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.

  • 59% of Americans worry about sunscreen chemicals. Only 32% understand how sunscreen works.
    Two persons applying sunscreen while sitting on a beach.

    Tiffany Miller for Melanoma Research Alliance

    Many Americans think of sunscreen at the beach. Fewer consider wearing it for the drive there. And many are questioning if they should wear sunscreen at all.

    These trends, uncovered in a new national survey from the nonprofit Melanoma Research Alliance (MRA), highlight a central challenge in skin cancer prevention.

    Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States, according to the CDC. Nine in 10 skin cancers, including melanoma, are linked to exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, according to the MRA. Reducing exposure to UV radiation lowers the risk of skin cancer, making sunscreen a key part of prevention.

    A survey of 2,000 adults found that most Americans have a basic understanding of the risks of sun exposure, but that awareness doesn’t always translate into action. More than 8 in 10 recognize that spending long hours in the sun contributes to melanoma risk, yet roughly one-quarter say they rarely or never use sunscreen when spending time outdoors.

    Then there are those everyday moments that most people don’t recognize as risky. The light coming through the window over the sink. The short walk from the parking lot. The hour in the bleachers with the sun hitting one side of your face. A single sunburn can be dangerous, but it’s the accumulation of exposure over time that often drives risk.

    Sunscreen is widely recognized as an effective tool for skin cancer prevention, yet confusion and misinformation persist, especially on social media. Fifty-three percent of respondents say they have seen claims that sunscreen ingredients may be harmful. Fifty-nine percent say they are concerned about what’s in sunscreen, and 38% don’t believe sunscreen is safe and effective.

    An infographic on Melanoma Research Alliance's surveys on sunscreen facts and usage.

    Many Americans also say they aren’t sure how sunscreen works. Only about a third can correctly explain the difference between types of sunscreens, while a much larger share reports being unsure.

    Sunscreen works by absorbing or blocking UV radiation from reaching the skin, preventing DNA damage that can cause skin cancer. In the United States, the active ingredients in sunscreen undergo rigorous review by the Food and Drug Administration, which evaluates them as over-the-counter drugs. This drug-level standard requires extensive testing and contributes to a more limited set of approved UV filters compared with Europe, where sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics. The FDA is currently evaluating additional methodologies for assessing sunscreen ingredients, a process that could expand the number of approved UV filters available to U.S. consumers.

    All of this is unfolding during a period of real progress in melanoma research. While melanoma remains the deadliest form of skin cancer, more than 8,500 Americans are expected to die from it in 2026, roughly one person every hour, according to the American Cancer Society. Recent advances are improving outcomes for many patients with advanced disease, though approximately 50% of patients do not respond to current treatments, according to MRA, underscoring why prevention and early detection remain critical.

    Survey methodology: The Melanoma Research Alliance commissioned Atomik Research to conduct an online survey of 2,000 U.S. adults between March 27 and April 1, 2026. The sample is nationally representative based on gender, age, and geography. Margin of error: ±2 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. Atomik Research, part of 4media group, is a creative market research agency.

    This story was produced by Melanoma Research Alliance and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

  • You know exercise is good for you – so why is it so hard to put it into practice?
    Photo credit: Jordi Salas/Moment via Getty ImagesResearch shows that doing exercise around other people improves your chances of sticking with it.
    ,

    You know exercise is good for you – so why is it so hard to put it into practice?

    Laura Baehr Physical activity is one of the most powerful health tools people have to improve mood, energy and sleep, even after just a few sessions. But the real superpower of an active lifestyle is what it can do for health and quality of life over time. Scientific evidence repeatedly demonstrates that physical activity reduces the risk of developing chronic conditions…

    Physical activity is one of the most powerful health tools people have to improve moodenergy and sleep, even after just a few sessions.

    But the real superpower of an active lifestyle is what it can do for health and quality of life over time. Scientific evidence repeatedly demonstrates that physical activity reduces the risk of developing chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and even some cancers. Despite this, most Americans are not getting enough physical activity in their daily lives.

    So why are so few people physically active when the benefits are widely known?

    As a physical therapist and rehabilitation scientist who studies how to boost movement for people living with chronic conditions and physical disabilities, I spend a lot of time thinking about that question.

    The short answer is that understanding the importance of exercise usually doesn’t translate into exercising. Making it a part of your lifestyle requires believing you can do it and knowing you can do it.

    Exercise is a lifestyle choice that helps reduce the likelihood of developing a chronic illness. But the good news is that if you’re one of the 194 million Americans already living with one or more chronic illnessesbeginning or maintaining an exercise routine can slow the progression, reduce symptoms and improve health outcomes.

    Side view of active senior man with dumbbells exercising at health club.
    It’s never too late to reap the benefits of being active. Maskot/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    The difference between knowing and doing

    People are perpetually being sold on the benefits of physical activity, whether it’s from national healthcare organizations, their medical teams or social media influencers.

    But research is clear that education alone does not predict changes in behavior.

    Instead, shifting your beliefs about the barriers preventing you from exercise might actually be the key to get you moving more.

    In 1977, a psychologist named Albert Bandura proposed that the ability to perform a task even when it’s difficult – a concept called self-efficacy – is the most important personal characteristic that drives healthy changes in behavior.

    Half a century later, self-efficacy is still considered one of the most crucial personal factors for behavioral change when it comes to long-term physical activity. Researchers who develop and test exercise interventions, including me, evaluate novel tools and programs that are built to boost self-efficacy.

    Someone with high self-efficacy might say that they can get back to their exercise routine even if they miss a day. Or they might find a way to still exercise when they’re busy or tired. Someone with lower self-efficacy might be thrown off their routine if presented with the same obstacles.

    But how do you build this crucial trait and get moving more? A meta-analysis found that despite its importance, there is not one magic way to boost self-efficacy.

    That’s because people’s behavior is more complicated than individual factors alone. People and groups have varying needs and contexts that require tailored approaches.

    Smiling Black woman in swimsuit holding onto rails in indoor pool.
    Doing exercise you enjoy is one key to consistency. Luis Alvarez/DigitalVision via Getty Images

    Tips increase exercise self-efficacy

    Self-efficacy may be affected by multiple factors, but people can still apply techniques to boost their ability to start and stay with an exercise routine.

    Make it manageable. It may seem intuitive to set personal goals, but many of us aim too high and end up discouraged. Goals focused on weight loss, heart health or muscle strength are fine, but they can take a long time to achieve. Long-range goals don’t tend to be motivating in the difficult moments – like when you want to hit snooze but promised yourself that you were going to take a long walk before work.

    Instead, try short-term goal-setting – such as aiming to get a set number of lunchtime walks in during the workweek. This will move you toward your long-term goals, while making it easier to see and feel progress.

    In 2026, the American College of Sports Medicine refreshed its guidance on strength training, which represents synthesized findings from 137 systematic reviews and the first update since 2009. The biggest recommendation difference? Consistency matters more than specificity of strength programs. What that means is that doing any strength training has health benefits as long as it is the kind you will keep doing.

    Make it add up. The CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of aerobic activity is meant to be spread throughout the week – not done all at once. Research shows that small bursts of activity still have significant impacts on your overall health, and you’re much more likely to stick with them.

    Only have 15 minutes while your kid is asleep? Have a short exercise video or app cued up for nap time. Waiting for your next Zoom meeting to start? Climb your stairs once or twice. Microwaving your lunch? Hold on to the counter and lift and lower your heels until the timer goes off. Every little bit matters to your mind and body.

    Make it meaningful. Prioritize doing things you enjoy. The gym is not for everyone, and luckily this style of structured exercise is just one of many options for physical activity. Go bird-watching, join a gardening group, binge watch your favorite show on the treadmill. Any activity you do that uses energy is like dropping a coin into your weekly physical activity bank.

    Make it more fun. Choose to be around people who are already exercising – and who encourage you to do it, too. Research shows that people who are sedentary will increase their physical activity by socializing with someone who is active.

    Another study shows that older adults can tap into the energy of their peers during group exercise, helping to build self-efficacy. Exercising with others can even reduce social isolation and loneliness. As a bonus, choosing physical activities you enjoy can improve your mood and boost your confidence.

    Overcoming the hurdles

    These strategies come with a very important caveat: Increasing self-efficacy is empowering, but context also matters.

    Some structural barriers to physical activity are beyond the scope of our individual motivation. Researchers and health professionals know that lower socioeconomic statusdecreased neighborhood safety and lack of access to exercise programs make being and staying active even more difficult.

    But the thing to remember is that even small improvements can have big impacts. It is consistent practice – not perfection – that is key to reaping all the benefits physical activity has to offer.

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

  • Photographic memory is a myth – here’s what research really says about remembering
    Photo credit: F.J. Jimenez/Moment via Getty ImagesYour memory is not a camera.

    Hollywood loves a superpower. Not all involve capes or cosmic rays. Some are cognitive: characters who can remember everything. In movies and on TV, viewers repeatedly encounter those with extraordinary minds who glance once at a page, a room or a face – and later recreate every detail with surgical precision.

    You see it everywhere: “Suits,” “Sherlock” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” Even in children’s literature there’s fifth grader Cam Jansen, who activates her photolike memory by saying “Click!”

    Most recently, it appeared in the television series “The Pitt,” set in a hospital emergency department. When the digital patient board suddenly went offline, medical student Joy Kwon saved the day by effortlessly reciting from memory every lost detail – names, rooms, doctors, conditions, vitals. It’s a gripping moment. The stakes are high, recall is perfect, and the implication is clear: Some people have minds that function like high-resolution cameras.

    The idea of photographic memory is simple and powerful: Experience is captured objectively, stored completely and retrieved perfectly. See it once, keep it forever.

    There’s just one problem. There’s no scientific evidence it exists.

    Your memory doesn’t record, it reconstructs

    As a memory researcher, I understand that belief in photographic memory is common and the idea is compelling. But it is simply wrong.

    Human memory does not work like a recording device. It’s a reconstructive process even among those with the most extraordinary skills. When you recall an event, memory doesn’t just hand you your experiences the same way every time. It’s never a matter of simply accessing, retrieving and playing back a static record of a stored slice of the past.

    hands with photo negatives on a lightbox, with magnifying glass
    Memory doesn’t scan through a bank of static, stored memories. janiecbros/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Rather, you reconstruct the past by piecing together the remnants of experience available to you in the moment of recollection. It’s a process shaped by a range of factors, including the search cues you use; your present knowledge, attitudes and goals; and your current state of mind or mood.

    Because each of these factors is dynamic and changing, you’ll remember the past differently today – if ever so slightly – from how you remembered it yesterday, and differently from how you’ll remember it tomorrow. What you remember is not only incomplete but also inexact.

    A closer look at extraordinary memory

    Some people, such as memory competition champions, do have extraordinary memories. They can memorize thousands of digits or entire decks of cards in minutes. Their feats are real, but they don’t come from a memory that takes mental snapshots.

    Instead, these people rely on strategies – mental frameworks built through thousands of hours of deliberate practice to scaffold their memory in specific domains. Without these strategies and in other aspects of life, their recall looks pretty much like everyone else’s. Experts’ performance reflects better methods, not different machinery.

    In the scientific literature, the ability that comes closest to photographic memory is eidetic imagery: a form of visual mental imagery in which people claim they can briefly continue to “see” pictures they carefully studied and that are then removed from view.

    This ability is rare, is seen mostly in children, and usually disappears by adolescence. Even at its peak, however, it falls short of the Hollywood ideal. Eidetic images fade quickly and are not perfectly accurate. They can include distortions and even details that were not seen.

    It’s exactly what you’d expect from a reconstructive memory system – and exactly what you would not expect from a literal recording.

    Forgetting is a feature and not a flaw

    The myth about photographic memories feeds into the idea that your memory has failed if you can’t remember – that if your memory worked right, it would operate like a camera. When you can’t retrieve information or you lose it entirely, it can feel like something has gone wrong.

    In reality, forgetting is functional. Without it, we’d never get by.

    For instance, people use their memories of the past to forecast the future. Perfect memory would be a liability. Forgetting washes out the details of specific episodes and retains the gist so you can apply past experiences to novel situations, not just those that exactly match what happened before.

    Forgetting also guards your emotional health. The dulling of memories for negative events, like say an embarrassing episode, makes it easier for you to move on than if you reexperienced all the details in full force every time the event came to mind.

    Forgetting protects your sense of self as well. Memories of your past form the foundation of your identity. To help maintain a stable self-concept, people selectively modify or even forget those memories that challenge their views of themselves.

    view from above of two people looking at black and white photos in an album
    Even mundane moments can be recalled by the rare people with highly superior autobiographical memory. Slavica/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The rare individuals who come closest to having near-perfect memory often reveal the downsides. People with highly superior autobiographical memory can remember nearly every day of their lives in vivid detail. If you ask one of these people to recall what they did on Nov. 24, 1999, they likely can tell you.

    Their extraordinary ability seems to come from a habitual, even compulsive, reflection on their past and a focus on anchoring memories to dates. However, this skill is limited to autobiographical events, and they are prone to various kinds of memory distortions and errors just like everyone else.

    While this ability might sound like an advantage, many people with highly superior autobiographical memory describe it as exhausting. They struggle to move past negative experiences because their memories make them seem as sharp as ever.

    Accurate – and empowering – view of memory

    Beliefs about “perfect memory” shape how people judge studentseyewitnessespatients and even themselves. They influence legal decisions, educational practices and unrealistic expectations about what human minds can – and should – do.

    Letting go of the camera metaphor could be a step toward better understanding how memory works. The brain is not a roll of film, it’s a storyteller – one that edits, interprets and reshapes the past in light of the present.

    And that’s not a limitation. It’s a superpower.

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

Explore More Health Stories

Well-being

You know exercise is good for you – so why is it so hard to put it into practice?

Health

Photographic memory is a myth – here’s what research really says about remembering

Well-being

How workplace stress hijacks the nervous system to cause headaches − and a neurologist’s guide to managing them

Health

Pollen allergies are brutal this year – a doctor explains why, and how to find relief