About a decade ago, a group of climate scientists described. Called the (SSPs), these scenarios suggest how socioeconomic development could evolve in worlds with differing challenges to climate adaptation and mitigation.��

One SSP, “Sustainability,” envisions a collective shift toward green energy, reducing economic inequities and investments in research and development. Another, “Regional Rivalry,” paints a picture of a world riven by nationalism and fighting over resources. In that future, high levels of conflict stifle economic development. Rich countries see slower population growth, while birth rates increase in poorer nations.��

Scientists and policymakers use SSPs to project how today’s choices affect tomorrow’s world. But for complex subjects like public health, these intentionally simple scenarios don’t capture every complexity. Under the SSP “Fossil-Fueled Development,” for example, the world doubles down on fossil fuels, spurring rapid economic growth. That growth, according to the scenario, would spur investments in education and health. But at the same time, increased emissions would degrade the environment, exacerbating health risks.

That description leaves many public health questions unanswered: Would hospital systems be better prepared to handle the increased volume? Could more frequent heat waves lead people to spend more time inside, amplifying mental health burdens?��

Last year, a group of 63 experts in climate change and health met in Vienna to extend the SSPs to better reflect the dynamic nature of public health over the course of the century. Their expanded narratives, published , provide comprehensive visions of possible population health and health system development and explore how communities might better prepare for shifting future health risks.

, a UW doctoral student in environmental and occupational health sciences, attended the workshop and is lead author of the accompanying paper. UW News sat down with Green to talk about where previous climate scenarios fell short, the conference’s work and how we can better prepare to keep each other safe in an uncertain future.��

What are the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, and how do we use them?��

Carole Green: Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are a narrative framework that can be used in conjunction with pathways of greenhouse gas emissions to project future climate impacts to 2100. The SSPs are basically descriptions of the societal choices that affect the magnitude and pattern of interventions to protect human health and well-being.

The SSPs are essentially five possible alternatives for our future world. These pathways have been expanded to incorporate a wide range of issues of relevance for public health, and have been downscaled to describe what the future might look like in different countries and regions.

SSPs are featured in global processes like United Nations, where negotiators come from around the world to debate and agree on approaches to build resilience and sustainability to climate changes. The models help us understand how those choices interact and what the effects might be.��

We also use the SSPs in health research to understand the possible magnitude and geographic pattern of health impacts from climate change over the course of this century. Many projects at UW use future warming levels to analyze things like future wildfire impacts on Washington residents (research done by UW’s Climate Impacts Group).��

What do the SSPs leave out?��

CG: SSPs assume that humans will make socioeconomic changes in the future. The changes described in the pathways originally quantified GDP and population changes. Our work adds complexity, specifically to understand how the future of public health could evolve under these five pathways.

A lot of people are interested in heat waves, for example. Climate modeling alone can capture the planet’s warming, but doesn’t consider issues like how access to hospitals and healthcare could change by 2100. Current heat wave modeling looks at the climate interactions that shape health impacts but don’t explore how concurrent changes in society could interact with climate change to impact people’s well-being.��

Once you added complexity into the SSPs, what changed in your understanding of possible futures? Did you learn anything new or surprising?

CG: We learned that the drivers of health impacts are complex, and many are neither entirely good nor bad. Prioritizing sustainability, mitigation and adaptation will not necessarily lead to the best world for each future health outcome, but it definitely affects the future of health and well-being. Health futures we face globally are not predetermined. Different pathways could lead to vastly different health outcomes, with governance, health-system capacity, resources, equity, and cross-sectoral factors such as water and energy playing critical roles.

For example, under one of the scenarios, people don’t prioritize reducing greenhouse emissions, focusing instead on adapting to the changing climate. Strong investment in technology leads to quite a lot of wealth, which can benefit some health outcomes. But it’s not ideal, because people would also have to spend more time indoors because of the growing heat burden and would have to reduce connection to the outdoors and nature. You really don’t want to live in that scenario.

It’s very much a mix, which is challenging.��

Now that we have these fleshed-out scenarios, what does that allow us to do?��

CG: It allows us to have a more complex understanding of future health risks from climate change. Now we can add a layer of understanding and think about more variables than just warming levels and population numbers. It’s made of a lot of complexities that affect health, and those have their own effects.

In future climate scenarios, what does access to healthcare look like? What is the extent of food insecurity? How are we making sure people have access to clean air and water? When we have some understanding of those interactions, then it can motivate decision-makers to develop appropriate policies.��

What comes next?��

CG: We will apply these narratives to six different countries where there has been limited research using the SSPs. We’re working in Brazil, Senegal, South Africa, India, Vietnam and the Solomon Islands. We’ve started identifying key leads across these countries, where there is quite an appetite for this research. All countries are required to develop national health adaptation plans and to conduct vulnerability and adaptation assessments. They are also interested in modeling future health risks. We want to explore the extent to which the SSP narratives apply in their country’s context. Do they fit? How would they look different? There’s a lot of interest in building on local knowledge and bringing local experts together to talk about possible futures.��

We’re also quantifying specific disease burdens, universal healthcare access, water and sanitation infrastructure and digital health. Some quantifications will look at pairing SSPs with certain warming levels to project impacts.��

Last question: This group — including dozens of the world’s leading experts on climate and health — chose you to write the paper. How did that happen?��

CG: I am definitely not the leading expert in that room, so it was very much an honor to work on this and lead the writing. A lot of it comes from my advisor, , who is very supportive of me and my work. That’s been really meaningful. She encouraged me to take this on.

I often tell people that my job is to listen to experts and write down what they say. It was very meaningful to get to make those connections.��

For more information or to reach the researchers, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu. Other UW authors include , professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, of global health, and of emergency medicine in the UW School of Medicine; and , research associate professor of urban design and planning.

Source

Last month, a group of 175 researchers, including eight from the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý, co-authored published in Earth’s Future and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper provides a roadmap for future climate assessments in the U.S. by synthesizing the science and identifying research priorities based on existing gaps. “U.S. Climate Collection: Informing Assessment of Risks and Solutions” is the first article to appear in a launched by the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

Many of the scientists who co-authored this commentary were invited to contribute to the sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA), slated for early 2028, but were then dismissed in April 2025 after the Trump Administration for the assessment. The fifth NCA was published in 2023.��

The federal government is legally required to produce a National Climate Assessment chronicling climate change every four years per the . These assessments track new and evolving risks related to climate change, as well as options for mitigation and adaptation. The national scope is key to ensuring that funding and policies represent a broad range of experiences and concerns. 

“International assessments are valuable, but they are not always tailored to the specific regions and issues that are important in the United States. National assessments fill that gap,” said , Washington state climatologist and a research scientist in the UW Climate Impacts Group.

The special collection is not intended to replace the NCA but rather compile research for other scientists, policymakers and members of the public to aid in decision making. The commentary kicks off the collection by identifying where research has advanced, and how risks have changed, in the years since the last assessment. 

“Our understanding of climate change and its impacts continues to evolve,” said , professor of global health, of environmental and occupational health sciences, and of emergency medicine in the UW School of Medicine. “Conducting regular climate assessments allows us to systematically evaluate that new evidence, incorporate it into our understanding of current circumstances, present it to stakeholders, and apply it to near-term decisions in our respective sectors.” 

UW News asked each of the UW contributors to elaborate on their role in authoring the commentary and how it connects to their research.

, research scientist, UW Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies: “I’m an oceanographer with intimate experience in federal research funding mechanisms and with a broad familiarity with ocean warming and CO2 uptake with associated acidification and feedback on marine ecosystems and fisheries. Initially I was appointed to coordinate among federal agencies, academics and policymakers, but that changed dramatically when the Trump administration eliminated NCA6. In the scramble I became more of an author, and an editor of the Ocean section. 

“Some of my research at the UW involves ocean model development in collaboration with NOAA. It was a natural fit to contribute to the discussions on ‘Simulations of ocean conditions’ and on ‘Innovations in ocean observation and data science.’”

, professor of urban and environmental planning “I led the urban team and the section on urban regions. Urban regions are central to climate assessments. They concentrate populations and human activities, contribute substantially to climate change, and shape how impacts propagate across neighborhoods, metropolitan systems, national supply chains, and global markets. They are also critical places to examine where mitigation and adaptation reinforce one another, where they create trade-offs, and how benefits, costs, and risks are distributed across communities. 

“Our section argues that future assessments must represent cities as complex dynamic systems. We call for comparative, long-term evaluation of urban mitigation and adaptation strategies. For nature-based solutions, that means testing performance under future climate conditions and assessing multiple functions, life-cycle costs, social and ecological outcomes, and trade-offs rather than simply measuring short-term, project-level benefits.”

Mauger: “I contributed to the Northwest section of the paper, based on my expertise in regional climate impacts and adaptation science, specifically around water and flooding. Our synthesis reflects many of the emerging issues I see in my work helping communities, tribes, agencies and others to understand and prepare for the effects of climate change. For example, we highlight new research on the effectiveness of resilience actions — as more communities take action on climate, I am seeing a greater need for research of this kind.”

, principal scientist, UW Climate Impacts Group: “I also contributed to the Northwest section of the paper. My work at UW aims to provide the science, tools and guidance needed by governments and communities as they respond to climate impacts and prepare for those to come. Most of this work is focused on the Northwest, with a heavy emphasis on ecosystems and natural resources. The Northwest section of the paper highlights many of the climate risks and adaptation advances and challenges my partners on the ground face every day.”

Hess: “The takeaways from the health section, which I helped draft, are that we need more information on health impacts from extreme weather and compound events, as well as information on the costs of these impacts. We also need more strategies for advancing adaptation in public health and health care systems; we need health care interventions to protect patients at particular risk; we need more information on nature-based solutions; and we need more information to help convey the health benefits of a clean energy transition. 

“The recommendations related to interventions and adaptation in the health sector are particularly relevant to my work at the UW, which is focused on climate change health impacts and opportunities for increasing resilience of the public health and health care systems. I research these issues and also provide leadership related to sustainability and climate resilience for UW Medicine.”

, professor of global health and of environmental and occupational health sciences: “I was an author on the Air Quality chapter that focused on how climate change could alter exposures to poor quality, from pollen to wildfire smoke to indoor and outdoor air quality. One of my areas of research at UW is quantifying the extent to which reducing greenhouse gas emissions could reduce morbidity and mortality from outdoor air pollution. The evidence is robust that the economic value of the health benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be of the same order of magnitude — if not larger — than the costs of reducing emissions. In other words, reducing greenhouse gas emissions would benefit Americans by decreasing hospitalizations and deaths.”

Other UW co-authors include , research scientist of environmental and forest sciences and Deputy Director of the Western Fire and Forest Resilience Collaborative and , affiliate professor of environmental and forest sciences. 

For more information, contact Alberti at malberti@uw.edu.

Source

A city’s sewers say a lot about its residents. Sick people often shed pathogens in their waste, adding traceable amounts of bacteria and viruses into wastewater. Testing that wastewater offers a simple, low-cost way to monitor the spread of disease — a practice that began with polio in the 1940s and became more widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, tests for a variety of common and emerging viruses.

American public health agencies don’t routinely test wastewater for sexually transmitted infections, but new research led by the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý and the Washington State Department of Health found that such methods could be used to effectively identify Chlamydia trachomatis, the bacteria that causes chlamydia.

The study, , could help public health agencies better identify and respond to increased spread of chlamydia and other STIs, which are The researchers specifically explored wastewater’s potential as a community monitoring tool, and not as a way to identify cases or trace pathogens back to individual people or locations.

“STIs are known for being underreported because of a lot of factors, especially stigma and the prevalence of asymptomatic cases,” said co-lead author , assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and of civil and environmental engineering at the UW. “Wastewater is cool because it’s population level. You don’t need people to go to the doctor and seek out treatment to know that there are people in a community shedding specific pathogens.”

Working in collaboration with local health jurisdictions, researchers collected frequent samples from influent wastewater at five wastewater treatment plants across Washington state and six neighborhood-level sewer sites near Seattle. Collection sites ranged from a large, high-population urban area to a rural treatment plant serving fewer than 5,000 people. Researchers masked the specific names and locations of sample locations to protect the privacy of people and communities.

Researchers tested wastewater samples for the pathogens that cause three common STIs: chlamydia, syphilis and gonorrhea. C. trachomatis was the most prevalent pathogen across all test sites. The bacteria that cause gonorrhea and syphilis were found far less frequently, despite data showing confirmed cases of those diseases in the associated areas.��

Further research could reveal why tests captured C. trachomatis more consistently than other STI-causing bacteria and explore the study’s limitations, which included people moving between sewer sites and the influence of demographics.

The researchers are also eager to investigate several trends they observed in the data, such as spikes in pathogen concentration occurring near the winter holidays and after Valentine’s Day.

Among the neighborhood collection sites was a small, densely populated area adjacent to a college campus. More than 87% of residents were young people between 18 and 34 years old, a population considered high-risk for STIs. Clinical health records showed very low case counts of chlamydia, but researchers consistently detected C. trachomatis in wastewater samples.��

That gap could indicate underreporting driven by stigma or asymptomatic cases. It also gives public health officials an opportunity to react to a previously unknown increase in infection activity.

“From a public health perspective, data like this allows us to elevate awareness that this pathogen is here and spreading in the community, even if cases aren’t presenting to clinics or providers are not identifying the infections in their patients,” said co-lead author , program manager of the Washington State Department of Health’s wastewater surveillance program. “A small amount of wastewater can tell you so much about the community while simultaneously filling gaps in the traditional methods we monitor disease activity.”��

A full list of co-authors is available with the paper.��

This research was funded in part by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.��

For more information, contact Fuhrmeister at efuhrm@uw.edu.

Source

Nobody is immune from the hazards of summer wildfires, even the experts. At the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý, researchers study both how to mitigate and understand wildfire behavior and how air quality degrades as a result of burning blazes. While UW faculty contribute to a rapidly emerging body of research into the risks of fire and smoke season, they also contend with the decisions that the rest of us face: how to protect themselves and their families, where to find reliable information, and how to manage the anxieties of summer smoke.��

Who better to learn from? As fires rage and smoke smothers the Pacific Northwest — including historic and devastating — UW News sat down with five UW experts in fire science, forestry, air pollution and more to ask how they manage wildfire season.��

This summer, the U.S. has been inundated with wildfire smoke, sometimes from fires burning hundreds of miles away. What sources do you use to track wildfires and air quality?

, research associate professor of environmental and forest sciences: The most reliable source, in my opinion, is the Fire and Smoke Map from . This map consolidates data from various government sources related to wildfires, prescribed burns, smoke emissions and up-to-date models. It serves as a comprehensive resource for smoke emissions information.

, research scientist in environmental and forest sciences: For smoke forecasts, I often turn to AirNow, but the is an excellent friend when we have been inundated with smoke for days and I’m looking for extended forecasts and analyses. is also an incredibly helpful site. I’m careful to check if the readings are U.S. EPA PM2.5 with the conversion applied — otherwise the readings generally are higher than reality.

, professor of environmental and forest sciences: For personal use and immediate up-to-date information, I really like . As a free app that has lots of options and configurations, it can be really helpful for getting immediate information on any ongoing fire incident and incorporates information from multiple sources. Second, for more detailed maps, photos, and daily incident updates, I frequently check , which is the U.S. government interagency website that provides real-time public information and updates on fire incidents. As a forest fire scientist, I also use these sources for archived information about past fires that can better help us in our research.

Let’s say you’re planning a weekend trip, or a hike you’ve been looking forward to. How do you predict and plan around fire and smoke?��

E. Alvarado: I’ll plan my outdoor activities while considering potential smoke impacts. I’ll choose an area that’s unlikely to be affected by smoke for the duration of the activity. During the fire season, I’ll avoid areas with thermal inversions, which can trap smoke at night. For example, canyons or valleys surrounded by mountains are risky.

To predict future smoke concentrations, the National Weather Service is the most reliable source of information. Their weather predictions can indicate fire weather for the duration of the forecast. This is also important for hiking the rest of the year to stay informed about the weather for any outdoor activity.

BH: has nice maps of the U.S. and Canada with high-resolution smoke forecasts over the coming day or two. These maps can be really helpful for planning ahead, though are always subject to change based on changing fire behavior or weather conditions. With our lab group doing field work outdoors all summer long every summer, these are critical tools for us to be able to do our work.��

Do you have an AQI threshold where you’re no longer comfortable being outside? Does that vary depending on what you’re doing outside? If so, how?

, professor of environmental and occupational health sciences: The AQI is designed for communicating health risk to both general populations as well as populations that may be more susceptible to smoke.�� Rather than focusing on the AQI number, I instead focus on the public health messaging (the “Description of Air Quality” column in this figure):

, associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences: I generally become more concerned when air quality has remained consistently elevated for about 24 hours, because I think about smoke exposure cumulatively over the course of the day.

SP: If it looks like air quality is going to degrade over an AQI of 80, I start thinking about my health and what level of activity I’m going to do. As the science on smoke and human health only becomes more cautionary, I save strenuous exercise like running or climbing mountains for times when the AQI is below 80.��

If you have to be outside during smoky days, how do you protect yourself?��

E. Alvarado: Starting from AQI in the yellow zone, I may wear a . However, above the orange zone, an N95 mask is mandatory.

ES: If working outdoors during smoky days, you and your employer should be aware that in Washington State, Labor and Industries has established from hazardous smoke exposures. Also be aware that oftentimes smoke and heat co-occur, and there are for working outdoors too.

E. Austin: I always make contingency plans while hiking and camping. In that case, I identify egress routes prior to departing in case a wildfire event limits my ability to return using the route I had planned. I also sign up for emergency text alerts for the county where I am spending time, and check the current fire activity and nearby evacuation status.��

How do you keep your indoor spaces safe during smoke waves?

ES: Thinking ahead and preparing your indoor space for regularly occurring wildfire smoke episodes is just as important as planning for other emergency events.�� Can you close doors and windows tightly and have good weather sealing to avoid smoke from infiltrating indoors? Can you set your ventilation system to recirculate air?�� Have you replaced your ventilation system (e.g., furnace) filter recently? Have you considered getting a portable HEPA-rated air cleaner that is sized appropriately for your bedroom or living area?�� Have you considered building a DIY box-fan filter?

E. Austin: I create a smoke-ready space in my home. This is a separate area, where I set my ventilation system to recirculate indoor air rather than bringing in outdoor air. I also run a HEPA filter, rated to perform well for the square footage of my space, during wildfire events. Lastly, I try to reduce air exchange between the indoor space and outdoors by closing all windows, only opening outdoor doors when necessary, and weatherizing the space around doors and windows prior to the event.

SP: For indoor air, we make sure our HEPA air filters are clean at the end of each fire season so that they are ready to go the following year. When there’s smoke in the air, we make sure windows and doors are closed and use our air filters. We also just got a heat pump so that we can keep windows closed when smoke is a factor at night.

If you find yourself in close proximity to an active wildfire, what steps do you suggest taking?

BH: I suggest being as conservative and cautious as possible. Conditions can change rapidly, and being in the direct line of where a fire is spreading can be extremely dangerous and life-threatening. So first, I would make sure that there is a clear and safe route to safety via a road, trail, path, etc. Second, assessing the situation through any official information or local authorities is critical. If the fire has not been reported, calling 911 immediately is important to alert responders and others. If an evacuation order is issued, leaving immediately is critical to get to safety ASAP.

E. Austin: Many local districts allow you to register your phone and/or email to receive real-time alerts. I also suggest identifying your evacuation route, any obstacles or bottlenecks that would slow down your evacuation and to preplan and even pack critical items that you would need to take with you in an emergency.

SP: I live in the Methow Valley, and we’ve been evacuated around five times in the last 20 years. As a fire ecologist who studies fire behavior and smoke, one of the most upsetting things for me has been to watch neighbors and friends stay to protect their places. We quickly pack a few valuable things — photo albums, laptops, wallets, and passports — and leave. My main message to friends over the years is that it’s not worth the risk — if flames are close that means that smoke and super-heated air may be close, too, and deadly.

How do you manage the stress and anxiety of fire season both here and elsewhere?

E. Austin: I manage that stress by preparing my home before fire season, relying on a small number of curated information sources rather than trying to identify reliable sources in the moment or checking multiple apps, and I try to make flexible backup plans for outdoor activities. I also suggest planning ahead to learn how to obtain and effectively use an N95 respirator to reduce exposures either at work or when outdoors for recreational activities.

SP: Fire and smoke season are stressful. I’ve dealt with some stress and anxiety not only from fast-moving wildfires but also from long-duration smoke events that feel like they will never clear. We have a strong community that is very supportive and understands how fire season can bring up some PTSD-type symptoms. We take care of our place and make sure that we have as low of risk in and around our home as possible. We also remind ourselves how very lucky we are to be able to have flexibility in our work schedules and plenty of friends and family elsewhere to be able to leave when wildfires hit close to home.

BH: Fire is an integral part of life on earth, and in regions like the Pacific Northwest, fire is a key process that will continue to shape this region well into the future. Knowing that it is not if, but when, fire will return to any given area helps me embrace the reality of fire season. Like anything in life, being informed and prepared is a great way to lower stress and anxiety that comes with uncertainty.��

The UW has dozens of experts in wildfires, smoke and related topics. To reach an expert, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

Drug development is among the slowest, most failure-prone processes in modern science, with . Today, artificial intelligence methods have accelerated the first step — plucking promising molecules out of endless possibilities — but countless challenges remain. A successful drug must be not only safe and effective, but also able to bypass the body’s defenses and reach the right target.

Most drug candidates fail such optimizations. That’s where a new research institute at the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý has focused its attention. Housed in the UW School of Pharmacy, the brings together experts in artificial intelligence, drug discovery, pharmacology, data science and biotechnology to ease the bottleneck between promising molecules and successful drugs.��

The Institute opened in July 2026 and is led by three UW faculty members: , an associate professor of medicinal chemistry who oversees the Institute’s AI-enabled molecular design; , the Milo Gibaldi Chair of Pharmaceutics and expert in drug metabolism and disposition; and , a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science in the UW School of Medicine, who leads drug discovery, translation and commercialization efforts.

UW News spoke with the three co-directors about why drug candidates fail, how AI is speeding drug development and how I2D3 hopes to help get drugs to market more quickly.

What separates a promising molecule from a full-fledged drug? What properties need to be considered, and how can a developer work toward them?

Gaurav Bhardwaj: It really depends on the disease indication you are targeting and the therapeutic modality. Let’s say you have a promising molecule that interacts with the disease-causing protein. Delivery becomes equally important — do we need an orally delivered drug? Do we need to cross the blood-brain barrier? If the disease requires daily dosing, then injectable or IV methods aren’t optimal. If it’s delivered orally, then the molecule needs to be able to get across the gut barrier, and also needs to be stable enough that it doesn’t get chewed up by the body. It also needs to stay in the body for a reasonable time. A successful drug molecule has to meet all these and more criteria, and ultimately all these criteria are encoded by the sequence and structure of the molecule.

The Institute is devoted to aspects of drug development that are often overlooked. What problem do you see the Institute being able to help solve?��

GB: Traditional drug discovery and development is a trial-and-error-based process. Either you find a useful molecule in nature and spend years optimizing it for human use, or you create many random combinations of molecules and hope that one of them has the function you need. Both of these approaches are highly unsuccessful, which has created a bottleneck.

Now the field is also focusing on an idea called rational drug design. It started long before AI but is now becoming even more common. People are using AI methods to design new molecules. However, a lot of that work has focused on the first step — finding a molecule that binds to a specific protein, or has a specific function in the body. That’s still not a drug, it’s just more candidates.

The bottleneck has now shifted. It’s no longer finding that first molecule, but now, how do you add all the other drug-like properties? That’s what the Institute is trying to do. Let’s build the models that ultimately make molecules that are going to be successful all the way through the drug development pipeline.��

Marco Pravetoni: I see our work also as accelerating discovery. I work on substance use disorders, and my lab develops vaccines, antibodies and next-generation antibody-like molecules that target drugs in the body. With these new tools, instead of working to design 10 antibody candidates in a lab, we could design 1,000 or more, and then we can accumulate enough data to reduce any risks, so that what we bring to clinical trials is more likely to be successful. AI can do a lot of that.

How can you make it more likely that a drug candidate succeeds in trials?��

Nina Isoherranen: Part of it is predicting what’s going to happen to a drug in humans before it’s ever given to humans. That should increase the success rate and eliminate the waste of doing a lot of unsuccessful trials.��

We can also build machine learning and AI approaches to predict drug disposition in an individual person. What we talk about today are ‘digital twins,’ which refers to a computational model of the individual patient and their characteristics. For example, how does your kidney function? What is your body mass index? And so forth. Then we generate a digital version of you. We can then predict how a certain drug would behave in your body and build the best strategy.��

There’s also an access-to-treatment question here. Pregnancy is a great example — we often don’t know how drugs work in pregnant women because we’ve never done trials. To be safe, we say that pregnant people shouldn’t take those drugs, but that means they don’t have access to a potentially hugely beneficial medication. If we can use AI and machine learning to predict how pregnant people respond to medications and how their bodies handle drugs differently from nonpregnant people we can make more medications accessible

Now with AI and machine learning, I think we can get to a place where we can truly sample the full space of possibilities.��

How can the methods you’re building help with these individualized treatments?��

NI: We know that drugs behave differently in different people. Even if we give them the exact same drugs and concentrations, people may still have different responses because of factors inherent to our bodies.

During drug development the candidate drug needs to be studied to see responses in different populations. Before you get a drug approved, you need to understand how liver disease, for example, is going to change exposure to that drug and whether you need to change the dosing. There’s a lot of guidance on drug interactions. Pharmacists manage drug interactions all the time, but it gets very complicated when you combine multiple patient factors. Now, if we have good predictive tools, we can predict what’s going to happen without having to do trials.��

The ultimate goal here is to be able to predict, using model computational tools, what’s going to happen in individual humans before you ever give them a drug. What’s the right dose? The right timing?��

UW has established itself as a leader in these fields already. I’m thinking especially of the UW Medicine , whose director, , recently won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. How does I2D3 fit into the broader UW ecosystem?��

MP: IPD is a world leader in designing novel proteins, and the UW also has outstanding capabilities in clinical testing and implementation through the . However, there remains a critical translational space between discovery and clinical application —�� one that focuses on the pharmaceutical development needed to turn promising innovations into viable therapeutic products. That’s where I2D3 can play a leading role.

For example, when researchers at IPD develop a new protein, I2D3 can partner with them early to address formulation, manufacturability, stability, delivery, and other key pharmaceutical considerations that are essential for advancing a discovery toward the clinic and ultimately the marketplace. I2D3 would serve as a core translational partner, helping bridge the gap between innovation and implementation.

IPD brings unmatched strengths in protein design, ITHS provides expertise in clinical translation, and I2D3 contributes the drug development and pharmaceutical sciences capabilities needed to move discoveries across the translational continuum. Together, these organizations can create a powerful and highly integrated ecosystem.

For more information, visit . To reach the researchers, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

New images of cigar-shaped M82 galaxy capture millions of stars

The Messier 82 galaxy, known as M82 or the Cigar galaxy, has long fascinated researchers with its astronomical rate of star formation — approximately 10 times faster than the Milky Way. Researchers have pored over grainy, low-resolution, images taken by previous generations of telescopes, which weren’t powerful enough to see through the thick cloud of dust surrounding the galaxy. The , however, can pierce straight through with extremely sharp vision. That enabled a team of astronomers from multiple institutions, including NASA and the UW, to capture new high-resolution images. Posted June 23, the images include more than 16.5 million individual stars and provide the clearest look yet at M82’s , the flattened central hub that contains most of the galaxy’s stellar mass. That could help scientists understand how M82 formed and for how long it has been producing stars so prodigiously.

For more information, contact team member a UW research professor of astronomy, at benw1@uw.edu.

All images are included in NASA’s

New study maps pollution disparities by state and sector across almost 20 years

Air quality in the United States has improved markedly since the landmark Clean Air Act passed in 1970. However, the gains have not been equally shared: Today, communities of color and low-income communities are exposed to disproportionately more air pollution than the overall population. In in Science Advances, UW researchers created the first comprehensive map cataloging how air quality inequity has changed per state and economic sector from 2002 to 2019. The study confirmed that, despite improvements in overall air quality, pollution tends to be concentrated in Black, Hispanic and low-income communities. The findings include specific state-level opportunities for improvement across 11 sectors — for example, disparities in construction-related emissions in Florida increased significantly during the study period. The findings and resulting database could help policymakers across the country prioritize environmental justice projects.

For more information, contact senior author , UW professor of civil and environmental engineering at jdmarsh@uw.edu.

The other UW co-authors are , , and . A full list of co-authors is .��

Researchers observe ultrafast chemistry happening in real time

Molecules are not static. Instead, they are having little dance parties — their atoms wiggle and twist around in space. Occasionally, upon receiving a burst of energy, the bonds holding atoms together in a molecule can break and reform with the atoms in a different configuration. While the number of atoms stays the same, the orientation of these atoms determines a molecule’s chemical properties — an important part of its identity. In , a UW-led team witnessed firsthand, and for the first time, a molecule turning into its “alter ego.” The researchers observed a hydrogen atom, also known as a proton, jump to a new position by bonding to a different atom in the same molecule. This process, which happens within a few millionths of billionths of a second, is important for various fundamental processes, including photosynthesis, and when DNA acquires mutations. To understand why, and how, this happens so fast, the researchers developed a new tool that probes molecular structure on an ultrafast timescale. They were able to use this technology to detect how the molecule’s wiggles allowed the proton transfer to happen. These findings will help researchers test existing theories about these ultrafast chemical dynamics and develop new molecules for clean energy processes.

For more information, contact senior author , UW professor of chemistry, at mkhalil@uw.edu.������

Co-authors , and completed this work while at the UW. Funding information is .

Random events leave lasting signature on the atmospheric methane record, new study shows

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas with a complicated life cycle. It’s released into the atmosphere by both natural and industrial processes, and there are multiple pathways by which it’s broken down. Recently, atmospheric methane levels have reached record highs but the rate of accumulation has been somewhat inconsistent over time. To understand why, researchers are looking at climate records preceding the industrial era, via ice cores. These deep cylinders of glacial ice document slow swings in atmospheric methane levels spanning decades, or even centuries. This pattern is typically associated with gradual climate change, but in , UW researchers show that it doesn’t have to be. Instead, they reveal that short-term, random events, such as fires or changes in wetlands, can spark gradual shifts. Not only does this clarify the historical record, but it also adds nuance to modern trends.

For more information, contact senior author , UW doctoral student of atmospheric and climate science at emei@uw.edu.

The other UW co-authors are and . A full list of co-authors is .

Source

Over the past five years, the national conversation around health and nutrition has become ’ Most prominently, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s blames these foods for a host of chronic health issues and has to remove some UPFs from the food supply.��

But there’s a glaring problem: Nobody can agree on how, exactly, to define ultra-processed foods. The lack of a clear definition has stymied legislative and regulatory efforts to curb UPF consumption, and caused confusion for people evaluating their own diets.��

This spring, a panel of 14 nutrition, food science, policy and legal experts gathered to create a more practical and operational definition. The panel’s final report, , suggests an ingredient-based approach to identify ultra-processed foods, while also recommending a series of policies to reduce people’s exposure to them.��

The panel was co-chaired by , clinical professor emeritus of health systems and population health at the UW and executive director of the nonprofit group . UW News sat down with Krieger to discuss the new definition, the debate around ultra-processed foods and how people can limit their consumption.

How have we traditionally defined ultra-processed foods, and where does that definition fall short?��

Jim Krieger: The ultra-processed food concept was developed by who’s a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Sao Paolo in Brazil. He was trying to understand an increase in obesity and chronic disease rates, particularly in kids and young adults, and noticed some important changes in the diet that weren’t fully explained by just the usual nutrient profiling — like fat, sugar, salt. Monteiro came up with this concept of ultra-processed foods. The categorization system is called , which means ‘new’ in Portuguese, and classifies foods across a spectrum beginning with unprocessed ingredients and ending in ultra-processed. Ultra-processed foods are the ones that are the most highly processed industrial products, basically.��

The Nova definition is geared toward research, to really examine the effects of ultra-processed foods on a range of health outcomes. Using it, numerous studies have found ultra-processed foods to be associated with a whole host of health problems, like diabetes and heart disease and depression. That’s the basis to say, well, there’s probably sufficient evidence to figure out what we can do to reduce exposure to ultra-processed foods by reducing sales and consumption. That requires policy, and to have policy you need to have a definition of ultra-processed food that’s suitable for regulation or legislation, and that’s where the rub comes. The definition for research doesn’t really work in a policy context, because the Nova research definition uses multiple factors, including ingredients, processing techniques, and other factors to identify products as ultraprocessed. Applying Nova can require individual-level review of ambiguous products by skilled nutrition experts that may not be feasible in policy contexts.

You co-chaired a panel of 14 experts who came up with a new definition. What did that work look like, and what’s your new definition?

One criticism of the movement against UPFs has been that some foods that are technically ultra-processed are actually quite nutritious. I’m thinking of products like yogurts, whole-grain breads and tofu. How does your definition account for that?

JK: You want your definition to be sensitive enough to pick up most UPFs, but also specific — that is, not capture foods that are not truly UPFs or even those that can be part of a healthy diet. The way we addressed that was the FDA, a couple years ago, developed criteria for what they call a . If a company wants to say its products are healthy and put that on the package, it has to meet .��

We decided that even if a product is ultra-processed, if it meets the FDA’s criteria for a ‘Healthy’ food, then it should be exempted from policy. That cuts out edge cases — healthier foods that are also UPFs.

Your final report also dives into policy and makes recommendations for lawmakers to consider. What is the current status of ultra-processed food policy across the U.S.?��

JK: Over the last couple of years there has been a flurry of activity, particularly at the state legislative level. Some states say they’re getting rid of ultra-processed foods in school meals, for example, but they have a somewhat random list of ingredients or additives they don’t like.��

A few states have tried to take a more evidence-based approach. The best example of that is California, where they passed . They used the same kind of ingredient-list approach that we recommend, simplified a little bit. However, for a food to be a UPF under California’s definition, it must also be high in fat, sugar or salt, which raises a problem — about 35% of all ultra-processed foods do not have those levels. Proposed legislation in states like Pennsylvania have avoided this problem by sticking with the Nova-based definition, as recommended by our expert panel, rather than adding on fat, sugar and salt criteria.����

There’s also been a huge amount of movement in a couple of countries, especially in Latin America. Furthest along is , where the government just issued a regulation to require ultra-processed food labels on packages. They’re basically using the Nova definition as well.

There are policies moving now, which is why we felt it was important to say, use a good definition of ultra-processed for what you’re doing, and then think about certain policy ideas as the best bets for doing something about the problem. For us, those ideas include requiring labels on packages identifying a product as ultra-processed and removing UPFs from food served in schools, childcare and in government facilities.��

Many of the factors that lead people to choose ultra-processed foods are systemic. As an example, food deserts leave some people without easy access to affordable fresh foods. How did the panel consider those factors in making your policy recommendations?

JK: Increasing access to healthy foods gets into another set of policies that are well-described and, to varying extents, are being put into place. Our panel focused specifically on UPF policies. We did assess whether any of our policy recommendations would have unintended consequences of making food less available or affordable for people with low incomes and then we figured out strategies for mitigating those effects.��

A great example would be if you tax even a subset of ultra-processed foods, that’s going to make them less affordable, and that’s a challenge. We recommend that the tax revenues raised from these policies go toward vouchers or incentives for people with lower incomes that they can cash in for fruits and vegetables at a more affordable price.��

We also rejected some policy ideas. One was restricting the use of SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps) benefits for purchasing ultra-processed foods. We felt that would have too much of a negative impact on food affordability for people using SNAP, so we did not recommend that.��

What comes next for this research?��

JK: Our next step is to share this definition with as many policymakers as we can, and then offer them technical support if they want to figure out how to use this in legislation or regulation. The second thing is if any legislators, policymakers or advocates want to pursue policies, we’re available to provide technical support and assistance.��

There’s also a bunch of additional research that would be useful. We have some of those recommendations at the end of the report, but as an example, there’s controversy right now over different subgroups of UPFs and whether some are more harmful than others. The research that’s been done so far has been somewhat confusing and flawed. There’s also research on how, exactly, ultra-processed foods cause all these problems. There are a lot of great, interesting hypotheses, but I wouldn’t say any of them are definitive.��

As an expert in this field, how do you approach ultra-processed foods in your own life, and how would you recommend people think about reducing their own consumption?��

JK: Right now, about 60% of the calories that Americans consume are ultra-processed foods. Starting there, small and incremental steps are great. You can’t totally change your diet overnight, so the bottom-line message is to think about small things you can do.��

The first challenge is identifying UPFs, which is where we started this conversation. If there are ingredients in food that you don’t have in your kitchen, it’s likely going to be a UPF, and if it’s a long ingredient list that looks like a chemistry lab, it’s probably a UPF. Then you can consider what the food looks like. If it’s super bright, like Froot Loops or Doritos, that probably means it’s a UPF.��

But then once you’ve identified ultra-processed foods, what do you do? Let’s think about one thing you want to do. Say you drink a lot of sweetened beverages. You can think of what you can swap in that works for you, like sparkling water that doesn’t have a lot of additives, or coffee or tea.

As for me, I don’t eat many ultra-processed foods. When I started doing this work, when my kids were younger, I fed them all sorts of UPFs. I certainly wouldn’t do that now and wish I had known better. But if I want to have something that’s ultra-processed, that’s fine, it’s not going to kill you to have just a little bit. As long as your , then that’s great.��

The panel was co-chaired by Krieger and Lindsey Smith Taillie of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and convened by Mary Story and Megan Elsener Lott of Duke University. A full list of panel members is included in the panel’s This work was funded by Healthy Eating Research and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.��

For more information or to contact Krieger, email Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.��

Source

The human mouth is full of wonders. It’s home to hundreds of species of bacteria, fungi, viruses and protozoa, which work in delicate harmony to maintain our oral health. Sometimes, though, this complex system — known as the oral microbiome — can fall out of balance. Anaerobic bacteria build up on the tongue and in the little pockets between our teeth and gums. There, they break down organic matter and spew out a foul odor.

To rebalance the oral microbiome and cure chronic halitosis, researchers at the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý are embarking on a first-of-its-kind experiment. These clinical trials transplant bacteria and other minuscule critters from healthy donors into patients with halitosis. If successful, the healthy microbiota will crowd out the bad and patients’ bad breath will improve.

“We know the oral microbiome can get out of whack. The question is, can you rebalance it? That is the hypothesis we’re proposing,” said , a UW professor of restorative dentistry and co-lead of the project.��

The experimental procedures build off recent breakthroughs in , commonly known as stool transplants, which have become a go-to treatment for gastrointestinal infections and bacterial imbalances.��

The research team has so far completed four transplants, with preliminary evaluations underway. They’re seeking pairs of participants — a patient with chronic halitosis and a donor, ideally an intimate partner, family member or trusted friend — to undergo these relatively simple procedures.

To start, researchers complete a full periodontal exam of the donor to ensure their microbiome is healthy. Then they collect bacteria from the donor and suspend it in a small volume of saline. At the same time, recipients undergo a deep cleaning to remove the harmful bacteria and disrupt the — the thin, sticky layer of microorganisms that lines surfaces in the mouth. Recipients rinse with the donor solution, and researchers inject a concentrated version into the gumline. Ninety days after the transplant, participants self-report whether their breath has improved.��

“What we’re trying to do is severely disrupt the original bacteria, and then we bring in the new guys to take hold and establish a new biofilm,” said co-lead , a research scientist and affiliate faculty member in the UW School of Dentistry. “If we bring enough of the new bacteria and they outcompete the ones that we disrupted, the healthy ones will take over. It’s a numbers game.”��

This research was funded by the Dean and Margaret Spencer Clinical Research Fund. Co-investigators include professor of clinical practice and professor , both of the UW School of Dentistry. For more information, to reach the researchers or to inquire about participating, contact Pozhitkov at pozhit@uw.edu or Wee at awe@uw.edu.

Source

Biodiversity loss is directly threatening human health and welfare, according to new research by a multi-institution team including the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý. The study, , reveals for the first time how the decline of insect pollinators undermines essential ecosystem services that support human nutrition and livelihoods.

It’s been long known that insect pollinators are vital for producing many of the fruits, vegetables and legumes that supply essential vitamins and minerals in our diets, yet clear evidence of how their decline affects people has been limited.

Working in 10 smallholder farming villages and their surrounding landscapes in Nepal, researchers traced the full chain of connections between wild pollinators, crop yields and the nutrients families rely on. By tracking diets, crop nutrients and the insects visiting those crops over a year, the research team showed how pollinators directly support both nutrition and livelihoods.

“This study directly connects the crops that local pollinators visit with people’s diets, nutrition and income,” said , a research scientist in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the UW. “It was a real collaborative effort across many partners to collect and analyze a large body of data, making it possible to explore these links.”

The study found insect pollinators were responsible for 44% of people’s farming income and contributed more than 20% of their intake of vitamin A, folate and vitamin E. When pollinators decline, families risk poorer nutrition leading to higher vulnerability to illness and infections, and deeper cycles of poverty and poor health. One quarter of the global population currently suffer from this “hidden hunger.”

The research shows there is real potential for positive change — nutrition and income can improve when communities support pollinators. Simple steps like planting wildflowers, using fewer pesticides or keeping native bees can help boost pollinator numbers, strengthening both nature and people’s wellbeing.

Even though smallholder farmers are highly vulnerable to biodiversity loss, these practical local actions could enhance their food security and economic resilience. The findings could also help improve the health and livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers around the world.

“Our study shows that biodiversity is not a luxury — it is fundamental to our health, nutrition and livelihoods,” said lead author who completed the research while at the University of Bristol and is now a postdoctoral research associate at the University of York, both in the United Kingdom. “By revealing how species like pollinators support the food we eat, we highlight both the risks of biodiversity loss for human health and the powerful opportunities to improve human lives by working with nature.”

The research shows that human health is deeply tied to the health of nature. By tracking how pollinators support food production and diets, the study reveals that biodiversity loss isn’t just an environmental problem, it threatens public health and economic stability — as highlighted in the recent U.K. government.

With around 2 billion people relying on smallholder farming and with many facing vitamin deficiencies, protecting the ecosystems that support nutritious food is essential and crucial for sustainable development.

The study’s findings offer a practical framework to help policymakers and farmers design more nature‑positive farming systems. Although the research is focused on Nepal, the same connections shape food systems everywhere. Diets, even in industrialized countries, still depend on the pollinators and ecosystems that sustain global agriculture.

The researchers — spanning universities and non-governmental organizations across Nepal, the U.K., the U.S. and Finland — are now putting their findings into action across Nepal to tackle pollinator declines and repair the pollination systems that support food production. Working with farmers, local organizations, researchers and government partners, they are helping people understand the value of pollinators and how to support them in everyday farming.

By demonstrating why pollinators matter, and sharing simple, practical techniques to support them, the researchers are already seeing farmers adopt changes that boost crop yields, nutrition and income.

“A ‘win-win’ scenario exists where we can simultaneously improve conditions for both biodiversity and people,” said co-author , professor of ecology at the University of Bristol. “It takes ecological understanding, but it costs remarkably little and there are significant gains for both parties.”

This story was adapted from a

For more information or to contact the researchers, email Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

It took less than 22 years after the discovery of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) for a fast-acting, highly effective treatment to become available. at curing hepatitis C infection, yet the virus remains a critical public health problem. It’s the most common bloodborne illness in the United States, and disproportionately impacts low-income people and marginalized communities.��

A directive aimed to eliminate the disease from Washington state by 2030. The first-in-the-nation plan called for coordination between public health agencies, increased screening, removal of barriers to care and a new approach to purchasing antiviral medications at a discount.��

A new study led by the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý found that the plan not only expanded access to tests and treatment, but may save money in the long run. , the study found that total costs for hepatitis C-related care rose when the program was first implemented but have declined since, even as increased screening identifies more cases.��

“Comprehensive health insurance claims data can help us see how patterns in testing, treatment and healthcare costs are changing over time across a large population,” said lead author , who worked on the study while completing a doctoral degree at the UW. “That kind of information can help states better understand how initiatives to expand access to care may affect both patients and the healthcare system.”

Working in collaboration with the Washington State Health Care Authority and the Washington State Department of Health, researchers analyzed medical claims data between January 2017 and September 2022. Records included medical and pharmacy claims collected from both private insurance companies and public payers. The data represented about 70% of Washington residents, approximately 6-8 million individuals per year.��

Researchers found that the number of HCV tests administered increased sharply after Washington implemented the elimination initiative. There was a median of 28,375 tests per month at the end of 2017, peaking at 99,161 by July 2020. The number of tests then leveled off at a median of 55,844 per month throughout 2021. Researchers noted that these shifts also aligned with new national guidelines that recommended all adults receive at least one HCV test. Consistent with increased screening, the study observed an initial increase in the total number of HCV cases, followed by a significant decline over time as more people received treatment.

The study also found that total HCV-related costs spiked immediately after implementation of the initiative, but then dropped closer to initial levels. Total monthly costs rose from $45.6 million in 2017 to $70.8 million in 2019, an increase the researchers attributed to expanded screening, which identified more cases to treat. Monthly costs then declined to $56.8 million in 2021.��

While total HCV care costs rose, costs per patient declined by more than 45%. Researchers said the decline may be due to increased screening catching more infections in otherwise healthy people, which would likely improve treatment outcomes and reduce associated risks over time.��

“As an observational study, we cannot directly attribute the changes over time to the state initiative,” said co-author , a professor of global health and of child, family and population health nursing at the UW. “However, it does support the idea that investing in screening and treatment of healthy people without symptoms is more cost-effective than waiting until they become sick.”��

Other authors include , professor of health economics and director of the Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy and Economics (CHOICE) Institute at the UW; , teaching professor of biobehavioral nursing and health informatics in the UW School of Nursing; , assistant professor of child, family and population health nursing and of allergy and infectious diseases at the UW School of Medicine; , research coordinator in the Department of Child, Family and Population Health Nursing at the UW; Judy Zerzan-Thul, Leta Evaskus, Donna Sullivan, Stella Chang and JoEllen Colson of the Washington State Health Care Authority; and Emalie Huriaux and Jon Stockton of the Washington State Department of Health.

This study was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Source