The microscope is an iconic symbol of the life sciences – and for good reason. From the discovery of the existence of cells to the structure of DNA, microscopy has been a quintessential tool of the field, unlocking new dimensions of the living world not only for scientists but also for the general public.
For the life sciences, where understanding the function of a living thing often requires interpreting its form, imaging is vital to confirming theories and revealing what is yet unknown.
This selection of stories from The Conversation’s archive presents a few ways in which microscopy has contributed to different forms of scientific knowledge, including techniques that take visualization beyond sight altogether.
1. Seeing as identifying
Over the past few centuries, the microscope has undergone a gradual but significant evolution. Each advance has allowed researchers to see increasingly smaller and more fragile structures and biomolecules at increasingly higher resolution – from cells, to the structures within cells, to the structures within the structures within cells, down to atoms.
But there is still a resolution gap between the smallest and largest structures of the cell. Biophysicist Jeremy Berg drew an analogy to Google Maps: Though scientists could see the city as a whole and individual houses, they couldn’t make out the neighborhoods.
“Seeing these neighborhood-level details is essential to being able to understand how individual components work together in the environment of a cell,” he writes.
Scientists are working to bridge that resolution gap. Improvements to the 2014 Nobel Prize-winning superresolution microscopy, for example, have enhanced the study of lengthy processes like cell division by capturing images across a range of size and time scales simultaneously, bringing clarity to details traditional microscopes tend to blur.
Cryo-electron tomography shows what molecules look like in high resolution – in this case, the virus that causes COVID-19. Nanographics, CC BY-SA
Another technique, cryo-electron microscopy, or cryo-EM, won a Nobel Prize in 2017 for bringing even more complex, dynamic molecules into view by flash-freezing them. This creates a protective glasslike shell around samples as they’re bombarded by a beam of electrons to create their photo op. Cryo-ET, a specialized type of cryo-EM, can construct 3D images of molecular structures within their natural environments.
These techniques not only generate images at or near atomic resolution but also preserve the natural shape of difficult-to-capture biomolecules of interest. Researchers were able to use cryo-EM, for instance, to capture the elusive structure of the protein on the surface of the shape-shifting hepatitis C virus, providing key information for a future vaccine.
Further enhancements to science’s visual acuity will reveal more of the fine details of the building blocks of life.
“I anticipate seeing new theories on how we understand cells, moving from disorganized bags of molecules to intricately organized and dynamic systems,” writes Berg.
2. Seeing as scoping
Microscopy images are often framed as snapshots – circumscribed parts of a whole that have been magnified to reveal their hidden features. But nothing in an organism works in isolation. After discerning individual components, scientists are tasked with charting how they interact with each other in the macrosystem of the body. Figuring this out requires not only identifying every component that makes up a particular cell, tissue and organ but also placing them in relation to each other – in other words, making a map.
Researchers have been charting the brain by stitching together multiple snapshots like a photo mosaic. They use different techniques to label a specific cell type and then image the whole brain at high resolution. Layer by layer, each run-through creates an increasingly detailed and more complete model. Neuroscientist Yongsoo Kim likens the process to a satellite image of the brain. Combining millions of these photos allows researchers to zoom into the weeds and zoom out to a bird’s-eye view.
Zooming in on this image of a mouse brain reveals rectangular lines where images were stitched together, with each colored dot representing a specific brain cell type. Yongsoo Kim, CC BY-NC-ND
But building a map of a city, however detailed, is not the same as understanding its rhythm and atmosphere. Likewise, knowing where every cell is located relative to each other doesn’t necessarily tell researchers how they function or interact. Just as important as charting out the landscape of an organ is coming up with a working theory of how it all fits together and performs as a whole. Right now, Kim notes, analysis lags behind technical advances in data collection.
“Incredibly rich, high-resolution brain mapping presents a great opportunity for neuroscientists to deeply ponder what this new data says about how the brain works,” Kim writes. “Though there are still many unknowns about the brain, these new tools and techniques could help bring them to light.”
3. Seeing as recognizing
Every improvement in technology brings a parallel improvement in the data it collects, both in quality and in quantity. But that data is only useful insofar as researchers are able to analyze it – high granularity isn’t helpful if those details aren’t appreciable, and high output isn’t beneficial if it’s too overwhelming to organize.
Automated microscopes, for example, have made it possible to take time-lapse images of cells, resulting in massive amounts of data that require manual sifting. Neuroscientist Jeremy Linsley and his team encountered this dilemma in their own work on neurodegenerative disease. They’ve been relying on an army of interns to scour hundreds of thousands of images of neurons and tally each death – a slow and expensive process.
These images show living neurons colored green and dead neurons colored yellow. Jeremy Linsley, CC BY-NC-ND
So they turned to artificial intelligence. Researchers can train an AI model to recognize specific patterns by feeding it many sample images, pointing out structures of interest and extrapolating the algorithm to new contexts. Linsley and his team developed a model to distinguish between living and dead neurons with greater speed and accuracy than people trained to do the same task.
They also opened the black box of the model to figure out how it was finding dead cells, revealing new signals of neuron death that researchers previously weren’t aware of because they weren’t obvious to the human eye.
“By taking out human guesswork, (AI models) increase the reproducibility and speed of research and can help researchers discover new phenomena in images that they would otherwise not have been able to easily recognize,” writes Linsley.
4. Seeing as appreciating
Even before they had the instruments to zoom in on samples, researchers had a tool in their arsenal to study the living world that they still use today: art.
Centuries ago, scientists and artists examined plants, animals and anatomy through illustration. Sketches of unfamiliar species in their natural environments aided in their classification, and drawings of the human body advanced study of its structure and function. With the help of the printing press, these artistic renderings – which later included the view under the lenses of early microscopes – popularized scientific knowledge about the natural world.
Though hand drawings have since given way to advanced imaging techniques and computer models, the legacy of communicating science through art continues. Scientific publications and BioArt competitions highlight laboratory images and videos to share the awe and wonder of studying the natural world with the general public. Using visualizations in classrooms and art museums can also promote science literacy by giving students a chance to look through the eye of the microscope as a scientist would.
Biologist and BioArt Awards judge Chris Curran believes that making visible the processes and concepts of science can grant a greater depth of understanding of the natural world necessary to being an informed citizen.
“That those images and videos are often beautiful is an added benefit,” she writes.
This video of cells migrating in a zebra fish embryo won first place in the 2022 Nikon Small World in Motion Competition.
And the abstract qualities of science can be made tangible in ways that don’t involve sight. Proteins, for instance, can be translated into music by mapping their physical properties into sound: amino acids turn into notes, while structural loops become tempos and motifs. Computational biologists Peng Zhang and Yuzong Chen enhanced the musicality of these mapping techniques by basing them on different music styles, such as that of Chopin. Consequently, a protein that prevents cancer formation, p53, sounds toccata-like, and the protein that binds to the hormone and neurotransmitter oxytocin flutters with recurring motifs.
Framing scientific images as art often requires no more than a change in perspective. And uncovering the poetry of science, many researchers would agree, can help reveal the artistry of life.
theconversation.com – Amy Cooter, Director of Research, Academic Development and Innovation at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism, Middlebury – 2025-01-22 15:12:00
The Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol was the result of a planned conspiracy to disrupt the government, prosecutors alleged. AP Photo/John Minchillo
Several of the highest-profile figures in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection were charged with, and convicted of, the crime of seditious conspiracy, which is defined as the act of getting together with other people to overthrow the government. They were among the roughly 1,500 people involved in the insurrection who were pardoned or had their prison sentences commuted by Donald Trump on his first day in office.
Seditious conspiracy is a serious crime of conspiring to overthrow the government or stop its normal functioning. Historically, seditious conspiracy has been difficult to successfully prosecute.
In 2009, for example, a state judge ruled that prosecutors had failed to provide sufficient evidence for members of the Michigan Hutaree militia to go to trial on that charge. Certain militia members had been accused of plotting violence against police officers. While some members faced other charges for their actions, the judge determined that a plot against law enforcement was not sufficient to support charges of attempting to overthrow the government.
In contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice charged 18 people associated with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol with that crime, asserting that they had intended to “oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power” or had committed other actions that would undermine the entire system of government.
Of those 18, four pleaded guilty, and 10 were found guilty at trial. The remaining four were found not guilty of seditious conspiracy but were convicted of other crimes that were related to the insurrection.
Capitol entry not required
Oath Keepers militia leader Stewart Rhodes’ seditious conspiracy conviction was especially significant because, unlike some other defendants, Rhodes did not physically enter the Capitol building. He was instead in “the restricted area of Capitol grounds,” according to a Justice Department statement.
His conviction was based in part on his communications, including text messages, both before Jan. 6 and on the day itself. Prosecutors successfully argued that these communications were part of a broader conspiracy to disrupt the election certification by organizing and encouraging others to participate in more direct action.
Proud Boys members Joseph Biggs, left, and Ethan Nordean, right with megaphone, walk toward the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
The full effect that the pardons will have on militia actors and related groups in coming years is uncertain: Will the pardons send the message to all Americans that political violence is acceptable, or at least that it can be overlooked or forgiven if the right political figures are in power?
Amy Cooter, Director of Research, Academic Development and Innovation at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism, Middlebury
Today, GLP-1 drugs, including Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound, have become household names and key tools in the fight against obesity: 1 in 8 American adults say they have used a GLP-1 drug, and forecasts show that by 2030, 1 in 10 Americans will likely be using these medications.
Now, research from my lab and others suggests that GLP-1 drugs could help treat dozens of other ailments as well, including cognitive issues and addiction problems. However, my colleagues and I also found previously unidentified risks.
I am a physician-scientist and I direct a clinical epidemiology center focused on addressing public health’s most urgent questions. My team works to address critical knowledge gaps about COVID-19, long COVID, influenza, vaccines, effectiveness and risks of commonly used drugs, and more.
On Jan. 20, 2025, my team published a study of more than 2.4 million people that evaluated the risks and benefits of GLP-1 drugs across 175 possible health outcomes. We found that these drugs lowered risks of 42 health outcomes, nearly a quarter of the total that we analyzed. These include neurocognitive disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, substance use and addiction disorders, clotting disorders and several other conditions.
Unfortunately, we also found that GLP-1 drugs come with significant side effects and increase the risk of 19 health conditions we studied, such as gastrointestinal issues, kidney stones and acute pancreatitis, in which the pancreas becomes inflamed and dysfunctional.
Initially, GLP-1 drugs were developed to treat diabetes.
Cognitive benefits
One of the most important health benefits we found was that the GLP-1 drugs lowered the risk of neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. These findings align with other research, including evidence from preclinical studies showing that these drugs may reduce inflammation in the brain and enhance the brain’s ability to form and strengthen connections between its cells, improving how they communicate with one another. These effects contribute to mitigating cognitive decline.
All of these studies strongly point to a potential therapeutic use of GLP-1 drugs in treatment of the cognitive decline. Ongoing randomized trials – the gold standard for evaluating new uses of drugs – are looking at the effects of GLP-1 drugs in early Alzheimer’s disease, with results expected later in 2025.
Curbing addiction and suicidal ideation
GLP-1 drugs have also demonstrated potential in reducing risks of several substance use disorders such as those involving alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opioids and stimulants. This may be due to the ability of these drugs to modulate reward pathways, impulse control and inflammatory processes in the brain.
The effectiveness of GLP-1 drugs in curbing addictive behavior may explain their spectacular success in treating obesity, a chronic disease state that many have suggested is indeed a food addiction disorder.
Our study demonstrated a reduced risk of suicidal thoughts and self-harm among people using GLP-1 drugs. This finding is particularly significant given earlier reports of suicidal thoughts and self-injury in people using GLP-1 drugs. In response to those reports, the European Medicines Agency conducted a review of all available data and concluded that there was no evidence of increased risk of suicidality in people using GLP-1 drugs.
In addition to the well-documented effects of GLP-1 drugs in reducing risks of adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, our study shows a significant effect in reducing risk of blood clotting as well as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
One puzzling finding in our study is the reduced risk of infectious diseases such as pneumonia and sepsis. Our data complements another recent study that came to a similar conclusion showing that GLP-1 drugs reduced risk of cardiovascular death and death due to infectious causes, primarily COVID-19.
This is especially important since COVID-19 is regarded as a significant cardiovascular risk factor. Whether GLP-1 drugs completely offset the increased risk of cardiovascular disease associated with COVID-19 needs to be thoroughly evaluated.
Some doctors are prescribing GLP-1 drugs to help with fertility issues.
Risks and challenges
Despite their broad therapeutic potential, GLP-1 drugs are not without risks.
Gastrointestinal issues, such as nausea, vomiting, constipation and gastroesophageal reflux disease are among the most common adverse effects associated with GLP-1 drugs.
Our study also identified other risks, including low blood pressure, sleep problems, headaches, formation of kidney stones, and gall bladder disease and diseases associated with the bile ducts. We also saw increased risks of drug-induced inflammation of the kidneys and pancreas – both serious conditions that can result in long-term health problems. These findings underscore the importance of careful monitoring in people who are taking GLP-1 medications.
A significant challenge with using GLP-1 drugs is the high rates at which patients stop using them, often driven by their exorbitant cost or the emergence of adverse effects. Discontinuation can lead to rapid weight gain.
That’s a problem, because obesity is a chronic disease. GLP-1 drugs provide effective treatment but do not address the underlying causes of obesity and metabolic dysfunction. As a result, GLP-1 drugs need to be taken long term to sustain their effectiveness and prevent rebound weight gain.
In addition, many questions remain about the long-term effectiveness and risks of these drugs as well as whether there are differences between GLP-1 formulations. Addressing these questions is critical to guide clinical practice.
Attitudes toward Christian nationalism don’t just boil down to views on race, religion and history − research suggests ‘moral foundations’ play a critical role
theconversation.com – Kerby Goff, Associate Director of Research at the Boniuk Institute for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance, Rice University – 2025-01-22 07:43:00
The concept of Christian nationalism has taken center stage in many Americans’ minds as either the greatest threat to democracy or its only savior.
Political scientist Eric McDaniel defines Christian nationalism as the belief that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. “In this view,” according to McDaniel, “America can be governed only by Christians, and the country’s mission is directed by a divine hand.” Why does the idea resonate with some but alarm others?
Scholars often portray Christian nationalism as rooted in a deep-seated desire to exclude non-Christians and people of color from American society. Historians point to a persistent link between racism and Christian nationalism among white Americans throughout U.S. history.
White Christians, however, are not the only ones sympathetic to Christian nationalist ideas. Nearly 40% of Black Protestants and 55% of Hispanic Protestants agree with statements such as “being Christian is an important part of being truly American.” Interestingly, over one-third of Muslims agree that the U.S. government should promote Christian moral values but not make it the official religion.
While racial, religious and political tribalism appear to influence who supports and who rejects Christian nationalism, our own research suggests there are other factors at play, specifically moral differences. We set out to understand the role that different moral values play in shaping support for and opposition to Christian nationalism.
Our study drew on the most influential social science approach to understanding moral values: moral foundations theory.
Moral differences
Moral foundations theory states that humans evolved to possess six primary moral intuitions that shape moral judgments – care for the vulnerable, fairness in how people are treated, loyalty to in-groups, respect for authority, reverence for the sacred, and the safeguarding of individual liberty.
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to score equally on all six foundations. This suggests their moral judgments often involve balancing a desire to be compassionate with a desire to safeguard the stability of the social order.
For example, research finds that prioritizing care for the vulnerable, which is most pronounced among liberals, is linked to reduced acceptance of police use of force. Conservatives, who also value respect for authority, often favor “law and order” even when it involves use of force.
What our research found
Researchers found that support for Christian nationalism was strongly associated with the moral foundations of loyalty, sanctity and liberty. selimaksan/E+ via Getty images.
With moral foundations theory as our guide, we analyzed Christian nationalism using a 2021 national survey of 1,125 U.S. adults conducted by YouGov, a global opinion research organization. We measured respondents’ moral foundations with the moral foundations questionnaire, which has been used extensively by researchers across numerous academic disciplines.
To measure Christian nationalism, we asked respondents whether they agreed with six questions, such as whether the federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation, advocate Christian values, allow prayer in public schools and allow religious symbols in public spaces, to list a few.
Support for Christian nationalism was most strongly linked to the moral foundations of loyalty, sanctity and liberty, but not to the authority foundation. We expected Christian nationalism to appeal to individuals who are enamored of authority, providing a rationale to their support for authoritarian leaders. But in our study, respect for authority did not distinguish those who supported Christian nationalism from those who opposed it.
We also found that support for Christian nationalism was linked to having a weaker fairness foundation. But it was not related to the strength of one’s care foundation.
We conclude that differences over Christian nationalism emerge not because some people care about the harm Christian nationalism could bring to non-Christian Americans, while others don’t. Rather, our findings suggest that those who support Christian nationalism do so because they are more sensitive to violations of loyalty, sanctity and liberty, and less sensitive to violations of fairness.
Our findings also revealed that support for Christian nationalism isn’t merely about racism or being ultrareligious, as critics often suggest. We accounted for endorsements of anti-Black stereotypes and religiosity. Yet, moral foundations remained the best predictors of Christian nationalist beliefs, even after taking into account these critical variables.
2 moral approaches to Christianity in the US
The Christian nationalism scale we and others have used combinesseveral different beliefs about Christianity’s role in society. So we also examined how each of the six items in our Christian nationalism scale related to each of the six moral foundations. We found two important patterns.
First, we found that the Christian nationalist desire to bring church and state closer together was most prominent among those with strong loyalty and sanctity foundations and a weak fairness foundation. This means that people who advocate for a Christian state largely do so out of loyalty – specifically, loyalty to God – and out of a desire to adhere to God’s requirements for society, as they understand them.
In line with this, support is also linked to a desire to protect the sanctity of the nation’s Christian heritage. Those who oppose bringing church and state closer together do so out of a sense that such a union would be unfair.
Second, we found that the desire to allow prayer in schools and religious symbols in public spaces was strongest among those with pronounced liberty and sanctity moral foundations. This likely means that people who favor public religious expression, but not a union of church and state, do so because they see individual religious expression as a sacred national ideal.
All in all, our study shows that support for or opposition to Christian nationalism is not merely due to religious, political or racial identities and prejudices, as many believe, but is rather due to entrenched moral differences between the two camps.
Building solidarity through diverse moral concerns
Moral divides are not necessarily impassable. It’s possible that understanding these diverging moral concerns may help build bridges between those who are sympathetic to and those who are skeptical toward Christian nationalism.
America’s founders conceived of fairness and liberty as central to a democratic society. And these values have fueled loyalty to a robust national identity ever since.
Our research suggests that the controversy surrounding Christian nationalism is driven not by a lack of moral concern by sympathizers or critics but by their different moral priorities. We believe that understanding such differences as morally rooted can open the door for mutual understanding and productive debate.
