Vulnerability often feels like an unsettling sense of weakness that many people find terrifying. Researcher Brené Brown describes vulnerability as “uncertainty, risk, loosening control, and emotional exposure.” On the October 11 episode of The Graham Norton Show, comedian and actor Miranda Hart shared how Selena Gomez’s documentary My Mind and Me inspired her to embrace her chronic illness and stay committed to her writing. Gomez, who was also on the show, became emotional and teared up.
Selena Gomez attends the photocall for
“It makes me quite emotional because when I saw your documentary on Apple about your illness struggles, I was thinking do I share, is this something I should do,” Hart said in the episode, adding that the act made her feel vulnerable. “It’s not something I’ve done before and I watched your documentary and I just thought absolutely yes, and that’s what kept me writing.”
In her recently-released book, “I Haven’t Been Entirely Honest with You,” Hart shared that she began suffering from conditions like bronchitis, tonsillitis, pericarditis, gastroenteritis, and labyrinthitis during her late teens. In 2020, she was diagnosed with Lyme disease. “I wasn’t in arenas as a pop star, but I was backstage at the BBC trying to go on [and] not knowing whether to go on,” Hart said on the talk show. Hearing how much her documentary impacted Hart moved Gomez to tears. She also reached out to embrace Hart’s hand, subtly lowered her head, and whispered a “thank you.”
“It’s the best therapy to find out that your perhaps most vulnerable moment was received, and more importantly, understood by someone that needed to hear it, as much as you needed to say it. Sometimes all you need is to know that you’re not alone,” commented @wardharrington-et1gf in response to the video. Others found it touching, inspiring, and even healing.
Gomez was diagnosed with Lupus in 2013, as she revealed to Billboard in 2015. “I’ve been through chemotherapy,” she added. In April 2020, while speaking to Miley Cyrus on the Cyrus’ “Bright Minded” show, Gomez revealed that she was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She said in another interview that her team members pressed her not to share these vulnerabilities with the public. But she felt that it was important to reveal the diagnosis. “I’ve been pulled in many different directions to not or to be able to say it. But once I did, there was no taking it back. I was very proud,” she said. “It allowed me to learn more about myself.”
In the documentary, she showed what life was like for her while she battled with lupus, bipolar disorder, and childhood stardom. She almost didn’t release the documentary, she told Rolling Stone. “I’m just so nervous,” she said. “Because I have the platform I have, it’s kind of like I’m sacrificing myself a little bit for a greater purpose. I don’t want that to sound dramatic, but I almost wasn’t going to put this out. God’s honest truth, a few weeks ago, I wasn’t sure I could do it.” The honest conversation between Gomez and Hart only re-affirms that hiding your vulnerability doesn’t make you strong.
Science might be closer than ever to solving your aching knee problems. Researchers at Northwestern University have created a rubbery goo that can regrow cartilage in damaged knees.
Cartilage cushions joints, keeps movement smooth and pain-free, and reduces pressure on bones—from standing still to a vigorous hike. However, when it’s damaged by injury or simple wear and tear, the road to recovery can be extremely challenging. Cartilage has a very limited ability to regrow and heal itself.
This breakthrough bioactive material doesn’t just passively sit in the body, it binds to and integrates with surrounding tissue, promoting cartilage regeneration. The substance forms a network of components that imitate the body’s natural environment. A scaffold-like structure allows cells to connect and rebuild cartilage tissue.
“The problem is that, in adult humans, cartilage does not have an inherent ability to heal,” said Samuel I. Stupp, who led the study. “Our new therapy can induce repair in a tissue that does not naturally regenerate. We think our treatment could help address a serious, unmet clinical need.”
Bioactive material regenerates high-quality cartilage
In the study, Stupp and his team applied the material to damaged cartilage in sheep. These animals have weight-bearing loads comparable to human knees.
The biomaterial, made from short protein fragments and a modified version of hyaluronic acid, behaves similarly to naturally occurring cartilage in the body. Stupp explained the reasoning behind using hyaluronic acid, saying, “It’s also naturally found in many tissues throughout the human body, including the joints and brain. We chose it because it resembles the natural polymers found in cartilage.”
After fewer than six months, the new cartilage showed high-quality regeneration and strong indications that the repair could work in humans.
Cartilage damage is unfortunately very common, affecting more than 500 million people worldwide. For decades, the message has been discouraging: once cartilage is damaged or disappears, it’s gone for good.
A 2025 study found that current treatments, such as surgery, cell implants, and microfracture, may help in the short term but often produce weaker cartilage soon after. Failure rates for microfracture surgery have led to as many as 41% of patients requiring total knee replacement. Finding reliable, long-lasting solutions is still a work in progress.
A 2025 study on cartilage repair found that, although many people felt better after surgery, up to 48% developed arthritis over time. Only 17–20% returned to playing sports, and some required additional surgeries, including knee replacement.
Researchers believe the bioactive material could be used in most joint surgeries. With these promising findings, the goo-like substance could one day make a meaningful difference for anyone hoping to move without pain again.
“By regenerating hyaline cartilage, our approach should be more resistant to wear and tear, fixing the problem of poor mobility and joint pain for the long term while also avoiding the need for joint reconstruction with large pieces of hardware,” Stupp said.
Studies have found small amounts of toxic heavy metals and other potentially harmful substances in some menstrual pads and tampons. – Photo credit: zoranm/E+ via Getty Images
Unfortunately, studies have shown that many personal care products, including shampoo, lotion, nail polish and menstrual products, contain hazardous chemicals. Items used in or near the vagina are of particular concern because they are in contact with vaginal mucous membranes – the moist tissue lining the inside of the vagina that secretes mucus. These tissues can absorb some chemicals very efficiently.
People use menstrual products 24 hours a day for multiple days monthly, over the course of many years. Tampons, which are used internally, are surrounded by the permeable vaginal mucous membrane for up to eight hours at a time.
I am an environmental epidemiologist, and I study chemical exposure, its sources and its health effects. As a person who menstruates, I also must make my own decisions around menstrual products and manage the challenge of finding accurate information about women’s health risks, which receive less research attentionand funding than men’s health.
In 2024, I co-authored the first paper that detected metals in tampons, including toxic metals like lead and arsenic. My colleagues and I also wrote a review paper that surveyed the scientific literature and found about two dozen studies measuring chemicals in menstrual products.
The various chemicals that these studies detected were typically at concentrations low enough to make their health impact unclear. However, they included chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system, which makes and controls hormones that are essential for bodies to function.
How contaminants get into menstrual products
The first modern tampon in the U.S. was patented in 1931. Nearly a century later, tampons still are made primarily from cotton, rayon or a blend of the two.
Research suggests that these chemicals are present in a large proportion of menstrual products – we found lead present in all 30 tampons we tested. What we don’t yet know is if these chemicals can get into people’s bodies in a high enough concentration to cause health effects in either the reproductive system or elsewhere in the body.
Limited federal regulations
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates tampons, menstrual cups and scented menstrual pads as Class II medical devices, which carry moderate to medium risk. Unscented menstrual pads are Class I medical devices, which are considered low-risk. These categories are based on the risk the device may present to a consumer who uses it in the intended way.
FDA guidance for Class II devices offers only a few general guidelines with respect to chemicals. For menstrual tampons and pads, it recommends – but does not require – that products should not contain two specific dioxin products or “any pesticide and herbicide residues.” Dioxins are a chemical by-product of the bleaching process to whiten cotton, and they are associated with cancer and endocrine disruption. Using non-chlorine bleaching methods can reduce dioxin formation.
The most stringent regulation of tampons in the U.S. occurred after an illness called toxic shock syndrome became a public concern in the 1970s and 1980s. Menstrual toxic shock syndrome occurs when the bacteria Staphlococcus aureus grows in the vagina on inserted menstrual products and releases a toxin called TSST-1. This substance can be absorbed through the vaginal mucosa and cause a variety of symptoms, including fever, high blood pressure, shock and even death.
During this epidemic, in which at least 52 cases were recorded and seven people died over a period of eight months, tampons were associated with the syndrome – especially a highly absorbent tampon called Rely, which was pulled from the market.
In response, the FDA created a task force that recommended standardizing the tampon absorbencies and advised consumers to use the lowest absorbency for their flow. This is why tampons in the U.S. now come in a range of absorbencies, from light through regular to super and ultra, so that users can choose the level they need while minimizing risk of toxic shock.
Living in a ‘soup of chemicals’
Just because a chemical is present in a menstrual product doesn’t mean it can get into the body. However, chemicals like lead and arsenic are known threats to human health. So it’s important to study whether harmful chemicals present in menstrual products could contribute to health problems.
Nonetheless, science has shown that chemical exposure from at least one menstrual product – vaginal douches – does affect health. Vaginal douching is the process of washing or cleaning the inside of the vagina with water or other fluids.
Scientists are working now to determine what concentrations of metals and other chemicals can leach out of tampons and other menstrual products. One 2025 study estimated that volatile organic compounds, a group of chemicals that vaporize quickly, can be absorbed through the vaginal mucosa. Volatile organic compounds may be added to menstrual products as part of fragrances, adhesives or other product components.
My team and I are now shifting our focus to the relationship between menstrual product use, various chemicals, and menstrual pain and bleeding severity. We want to see whether some chemicals will be elevated in menstrual blood, whether these chemical levels are higher in people who use tampons, and whether the chemicals are associated with greater menstrual pain and bleeding.
California also enacted a law in October 2025 that requires manufacturers of disposable tampons and pads to measure concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc in their products, and to share those measurements with the state, which can publish them. More information like this will help support informed choices for millions of consumers who rely on menstrual products every month.
Understanding one another can be hard. There is a big difference between someone snapping at you out of contempt, and calling you out for a mistake because they believe in you and know you can do better. One of these cases calls for anger, but the other for humility or even embarrassment. Or maybe they are only snapping because they’re “hangry” – they might just need a Snickers bar.
And that’s just with people we know. What about strangers, people across the political divide, or even those with very different backgrounds and cultures than your own?
My field, philosophy, offers a tried-and-true answer to what we need to do in order to understand people and texts from very different backgrounds and cultural assumptions than our own. We need to be charitable.
Charity in this sense isn’t a matter of giving money to those who need it more. Instead, it’s seeing others in a favorable light – of seeing the best in them. In my work, I think of this as seeing other people as protagonists: characters who “do their best” with the predicament in which they find themselves. Interpreting someone charitably doesn’t require agreeing with them. But it does require doing our best to find merit in their point of view.
Of course, people and ideas don’t have unlimited merit. We can err by failing to see the merit of someone’s point of view – or we can err by finding merit that isn’t really there.
But the idea of charity is that it’s worse to make the first kind of error because it prevents us from getting along and learning from one another. By seeing the best in someone else and in their ideas, we can learn productively from engaging with them. Protagonists are people we can learn from and cooperate with.
Taking them seriously
It doesn’t take a genius to observe that we are all better at seeing the best in the people we agree with – and worse with those across the political divide. Political discussions on social media are often dominated by competing attributions of more and more insidious motives to people on the other side. We see them not as protagonists, but as antagonists.
By seeing the worst in someone else’s ideas, we let ourselves off easy. We dismiss them when instead we need to be taking them seriously.
So why, if charity requires seeing the best in others, are we so often tempted to see the worst in them?
A better understanding of charity provides the answer. Seeing the best and the worst in others are not opposite ways of interpreting someone, but simply two sides of the same coin. Here’s why:
Part of charity is sifting out the signal from the noise. – Photo credit: Maskot/Getty Images
Interpretation trade-offs
Interpreting someone isn’t all about figuring out their motives. Sometimes it’s about sorting out what is signal and what is noise. If I snap at you, you could spend a lot of time fixating over whether to be angry or embarrassed. But sometimes the right move is just to pass me a Snickers bar and move on. Our moods and actions are influenced by hunger, hormones, alcohol and lack of sleep, just to name a few. Overinterpreting a snap after I missed breakfast treats as signal what is really just noise.
Overlooking a thing or two when I am hangry can be the best way to see the best in me. When you interpret my snap as merely the result of missing a meal, you don’t really see it as coming from me, the protagonist; but as the result of my predicament. You will judge me, not by whether I am hangry, but by how I overcome that. Your interpretation sees me in a more positive light, by taking away some of my agency.
By “agency,” I mean the extent to which someone gets credit for what they do. You have greater agency over something that you do on purpose, and less if was a foreseen but accepted side effect of your plan. You have less agency if it was an accident, but more if the accident was negligent; less agency if you just snapped because you’re hangry, but more if you know you get hangry and chose to skip lunch anyway.
A perfect agent wouldn’t be affected by hormones and hunger. They would simply make rational choices that advance their goals. But humans aren’t like that. We are imperfectly embodied agents, at best. So interpreting one another well sometimes requires seeing the good in one another, at the cost of agency. In other words, it has to balance agency against the good, as I have argued in my recent work.
But you can’t find the best in someone by just ignoring more and more until all the bad things are trimmed away and only something good is left. Your interpretation has to fit with the facts of what they do and say.
And sometimes the trade-offs between agency and the good go the other way – we interpret each other in ways that attribute more agency but less good. If passing me a Snickers bar seems to calm me down, you might try it again the next time I snap. But one day you realize that you have started carrying extra Snickers bars everywhere you go in case you run into me, and a different interpretation presents itself: Maybe instead of being a decent but mood-challenged friend, I have just been using you for your candy bars.
This creates tipping points for charitable interpretation. When we cross the tipping point, you switch from seeing someone as an imperfectly embodied protagonist to seeing them as an antagonist.
Charity without a cost
All of this is a way of arguing that it is sometimes right to see the worst in others. Sometimes other people really are the worst, and understanding them requires understanding their agency, not what is good about them. Protagonists and antagonists are just two sides of the same coin: The very same interpretive process can lead us in either direction.
Unfortunately, this means there is no simple test for when you are doing well enough at seeing the best in others. In particular, there is no test that we can agree about across our political differences. Interpreting someone charitably requires looking hard enough for good in them, but part of what we disagree with one another about is precisely what is good. So we are bound to disagree with one another about who is being sufficiently charitable.
But as a personal aspiration, a little more charity can go a long way. We can be generous not just with money, but in how we interpret others. But unlike giving money away, we don’t lose anything when we try harder to see the best in someone else.
