Connect with us

The Conversation

Reconstructing ancient bacterial genomes can revive previously unknown molecules – offering a potential source for new antibiotics

Published

2 years ago

on

Reconstructing ancient bacterial genomes can revive previously unknown molecules – offering a potential source for new antibiotics

Ancient DNA preserved in the tooth tartar of human fossils encodes microbial metabolites that could be the next antibiotic.
Werner/Siemens Foundation

Christina Warinner, Harvard University; Alexander Hübner, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and Pierre Stallforth, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

Microorganisms – in particular bacteria – are skillful chemists that can produce an impressive diversity of chemical compounds known as natural products. These metabolites provide the microbes major evolutionary advantages, such as allowing them to interact with one another or their environment and helping defend against different threats. Because of the diverse functions bacterial natural products have, many have been used as medical treatments such as antibiotics and anti-cancer drugs.

The microbial species alive today represent only a tiny fraction of the vast diversity of microbes that have inhabited Earth over the past 3 billion years. Exploring this microbial past presents exciting opportunities to recover some of their lost chemistry.

Directly studying these metabolites in archaeological samples is virtually impossible because of their poor preservation over time. However, reconstructing them using the genetic blueprints of long-dead microbes could provide a path forward.

We are a team of anthropologists, archaeogeneticists and biochemists who study ancient microbes. By generating previously unknown chemical compounds from the reconstructed genomes of ancient bacteria, our newly published research provides a proof of concept for the potential use of fossil microbes as a source of new drugs.

Researcher weighing tooth fossil on a scale
A single ancient tooth preserves the genomes of millions of ancient bacteria.
Felix Wey/Werner Siemens Foundation

Reconstructing ancient genomes

The cellular machinery producing bacterial natural products is encoded in genes that are typically in close proximity to one another, forming what are called biosynthetic gene clusters. Such genes are difficult to detect and reconstruct from ancient DNA because very old genetic material breaks down over time, fragmenting into thousands or even millions of pieces. The end result is numerous tiny DNA fragments less than 50 nucleotides long all mixed together like a jumbled jigsaw puzzle.

We sequenced billions of such ancient DNA fragments, then improved a bioinformatic process called de novo assembly to digitally order the ancient DNA fragments in stretches of up to 100,000 nucleotides long – a 2,000-fold improvement. This process allowed us to identify not only what genes were present, but also their order in the genome and the ways they differ from bacterial genes known today – key information to uncovering their evolutionary history and function.

This method allowed us to take an unprecedented look at the genomes of microbes living up to 100,000 years ago, including species not known to exist today. Our findings push back the previously oldest reconstructed microbial genomes by more than 90,000 years.

In the microbial genomes we reconstructed from DNA extracted from ancient tooth tartar, we found a gene cluster that was shared by a high proportion of Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans living during the Middle and Upper Paleolithic that lasted from 300,000 to 12,000 years ago. This cluster bore the molecular hallmarks of very ancient DNA and belonged to the bacterial genus Chlorobium, a group of green sulfur bacteria capable of photosynthesis.

Chemical structure of paleofurans produced using ancient microbial DNA.
These paleofurans were produced from ancient microbial DNA.
Pierre Stallforth, CC BY

We inserted a synthetic version of this gene cluster into a “modern” bacterium called Pseudomona protegens so it could produce the chemical compounds encoded in the ancient genes. Using this method, we were able to isolate two previously unknown compounds we named paleofuran A and B and determine their chemical structure. Resynthesizing these molecules in the lab from scratch confirmed their structure and allowed us to produce larger quantities for further analysis.

By reconstructing these ancient compounds, our findings highlight how archaeological samples could serve as new sources of natural products.

Mining ancient natural products

Microbes are constantly evolving and adapting to their surrounding environment. Because the environments they inhabit today differ from those of their ancestors, microbes today likely produce different natural products than ancient microbes from tens of thousands of years ago.

As recently as 25,000 to 10,000 years ago, the Earth underwent a major climate shift as it transitioned from the colder and more volatile Pleistocene Epoch to the warmer and more temperate Holocene Epoch. Human lifestyles also dramatically changed over this transition as people began living outside of caves and increasingly experimented with food production. These changes brought them into contact with different microbes through agriculture, animal husbandry and their new built environments. Studying Pleistocene-era bacteria may yield insights into bacterial species and biosynthetic genes no longer associated with humans today, and perhaps even microbes that have gone extinct.

Changes in human lifestyles changed our genomes.

While the amount of data collected by scientists on biological organisms has exponentially increased over the past few decades, the number of new antibiotics has stagnated. This is particularly problematic when bacteria are able to evade existing antibiotic treatments faster than researchers can develop new ones.

By reconstructing microbial genomes from archaeological samples, scientists can tap into the hidden diversity of natural products that would have otherwise been lost over time, increasing the number of potential sources from which they can discover new drugs.

Scaling up ancient molecules

Our study has shown that it is possible to access natural products from the past. To tap into the vast diversity of chemical compounds encoded in ancient DNA, we now need to streamline our methodology to be less labor-intensive.

We are currently optimizing and automating our process to identify biosynthetic genes in ancient DNA more quickly and reliably. We are also implementing robotic liquid handling systems to complete the time-consuming pipetting and bacterial cultivation steps in our methods. Our goal is to scale up the process to be able to translate a vast amount of data on ancient microbes into the discovery of new therapeutic agents.

Although we can recreate ancient molecules, their biological and ecological roles are difficult to decipher. Since the bacteria that originally produced these compounds no longer exist, we cannot culture or genetically manipulate them. Further study will need to rely on similar bacteria that can be found today. Whether or not the functions of these compounds have remained the same in the modern relatives of ancient microbes remains to be tested. Although the original functions of these compounds for ancient microbes may be unknown, they still have the potential to be repurposed to treat modern diseases.

Ultimately, we aim to shed new light on microbial evolution and fight the current antibiotic crisis by providing a new time axis for antibiotic discovery.The Conversation

Christina Warinner, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Harvard University; Alexander Hübner, Postdoctoral Researcher in Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and Pierre Stallforth, Professor of Bioorganic Chemistry and Paleobiotechnology, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Related Topics:

The Conversation

Pediatricians’ association recommends COVID-19 vaccines for toddlers and some older children, breaking with CDC guidance

Published

3 days ago

on

August 20, 2025

By

theconversation.com – David Higgins, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus – 2025-08-20 12:57:00


In August 2025, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued new COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children, diverging from the CDC’s guidance for the first time in 30 years. The AAP advises all children 6–23 months receive a full vaccine series and recommends a single dose for higher-risk children aged 2–18, while keeping vaccines available for others. This contrasts with the CDC’s “shared clinical decision-making” approach, which leaves vaccination decisions to families and providers. The divergence follows federal changes affecting vaccine advisory panels, raising concerns about CDC guidance credibility. Vaccine access, insurance coverage, and supply remain uncertain, potentially complicating implementation.

The AAP’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines differs substantially from that of the CDC.
Images By Tang Ming Tung/DigitalVision via Getty Images

David Higgins, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

For 30 years, vaccine recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have aligned closely with those from the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP. But on Aug. 19, 2025, the AAP published new vaccine recommendations that diverge from those of the CDC.

The pediatrician association’s move comes on the heels of unprecedented changes made earlier this year by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, in how the government approves and issues guidance on vaccines.

The biggest difference is in the AAP’s guidance around COVID-19 vaccines for children. This new guidance comes as COVID-19 cases are once again rising across the U.S. and many parents and providers are confused by unclear guidance from federal health authorities about whether children should be vaccinated.

In a Q&A with The Conversation U.S., David Higgins, a pediatrician, preventive medicine physician and vaccine delivery researcher from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, explains the new guidance and what it means for parents. Higgins is also a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist David Higgins explains the guidance in this video.

What are the AAP’s new vaccine recommendations?

The AAP recommends that all children 6 to 23 months old receive a complete COVID-19 vaccine series, consistent with recommendations for this age group in previous years.

For children and adolescents ages 2 to 18, the AAP now advises a single dose if they are at higher risk, a change from previous years, when vaccination was recommended for all in this age group. Children at higher risk include those who have certain chronic medical conditions, who live in long-term care or group settings, who have never been vaccinated, or who live with family members at high risk.

The AAP also recommends that COVID-19 vaccines remain available for any child or adolescent whose parent wants them to be protected, regardless of risk status. In all cases, the most updated version of the vaccine should be used.

How do these recommendations differ from CDC guidance?

The difference is substantial. The CDC currently advises what it calls “shared clinical decision-making” for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are not moderately or severely immunocompromised. This means the decision is left up to individual discussions between families and their health care providers, but the vaccine is not treated as a routine recommendation. These current guidelines were made after Kennedy bypassed the agency’s normal independent review process.

That framework can be confusing for families and difficult for providers to implement. By contrast, the AAP recommendations identify the ages and conditions where the risk is highest while also supporting vaccine availability for any families who want it.

Toddlers engaged in an activity at a wooden table in a classroom.
It’s not clear whether families will be able to access routine COVID-19 vaccines for children this fall.
Pancake Pictures/Connect Images via Getty Images

Why are they diverging?

The AAP has been publishing vaccine guidance since the 1930s, long before the CDC or the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, existed.

Since 1995, the two groups have generally issued essentially identical vaccine guidance. But this year, the federal government dismissed the advisory committee’s panel of independent scientists and immunization experts, raising questions about the credibility of CDC guidance. At the same time, misinformation about vaccines continues to spread.

In response, the AAP decided to publish independent recommendations based on its own review of the latest evidence. That review showed that although the risks for healthy older children have declined compared with the early years of the pandemic, young children and those with specific conditions remain especially vulnerable. Additionally, a review of evidence by an independent expert group called the Vaccine Integrity Project, also released on Aug. 19, 2025, confirmed that there are no new safety concerns and no decline in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 continues to cause hospitalizations and deaths in children and remains a leading cause of serious respiratory illness.

Will parents be able to follow these recommendations?

This is still unclear. The AAP recommendations do not automatically guarantee insurance coverage.

By law, insurance plans and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines for eligible children who might not otherwise be vaccinated due to cost or lack of insurance, are tied to Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations. Unless insurers and policymakers act to align with the AAP recommendations, there is a risk that parents would be forced to pay the costs out of pocket.

Vaccine supply may also be an issue. Currently, only two COVID-19 vaccines are available for children under 12. Moderna’s vaccine is approved only for children with at least one high-risk condition, while Pfizer’s authorization for younger children may not be renewed. If that happens, any remaining Pfizer doses for this age group may be unusable, leaving a shortfall in available vaccines for children.

Finally, implementation may differ depending on the type of provider. Some vaccine providers, such as pharmacists, operate under policies tied strictly to CDC recommendations, which may make it harder to follow AAP’s schedule unless rules are updated.

What happens next?

Parents and providers are likely to face continued confusion, just as COVID-19 cases rise as children return to school. Much will depend on whether the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices updates its own recommendations at its upcoming meeting, expected in September, and whether pediatric COVID-19 vaccines remain available.

Until then, parents can speak with their pediatricians to understand the best protection for their children.The Conversation

David Higgins, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It’s not clear whether families will be able to access routine COVID-19 vaccines for children this fall.
Pancake Pictures/Connect Images via Getty Images

Why are they diverging?

The AAP has been publishing vaccine guidance since the 1930s, long before the CDC or the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, existed.

Since 1995, the two groups have generally issued essentially identical vaccine guidance. But this year, the federal government dismissed the advisory committee’s panel of independent scientists and immunization experts, raising questions about the credibility of CDC guidance. At the same time, misinformation about vaccines continues to spread.

In response, the AAP decided to publish independent recommendations based on its own review of the latest evidence. That review showed that although the risks for healthy older children have declined compared with the early years of the pandemic, young children and those with specific conditions remain especially vulnerable. Additionally, a review of evidence by an independent expert group called the Vaccine Integrity Project, also released on Aug. 19, 2025, confirmed that there are no new safety concerns and no decline in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 continues to cause hospitalizations and deaths in children and remains a leading cause of serious respiratory illness.

Will parents be able to follow these recommendations?

This is still unclear. The AAP recommendations do not automatically guarantee insurance coverage.

By law, insurance plans and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines for eligible children who might not otherwise be vaccinated due to cost or lack of insurance, are tied to Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations. Unless insurers and policymakers act to align with the AAP recommendations, there is a risk that parents would be forced to pay the costs out of pocket.

Vaccine supply may also be an issue. Currently, only two COVID-19 vaccines are available for children under 12. Moderna’s vaccine is approved only for children with at least one high-risk condition, while Pfizer’s authorization for younger children may not be renewed. If that happens, any remaining Pfizer doses for this age group may be unusable, leaving a shortfall in available vaccines for children.

Finally, implementation may differ depending on the type of provider. Some vaccine providers, such as pharmacists, operate under policies tied strictly to CDC recommendations, which may make it harder to follow AAP’s schedule unless rules are updated.

What happens next?

Parents and providers are likely to face continued confusion, just as COVID-19 cases rise as children return to school. Much will depend on whether the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices updates its own recommendations at its upcoming meeting, expected in September, and whether pediatric COVID-19 vaccines remain available.

Until then, parents can speak with their pediatricians to understand the best protection for their children.

Read More

The post Pediatricians’ association recommends COVID-19 vaccines for toddlers and some older children, breaking with CDC guidance appeared first on theconversation.com


Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content presents information about COVID-19 vaccine recommendations with a focus on public health and scientific expertise. It highlights concerns about governmental interference in health advisory processes and underscores the importance of independent scientific review, which aligns with a perspective that trusts established medical institutions and prioritizes evidence-based policy. The piece critiques changes made under a politically controversial figure while emphasizing the pediatric community’s stance without displaying partisan rhetoric, situating it slightly left of center due to the emphasis on expert-led health guidance and skepticism toward political disruption in health agencies.

Continue Reading

The Conversation

Chaos gardening – wild beauty, or just a mess? A sustainable landscape specialist explains the trend

Published

4 days ago

on

August 19, 2025

By

theconversation.com – Deryn Davidson, Sustainable Landscape State Specialist, Extension, Colorado State University – 2025-08-19 07:35:00


Chaos gardening is a trending, informal practice of scattering mixed seeds—often leftover or wildflower mixes—onto soil with little planning, resulting in a dense, colorful garden. It appeals as a low-pressure, playful alternative to traditional garden design, which can feel intimidating and time-consuming. Success depends on some “guardrails”: choosing compatible, region-appropriate plants, prepping the site, and supporting pollinators with native flowers. However, chaos gardening isn’t ecological restoration and requires maintenance to thrive. While not a replacement for curated gardens, it can inspire novice gardeners, encouraging experimentation, connection with nature, and appreciation of biodiversity through a more intuitive gardening approach.

A mix of annuals and perennials can look colorful and carefree.
Deryn Davidson

Deryn Davidson, Colorado State University

If you’ve spent any time in the gardening corners of social media lately, you’ve likely come across a trend called “chaos gardening.”

The name alone is eye-catching – equal parts fun, rebellious and slightly alarming. Picture someone tossing random seeds into bare soil, watering once or twice, and ending up with a backyard jungle of blooms. No rows, no color coordination, no spacing charts. Just sprinkle and hope for the best.

As a sustainable landscape specialist at Colorado State University Extension, I think a lot about how to help people make designed landscapes more sustainable. Occasionally, a new trend like this one crops up claiming to be the silver bullet of gardening – supposedly it saves water, saves the bees and requires no maintenance.

But what is chaos gardening, really? And does it work? As with most viral trends, the answer is: sometimes.

What chaos gardening is and isn’t

At its core, chaos gardening is the practice of mixing a wide variety of seeds, often including leftover packets, wildflower mixes, or cut flower favorites, and scattering them over a planting area with minimal planning.

The goal is to create a dense, colorful garden that surprises you with its variety. For many, it’s a low-pressure, joyful way to experiment.

But chaos gardening isn’t the same as ecological restoration, pollinator meadow planting or native prairie establishment. Unlike chaos gardening, all of these techniques rely on careful species selection, site prep and long-term management.

Chaos gardening is a bit like making soup from everything in your pantry – it might be delicious, but there are no guarantees.

Chaos gardening’s appeal

One reason chaos gardening may be catching on is because it sidesteps the rules of garden design. A traditional landscape design approach is effective and appropriate for many settings, but it is a time investment and can feel intimidating. Design elements and principles, and matching color schemes, don’t fit everyone’s style or skill set.

A flower bed with a curved border, and curved rows of white and pink flowers, with equally spaced hedges and bushes
Organized and manicured home gardens such as this can be stressful to maintain.
Elenathewise/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Even the apparently relaxed layers of blooms and informal charm of an English cottage garden actually result from careful planning. Chaos gardening, by contrast, lets go of control. It offers a playful, forgiving entry point into growing things. In a way, chaos gardening is an antidote to the pressure of perfection, especially the kind found in highly curated, formal landscapes.

There’s also the allure of ease. People want gardening to be simple. If chaos gardening brings more people into the joy and mess of growing things, I consider that a win in itself. Broader research has found that emotional connection and accessibility are major motivators for gardening, often more than environmental impact.

When does chaos gardening work?

The best outcomes from chaos gardening happen when the chaos has a few guardrails:

  • Choose plants with similar needs. Most successful chaos gardens rely on sun-loving annuals that grow quickly and bloom prolifically, like zinnias, cosmos, marigolds, snapdragons and sunflowers. These are also excellent cut flowers to use in bouquets, which makes them doubly rewarding.

  • Consider your region. A chaos garden that thrives in Colorado might flop in North Carolina. It is beneficial to select seed mixes or individual varieties suited to your area since factors like soil type and growing season length matter. Different plants have unique needs beyond just sun and water; soil pH, cold hardiness and other conditions can make a big difference.

  • Think about pollinators. Mixing in nectar- and pollen-rich flowers native to North America, such as black-eyed Susans, bee balm or coneflowers, provides valuable resources for native bees, butterflies, moths and other local pollinators. These species benefit even more if you plan your garden with phenology – that is, nature’s calendar – in mind. By maintaining blooms from early spring through late fall, you ensure a steady food supply throughout the growing season. Plus, a diverse plant palette supports greater pollinator abundance and diversity.

  • Prep your site. Even “chaos” needs a little order. Removing weeds, loosening the top layer of soil and watering regularly, especially during germination when seeds are sprouting, will dramatically improve your results. Successful seed germination requires direct seed-to-soil contact and consistent moisture; if seeds begin to grow and then dry out, many species will not survive.

When does chaos gardening not work?

There are a few key pitfalls to chaos gardening that often get left out of the online hype:

  • Wrong plant, wrong place. If your mix includes shade-loving plants and your garden is in full sun, or drought-tolerant plants whose seeds end up in a soggy low spot, they’ll struggle to grow.

  • Invasive species and misidentified natives. Some wildflower mixes, especially inexpensive or mass-market ones, claim to be native but actually contain non-native species that can spread beyond your garden and become invasive. While many non-natives are harmless, some spread quickly and disrupt natural ecosystems. Check seed labels carefully and choose regionally appropriate native or adapted species whenever possible.

  • Soil, sun and water still matter. Gardening is always a dialogue with place. Even if you’re embracing chaos, taking notes, observing how light moves through your space, and understanding your soil type will help you know your site better, and choose appropriate plants.

  • Maintenance is still a thing. Despite the “toss and walk away” aesthetic, chaos gardens still require care. Watering, weeding and eventually cutting back or removing spent annuals are all part of the cycle.

Beyond the hashtag

Beneath the chaos gardening memes, there’s something real happening: a growing interest in a freer, more intuitive way of gardening. And that’s worth paying attention to.

Once someone has success with a zinnia or cosmos, they may be inspired to try more gardening. They might start noticing which flowers the bees are visiting in their garden. They may discover native plants and pay attention to the soil they are tending, seeing how both are part of a larger, living system. A chaotic beginning can become something deeper.

An orange and black butterfly perched on top of a flowerhead with small, pink flowers
Choosing nectar-rich flowers such as milkweed for your seed mix can help local pollinators.
Brian Woolman/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Chaos gardening might not replace the structured borders of a manicured garden or a carefully curated pollinator patch, but it might get someone new into the garden. It might lower the stakes, invite experimentation and help people see beauty in abundance rather than control.

If that’s the entry point someone needs, then let the chaos begin.The Conversation

Deryn Davidson, Sustainable Landscape State Specialist, Extension, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Organized and manicured home gardens such as this can be stressful to maintain.
Elenathewise/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Even the apparently relaxed layers of blooms and informal charm of an English cottage garden actually result from careful planning. Chaos gardening, by contrast, lets go of control. It offers a playful, forgiving entry point into growing things. In a way, chaos gardening is an antidote to the pressure of perfection, especially the kind found in highly curated, formal landscapes.

There’s also the allure of ease. People want gardening to be simple. If chaos gardening brings more people into the joy and mess of growing things, I consider that a win in itself. Broader research has found that emotional connection and accessibility are major motivators for gardening, often more than environmental impact.

When does chaos gardening work?

The best outcomes from chaos gardening happen when the chaos has a few guardrails:

  • Choose plants with similar needs. Most successful chaos gardens rely on sun-loving annuals that grow quickly and bloom prolifically, like zinnias, cosmos, marigolds, snapdragons and sunflowers. These are also excellent cut flowers to use in bouquets, which makes them doubly rewarding.

  • Consider your region. A chaos garden that thrives in Colorado might flop in North Carolina. It is beneficial to select seed mixes or individual varieties suited to your area since factors like soil type and growing season length matter. Different plants have unique needs beyond just sun and water; soil pH, cold hardiness and other conditions can make a big difference.

  • Think about pollinators. Mixing in nectar- and pollen-rich flowers native to North America, such as black-eyed Susans, bee balm or coneflowers, provides valuable resources for native bees, butterflies, moths and other local pollinators. These species benefit even more if you plan your garden with phenology – that is, nature’s calendar – in mind. By maintaining blooms from early spring through late fall, you ensure a steady food supply throughout the growing season. Plus, a diverse plant palette supports greater pollinator abundance and diversity.

  • Prep your site. Even “chaos” needs a little order. Removing weeds, loosening the top layer of soil and watering regularly, especially during germination when seeds are sprouting, will dramatically improve your results. Successful seed germination requires direct seed-to-soil contact and consistent moisture; if seeds begin to grow and then dry out, many species will not survive.

When does chaos gardening not work?

There are a few key pitfalls to chaos gardening that often get left out of the online hype:

  • Wrong plant, wrong place. If your mix includes shade-loving plants and your garden is in full sun, or drought-tolerant plants whose seeds end up in a soggy low spot, they’ll struggle to grow.

  • Invasive species and misidentified natives. Some wildflower mixes, especially inexpensive or mass-market ones, claim to be native but actually contain non-native species that can spread beyond your garden and become invasive. While many non-natives are harmless, some spread quickly and disrupt natural ecosystems. Check seed labels carefully and choose regionally appropriate native or adapted species whenever possible.

  • Soil, sun and water still matter. Gardening is always a dialogue with place. Even if you’re embracing chaos, taking notes, observing how light moves through your space, and understanding your soil type will help you know your site better, and choose appropriate plants.

  • Maintenance is still a thing. Despite the “toss and walk away” aesthetic, chaos gardens still require care. Watering, weeding and eventually cutting back or removing spent annuals are all part of the cycle.

Beyond the hashtag

Beneath the chaos gardening memes, there’s something real happening: a growing interest in a freer, more intuitive way of gardening. And that’s worth paying attention to.

Once someone has success with a zinnia or cosmos, they may be inspired to try more gardening. They might start noticing which flowers the bees are visiting in their garden. They may discover native plants and pay attention to the soil they are tending, seeing how both are part of a larger, living system. A chaotic beginning can become something deeper.

An orange and black butterfly perched on top of a flowerhead with small, pink flowers

Choosing nectar-rich flowers such as milkweed for your seed mix can help local pollinators.
Brian Woolman/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Chaos gardening might not replace the structured borders of a manicured garden or a carefully curated pollinator patch, but it might get someone new into the garden. It might lower the stakes, invite experimentation and help people see beauty in abundance rather than control.

If that’s the entry point someone needs, then let the chaos begin.

Read More

The post Chaos gardening – wild beauty, or just a mess? A sustainable landscape specialist explains the trend appeared first on theconversation.com


Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

This content focuses on gardening practices and environmental awareness without promoting any particular political ideology. It presents information in a balanced, informative manner, emphasizing sustainability and ecological considerations while avoiding partisan language or viewpoints. The article encourages accessibility and experimentation in gardening, appealing broadly without aligning with left- or right-leaning political perspectives.

Continue Reading

The Conversation

RFK Jr.’s plans to overhaul ‘vaccine court’ system would face legal and scientific challenges

Published

1 week ago

on

August 15, 2025

By

theconversation.com – Anna Kirkland, Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Michigan – 2025-08-15 07:39:00


The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), established in 1986, provides a legal process for compensating individuals harmed by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from lawsuits. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticizes the system as biased and slow, proposing reforms or dismantling it. Experts acknowledge the program needs updates, such as increasing judges, adjusting damage caps, and expanding vaccine coverage. However, significant changes face legal and political challenges. Kennedy’s suggestion to add unproven injuries like autism to the list contradicts scientific consensus and may face lawsuits. Proposals to move claims to regular courts could hinder compensation efforts and threaten vaccine supply stability.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established in 1986 by an act of Congress.
MarsBars/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Anna Kirkland, University of Michigan

For almost 40 years, people who suspect they’ve been harmed by a vaccine have been able to turn to a little-known system called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – often simply called the vaccine court.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the vaccine court, calling it “biased” against compensating people, slow and unfair. He has said that he wants to “revolutionize” or “fix” this system.

I’m a scholar of law, health and medicine. I investigated the history, politics and debates about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in my book “Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury.”

Although vaccines are extensively tested and monitored, and are both overwhelmingly safe for the vast majority of people and extremely cost-effective, some people will experience a harmful reaction to a vaccine. The vaccine court establishes a way to figure out who those people are and to provide justice to them.

Having studied the vaccine court for 15 years, I agree that it could use some fixing. But changing it dramatically will be difficult and potentially damaging to public health.

Deciphering vaccine injuries

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is essentially a process that enables doctors, lawyers, patients, parents and government officials to determine who deserves compensation for a legitimate vaccine injury.

It was established in 1986 by an act of Congress to solve a specific social problem: possible vaccine injuries to children from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. That vaccine, which was discontinued in the U.S. in the 1990s, could cause alarming side effects like prolonged crying and convulsions. Parents sued vaccine manufacturers, and some stopped producing vaccines.

Congress was worried that lawsuits would collapse the country’s vaccine supply, allowing diseases to make a comeback. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created the vaccine court process and shielded vaccine manufacturers from these lawsuits.

Here’s how it works: A person who feels they have experienced a vaccine-related injury files a claim to be heard by a legal official called a special master in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Health and Human Services secretary is named as the defendant and is represented by Department of Justice attorneys.

A syringe leaning against a gavel on a white background
Many experts agree that the vaccine compensation program could use some updates.
t_kimura via iStock / Getty Images Plus

Doctors who work for HHS evaluate the medical records and make a recommendation about whether they think the vaccine caused the person’s medical problem. Some agreed-upon vaccine injuries are listed for automatic compensation, while other outcomes that are scientifically contested go through a hearing to determine if the vaccine caused the problem.

Awards come from a trust fund, built up through a 75-cent excise tax on each dose of covered vaccine sold. Petitioners’ attorneys who specialize in vaccine injury claims are paid by the trust fund, whether they win or lose.

Some updates are needed

Much has changed in the decades since Congress wrote the law, but Congress has not enacted updates to keep up.

For instance, the law supplies only eight special masters to hear all the cases, but the caseload has risen dramatically as more vaccines have been covered by the law. It set a damages cap of US$250,000 in 1986 but did not account for inflation. The statute of limitations for an injury is three years, but in my research, I found many people file too late and miss their chance.

When the law was written, it only covered vaccines recommended for children. In 2023, the program expanded to include vaccines for pregnant women. Vaccines just for adults, like shingles, are not covered. COVID-19 vaccine claims go to another system for emergency countermeasures vaccines that has been widely criticized. These vaccines could be added to the program, as lawyers who bring claims there have advocated.

These reform ideas are “friendly amendments” with bipartisan support. Kennedy has mentioned some of them, too.

A complex system is hard to revolutionize

Kennedy hasn’t publicly stated enough details about his plan for the vaccine court to reveal the changes he intends to make. The first and least disruptive course of action would be to ask Congress to pass the bipartisan reforms noted above.

But some of his comments suggest he may seek to dismantle it, not fix it. None of his options are straightforward, however, and consequences are hard to predict.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, testifying in Congress
HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has said he plans to revolutionize the vaccine court.
Kayla Bartkowski / Staff, Getty Images News

Straight up changing the vaccine court’s structure would probably be the most difficult path. It requires Congress to amend the 1986 law that set it up and President Donald Trump to sign the legislation. Passing the bill to dismantle it requires the same process. Either direction involves all the difficulties of getting a contentious bill through Congress. Even the “friendly amendments” are hard – a 2021 bill to fix the vaccine court was introduced but failed to advance.

However, there are several less direct possibilities.

Adding autism to the injuries list

Kennedy has long supported discredited claims about harms from vaccines, but the vaccine court has been a bulwark against claims that lack mainstream scientific support. For example, the vaccine court held a yearslong court process from 2002 to 2010 and found that autism was not a vaccine injury. The autism trials drew on 50 expert reports, 939 medical articles and 28 experts testifying on the record. The special masters deciding the cases found that none of the causation hypotheses put forward to connect autism and vaccines were reliable as medical or scientific theories.

Much of Kennedy’s ire is directed at the special masters, who he claims “prioritize the solvency” of the system “over their duty to compensate victims.” But the special masters do not work for him. Rather, they are appointed by a majority of the judges in the Court of Federal Claims for four-year terms – and those judges themselves have 15-year terms. Kennedy cannot legally remove any of them in the middle of their service to install new judges who share his views.

Given that, he may seek to put conditions like autism on the list of presumed vaccine injuries, in effect overturning the special masters’ decisions. Revising the list of recognized injuries to add ones without medical evidence is within Kennedy’s powers, but it would still be difficult. It requires a long administrative process with feedback from an advisory committee and the public. Such revisions have historically been controversial, and are usually linked to major scientific reviews of their validity.

Public health and medical groups are already mobilized against Kennedy’s vaccine policy moves. If he failed to follow legally required procedures while adding new injuries to the list, he could be sued to stop the changes.

Targeting vaccine manufacturers

Kennedy could also lean on his newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to withdraw recommendations for certain vaccines, which would also remove them from eligibility in the vaccine compensation court. Lawsuits against manufacturers could then go straight to regular courts. On Aug. 14, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services may have taken a step in this direction by announcing the revival of a childhood vaccine safety task force in response to a lawsuit by anti-vaccine activists.

Kennedy has also supported legislation that would allow claims currently heard in vaccine court to go to regular courts. These drastic reforms could essentially dismantle the vaccine court.

People claiming vaccine injuries could hope to win damages through personal injury lawsuits in the civil justice system instead of vaccine court, perhaps by convincing a jury or getting a settlement. These types of settlements were what prompted the creation of the vaccine court in the first place. But these lawsuits could be hard to win. There is a higher bar for scientific evidence in regular courts than in vaccine court, and plaintiffs would have to sue large corporations rather than file a government claim.

Raising the idea of reforming the vaccine court has provoked strong reactions across the many groups with a stake in the program. It is a complex system with multiple constituents, and Kennedy’s approaches so far pull in different directions. The push to revolutionize it will test the strength of its complex design, but the vaccine court may yet hold up.The Conversation

Anna Kirkland, Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post RFK Jr.’s plans to overhaul ‘vaccine court’ system would face legal and scientific challenges appeared first on theconversation.com


Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The content presents a fact-based, nuanced analysis of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s criticisms and proposed reforms. It acknowledges the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, aligns with mainstream scientific consensus, and highlights bipartisan efforts for reform. While it critiques Kennedy’s more controversial positions, especially regarding discredited vaccine-autism links, it does so with measured language and provides context on legal and public health complexities. Overall, the article leans slightly left by supporting established science and public health perspectives but remains balanced and informative without strong partisan rhetoric.

Continue Reading

Trending