Carol Mathews, University of Florida

Obsessive compulsive disorder has many unknowns, including what causes it, why symptoms can differ so much between people, how medication and therapy for it actually work, and why treatment is effective for some people and not for others. In our newly published research, my colleagues and I made a step toward unraveling some of these mysteries by shedding light on the genetics of OCD.

Obsessive compulsive disorder is one of the most impairing illnesses worldwide. Affecting about 1 in 50 people globally, OCD is among the top 10 causes of years lost to disability, leading to harmful effects on a person’s ability to work and function in the world and on their family.

Compared with people without OCD, a person with the condition has a 30% higher chance of dying prematurely from natural causes, such as infections or other illnesses, and a 300% higher chance of dying early from nonnatural causes, such as accidents or suicide.

People with OCD experience obsessions – disturbing, recurrent and unwanted thoughts, fears or mental images – and compulsions, such as repetitive behaviors and rituals performed to ease the anxiety usually caused by obsessions. For example, someone might wash their hands dozens of times or in a specific way to get rid of germs, even if they know it’s excessive or illogical. Avoiding certain places or situations to reduce anxiety or prevent triggering obsessions and compulsions is also common.

While the exact causes of OCD are unclear, researchers know that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in its development. OCD can run in families; studies attribute between 40% to 65% of OCD cases to genetic factors. OCD that begins in childhood has a stronger genetic influence than OCD that begins in adulthood.

But unlike some genetic diseases caused by a single faulty gene, such as cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s disease, OCD is influenced by hundreds to thousands of genes that each play a small part in disease risk.

My colleagues and I analyzed the DNA of over 53,000 people with OCD and over 2 million people without OCD, the largest study of this kind for this condition. We discovered hundreds of genetic markers potentially linked to OCD – data we hope will ultimately lead to improved ways of identifying people who are at risk for OCD and, down the line, to better treatments.

How scientists study OCD genetics

To find the genes involved in OCD risk, researchers use a method called a genome-wide association study, or GWAS. These studies compare the DNA of tens to hundreds of thousands of people with a disease of interest with the DNA of people without the disease, looking for tiny differences in the genetic material. These genetic markers may be linked to OCD or indicate the presence of other genes linked to the disease.

In a GWAS, scientists carefully test each of the millions of genetic markers across the genome to identify those found more often in people with OCD than in people without OCD. They then determine which genes those markers are associated with, where in the body they are active and how they might contribute to the condition.

We identified 30 areas in the genome linked to OCD, containing 249 genes of interest in total. Of those, 25 genes stood out as likely contributors to the development of OCD.

The top three genes we found are also linked to other brain disorders such as depression, epilepsy and schizophrenia. Several other genes of interest for OCD were found in a region of the genome that plays a role in adaptive immunity and has been associated with other psychiatric disorders.

Importantly, no single gene can predict or cause OCD on its own. Previous genetic studies have demonstrated that genes across all of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in people may contribute to OCD risk.

Genetic insights into OCD

Because the contribution of each genetic marker or gene to disease susceptibility is very small, GWAS are not useful for identifying genes that cause OCD for a given person. Rather, this kind of research helps scientists understand how the brain works in people with OCD and whether OCD shares genetic roots with conditions that commonly occur alongside it.

For example, the genetic markers we found to be associated with OCD were highly active in several brain regions known to play a role in development of the condition. These brain areas are collectively involved in planning, decision-making, motivation, error detection, emotion regulation, and fear and anxiety, all of which can malfunction in OCD.

We also found associations with a brain region called the hypothalamus, which converts emotions such as fear, anger, anxiety or excitement into physical responses. The hypothalamus has not been directly linked to OCD before, but it is part of a network of brain regions that may contribute to its symptoms.

Additionally, we found that certain types of brain cells – particularly medium spiny neurons in a brain region called the striatum – were strongly linked to the OCD genes we identified. Medium spiny neurons play an important role in habit formation, the process by which a behavior becomes automatic and habitual – think compulsions. Specific receptors on medium spiny neurons are common targets for medications that are sometimes used to help treat OCD.

The results of our study can help researchers better understand the relationships between OCD and other conditions. We found genetic links between OCD and several other psychiatric disorders, especially anxiety, depression, anorexia and Tourette syndrome. People with OCD also showed lower genetic risk for conditions such as alcohol dependence and risk-taking behavior, aligning with what doctors see in clinics: Many people with OCD tend to be cautious and avoid risks.

Surprisingly, we also found genetic overlaps between OCD immune-related conditions. While having OCD appears to be linked to an increased risk of asthma and migraines, it may also be linked to a reduced risk of inflammatory bowel disease. These findings may lead to new insights about the role the immune system and inflammation play in brain health.

More effective OCD treatment

OCD is a complex disorder that can look very different from person to person. Understanding the genetic and biological factors behind OCD helps researchers move closer to better diagnosis, treatment and possibly even prevention.

As a practicing psychiatrist and researcher, I have spent my career working to understand the causes of OCD and to improve the lives of those who live with the condition. With larger studies and continued research, my team and I hope to better match specific biological patterns to individual symptoms.

In time, this could lead to more personalized and effective treatments – improving the lives of millions of people living with OCD around the world.

Carol Mathews, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Florida

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

Deidre Popovich, Texas Tech University

Knowing the calorie content of foods does not help people understand which foods are healthier, according to a study I recently co-authored in the Journal of Retailing. When study participants considered calorie information, they rated unhealthy food as less unhealthy and healthy food as less healthy. They were also less sure in their judgments.

In other words, calorie labeling didn’t help participants judge foods more accurately. It made them second-guess themselves.

Across nine experiments with over 2,000 participants, my colleague and I tested how people use calorie information to evaluate food. For example, participants viewed food items that are generally deemed healthier, such as a salad, or ones that tend to be less healthy, such as a cheeseburger, and were asked to rate how healthy each item was. When people did not consider calorie information, participants correctly saw a big gap between the healthy and unhealthy foods. But when they considered calorie information, those judgments became more moderate.

In another experiment in the study, we found that asking people to estimate the calorie content of food items reduced self-reported confidence in their ability to judge how healthy those foods were − and that drop in confidence is what led them to rate these food items more moderately. We observed this effect for calories but not for other nutrition metrics such as fat or carbohydrates, which consumers tend to view as less familiar.

This pattern repeated across our experiments. Instead of helping people sharpen their evaluations, calorie information seemed to create what researchers call metacognitive uncertainty, or a feeling of “I thought I understood this, but now I’m not so sure.” When people aren’t confident in their understanding, they tend to avoid extreme judgments.

Because people see calorie information so often, they believe they know how to use it effectively. But these findings suggest that the very familiarity of calorie counts can backfire, creating a false sense of understanding that leads to more confusion, not less. My co-author and I call this the illusion of calorie fluency. When people are asked to judge how healthy a food item is based on calorie data, that confidence quickly unravels and their healthiness judgments become less accurate.

Why it matters

These findings have important implications for public health and for the businesses that are investing in calorie transparency. Public health policies assume that providing calorie information will drive more informed choices. But our research suggests that visibility isn’t enough – and that calorie information alone may not help. In some cases, it might even lead people to make less healthy choices.

This does not mean that calorie information should be removed. Rather, it needs to be supported with more context and clarity. One possible approach is pairing calorie numbers with decision aids such as a traffic light indicator or an overall nutrition score, which both exist in some European countries. Alternatively, calorie information about an item could be accompanied by clear reference points explaining how much of a person’s recommended daily calories it contains – though this may be challenging because of how widely daily calorie needs vary.

Our study highlights a broader issue in health communication: Just because information is available doesn’t mean it’s useful. Realizing that calorie information can seem easier to understand than it actually is can help consumers make more informed, confident decisions about what they eat.

What still isn’t known

In our studies, we found that calorie information is especially prone to creating an illusion of understanding. But key questions remain.

For example, researchers don’t yet know how this illusion interacts with the growing use of health and wellness apps, personalized nutrition tools or AI-based food recommendations. Future research could look at whether these tools actually help people feel more sure of their choices – or just make them feel confident without truly understanding the information.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Deidre Popovich, Associate Professor of Marketing, Texas Tech University

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

Michelle L.D. Hanlon, University of Mississippi

April 2025 was a busy month for space.

Pop icon Katy Perry joined five other civilian women on a quick jaunt to the edge of space, making headlines. Meanwhile, another group of people at the United Nations was contemplating a critical issue for the future of space exploration: the discovery, extraction and utilization of natural resources on the Moon.

At the end of April, a dedicated Working Group of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space released a draft set of recommended principles for space resource activities. Essentially, these are rules to govern mining on the Moon, asteroids and elsewhere in space for elements that are rare here on Earth.

As a space lawyer and co-founder of For All Moonkind, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting human heritage in outer space, I know that the Moon could be the proving ground for humanity’s evolution into a species that lives and thrives on more than one planet. However, this new frontier raises complex legal questions.

Space, legally

Outer space – including the Moon – from a legal perspective, is a unique domain without direct terrestrial equivalent. It is not, like the high seas, the “common heritage of humankind,” nor is it an area, like Antarctica, where commercial mining is prohibited.

Instead, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty – signed by more than 115 nations, including China, Russia and the United States – establishes that the exploration and use of space are the “province of all humankind.” That means no country may claim territory in outer space, and all have the right to access all areas of the Moon and other celestial bodies freely.

The fact that, pursuant to Article II of the treaty, a country cannot claim territory in outer space, known as the nonappropriation principle, suggests to some that property ownership in space is forbidden.

Can this be true? If your grandchildren move to Mars, will they never own a home? How can a company protect its investment in a lunar mine if it must be freely accessible by all? What happens, as it inevitably will, when two rovers race to a particular area on the lunar surface known to host valuable water ice? Does the winner take all?

As it turns out, the Outer Space Treaty does offer some wiggle room. Article IX requires countries to show “due regard” for the corresponding interests of others. It is a legally vague standard, although the Permanent Court of Arbitration has suggested that due regard means simply paying attention to what’s reasonable under the circumstances.

First mover advantage – it’s a race

The treaty’s broad language encourages a race to the Moon. The first entity to any spot will have a unilateral opportunity to determine what’s legally “reasonable.” For example, creating an overly large buffer zone around equipment might be justified to mitigate potential damage from lunar dust.

On top of that, Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty assumes that there will be installations, like bases or mining operations, on the Moon. Contrary to the free access principle, the treaty suggests that access to these may be blocked unless the owner grants permission to enter.

Both of these paths within the treaty would allow the first person to make it to their desired spot on the Moon to keep others out. The U.N. principles in their current form don’t address these loopholes.

The draft U.N. principles released in April mirror, and are confined by, the language of the Outer Space Treaty. This tension between free access and the need to protect – most easily by forbidding access – remains unresolved. And the clock is ticking.

The Moon’s vulnerable legacy

The U.S. Artemis program aims to return humans to the Moon by 2028, China has plans for human return by 2030, and in the intervening years, more than 100 robotic missions are planned by countries and private industry alike. For the most part, these missions are all headed to the same sweet spot: the lunar south pole. Here, peaks of eternal light and deep craters containing water ice promise the best mining, science and research opportunities.

In this excitement, it’s easy to forget that humans already have a deep history of lunar exploration. Scattered on the lunar surface are artifacts displaying humanity’s technological progress.

After centuries of gazing at our closest celestial neighbor with fascination, in 1959 the Soviet spacecraft, Luna 2, became the first human-made object to impact another celestial body. Ten years later, two humans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, became the first ever to set foot upon another celestial body.

More recently, in 2019, China’s Chang’e 4 achieved the first soft landing on the Moon’s far side. And in 2023, India’s Chandrayaan-3 became the first to land successfully near the lunar south pole.

These sites memorialize humanity’s baby steps off our home planet and easily meet the United Nations definition of terrestrial heritage, as they are so “exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity.”

The international community works to protect such sites on Earth, but those protection protocols do not extend to outer space.

The more than 115 other sites on the Moon that bear evidence of human activity are frozen in time without degradation from weather, animal or human activity. But this could change. A single errant spacecraft or rover could kick up abrasive lunar dust, erasing bootprints or damaging artifacts.

Protection and the Outer Space Treaty

In 2011, NASA recommended establishing buffer, or safety zones, of up to 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) to protect certain sites with U.S. artifacts.

Because it understood that outright exclusion violates the Outer Space Treaty, NASA issued these recommendations as voluntary guidelines. Nevertheless, the safety zone concept, essentially managing access to and activities around specific areas, could be a practical tool for protecting heritage sites. They could act as a starting point to find a balance between protection and access.

One hundred and ninety-six nations have agreed, through the 1972 World Heritage Convention, on the importance of recognizing and protecting cultural heritage of universal value found here on Earth.

Building on this agreement, the international community could require specific access protocols — such as a permitting process, activity restrictions, shared access rules, monitoring and other controls — for heritage sites on the Moon. If accepted, these protective measures for heritage sites could also work as a template for scientific and operational sites. This would create a consistent framework that avoids the perception of claiming territory.

At this time, the draft U.N. principles released in April 2025 do not directly address the opposing concepts of access and protection. Instead, they defer to Article I of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirm that everyone has free access to all areas of the Moon and other celestial bodies.

As more countries and companies compete to reach the Moon, a clear lunar legal framework can guide them to avoid conflicts and preserve historical sites. The draft U.N. principles show that the international community is ready to explore what this framework could look like.

Michelle L.D. Hanlon, Professor of Air and Space Law, University of Mississippi

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