In 1988, Tucson, Arizona-based astronomers David Crawford and Tim Hunter became concerned that the night sky above their heads was getting too bright. The city lights certainly posed a professional threat—obscuring the stars and galaxies that had become their livelihoods. But even more troubling to the duo was that increased economic development in urban areas (construction sites, downtown strips, shopping malls, restaurants) appeared to be having unusual effects on human health, as well as on urban wildlife populations. Migratory bird species, for instance, were often driven off course by billboards or skyscrapers with a neon glow.

So Crawford and Hunter founded the International Dark Sky Association, or IDSA, a network of astronomers and other scientists, along with volunteers, bent on preserving the sanctity of light pollution-free, star-filled night skies. Today, the group numbers around 3,000 members spread over 50 countries. IDSA program manager John Barentine says that the organization’s goal is not to turn off all the world’s lights, but rather to improve the quality of outdoor lighting.


Barentine believes 2017 could be the turning point for the revolution in how cities are lit, given that the American Medical Association recently acknowledged that cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity as at least partial products of chronic sleep disruption brought on by exposure to bright light sources at night. To help solve this problem, IDSA’s grassroots campaigning and publicity-generating “star parties” call for towns and cities to implement “warmer” municipal lighting systems—as opposed to the harsh, yet traditional, short-wavelength “blue” light.

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]Giving the right light to people during the day may be just as important as removing it at night.[/quote]

But Dr. Steven Lockley at the Harvard Medical School isn’t convinced. He studies the connection between light exposure and human health, and argues that while street lights “aren’t equivalent to darkness,” the outside glare still isn’t strong enough to penetrate into people’s bedrooms. The real sleep cycle disruptors, he argues, are indoor electric light sources, like TVs, tablets, and laptop screens.

A 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that exposure to an e-book before bed “acutely suppresses melatonin.” This is one of the central complaints around after-dark exposure to artificial light. Here’s why: Melatonin, a neurohormone that regulates our sleep and wake patterns, is vital to our basic functioning as humans. Eating, walking, talking—even just staying alert through the day—all depend on whether you’ve received enough melatonin during the night.

Less melatonin means less deep sleep, and “less deep sleep means less recovery and more sleepiness upon waking,” says Lockley. As an example, he cites young children, who require deep, slow-wave sleep to produce growth hormone (which in turn affects brain and body development). “Any light between dusk and bedtime will likely have a biological effect, but by minimizing the intensity and blue-light content, you can minimize these effects on sleep.”

But as it turns out, giving the right light to people during the day may be just as important as removing it at night.

[quote position=”right” is_quote=”true”]I remember walking around the department store during Christmas and just crying for no reason. [/quote]

“During winter, there’s a greater duration of melatonin,” explains Dr. Alfred Lewy, one of the pioneering researchers of light therapy. The method was first attempted in 1982 as a way to treat seasonal affective disorder, a term coined two years later by fellow psychiatrist Norman Rosenthal.

As Lewy explains, patients with SAD experience a “drift,” or lag, in their internal body clock, due to the slow onset of dawn in winter. “Our clock is cued to that first bright light exposure in the morning when we wake up; it resets our 24-hour rhythm.” As a result, he concluded that people with SAD needed bright light exposure in the morning to reset their clock.

Oklahoma-raised Sherrie Baxter never had an issue with seasonal affective disorder, until she moved to Oregon in 1991. “I remember walking around the department store during Christmas and just crying for no reason. And then spring would come, and I’d go back to normal and forget all about it.” When her mother spotted an ad in the local newspaper by the Oregon Health and Science University, Baxter ended up enrolling as a research subject for light therapy, and she says the experience—which involved being exposed to a box-like contraption that emitted bright beams of white light at designated times during the day—made “a huge difference.”

In fact, she felt so much better, she became a missionary for light therapy, spreading the gospel as much as possible to her community in Portland, where up to 15 percent of the population suffers from SAD. She even tried getting a few light boxes for her sister and friends. But at $1,000 a piece, they were too expensive for most. So, with help from researchers at OHSU, she decided to build her own line of user-friendly, cost-effective light boxes.

Her efforts paid off: Today, Bio-Light light boxes are shipped all over the world and recommended by doctors who work in the field; they’re even used at light therapy research centers (which is ironic, given Baxter’s history as a former research subject). Each set comes with a chart explaining how much brightness you’ll receive depending on your distance from the box. For example, if you’re 44 inches away, then the brightness level is 2,500 lux, which is the amount needed to turn off melatonin.

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]Any light between dusk and bedtime will likely have a biological effect.[/quote]

“You don’t stare at the light, you just keep your eyes open,” Baxter explains, “That way, it goes through your retina and gets transmitted to the brain.”

Traditionally, the function of light therapy has been limited to winter mood-boosting—but that’s changing. “The original research was on SAD,” Baxter explains, “but in the last several years, they discovered it’s more complicated than that.” She points to researchers in San Diego, who in 2015 found that exposure to light lessened depression, regardless of the season. Similar results were found in studies done on women experiencing premenstrual syndrome. And just last month, the BBC reported that light therapy is even being tested to fight the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. Baxter adds: “We’ve also sold a lot of units to veterans, for regular depression, but also for post-traumatic stress.”

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]Light therapy is being tested to fight the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.”[/quote]

Meanwhile, in Australia, researchers at the Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences—which has its own sleep program—have experimented with blue light therapy as a way to treat patients with brain injuries. And perhaps most amazing of all: A team in Europe is declaring that men with low libido experienced a near double boost to their testosterone levels after exposure to light.

All of which may, in a very roundabout way, help to underscore John Barentine’s original point, and the larger mission of IDSA. “We want people to think differently about their relationship to light,” he says. “If they can change their view of what quality lighting is, they’re going to naturally gravitate toward feeling like they need less of it.” And that’s a good thing—whether people want to see more of the Milky Way, or simply become more proactive about their own health.

  • Why some health professionals are recommending pet ownership for better health
    A dog rests on its owner's lap as they pet its head.

    Christine Abdelmalek for Pink Papyrus

    Research suggests that pet ownership is associated with higher life satisfaction, with some studies estimating its impact as comparable to that of a substantial increase in income. According to the paper The Value of Pets by Michael W. Gmeiner and Adelina Gschwandtner, this comparison reflects a modeled relationship between life satisfaction and income rather than a literal financial gain.

    Beyond the obvious companionship and social benefits, having a dog (or any other pet) waiting for you at home can also improve your health. Studies show that just 10 minutes of petting a dog while making eye contact can significantly reduce stress levels.

    The growing body of research is convincing enough that more U.S. health professionals are beginning to recommend pet ownership as part of treatment plans.

    Pink Papyrus explores research on the health benefits of pet ownership and why some professionals recommend it.

    Why Are Health Professionals ‘Prescribing’ Pets?

    A recent Human Animal Bond Research Institute (HABRI) report found that 1 in 5 pet owners say a doctor or therapist has recommended pet ownership to support their health. This reflects patient-reported experiences rather than a direct measure of how widely health professionals recommend pets.

    The Science Behind the Data

    Petting a dog for five to 10 minutes triggers the release of oxytocin, also known as the love hormone. At the same time, cortisol (the primary stress hormone) levels drop, leaving you feeling calmer and happier.

    The effect goes both ways: dogs also experience increased oxytocin levels during petting. And if you make eye contact with your pet while stroking their fur, the feeling of calm and general positivity can be even stronger.

    A study meta-analysis by the American Heart Association also shows that dog owners have a 31% lower risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease compared to those who don’t own dogs. This is largely due to increased physical activity (walks, play, grooming) and lower autonomic stress.

    Dog Walks Help Combat Loneliness

    Dog walks are great for more than just getting your daily steps; they’re a natural way to meet other dog owners and spend time outside, surrounded by people. For anyone feeling a bit isolated, that alone can make a real difference.

    Dog walking has quietly become a gateway into online communities, where people share routines, tips, and even creative spins on their daily outings.

    One trend that’s gained traction among more style-conscious pet parents is coordinating outfits with their dogs using playful accessories. Some brands have helped fuel this movement, turning a simple walk into a form of self-expression and something people love to share and bond over online.

    Emotional Support Animals

    While any pet can be an emotional support animal, dogs are usually on the front lines. These are not service dogs, trained to perform specific activities; their job is to provide therapeutic benefit through their presence alone.

    Due to our deep bond, dogs can act as a physiological regulator. Besides petting and mutual gazing, many owners practice deep pressure therapy, in which the dog lies across the owner’s lap or chest. This weight triggers the parasympathetic nervous system, helping to ground a person during a panic attack or high-anxiety episode.

    Furthermore, the daily routine of feeding, walking, grooming, bathroom breaks, etc., is beneficial for people who struggle with depression or anxiety. If you don’t have the motivation to get out of bed in the morning, you will do it for your dog.

    Seniors also feel that their pets provide a sense of purpose, which helps keep both mind and body engaged. Having a pet depend on you can provide a powerful sense of self-worth.

    The $22B Answer

    Further research from HABRI highlights another angle: the economic impact on the U.S. healthcare system. According to its latest report, pet ownership saves an estimated $22.7 billion annually in medical costs.

    On average, pet owners visit the doctor less frequently. Dog owners, in particular, tend to be more physically active, contributing to lower rates of obesity and cardiovascular disease.

    The benefits extend beyond physical health. Many seniors find meaningful companionship in their pets or use them as a bridge to connect with other pet owners, helping reduce the risks associated with social isolation. Veterans living with PTSD also benefit from emotional support animals, which can lower long-term treatment costs.

    A Healthier, Less Lonely Future

    Pets play a meaningful role in our well-being. As both companions and sources of emotional support, they deliver proven benefits for physical and mental health.

    The data also points to a measurable impact on public health. That said, these benefits depend on responsible ownership. Health professionals must weigh the advantages against an individual’s ability to provide a stable home and consistent veterinary care.

    This story was produced by Pink Papyrus and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

  • Why ‘unwinding’ with screens may be making us more stressed – here’s what to try instead
    Photo credit: Riska/E+ via Getty Images Using multiple digital devices at once can be highly distracting and overstimulating.

    As Americans increasingly report feeling overwhelmed by daily life, many are using self-care to cope. Conversations and social media feeds are saturated with the language of “me time,” burnout, boundaries and nervous system regulation.

    To meet this demand, the wellness industry has grown into a multitrillion-dollar global market. Myriad providers offer products, services and lifestyle prescriptions that promise calm, balance and restoration.

    Paradoxically, though, even as interest in self-care continues to grow, Americans’ mental health is getting worse.

    I am a professor of public health who studies health behaviors and the gap between intentions and outcomes. I became interested in this self-care paradox recently, after I suffered from a concussion. I was prescribed two months of strictly screen-free cognitive rest – no television, email, Zooming, social media, streaming or texting.

    The benefits were almost immediate, and they surprised me. I slept better, had a longer attention span and had a newfound sense of mental quiet. These effects reflected a well-established principle in neuroscience: When cognitive and emotional stimuli decrease, the brain’s regulatory systems can recover from overload and chronic stress.

    Obviously, most people can’t go 100% screen-free for days, much less months, but the underlying principle offers a powerful lesson for practicing effective self-care.

    A nation under strain

    Americans’ self-rated mental health is now at the lowest point since Gallup started tracking this issue in 2001. National surveys consistently detect high levels of stress and emotional strain.

    Roughly one-third of U.S. adults report feeling overwhelmed most days. Sleep disruption, anxiety, poor concentration and emotional exhaustion are widespread, particularly among young adults and women.

    Chronic disease patterns mirror this strain. When daily stress becomes chronic, it can trigger biological changes that increase the risk of long-term conditions like heart disease and diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 6 in 10 U.S. adults live with at least one chronic condition, and 4 in 10 live with multiple chronic conditions.

    How people try to cope

    Many Americans say they actively practice self-care in everyday life. For example, they describe taking mental health days, protecting personal time, setting boundaries around work and prioritizing rest and leisure.

    The problem lies in how they use that leisure time.

    Over the past 22 years, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ American Time Use Survey has consistently found that watching television is the most popular leisure activity for U.S. adults. Americans spend far more time watching TV than exercising, spending time with friends or practicing reflection through activities like yoga. Other common self-care activities include watching movies and gaming.

    Modern leisure time increasingly includes smartphone use. Surveys suggest that mobile phones have become the dominant screen for many Americans, with adults spending several hours per day on their phones.

    For many adults, checking social media or watching short videos has become a default relaxation behavior layered on top of traditional screen use. This practice is often referred to as second screening.

    Although many people turn to screen-based activities to wind down, these activities may have the opposite effect biologically.

    Why modern screen use feels different

    Pre-internet forms of leisure often involved activities such as watching scheduled television programs, listening to radio broadcasts or reading books and magazines. For all of these pastimes, the content followed a predictable sequence with natural stopping points.

    Today’s digital media environment looks very different. People routinely engage with multiple screens at once, respond to frequent notifications and switch rapidly between several streams of content. These environments continuously require users to split their attention, engage their emotions and make decisions.

    This type of mental multitasking draws on the same neural systems people are often attempting to rest with leisure. The result is a far more fragmented and cognitively demanding environment than in the past.

    Americans now spend approximately six to seven hours per day on screens across multiple devices. Splitting attention between more than one screen at a time, such as using the phone while watching television, is common. This juggling exposes peoples’ brains to multiple streams of sensory and emotional input simultaneously.

    Survey data also suggests that Americans may check their phones roughly 200 times per day. In doing so, they repeatedly pull their attention back to screens during routine moments.

    Modern digital platforms are designed to maximize engagement. Algorithms tend to prioritize emotionally arousing content, particularly anger, anxiety and outrage. These feelings drive clicks, sharing and time spent on platforms. Research has shown that this design is associated with higher stress, distraction and cognitive load.

    When ‘rest’ doesn’t restore

    Against the backdrop of daily hassles and competing demands, it can feel like relief to flip on the TV. Practices such as streaming or so-called bed-rotting – spending extended periods in bed while scrolling – often are framed as a form of radical rest or self-care.

    Other common coping behaviors include leaving the television on as background noise, scrolling between tasks throughout the day or using phones during meals and conversations. These strategies can feel restful because they temporarily reduce external demands and decision-making.

    However, pairing rest with screen use may undermine the very restoration that people are seeking. Digital media stimulate attention, emotion and sensory processing. Even while people are sitting or lying still, being onscreen can keep their nervous systems in a heightened state of arousal. It may look like downtime, but it doesn’t create the biological conditions for restoration.

    How to wind down

    Evidence suggests that mental relief comes not from adding new coping strategies, but from reducing the number of demands placed on the brain.

    Here are some evidence-based strategies that support genuine restoration:

    The goal is to intentionally reduce mental load, not to abandon all digital devices.

    To improve well-being in our overstimulated society, it’s important to understand the difference between feeling as though you are unwinding and actually allowing your brain and body to recover. In my view, fewer screens, fewer inputs, fewer emotional demands and more protected time for genuine cognitive rest are important components of an effective wellness strategy.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Antibiotic resistance could undo a century of medical progress – but four advances are changing the story
    Photo credit: wildpixel/iStock via Getty Images Plus Scientists are fighting back against antibiotic resistance with new strategies and tools.

    Imagine going to the hospital for a bacterial ear infection and hearing your doctor say, “We’re out of options.” It may sound dramatic, but antibiotic resistance is pushing that scenario closer to becoming reality for an increasing number of people. In 2016, a woman from Nevada died from a bacterial infection that was resistant to all 26 antibiotics that were available in the United States at that time.

    The U.S. alone sees more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant illnesses each year. Globally, antimicrobial resistance is linked to nearly 5 million deaths annually.

    Bacteria naturally evolve in ways that can make the drugs meant to kill them less effective. However, when antibiotics are overused or used improperly in medicine or agriculture, these pressures accelerate the process of resistance.

    As resistant bacteria spread, lifesaving treatments face new complications – common infections become harder to treat, and routine surgeries become riskier. Slowing these threats to modern medicine requires not only responsible antibiotic use and good hygiene, but also awareness of how everyday actions influence resistance.

    Since the inception of antibiotics in 1910 with the introduction of Salvarsan, a synthetic drug used to treat syphilis, scientists have been sounding the alarm about resistance. As a microbiologist and biochemist who studies antimicrobial resistance, I see four major trends that will shape how we as a society will confront antibiotic resistance in the coming decade.

    1. Faster diagnostics are the new front line

    For decades, treating bacterial infections has involved a lot of educated guesswork. When a very sick patient arrives at the hospital and clinicians don’t yet know the exact bacteria causing the illness, they often start with a broad-spectrum antibiotic. These drugs kill many different types of bacteria at once, which can be lifesaving — but they also expose a wide range of other bacteria in the body to antibiotics. While some bacteria are killed, the ones that remain continue to multiply and spread resistance genes between different bacterial species. That unnecessary exposure gives harmless or unrelated bacteria a chance to adapt and develop resistance.

    In contrast, narrow-spectrum antibiotics target only a small group of bacteria. Clinicians typically prefer these types of antibiotics because they treat the infection without disturbing bacteria that are not involved in the infection. However, it can take several days to identify the exact bacteria causing the infection. During that waiting period, clinicians often feel they have no choice but to start broad-spectrum treatment – especially if the patient is seriously ill.

    Close-up of two pill capsules inscribed AOMXY 500 in a blister packet
    Amoxicillin is a commonly prescribed broad-spectrum antibiotic. TEK IMAGE/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

    But new technology may fast-track identification of bacterial pathogens, allowing medical tests to be conducted right where the patient is instead of sending samples off-site and waiting a long time for answers. In addition, advances in genomic sequencingmicrofluidics and artificial intelligence tools are making it possible to identify bacterial species and effective antibiotics to fight them in hours rather than days. Predictive tools can even anticipate resistance evolution.

    For clinicians, better tests could help them make faster diagnoses and more effective treatment plans that won’t exacerbate resistance. For researchers, these tools point to an urgent need to integrate diagnostics with real-time surveillance networks capable of tracking resistance patterns as they emerge.

    Diagnostics alone will not solve resistance, but they provide the precision, speed and early warning needed to stay ahead.

    2. Expanding beyond traditional antibiotics

    Antibiotics transformed medicine in the 20th century, but relying on them alone won’t carry humanity through the 21st. The pipeline of new antibiotics remains distressingly thin, and most drugs currently in development are structurally similar to existing antibiotics, potentially limiting their effectiveness.

    To stay ahead, researchers are investing in nontraditional therapies, many of which work in fundamentally different ways than standard antibiotics.

    One promising direction is bacteriophage therapy, which uses viruses that specifically infect and kill harmful bacteria. Others are exploring microbiome-based therapies that restore healthy bacterial communities to crowd out pathogens.

    Researchers are also developing CRISPR-based antimicrobials, using gene-editing tools to precisely disable resistance genes. New compounds like antimicrobial peptides, which puncture the membranes of bacteria to kill them, show promise as next-generation drugs. Meanwhile, scientists are designing nanoparticle delivery systems to transport antimicrobials directly to infection sites with fewer side effects.

    Beyond medicine, scientists are examining ecological interventions to reduce the movement of resistance genes through soil, wastewater and plastics, as well as through waterways and key environmental reservoirs.

    Many of these options remain early-stage, and bacteria may eventually evolve around them. But these innovations reflect a powerful shift: Instead of betting on discovering a single antibiotic to address resistance, researchers are building a more diverse and resilient tool kit to fight antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria.

    3. Antimicrobial resistance outside hospitals

    Antibiotic resistance doesn’t only spread in hospitals. It moves through people, wildlife, crops, wastewater, soil and global trade networks. This broader perspective that takes the principles of One Health into account is essential for understanding how resistance genes travel through ecosystems.

    Researchers are increasingly recognizing environmental and agricultural factors as major drivers of resistance, on par with misuse of antibiotics in the clinic. These include how antibiotics used in animal agriculture can create resistant bacteria that spread to people; how resistance genes in wastewater can survive treatment systems and enter rivers and soil; and how farms, sewage plants and other environmental hot spots become hubs where resistance spreads quickly. Even global travel accelerates the movement of resistant bacteria across continents within hours.

    Together, these forces show that antibiotic resistance isn’t just an issue for hospitals – it’s an ecological and societal problem. For researchers, this means designing solutions that cross disciplines, integrating microbiology, ecology, engineering, agriculture and public health.

    4. Policies on what treatments exist in the future

    Drug companies lose money developing new antibiotics. Because new antibiotics are used sparingly in order to preserve their effectiveness, companies often sell too few doses to recoup development costs even after the Food and Drug Administration approves the drugs. Several antibiotic companies have gone bankrupt for this reason.

    To encourage antibiotic innovation, the U.S. is considering major policy changes like the PASTEUR Act. This bipartisan bill proposes creating a subscription-style payment model that would allow the federal government up to US$3 billion to pay drug manufacturers over five to 10 years for access to critical antibiotics instead of paying per pill.

    Global health organizations, including Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), caution that the bill should include stronger commitments to stewardship and equitable access.

    Still, the bill represents one of the most significant policy proposals related to antimicrobial resistance in U.S. history and could determine what antibiotics exist in the future.

    The future of antibiotic resistance

    Antibiotic resistance is sometimes framed as an inevitable catastrophe. But I believe the reality is more hopeful: Society is entering an era of smarter diagnostics, innovative therapies, ecosystem-level strategies and policy reforms aimed at rebuilding the antibiotic pipeline in addition to addressing stewardship.

    For the public, this means better tools and stronger systems of protection. For researchers and policymakers, it means collaborating in new ways.

    The question now isn’t whether there are solutions to antibiotic resistance – it’s whether society will act fast enough to use them.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Why ‘unwinding’ with screens may be making us more stressed – here’s what to try instead

Health

Antibiotic resistance could undo a century of medical progress – but four advances are changing the story

Health

HEPA air purifiers may boost brain power in adults over 40 – new research

Health

Placebo effect can work as well as real medicine – but your body may need permission to use it