A new study by a team of anthropologists has shed light on the mysterious migration routes of Neanderthals across Eurasia. Using computer simulations, researchers Emily Coco and Radu Iovita have created a map of possible pathways that suggest these ancient humans traveled approximately 2,000 miles (3,250 km) in less than 2,000 years.

The study reveals that Neanderthals likely used river valleys as natural highways to traverse the vast distances between Eastern Europe and Central Eurasia. The researchers considered factors such as terrain elevation, reconstructed ancient rivers, glacial barriers, and temperature when modeling the movement decisions of individual Neanderthals.

Two ancient periods were identified as prime migration windows: Marine Isotope Stage 5e (MIS 5e), beginning approximately 125,000 years ago, and Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3), starting around 60,000 years ago. Both periods featured warmer temperatures, making it easier for Neanderthals to move across the landscape.

Computer simulations conducted on the NYU Greene Supercomputer Cluster indicated that Neanderthals could have reached the Siberian Altai Mountains within 2,000 years during either MIS 5e or MIS 3 by following multiple possible routes. These routes often intersected with known archaeological sites from the same time periods, providing a tangible link to the past.

The study provides important insights into Neanderthal interactions with other ancient human groups. The researchers note that their migration routes would have taken them into areas already occupied by Denisovans, consistent with existing evidence of interbreeding between the two species.

According to Iovita, “Neanderthals could have migrated thousands of kilometers from the Caucasus Mountains to Siberia in just 2,000 years by following river corridors.” This finding highlights the adaptability and resilience of these ancient humans, who were able to navigate challenging landscapes and establish themselves across vast distances.

As humans increasingly engage with artificial intelligence (AI), researchers have sought to understand the intricacies of human-AI relationships. While trust and companionship are well-studied aspects of these interactions, the role of attachment and emotional experiences remains unclear. A groundbreaking study by Waseda University researchers has shed new light on this topic, introducing a novel self-report scale to measure attachment-related tendencies toward AI.

In an effort to better grasp human-AI relationships, researchers Fan Yang and Atsushi Oshio from the Faculty of Letters, Arts and Sciences, conducted two pilot studies and one formal study. Their findings, published in Current Psychology, reveal that people form emotional bonds with AI, similar to those experienced in human interpersonal connections.

The researchers developed the Experiences in Human-AI Relationships Scale (EHARS), a self-report measure designed to assess attachment-related tendencies toward AI. The results showed that nearly 75% of participants turned to AI for advice, while about 39% perceived AI as a constant, dependable presence.

Interestingly, the study differentiated two dimensions of human attachment to AI: anxiety and avoidance. Individuals with high attachment anxiety toward AI need emotional reassurance and harbor a fear of receiving inadequate responses from AI. Conversely, those with high attachment avoidance toward AI are characterized by discomfort with closeness and a consequent preference for emotional distance from AI.

The implications of this research extend beyond the realm of human-AI relationships. The proposed EHARS can be used by developers or psychologists to assess how people relate to AI emotionally and adjust interaction strategies accordingly. This could lead to more empathetic responses in therapy apps, loneliness interventions, or caregiver robots.

Moreover, the findings suggest a need for transparency in AI systems that simulate emotional relationships, such as romantic AI apps or caregiver robots, to prevent emotional overdependence or manipulation.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into everyday life, people may begin to seek not only information but also emotional support from AI systems. The research highlights the psychological dynamics behind these interactions and offers tools to assess emotional tendencies toward AI, promoting a better understanding of how humans connect with technology on a societal level. This, in turn, can guide policy and design practices that prioritize psychological well-being.

As scientists, we often find ourselves at the forefront of groundbreaking discoveries that have far-reaching implications for society. However, when our work is misused to serve political agendas, it’s essential that we speak up and hold ourselves accountable. That’s why biology Professor Mark Peifer from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill argues that eugenics should be included in college genetics curriculums.

In his opinion paper published in Trends in Genetics, Peifer makes a compelling case for why understanding the history of eugenics is critical for up-and-coming scientists. He reminds us that eugenics is not dead but continues to influence science and policy today. By incorporating discussions on eugenics into our undergraduate classes, we can empower students to critically evaluate the misuse of science and speak out against it.

Peifer’s approach in his molecular genetics course provides a powerful example of how this can be done effectively. He led his students through the history of eugenics, from its origins as a term coined in 1883 to describe planned breeding for “racial improvement,” to its global popularity during the 20th century and the horrific consequences that followed, including forced sterilization, racist immigration policies, and genocide in Nazi Germany.

The class also covered how some founding fathers of genetics and molecular biology, like James Watson, championed eugenics scientifically. This is a crucial part of the narrative, as it highlights the tension between scientific progress and societal responsibility. As Peifer writes, “Science provides technology, but society decides how to use it.”

To illustrate the relevance of eugenics in today’s world, Peifer ended the class by asking his students to discuss a series of questions surrounding in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo screening: Should we allow IVF? Should we allow embryo screening for cystic fibrosis? Should we allow screening for chromosomal sex? Should we allow screening for height?

These questions are not only thought-provoking but also deeply personal, as they touch on issues that many of us will face at some point in our lives. By encouraging students to engage with these complex topics, Peifer is providing them with the critical thinking skills and moral compass needed to navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of genetic science.

As Peifer notes, “Some might argue that with all the complex topics to cover, we don’t have time for a historical discussion with political overtones on our syllabi.” However, he counters that understanding the history of eugenics is essential for up-and-coming scientists, as it helps them develop a nuanced perspective on the ethics and responsibilities that come with scientific progress.

In conclusion, incorporating discussions on eugenics into college genetics curriculums can have a profound impact on students’ understanding of their role in society. By teaching this complex topic, we can empower them to think critically about the consequences of science and technology, and to make informed decisions about their own lives and the world around them. As Peifer writes, “Our students will also be citizens and will help friends and family navigate complex decisions with science at their base.”