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.
Measles infections can be extremely serious. So far in 2025, 14% of the people who got measles had to be hospitalized. Last year, that number was 40%. Measles can damage the lungs and immune system, and also inflict permanent brain damage. Three in 1,000 people who get the disease die. But because measles vaccination programs in the U.S. over the past 60 years have been highly successful, few Americans under 50 have experienced measles directly, making it easy to think of the infection as a mere childhood rash with fever.
When the measles virus infects a person, it binds to specific proteins on the surface of cells. It then inserts its genome and replicates, destroying the cells in the process. This first happens in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, where the virus can damage the person’s ability to breathe well. In both places, the virus also infects immune cells that carry it to the lymph nodes, and from there, throughout the body.
Measles can wipe out immune cells’ ability to recognize pathogens.
What generally lands people with measles in the hospital is the disease’s effects on the lungs. As the virus destroys lung cells, patients can develop viral pneumonia, which is characterized by severe coughing and difficulty breathing. Measles pneumonia afflicts about 1 in 20 children who get measles and is the most common cause of death from measles in young children.
An especially alarming but still poorly understood effect of measles infection is that it can reduce the immune system’s ability to recognize pathogens it has previously encountered. Researchers had long suspected that children who get the measles vaccine also tend to have better immunity to other diseases, but they were not sure why. A study published in 2019 found that having a measles infection destroyed between 11% and 75% of their antibodies, leaving them vulnerable to many of the infections to which they previously had immunity. This effect, called immune amnesia, lasts until people are reinfected or revaccinated against each disease their immune system forgot.
There is still much to learn about the measles virus. For example, researchers are exploring antibody therapies to treat severe measles. However, even if such treatments work, the best way to prevent the serious effects of measles is to avoid infection by getting vaccinated.
Having the freedom to choose your own health care provider is something many Americans take for granted. But the Supreme Court is weighing whether people who rely on Medicaid for their health insurance have that right, and if they do – is it enforceable by law?
“There’s a right, and the right is the right to choose your doctor,” said Justice Elena Kagan on April 2, 2025, during oral arguments on the case. John J. Bursch, the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer who is representing South Carolina Director of Health and Human Services Eunice Medina, countered that none of the words in the underlying statute had what he called a “rights-creating pedigree.”
The case started with Julie Edwards, who is enrolled in Medicaid and lives in South Carolina. After she struggled to get contraceptive services, she was able to receive care from a Planned Parenthood South Atlantic clinic in Columbia, South Carolina.
Planned Parenthood and Edwards sued South Carolina, claiming that the state was violating the federal Medicare and Medicaid Act, which Congress passed in 1965, by not letting Edwards obtain care from the provider of her choice.
A ‘free-choice-of-provider’ requirement
Medicaid operates as a partnership between the federal government and the states. Congress passed the law that led to its creation based on its power under the Constitution’s spending clause, which allows Congress to subject federal funds to certain requirements.
Two years later, due to concerns that states were restricting which providers Medicaid recipients could choose, Congress added a “free-choice-of-provider” requirement to the program. It states that people enrolled in Medicaid “may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.”
This provision is at the core of this case. At issue is whether a civil rights statute provides a right for Medicaid beneficiaries to sue a state when their federal rights have been violated. Known as Section 1983, it was enacted in 1871.
Bursch, backed by the Trump administration, argued before the court that the absence of words like “right” in the Medicaid provision that requires states to provide a free choice of provider means that neither Edwards nor Planned Parenthood has the authority to file a lawsuit to enforce this aspect of the Medicaid statute.
Nicole A. Saharsky, Planned Parenthood’s lawyer, argued that the creation of a right shouldn’t depend on “some kind of magic words test.” Instead, she said it was clear that the Medicaid statute created “a right to choose their own doctor” because “it’s mandatory” that the state provide this option to everyone with health insurance through Medicaid.
She also emphasized that Congress wanted to protect “an intensely personal right” to be able “to choose your doctor, the person that you see when you’re at your most vulnerable, facing … some of the most significant … challenges to your life and your health.”
Restricting Medicaid funds
Through a federal law known as the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid cannot reimburse health care providers for the cost of abortions, with a few exceptions: when a patient’s life is at risk or her pregnancy is due to rape or incest. Some states do cover abortion when their laws allow it, without using any federal funds.
McMaster explained that he removed “abortion clinics,” including Planned Parenthood, from the South Carolina Medicaid Program because he didn’t want state funds to indirectly subsidize abortions.
South Carolina “decided that Planned Parenthood was unqualified for many reasons, chiefly because they’re the nation’s largest abortion provider,” Bursch told the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court has long recognized that Section 1983 protects an individual’s ability to sue when their rights under a federal statute have been violated.
The court’s decision in the Medina case on whether Medicaid patients can choose their own health care provider could have consequences far beyond South Carolina. Arkansas, Missouri and Texas have already barred Planned Parenthood from getting reimbursed by Medicaid for any kind of health care. More states could follow suit.
In addition, given Planned Parenthood’s role in providing expansive contraceptive care, disqualifying it from Medicaid could harm access to health care and increase the already-high unintended pregnancy rate in America.
The ramifications, likewise, could extend beyond the finances of Planned Parenthood.
If the court rules in South Carolina’s favor, states could also try to exclude providers based on other characteristics, such as whether their employees belong to unions or if they provide their patients with gender-affirming care, further restricting patients’ choices.
Or, as Kagan observed, states could go the opposite direction and exclude providers that don’t provide abortions and so forth. What’s really at stake, she said, is whether a patient is “entitled to see” the provider they choose regardless of what their state happens to “think about contraception or abortion or gender transition treatment.”
If the Supreme Court rules that Edwards does have a right to get health care at a Planned Parenthood clinic, the controversy would not be over. The lower courts would then have to decide whether South Carolina appropriately removed Planned Parenthood from Medicaid as an “unqualified provider.”
And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of South Carolina, then Planned Parenthood could still sue South Carolina over its decision to find them to be unqualified.
Imagine you’ve planned the trip of a lifetime for your animal-loving family: a cruise to Antarctica with the unique opportunity to view penguins, whales and other rare wildlife. Your adventure-loving kids can kayak through fjords, plunge into icy water and camp under the Antarctic sky.
But rather than being ecstatic, as you anticipated, your kids whine about skipping an after-school scout meeting at a neighbor’s house. Missing this ordinary weekly event triggers such intense FOMO – “fear of missing out” – for them that they don’t want to go on your amazing expedition.
If this kind of debacle sounds familiar to you – or at least if you find it perplexing – you’re not alone. The three of us are marketingprofessors andsocial psychologists who focus on how consumers make decisions and how this shapes well-being. We’ve been studying FOMO for over a decade and recently published our work in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Over the years, we’ve learned what really drives intense feelings of FOMO – which explains why a run-of-the-mill meeting might feel more crucial than an over-the-top vacation.
FOMO’s real trigger
People use the term FOMO in many different ways. In our research, we focus on a very specific type of FOMO: the kind that occurs when people miss out on events that involve valued social connections.
With this kind of FOMO, we found that the pain of missing out is not related to missing the actual event or opportunity – although that could be there as well. The FOMO we study happens when people miss the chance to bond with friends, co-workers or teammates they care about.
So, the critical part of FOMO is missing out on interactions with people you value. FOMO about a group dinner at a restaurant isn’t really about the food and great lighting. Nor is FOMO about a concert just about the band’s performance. Instead, it’s about the lost opportunity to connect and make memories with people who are important to you.
Why is this upsetting? Imagine the scenario where all your best friends go out to dinner without you. They bond and make lasting memories with each other – and you’re not there for any of it.
If they get closer to each other, where does that leave you? What happens to your social relationships and your sense of belonging? Do you become a less important friend? Less worthy of future invites? Or even kicked out of the group altogether? The anxiety of FOMO can begin to spiral.
People with what psychologists call an anxiousattachment style chronically fear rejection and isolation from others. Because FOMO involves anxiety about future social belonging, it may not come as a surprise that people who are naturally more anxious about their friendships tend to get more intense FOMO. When we asked people in one of our studies to scroll social media until they encountered something social they missed, we found that the more anxiously attached a participant was, the more intense FOMO they experienced.
Getting FOMO for an amazing event you can’t attend makes sense. But if FOMO is less about the event itself and more about the social bonding, what happens when you miss something that’s not really fun at all?
We find that people anticipate FOMO even for unenjoyable missed events. As long as there is some form of missed social bonding, feelings of FOMO emerge. One of our studies found that people anticipated more FOMO from missing an un-fun event that their friends would be at, than a fun event without their friends.
For better or for worse, sad and stressful events can often be emotionally bonding: Going to a funeral to support a friend, cleaning up the mess after a party, or even white-knuckling through a harrowing initiation ceremony can all offer opportunities to forge stronger connections with one another. Stressful contexts like these can be fertile grounds for FOMO.
How to fend off FOMO
Popular discussions about the negative consequences of FOMO tend to focus on the FOMO people feel from compulsively scrolling on social media and seeing what they missed out on. Consequently, much of the suggestedadvice on howto mitigate FOMO centers on turning off phones or taking a vacation from social media.
Those recommendations may be tough for many people to execute. Plus, they address the symptoms of FOMO, not the cause.
Our finding that the core of FOMO is anxiety about missed social relationships yields a simpler strategy to combat it: Reminding yourself of the last time you connected with close friends may provide a sense of security that staves off feelings of FOMO.
In an experiment testing multiple interventions, we asked 788 study participants to look through their social media feeds until they encountered a post of a missed social event. We asked about 200 of these participants to immediately rate how much FOMO they were feeling. They averaged a 3.2 on a 1-to-7 scale.
Another group of about 200 participants also scrolled through their social media feeds until they encountered a post of a missed social event. But before indicating how much FOMO they were feeling, we asked them to think back to a prior experience socializing and bonding with their friends. Encouragingly, this reflection exercise seemed to curtail FOMO. Their average FOMO rating was 2.7 out of 7, a significant drop.
Reminding yourself about other good times with your pals can help keep FOMO at bay. AJ_Watt/E+ via Getty Images
With the remaining participants, we tested other strategies for mitigating FOMO – thinking about the next time they might see their friends or imagining what they’d say to a FOMO-suffering friend – but the simple reflection exercise was by far the most promising.
So, reminding yourself of the meaningful relationships you already have and reaffirming your social belonging in the moment may help combat the rush of anxiety that is characteristic of FOMO.
And missing out on social bonding experiences doesn’t have to be anxiety-provoking. In fact, in our activity-packed, hectic lives, missing some “must-attend” events may be a welcome relief – especially if you remind yourself that your social belonging is not in jeopardy. Cue a recent wave of counter-FOMO programming called JOMO, or “Joy of Missing Out.”
To quote Stuart Smalley, the fictional self-help guru of 1990s “Saturday Night Live,” reminding yourself that “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!” might be just the trick to mitigate FOMO.
