Vegetable Purée from stores over concerns about elevated lead levels. That recall involved about 25,600 units.“We require our suppliers to comply with all applicable food safety standards and federal, state and local regulations,” a Target representative said in a statement. “This recall involved a limited amount of product, which we took immediate action to remove from our shelves.”Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports, said on Sunday that awareness of the issue of lead in children’s food had grown in recent years as testing had expanded and cases nationwide increased.He noted that no amount of lead exposure was considered safe for children.“I hope these two incidents are an indicator that the industry is doing a lot more testing in this area than what they were doing before,” Mr. Ronholm said.

Surgeons in Southern California have performed the first human bladder transplant, introducing a new, potentially life-changing procedure for people with debilitating bladder conditions.The operation was performed earlier this month by a pair of surgeons from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Southern California on a 41-year-old man who had lost much of his bladder capacity from treatments for a rare form of bladder cancer.“I was a ticking time bomb,” the patient, Oscar Larrainzar, said on Thursday during a follow-up appointment with his doctors. “But now I have hope.”The doctors plan to perform bladder transplants in four more patients as part of a clinical trial to get a sense of outcomes like bladder capacity and graft complications before pursuing a larger trial to expand its use.Dr. Inderbir Gill, who performed the surgery along with Dr. Nima Nassiri, called it “the realization of a dream” for treating thousands of patients with crippling pelvic pain, inflammation and recurrent infections.“There is no question: A potential door has been opened for these people that did not exist earlier,” said Dr. Gill, the chairman of the urology department at U.S.C.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.