Research published a few days ago in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found a considerable and hitherto unknown degree of micro- and nanoplastic contamination in human arteries. It was a bit of a surprise that NEJM accepted the paper, as it usually publishes little on the environmental causes of human disease. The good thing is that the publication makes visible, legitimises, stirs up and will encourage other similar work.
 

In a recent publication, we discovered that efforts to monitor genetic diversity in Europe are incomplete and need to be extended to account for potential climate change impacts on species of conservation interest.

Yes, I claim that we can believe that praying works. There are a number of artefacts, let's call them traps or biases, that make it easier for us to do so. I will introduce them with the help of a joking example that serves to explain how a scientific study should be designed to be rigorous, but also to understand what limitations we should look for when reading a paper.

On the eve of an episode of unusually high temperatures for this time of year, it is time to take stock of the summer we have experienced, characterised by a succession of extreme weather phenomena in the form of heat waves, drought and torrential rains. The seriousness and complexity of these problems and their repercussions in many areas, especially on health, make it urgent to set up the Health and Climate Change Observatory approved last July, with a stable and independent structure.

There are no criminal offences to punish synthetic pornography, plus we lack sufficient means to carry out forensic examinations of victims' and perpetrators' phones and staff to process these cases quickly. The law could limit these AI tools to professional and virtuous environments, only by known developers, and for products whose purposes don't violate public order or privacy, and aren't criminal; such measures would be more than enough.

Meteorological models have improved significantly in recent decades, but they will never be one hundred percent accurate. Knowing how to communicate uncertainty and not fueling citizens' mistrust in the reliability of predictions is important to avoid sowing doubts about alert systems for upcoming emergencies, such as the DANA that affected Spain in recent days.

Nearly half of the world's population is at risk from dengue fever. Diagnosed cases have increased eightfold in the last decade, a rise fuelled by global warming. August 26 marks the International Day against this disease endemic in more than 100 tropical and subtropical countries, which is beginning to affect new areas, including Europe.

Counting deaths attributable to the effects of high temperatures is basic as a public health surveillance tool, but it should not become the only research objective. It is necessary to know why the population in some places adapts better than others to heat waves, what variables influence them, and to modify them when possible.

With the prolonged meteorological drought we find ourselves in, we are focusing too much on climate as its cause, while there is a lack of debate about the real problem: chronic water demand. It is necessary to rethink consumption models with all the actors of society and the competent administrations. A future adapted to climate change must address drought by prioritizing the restoration of our water systems and questioning the current development model.

Today it is difficult to see science policies that do not mention citizen science or citizen participation in science. On World Mosquito Day, which is celebrated on August 20, we analyze what has been achieved by the Mosquito Alert project, based on citizen science and which the Ministry of Health has supported this summer within the framework of the National Plan for Disease Prevention, Surveillance and Control Transmitted by Vectors.