The United States is facing a significant challenge when it comes to accessing mental health care. With spotty insurance coverage and a shortage of qualified professionals, many individuals are forced to wait or seek costly alternatives. In this context, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential solution, with numerous AI-based mental health apps and chatbots available on the market.

However, there are growing concerns about the ethics of relying on AI for mental health care, particularly in children. While AI may offer a convenient and accessible way to address gaps in our system, it is essential to consider the unique needs and vulnerabilities of young people.

Children’s social development, family dynamics, and decision-making processes differ significantly from those of adults, making them more susceptible to the risks associated with AI-based mental health care. Research suggests that children may become attached to chatbots, potentially impairing their ability to form healthy relationships with others.

Moreover, AI chatbots lack access to crucial contextual information, such as a child’s social context and family dynamics, which is essential for effective mental health care. They also tend to exacerbate existing health inequities, particularly in children from marginalized communities who are already at a higher risk of experiencing adverse childhood events.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has only approved one AI-based mental health app for treating major depression in adults, highlighting the need for regulations to safeguard against misuse, lack of reporting, and inequity in training data or user access.

Experts are calling for caution when it comes to using AI chatbots for mental health care in children. Rather than advocating for a complete ban on this technology, they emphasize the importance of thoughtful consideration in its use.

Developers should be encouraged to partner with experts to better understand how AI-based therapy chatbots can be developed and used responsibly, particularly in children. This collaboration can help ensure that these tools are informed by research and engagement with children, adolescents, parents, pediatricians, or therapists, ultimately promoting more effective and equitable mental health care for all.

In conclusion, while AI has the potential to revolutionize mental health care, it is essential to approach its use with caution, particularly in children. By prioritizing thoughtful consideration and responsible development, we can harness the benefits of this technology while minimizing its risks and ensuring that every individual, regardless of age or background, receives the mental health care they deserve.

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.”

The lives of individuals living with Long COVID are marked by a constant struggle. Despite the physical symptoms that persist for weeks or even months after the initial COVID-19 infection, many people experience feelings of dismissal, disbelievement, and isolation from their healthcare providers. A recent study conducted at the University of Surrey sheds light on this phenomenon, highlighting the need for empathy and understanding in the treatment of Long COVID patients.

The study, published in the Journal of Health Psychology, involved in-depth interviews with 14 individuals who had experienced Long COVID symptoms for more than four weeks. The participants, aged between 27 to 63, shared their experiences of feeling ignored, discredited, and unsupported by healthcare providers. They reported being told that their symptoms were “all in their head” or that they needed to “get over it.” This lack of understanding led many to feel like they had to prove the physical nature of their illness, often rejecting psychological support as a result.

According to Professor Jane Ogden, co-author of the study and an expert in health psychology, the problem lies not with the patients refusing help but rather with the deep-seated need for people to be believed. When healthcare providers offer psychological support instead of medical care, it can be misinterpreted as dismissive or insulting.

The statistics are stark: 1.9 million people in the UK live with Long COVID, experiencing symptoms such as fatigue, difficulty concentrating, muscle aches, and shortness of breath. It is imperative that healthcare providers approach these patients with empathy and understanding, acknowledging the physical nature of their illness while also offering supportive care.

As Saara Petker, clinical psychologist and co-author of the study, emphasizes, “Medical advice is crucial – but psychological support must be offered with care. If it’s seen as replacing medical help, it can feel dismissive.” By listening to the experiences of Long COVID patients and addressing their concerns, healthcare providers can play a vital role in alleviating this invisible illness.