Mosquitoes and their itchy bites are more than just an annoyance. They transmit dangerous viruses with deadly consequences—making them the most lethal animal on Earth. It’s the Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquito species that are behind outbreaks of dengue virus, Zika virus, yellow fever virus and chikungunya virus, responsible for over 100 million human cases around the world annually. And they’re expanding their habitat around the world as the global climate warms, bringing them into contact with more potential victims who have less immunity and increased susceptibility to these mosquito-transmitted viruses. The Conversation


A vaccine can provide the recipient with immunity to one or two of these viruses at a time. But there’s another way to tackle these diseases: by going after the insects. Targeting the mosquito population as a whole or their ability to transmit disease takes aim at all these viruses at the same time.

As the United States enters another mosquito season, mosquito control districts in Florida and California are preparing new strategies to combat mosquitoes and the viruses they transmit. They’re trying out one of two new mosquito management methods made possible by a bacterium called Wolbachia pipientis.

A bacterium that’s our enemy’s enemy

Wolbachia are bacteria naturally found in insects throughout the world. They live inside a host organism’s cells. From there, Wolbachia are able to manipulate their host in many ways—things like increasing the number of eggs a host lays or even changing the host’s sex from male to female by manipulating its hormones.

Researchers discovered in 2008 that Wolbachia in fruit flies protect their hosts from fruit fly viruses. That realization got them wondering: Could Wolbachia also protect Aedes aegypti mosquitoes from viruses that cause human diseases?

Aedes aegypti mosquitoes don’t naturally carry Wolbachia. But consistent with the fruit fly studies, when researchers infected Aedes aegypti in the lab, the viruses they carry replicated less. Fewer of the infectious bits of the disease-carrying virus inside the mosquito meant disease transmission was limited—they were less likely to be passed on when mosquitoes fed on their prey.

Researchers in Australia, the United States and elsewhere are currently investigating the reasons Wolbachia limit viruses. Some hypothesize Wolbachia improves the mosquitoes’ immunity to the virus, while other research, including my own, suggests Wolbachia steals key nutrients the virus needs. Both may be true.

The real need to employ this strategy now is motivating field trials to release Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes in several regions of the world.

Vector competency: the female approach

Only female mosquitoes bite and transmit viruses. Thus, the most powerful approach to reducing virus spread is limiting viruses in the female mosquito.

Wolbachia bacteria are transmitted from mother to offspring. If you introduce Wolbachia-infected female mosquitoes to a population, all offspring will have Wolbachia—and therefore be less likely to transmit disease-causing viruses.

This strategy is used by the Eliminate Dengue program, a nonprofit collaboration employing seven research institutes around the world. In test areas, Eliminate Dengue has successfully incorporated Wolbachia into mosquito populations.

In this context, an interesting aspect of Aedes aegypti behavior is their tendency not to travel far. In fact, a highway is a sufficient barrier to prevent mosquito spread. When researchers set up a release site in one city or town, they don’t see their mosquitoes travel to other areas.

This allows for controlled studies, as well as the release of these mosquitoes only where it’s been approved. The limited spread and isolated sites used were important factors in the decision to allow mosquito releases in the United States.

Eliminate Dengue is not yet active in the United States. Instead, the United States is taking a different approach, looking to male rather than female mosquitoes.

Population control: the male approach

MosquitoMate is a company developed out of the University of Kentucky in Lexington by medical entomologist Stephen Dobson. Partnering with the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District, they started the release of 40,000 Wolbachia-infected male mosquitoes per week this spring.

The strategy relies on a phenomenon called cytoplasmic incompatibility to reduce mosquito populations. CI occurs when a male mosquito infected with Wolbachia mates with an uninfected female. Because Wolbachia is transmitted through the female egg, the offspring will be Wolbachia-free. But Wolbachia has already altered the father’s sperm DNA in a way that allows offspring to survive only if the fertilized egg has Wolbachia. Since the infected males will come in contact only with the naturally occurring Wolbachia-free population, their offspring will die during embryonic development—the eggs won’t hatch.

And, unfortunately for the mosquitoes, females store sperm inside them to continuously fertilize their eggs. This means that the female mosquito’s first mate will be the father of all her offspring. So even if a female just mates again, once she’s partnered with a Wolbachia-infected male, all her offspring will not be viable.

The Florida Keys Mosquito District is not limiting its attack to just one approach. Beyond Wolbachia and more traditional strategies, they’re also partnering with Oxitec, a genetic engineering company. Like MosquitoMate, Oxitec also releases male mosquitoes. But, in place of Wolbachia, Oxitec genetically modifies its mosquito to contain a self-limiting gene that causes offspring to die.

The goal remains the same: Release males into the environment that will mate with females and cause all offspring to die, eventually leading to a mosquito population crash.

Male and female strategies share one goal

Each Wolbachia mosquito strategy has its strengths: The female approach is broad-reaching and should directly decrease disease transmission. The male strategy effectively lowers the local mosquito population, without releasing female nuisance mosquitoes.

The male release strategies are an important “right-now” fix, but they’ll require an annual, costly release because male mosquitoes—with either MosquitoMate’s Wolbachia or Oxitec’s self-limiting gene—cannot pass on to the next generation their crucial trait. When these males are not being released, fertile wild males will mate with females and the population will rebound.

Eliminate Dengue’s female release strategy is sustainable long term, but it takes extensive monitoring to ensure the initial establishment of mosquitoes. While MosquitoMate and Oxitec do not disclose their costs, Eliminate Dengue hopes to make their system affordable at a cost of approximately $1 per person.

Some members of the public have advocated against these kinds of mosquito release programs, particularly when the mosquitoes have been genetically modified, as with Oxitec’s transgenic insects. While the United States Department of Agriculture received 2,600 responses to the Oxitec plan, only one response was filed regarding MosquitoMate’s non-GMO strategy.

In the United States, mosquito control districts are taking a cautious approach. They’re first trying the two nonpermanent male strategies in small areas. The Florida Keys will be evaluating mosquitoes on their Stock Island release site for 12 weeks. We should know how effective male Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes are at reducing populations by late summer.

Michaela Schultz, Graduate Student in Biology, Boston University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • ‘Bouncing back’ is a myth – resilience means integrating hard experiences into your life story, not ignoring them
    Photo credit: Anastasiia Voloshko/Moment via Getty ImagesInto each life some rain must fall.

    When Maria looked at herself in the mirror for the first time after her mastectomy, she stood very still.

    One hand rested on the bathroom counter. The other hovered near the flat space where her breast had been. The scar was raw and angry. The loss was quiet but enormous. Her body felt foreign.

    In moments like these, people are often urged to be resilient – which can feel like being told to show no weakness, to push through no matter what. Or they imagine resilience as bouncing back: returning somehow unscathed to be the person you were before.

    But standing in that bathroom, Maria knew there was no going back. And toughness wouldn’t change what had happened. The real question was how she could move forward, carrying this experience into her new reality.

    Maria’s story, one I came to know personally, is far from unique. Loss, trauma and illness often bring the same wrenching questions of identity and the painful uncertainty of what comes next.

    I’ve spent more than two decades studying resilience, particularly among individuals and families navigating these kinds of life-changing events. I am also a four-time cancer survivor and author of a new book, “Falling Forward: The New Science of Resilience and Personal Transformation.” If there is one myth I wish society would retire, it’s the idea that resilience means “toughness” or “bouncing back.”

    woman wearing hat seated in wheelchair looks outside
    Resilience doesn’t rely on relentless positivity in the face of traumatic challenges. pocketlight/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Rethinking resilience based on research

    Moments like Maria’s reveal something important: The way people tend to talk about resilience often doesn’t match how people actually live through adversity.

    In popular culture, resilience is often equated with grit, toughness or relentless positivity. People celebrate the warrior, the fighter, the triumphant survivor.

    But across research, clinical practice and lived experience, resilience is something far more nuanced, raw and human.

    It’s not a personality trait that some people simply have and others lack. Decades of research show resilience is a dynamic process. It’s shaped by the small, everyday decisions and adjustments individuals make as they adapt to significant adversity while maintaining, or gradually regaining, their psychological and physical footing over time.

    And importantly, resilience does not mean the absence of distress.

    Research on people facing serious life disruptions shows that distress and resilience often coexist. For example, in my study of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors, participants reported being upset about finances, body image and disrupted life plans, while simultaneously highlighting positive changes, such as strengthened relationships and a greater sense of purpose.

    Resilience, in other words, is not about erasing pain and suffering. It is about learning how to integrate difficult experiences into a life that continues forward.

    How resilience really works

    At one point, Maria told me she had started avoiding mirrors, intimacy, even conversations that made others uncomfortable.

    “Well, you’re strong,” people would tell her. “Just stay positive. This too shall pass.”

    But strength, she said, felt like a performance.

    What ultimately shifted for Maria was not an increase in toughness. It was permission to grieve.

    She began speaking openly about the loss of her breast; not just as a medical procedure but as a symbolic loss tied to identity, sexuality and womanhood. She joined a support group. She allowed herself to feel anger alongside gratitude for survival.

    This kind of emotional processing turns out to be central to resilience.

    My colleagues and I have found that people who actively process loss, rather than suppress it, demonstrate better long-term adjustment. Tamping down negative feelings may provide short-term relief, but over time it is associated with greater stress on your body and more difficulty adapting.

    In other words, resilience is not about sealing the wound and pretending it no longer aches. It is about learning how to carry the wound without letting it consume your entire story.

    Neuroscience supports this integration model. When people engage in meaning-making – reflecting on their experiences and incorporating them into a coherent life narrative – brain networks associated with emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility become more active. The brain, quite literally, reorganizes as you adapt to new realities.

    Maria described the change simply.

    “I don’t like what happened,” she told me. “But I’m not at war with my body anymore.”

    That is resilience.

    Arms in sweater with hand writing in a journal
    Acknowledging what’s been lost can be part of the process of resilience. Grace Cary/Moment via Getty Images

    Practices that help build resilience

    If resilience is about integration rather than toughness and bouncing back, how can you cultivate it? Research across psychology, neuroscience and chronic illness points to several evidence-based strategies:

    • Allow emotional complexity: Resilient people are not relentlessly positive. They allow space for the full range of emotions, such as gratitude and grief, hope and fear. Paying attention to your feelings through strategies such as reflective writing or psychotherapy have been linked to improved psychological adaptation.
    • Build a coherent narrative: Human beings are storytellers. Trauma can shatter one’s sense of self, but constructing a narrative that acknowledges loss while identifying continuity and growth supports adaptation. The goal is not to spin suffering into silver linings, but to situate it within a broader life story. For example, someone might say, “Cancer derailed my plans and changed my body, but it also clarified what matters to me and how I want to move forward.”
    • Lean into connection: Isolation magnifies suffering. Social support is one of the strongest predictors of how well people are able to cope and move forward after illness or trauma. For Maria, connection with other women who had had mastectomies normalized her experience and reduced shame.
    • Practice deliberate pauses: Intentionally give yourself some time to breathe. Mindfulness and contemplative solitude can strengthen your ability to regulate emotions and recover from stress. Pausing allows experience to be processed rather than avoided.
    • Expand identity: Illness, loss and trauma reshape how you think of yourself. Rather than clinging to who you were, resilience often involves expanding who you are becoming. Research on post-traumatic growth shows that people often report deeper relationships, clarified priorities and renewed purpose – not because trauma was good, but because it forced reevaluation. Maria no longer describes herself simply as a breast cancer patient. She is a survivor, yes, but also an advocate, a mentor, a woman whose sense of femininity is self-defined rather than dictated by her anatomy.

    Moving forward

    We are living in a time of widespread burnout and rising mental health challenges, where cultural pressure to appear strong often leaves people silently struggling. An insistence on grit and relentless optimism can backfire, making people feel inadequate when they inevitably feel pain.

    Resilience is not about returning to who you were before illness, loss or trauma. It is about becoming someone new: someone who carries the scar, remembers the loss and still chooses to engage with life.

    Maria still pauses when she sees her reflection. But she no longer turns away.

    “This is my body,” she told me recently. “This is my story.”

    Resilience is not forged in the denial of vulnerability, but in its acceptance. Not in bouncing back, but in integrating what has happened into who you are becoming.

    And that, I believe, is where real strength lives.

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

  • Trauma patients recover faster when medical teams know each other well, new study finds
    Photo credit: SDI Productions/E+ Collection/via Getty ImagesWhen someone is badly hurt, their potential for survival often depends on what happens in the first minutes after they arrive at the hospital.

    When a trauma patient enters the emergency department, their potential for survival often depends on what happens within the first minutes after their arrival. After studying trauma resuscitation teams at UPMC Presbyterian in Pittsburgh, the largest major trauma center in Pennsylvania, it’s clear that trauma teams aren’t organized ahead of time – they’re formed on the fly. Some team members may have worked together many times before, while others may be meeting for the first time.

    Those minutes can be chaotic, fast-paced and high-stakes. The patient is usually rolled in on a stretcher, bleeding, barely breathing and surrounded by alarms and shouting. At the bedside are emergency physicians, anesthesiologists, surgeons, nurses and respiratory therapists – a large team of dedicated health care providers. Everyone has a job. Everyone is moving fast. When it works well, it looks almost effortless. When it doesn’t, small delays can have big consequences.

    Medical professionals often say that “teamwork matters” in health care. But only a few studies show how teamwork affects patient outcomes or point to concrete, practical ways to make teams work better together.

    This knowledge gap motivated us to get together to study this issue. One of us is an intensive care unit physician and the other is an organizational scientist who studies teams in a variety of settings. We based our approach on a classic concept from behavioral science called transactive memory systems.

    Traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, falls and gunshot wounds, are the leading cause of death for young people worldwide. Across all ages, trauma is one of the top killers. Because trauma is widespread, even small adjustments to how emergency teams coordinate can help save lives and shorten recovery periods for patients.

    Doctor wearing blue gloves prepares to intubate a male patient.
    Few studies assess how trauma teamwork affects patient outcomes. picture alliance/picture alliance collection via Getty Images

    This is where transactive memory systems, TMS, come in. TMS are a shared understanding within a team of who knows what and who is good at what. A team doesn’t succeed because everyone knows everything, but because people rely on one another’s expertise. The team works best when each person knows what they are responsible for, what other team members are experts in, and whom to turn to when a specific problem comes up.

    Team familiarity shapes outcomes

    Think of a group of friends playing basketball. The best basketball teams aren’t the ones where everyone has the same skills. They’re the ones where one person is great at rebounding, one person can shoot from a long distance, and another is good at dribbling the ball up the floor. Importantly, everyone knows each other’s skills, so when a certain skill is needed, they know whom to go to.

    In trauma care, this kind of knowledge could save lives. When seconds matter, the team needs to instantly know who would be best at placing a breathing tube and who would be best at reading the ultrasound. Strong TMS means fewer questions, less hesitation and smoother coordination.

    Black doctor in blue scrubs talks with medical team at nurse's station.
    The more often medical teams work together, the better they know each other’s skills and how they coordinate their tasks. FS Productions/Tetra images collection via Getty Images

    For each trauma patient, we measured three things: shared team experience, transactive memory systems and patient outcomes, based on how long patients stayed in the ICU and in the hospital overall. We were looking for teamwork that showed good coordination, trust in expertise and clear division of responsibility.

    The science behind ‘who knows what’

    Our results were striking. First, teams with more shared experience had stronger transactive memory systems. The more often people had worked together before, the better they seemed to know each other’s skills and coordinate their tasks. If you add up how many times two team members had worked together on a previous resuscitation and divide by the number of dyads, or pairs, on the team, the average in our study was 10 times. As that number increased, transactive memory systems became stronger.

    Second, stronger transactive memory systems were linked to better patient outcomes. These improvements were substantial: Patients cared for by teams that were well above average in their transactive memory systems stayed in the hospital about three fewer days and spent nearly two fewer days in the ICU.

    Third, TMS explained why shared experience mattered. It wasn’t just that experienced teams were better, but that shared experience helped teams build a clearer mental “map” of each other’s expertise. That map is what helped patients get better faster.

    Trauma care is unpredictable – you can’t always control who is on a team or how often people work together. But it may be possible to design training procedures and work schedules that help teams build transactive memory faster.

    More broadly, our study suggests that improving health care isn’t just about developing new technology or training better doctors. It’s about leveraging the power of teams, helping people quickly understand and trust each other’s strengths when it matters most. For us, one coming from the bedside and the other from organizational science, that’s the exciting next step: turning the science of teamwork into practical tools that help trauma teams save lives.

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

  • Health care sticker shock has become the norm, but talking to your doctor about costs can help you rein it in
    Photo credit: National Cancer Institute on Unsplash, CC BYA doctor at the National Cancer Institute talks with a patient.

    As health care costs rise, patients aren’t just shouldering higher bills. They’re bearing more and more responsibility for getting information.

    Americans are facing a health care affordability crunch on multiple fronts. In 2025, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a sweeping tax law that scaled back premium subsidies for Americans accessing care through the Affordable Care Act starting in 2026. As a result, millions on ACA plans now face much higher premiums, with many dropping out or expecting to drop out and risk going uninsured as premiums surge. By March 2026, about 1 in 10 people on ACA plans had dropped out, and that share is expected to rise.

    Meanwhile, high-deductible insurance plans have become more common, requiring patients to pay thousands of dollars before coverage fully kicks in. The rise of those plans, along with surging drug prices and the growing share of Americans who are under- or uninsured, means that medical debt remains a leading source of financial strain.

    Nearly half of U.S. adults now report difficulty affording health care. Together, these shifts are accelerating the “consumerization” of health care. Patients now have the ability to comparison shop, evaluate options and manage costs – but often without clear pricing. In this environment, knowing how to ask the right questions may be one of the most important tools patients have.

    We are professors who study how perceptions of health care costs shape patients’ decisions about their care. Our research examines how factors such as price-transparency regulations influence patient choices. Across our work, we consistently hear from patients about rising costs and how conversations about price with their providers too often never happen.

    Why speaking up about cost matters

    When one of us took our child to the doctor for pink eye, the pediatrician quickly sent a prescription for antibiotic drops to the pharmacy. At the pickup, the pharmacist dropped the news that the drops would cost more than US$300. A follow-up phone call to the doctor’s office, however, yielded important information: A generic version of the same medication offered the same treatment and the same results, but at a fraction of the price.

    That quick phone call saved her a lot of money. It also raised a broader question: Why don’t more people have these conversations about cost? In fact, one study shows that cost conversations occur in only about 30% of medical visits.

    These discussions aren’t just for medications. They can be crucial when a recommended procedure has multiple alternatives; when out-of-pocket costs might affect whether you follow through on care; or when a sudden medical bill could create financial strain. Speaking up about price can help patients stay healthier and avoid the all-too-common trade-off between medical care and household expenses.

    The study mentioned above also found that doctors and patients identified ways to reduce out-of-pocket costs – such as switching to a generic drug or adjusting the timing of care – in nearly half of those cases. Importantly, these conversations were typically brief and did not compromise the quality of care, the researchers found.

    Patients actually prefer doctors who bring up costs, other research has found. Still, most patients remain hesitant. While a majority say they want to discuss cost, only a minority actually do, often waiting until a bill arrives – often when it’s too late to consider alternatives. That’s why it’s important that consumers feel empowered to ask the right questions. Here are three that can help make care more affordable.

    A close-up of a person's hands, with pen in one, going over a complicated medical billing form.
    A patient works on a medical billing form. Mael Balland on Unsplash.CC BY

    Is there a generic or lower-cost alternative?

    One of the simplest ways to reduce drug costs is to ask whether a less expensive option is available. Brand-name medications can cost significantly more than generics, even when they are equally effective. One industry survey estimated that 90% of all prescriptions filled in 2024 were generic or biosimilar, but these accounted for only 12% of drug spending.

    In many cases, physicians can substitute a generic drug or recommend a similar treatment that achieves the same outcome at a lower price. And when no direct generic exists, there may be therapeutic alternatives worth considering. For example, if a brand-name eye drop or inhaler isn’t available in generic form, doctors can often prescribe a different medication in the same class that works just as well but costs far less. Research on physician–patient cost conversations shows that switching to lower-cost, clinically similar alternatives within the same drug class is a common strategy for reducing out-of-pocket spending without compromising care.

    Is there any financial assistance available?

    Some hospitals and large health systems have specific programs aimed at making care more affordable for lower-income patients. In many states, government programs address this same goal. These programs often offer discounts on care, but they can be complex to navigate and require significant paperwork. Many health care offices have staff who are knowledgeable about these programs and can help patients determine eligibility and sometimes even assist with applications, although the Trump administration has cut funding.

    Patients can often find these programs through hospital or health system websites, which typically include financial assistance or “charity care” pages outlining eligibility and how to apply. State Medicaid offices and insurance marketplaces are also key entry points for coverage and subsidy programs. Nonprofit organizations and patient advocacy groups may also offer or list assistance tailored to specific conditions or medications.

    It’s also important to remember that for prescription medications, what you’re quoted isn’t always the final price. Many medications come with options to reduce costs, including manufacturer coupons, copay assistance programs and patient assistance programs. Doctors’ offices and pharmacists may also know practical ways to save money, such as using a different pharmacy, switching to mail order or adjusting how a prescription is written. Asking about these options can uncover savings that aren’t immediately obvious.

    What will this cost me, and are there other options?

    Health care pricing is often opaque, and costs can vary widely depending on where and how care is delivered. Asking up front about your expected out-of-pocket cost can help you avoid surprises later.

    This question also opens the door to alternatives. For example, patients may be able to choose a lower-cost imaging center, opt for outpatient rather than hospital-based care, or delay nonurgent services until insurance coverage improves.

    Speaking up is part of taking care of your health

    Health care decisions shouldn’t feel like a choice between your well-being and your wallet. A brief, honest conversation about cost can lead to more affordable and more sustainable care.

    Physicians can’t address financial concerns they don’t hear about, and most want to help their patients access care they can realistically follow through on. As costs continue to shift toward the patient’s burden, asking these questions isn’t just helpful – it’s essential.

    The next time you’re handed a prescription or a referral, remember: One simple question about price could make all the difference.

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

Explore More Health Stories

Care

Health care sticker shock has become the norm, but talking to your doctor about costs can help you rein it in

Well-being

Snoozing in bed is actually bad for you, but here’s how to get out of bed comfortably

Well-being

The good life requires two things, self‑knowledge and friends – you can’t have one without the other

Health

A shocking scientific study says water isn’t actually the best way to get hydrated