Trending in Curiosity

Kibriyanur Abdugafarova

Happy Valentine's Day!

With February 14th just around the corner, it made me think about love not just as a feeling, but as a biological process shaped by the brain. Science shows that love engages specific neural systems: dopamine-driven reward circuits fuel attraction and motivation, oxytocin and vasopressin support bonding and trust, and serotonin levels shift in ways that resemble obsessive thinking early in relationships. What’s fascinating is that love isn’t a single state, it always evolves. Early-stage “passionate love” looks more like a reward-driven, high-arousal state, while long-term attachment relies more on stability, emotional regulation, and shared meaning. This suggests love isn’t something that simply fades or stays the same; it’s something the brain actively rewires over time based on experience, effort, and environment.

Madina Amankeldinova

What the actual science tell about brain rot

Science is beginning to show that "brain rot" is more than just a meme; it’s a measurable shift in how your brain is wired. A recent study published in NeuroImage found that individuals with a heavy addiction to short-form videos actually showed increased gray matter volume in the orbitofrontal cortex and cerebellum. While "more brain" sounds good, in this case, it’s actually a sign of "neural bloating"—your brain is effectively beefing up its reward-processing centers, making you hypersensitive to digital "hits" while weakening your ability to focus on anything that isn't a 15-second clip. This structural change creates a loop: the more you scroll, the more your brain adapts to crave that specific speed, eventually leading to "Popcorn Brain" where real-life tasks feel painfully slow.

Kibriyanur Abdugafarova

Alzheimer’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease is starting to look less like a “memory problem that suddenly appears” and more like a network-level brain disease that can be tracked (and maybe slowed) earlier than we used to think. We now have treatments that target amyloid in early-stage Alzheimer’s, like lecanemab and donanemab, yet they come with real tradeoffs (IV infusions, monitoring, and risks like brain swelling/bleeds). At the same time, diagnosis is shifting fast: in 2025, U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the first blood test to help detect amyloid pathology as part of the diagnostic workup, which could make “who qualifies for treatment” a much bigger conversation... And the big-picture question is still open: If blood biomarkers become common, what safeguards do we need to avoid overdiagnosis, anxiety, or unequal access ?

Kibriyanur Abdugafarova

Do microplastics matter most because of toxicity or because they carry other pollutants?”

Do microplastics matter most because the particles themselves are harmful or because they act like “taxis” carrying other pollutants into our bodies? On one hand, microplastics (and especially nanoplastics) can trigger inflammation and oxidative stress in lab studies, and plastics can also leach additives. On the other hand, they can bind chemicals and microbes on their surfaces, but it’s still unclear whether this “carrier effect” meaningfully increases exposure compared to normal routes like food, water, and air. What feels strongest so far is the mechanism (they can bind/release and they can stress cells), but what’s still missing is clear real-world human dose–response and which pathway dominates. If you had to bet today, which matters more and what kind of evidence would actually settle it?

Kibriyanur Abdugafarova

Should we genetically rescue endangered species or is that crossing a line?

With tools like gene editing and “genetic rescue” (adding genetic diversity to reduce inbreeding), conservation is starting to look less like protecting nature and more like actively redesigning it. In some cases, editing or introducing genes could help small populations survive disease, heat, or low fertility. But where do we draw the line? If we edit a species to survive in a human-changed world, are we still conserving it or creating a new version of it...? And what happens if the edited traits spread in unexpected ways, disrupt ecosystems, or shift focus away from the hard work of habitat protection?

Admin

Scientists finally figured out why magnetism makes steel stronger.

It turns out magnetism acts like a microscopic brake, stopping carbon atoms from sliding through the iron. This means we could soon manufacture high-strength alloys using magnets instead of massive amounts of energy. Do you think this will finally make "green steel" a reality?

Alisher Kabduakhitov

Everything we knew about how memory works might be wrong.

It turns out our brains use the same overlapping regions for both personal memories and random facts. Since these systems aren't actually separate, we might need to rethink how we treat diseases like Alzheimer’s. If the "different" types of memory are actually one big system, what else have we been getting wrong?

Alisher Kab

Can intelligence exist without consciousness — and does that change what intelligence means?

Today’s advanced AI (like LLMs) can write poetry, solve problems and appear ‘intelligent’ — yet most scientists agree they have no consciousness (no inner life, no experience). Neuroscience shows that in biological systems, consciousness and intelligence tend to go together—but they may be separate. So, do we need consciousness to call something ‘intelligent’, or is raw cognition enough?

Marzhana K

If scientists can’t trace where 3I/ATLAS came from, should we be more curious — or more cautious?

Astronomers know 3I/ATLAS isn’t from our solar system — its speed and orbit prove it. But they can’t trace its origin: it’s not moving in a straight line that points to any known star. It could have been flung out of another planetary system millions of years ago… or from somewhere we haven’t even mapped.

nosferatu

Did you notice how your brain sometimes lies to you — and you only catch it when someone reminds you?

You forget a memory completely… until someone mentions it, and suddenly it’s back. Neuroscientists call this reconstructive memory — your brain doesn’t “store” memories like files, it rebuilds them each time you recall them. That means tiny distortions sneak in every time — and your conscious self believes them completely. Would you trust your own mind if you knew it edits reality on the fly?