The debut images from a new Earth-observing satellite have just given us a view of the impossible: giant auroras rippling over the North Pole in broad daylight.

Earth's auroras are one of our planet's signature wonders — a sight worth advertising in interstellar travel guides, alongside our perfect total solar eclipses, bright shooting stars and majestic blobfish. They are the beautiful result of electrical storms in the atmosphere, appearing when charged solar particles skate along Earth's magnetic-field lines and collide with light-emitting molecules near the poles. (Auroras do exist on other planets, but they are usually not in bright visible colors like ours.)

To human eyes, auroras come out only at night and rarely stray from the poles. That's what makes these first observations from the joint European-Chinese Smile mission, which officially began science operations this week, so special.

Captured in ultraviolet light, the stunning images show a huge, serpent-like ring of charged particles coiling around the North Pole in July 2026. In the foreground, Earth appears ghostly and featureless, glowing like a half moon. The aurora writhes around our planet's sunlit side, covering about a third of it, while Earth's dark nightside bleeds into the background sky. Far behind, bright stars fall like raindrops as Smile shifts subtly in its orbit.

The view alone is worth smiling about, but the new images also promise exciting science to come. Taken just two weeks after scientists first turned Smile's Ultraviolet Aurora Imager on, the observations show that the satellite's instruments are working as they should and that the joint European Space Agency (ESA) and Chinese Academy of Sciences mission can officially begin.

Launched on May 19, Smile will spend the next three years watching Earth from a highly elliptical orbit that takes it about 75,000 miles (121,000 kilometers) over the North Pole — about a third of the way to the moon. From there, Smile can observe the North Pole for a record-breaking 45 hours at a time, offering an unprecedented view of solar activity there.

In addition to the Ultraviolet Aurora Imager, Smile carries three more science instruments to detect X-rays, magnetic fields and light ions over Earth.

This week, scientists also tested the spacecraft's soft X-ray imager by pointing it at the distant supernova remnant Cassiopeia A, located about 11,000 light-years from Earth (image above). Although the camera is working fine, the detector is still picking up a bit too much light when aimed at Earth, so it will require a bit more calibration from scientists on the ground.

'> First photos from Smile spacecraft show Earth like you've never seen it before , who often struggled to breathe from severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

But it wasn't just the imitation that made Jack famous; it was also that she seemed to relish the suffering of a man she purportedly hated. In the video, Jack's owner even claimed that she had a favorite cough.

The parrot appeared to be experiencing a complex emotion that in humans is known as schadenfreude, or pleasure at seeing another's pain. Literally translated from German as "harm joy," it's a feeling that might emerge when a rival coworker gets fired, or when a rude neighbor has their package stolen.

When a cat seems a little too happy watching a human stub their toe, or a horse seems to grin at a person stepping in poop, their owners might also interpret their behavior as schadenfreude.

But can any animals really experience such a complicated emotion? Or is this a classic case of anthropomorphization?

A complex emotion

Animals probably do not experience schadenfreude, according to researchers who study animal behavior and intelligence. However, the question hasn't received much attention in formal research. That's partly due to limitations of animal behavior methodology, but also because the question is bound up with how we define and communicate emotion in the first place.

"The study of complex emotions is incredibly difficult when you're talking about an animal that cannot communicate their emotions linguistically," Zachary Silver, an assistant professor of psychology who leads the canine intelligence lab at Occidental College in Los Angeles, told Live Science. "We don't have the ability to be as precise as we like to be in the scientific community."

Silver explained that researchers can look at behavior, neurological signals or hormonal activity to make an educated guess about what an animal might be feeling. A dog that has its ears back and tail tucked, for instance, is probably experiencing a negative emotion, while one wagging its tail is feeling a positive one.

But "aside from positive and negative, without words to describe the emotion, it becomes very difficult to disentangle," Silver said. The dog could be happy, but it could also just be interested in something new. "It's just so hard for us to say with any definitive nature that we really can know exactly what emotion is going on there," Silver said.

Animal behavior researchers try to avoid anthropomorphizing animals ‪(attributing human qualities to them) without evidence. When a cat or dog comforts a grieving human, for example, it could just be that the behavior was previously reinforced by rewarding the animal with treats or pets, rather than a genuine outpouring of sympathy. Similarly, Jack the parrot could have been mimicking coughs just for attention.

To truly experience a complicated emotion like schadenfreude, an animal needs to understand the emotional states of both itself and others — a concept called theory of mind.

"Dogs may have some ability to attribute mental states like emotions, thoughts, beliefs, intentions to other individuals, but this really only occurs in very select contexts and in really kind of a rudimentary way," Silver said. Because of this, "it's exceedingly unlikely that dogs would be able to experience schadenfreude in the way that we as humans do."

David Stahlman, an animal behavior researcher at the University of Mary Washington, agreed that such emotional capacity in animals is unlikely. He said that animals do not seem to have the ability to recognize their own emotional states, though he noted that not all animal behavior researchers agree.

"There's a difference between the affect, the emotional behavior, and then the recognition of the emotional behavior in oneself," Stahlman said. If nonhuman animals were to have this capability, he suspected it would probably be found in highly social great apes, like chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus). Schadenfreude, in particular, would require animals to live in close social groups, since it requires knowledge of the individual experiencing the harm and whether it's deserved.

In hierarchical groups, it's possible that the suffering of one animal might benefit another and lead to something resembling happiness, Stahlman said, but he doubts this would ever qualify as true schadenfreude.

"The kind of Machiavellian stuff is a very human thing," he said.

Nevertheless, “there is a lot of data pointing in the direction that animals do have really deep capacities for emotional intelligence,” said Kaeli Swift, an animal behavior researcher at the University of Washington and author of the Corvid Research blog.

Swift noted that studies of some corvid species have found evidence of emotional recognition, fairness and "some of the strongest evidence across the animal world" for theory of mind. However, when it comes to studying an emotion as complex and subjective as schadenfreude, she said that researchers "haven’t quite crossed that threshold."

In the study of animal emotions, she said "we have barely started to scratch the surface."

'> Do animals experience schadenfreude?

"When combined with other risk factors such as tobacco use, alcohol consumption, appropriate diet, physical activity, and environmental pollution, it is estimated that about 50 to 60 percent of all cancers in India are avoidable," he said. Past studies suggest that similar figures hold on a global scale.

In the new study, the researchers used the Global Cancer Observatory's GLOBOCAN database, which combines data from various cancer registries to estimate that about 20 million new cancer cases were diagnosed in 2024. The team combined that information with other published data examining the prevalence of different infections in people with specific cancers. This enabled them to estimate how many cases were attributable to each infection.

Their analysis focused on 12 pathogens tied to cancer, including human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis B and C, HIV and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus behind mononucleosis. The resulting breakdown revealed that just four pathogens accounted for roughly 92% of the cancer cases caused by infections.

A bacterium called Helicobacter pylori, which infects the gastrointestinal tract, accounted for 760,000 cases, primarily gastric cancers. The other three leading cancer triggers were viruses. HPV accounted for 750,000 cases, including cervical, penile, throat and mouth cancers. The liver-attacking hepatitis B virus was responsible for 360,000 cases and EBV drove 260,000 cases. (EBV is known to increase the risk of throat cancers, as well as certain lymphomas and stomach cancers.)

The scale of the burden contrasts with gaps in prevention. In 2024, just 31% of eligible adolescent girls worldwide received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine, well below the 90% target, the World Health Organization reports. The degree of protection provided by the vaccine is striking in countries that have achieved higher coverage.

"We have now achieved the critically important milestone of cervical cancer starting to disappear in countries that quickly achieved vaccination rates of over 80 percent," said Dr. Rebecca Perkins, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Tufts University School of Medicine who was not involved in the study. "Research from Australia, England, and Finland have shown zero cases of HPV-related cancers or deaths in young adults who received vaccination by age 13," Perkins told Live Science in an email.

But these successes are concentrated in wealthy nations. The Lancet study found that low- and middle-income countries bear 77% of the global infection-driven cancer burden. For example, about 81% of HPV-linked cancers occurred in these countries.

Perkins pointed out that shifting from the standard two-dose HPV vaccine series to a single-dose regimen using the same vaccines could make mass campaigns easier worldwide by lowering costs and eliminating the need to track patients for follow-ups. The single-dose approach has been backed by recent trials.

In the U.S., progress has been uneven across states with some boasting high vaccination rates and others lagging behind. One barrier is that some children's caregivers feel the shots are unnecessary or that their kids are too young to receive it. "The biggest misconception from families is that the HPV vaccine is not needed or that it can wait," Perkins noted. "The reality is that you can't vaccinate too early, only too late."

There is also a highly effective vaccine for hepatitis B, and health officials recommend giving children their first dose as soon as possible after birth. (The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently made the decision to stop recommending universal vaccination at birth, which experts say could raise the country's rates of hepatitis B infections and related cancers.)

While the challenge with HPV and hepatitis B is getting their vaccines into widespread use, there isn't an approved vaccine for EBV yet.

"The biggest hurdle has been the complexity of the virus," said Claire Shannon-Lowe, a tumor virologist at the University of Birmingham in the U.K. who was not involved in the study. "Unlike many other viruses that use just one or two virus proteins to enter cells, EBV uses multiple proteins ... and it hides inside cells for our entire lifetime."

Epstein-Barr infections are also incredibly common, with up to 95% of people infected by adulthood; most people infected with the virus don't develop a related cancer, but it's still a major contributor to the global cancer burden. The germ has also been tied to several autoimmune diseases, which may help spur the development of a vaccine, Shannon-Lowe suggested.

"With the increased impetus following EBV's association with multiple sclerosis and lupus, we may finally have a potential vaccine in sight that could not only prevent virus infection but could help treat EBV-associated cancers," she said.

For H. pylori, meanwhile, researchers are pursuing population-wide testing for and treatment of the infection to help prevent gastric cancer, while vaccine development remains an area in need of further investment.

The true scale of the infection-related cancer burden may be even larger than the study suggested. Some of the registries used in the new research cover only about 19% of the global population, and only 2% of Africa's population. More high-quality data is needed to fill in these gaps.

For Mathur, though, the bottom line is that cancer prevention makes economic sense.

"Studies have clearly demonstrated that the return on investment of prevention on cancers is much higher than on its treatment in the long run," he said. "Preventive aspects must be strengthened for long-term gains."

This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

'> 1 in 8 cancer cases are caused by infections, underscoring the importance of vaccines, experts say "The Story of the Mammals in 25 Discoveries" (Columbia University Press, 2026), author Donald R. Prothero looks at a time when philosophers and early naturalists believed giants roamed the Earth and explores the idea that extinction was heresy.

Many cultures around the world have a mythology that includes legends about gigantic races of humans that lived on Earth in the dark mysterious past. They may have fought against the gods, or they may have been destroyed by floods. These stories were reinforced by the discovery of gigantic bones, much larger than those of any living human, all over the Mediterranean and Europe.

The Greek philosopher Empedocles (492-432 BCE) reported gigantic bones from Sicily, supposedly remnants of a race of giants. The Roman historian Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE) mentioned fossil ivory in the ground, and according to the Roman historian Suetonius (69- 122 CE), Emperor Augustus owned a collection of large bones that had been found on the island of Capri, near Pompeii. The skulls of elephants, with their huge central opening in front (for the trunk), were thought to be the skulls of the one-eyed cyclops.

In the Middle Ages, these huge bones were again attributed to gigantic humans or other monsters (Genesis 6:4) that were drowned in Noah's flood. Giant tusks from Siberia were thought to be the horns of the mythical unicorn or the tusks of dragons. In some places gigantic teeth or vertebrae of mammoths were revered as relicts of saints. Nearly every possibility was suggested except that they were the bones of extinct elephants.

In the early seventeenth century, some giant bones dug up in a sand pit near Langon in southeastern France were exhibited around France as the remains of the giant Teutons, Germanic tribes that once roamed Gaul and were defeated by the Romans in 101 BCE.

But in 1613 the famous anatomist Riolan attacked the prevailing interpretation, suggesting that they were the bones of an elephant. This generated a raging controversy between physicians and anatomists and the barber-surgeons who called them gigantic human bones. Others thought they were hoaxes or generated by mysterious "plastic forces" (vis plastica in Latin) that percolated through Earth. Still others attacked the anatomists for questioning the biblical account of giants on Earth. The controversies died down in 1618 without being resolved, and for the next two centuries most people continued to interpret new finds as gigantic humans.

The giant bones that kept turning up in the New World were also a source of much mystery and consternation. The Native American tribes usually attributed them to giant monsters fought by their ancestors and incorporated them into their folklore. When these bones were first seen by European settlers, they were thought to be the bones of gigantic humans that roamed the earth in biblical times. Others thought that the giant tasks so revered by the Native Americans were the works of Satan, placed there to tempt the believer.

In 1519, the Spanish explorer and conquistador Hernan Cortez received a bone of a "giant," a gift from the friendly Tlascalan tribe of Mexico during the conquest of the Aztecs. He sent it back to the King of Spain as proof that giants at once lived in the New World. In 1706, the Reverend Cotton Mather of the Massachusetts Bay Colony pronounced them to be "the remains of godless giants drowned in Noah's Flood." He sent some bones to the Royal Society in London to have them certified as evidence of this "wicked giant" because biblical scholars were calculating Adam's height at 123 ft. 9 in.

The Royal Society never pronounced an opinion on these bones, although by that time many members were becoming skeptical of the literal interpretations of Genesis. The stifling effect of religious dogma about giants and Noah's flood was complicated by another idea: the notion of Divine Providence. An omnipotent, benevolent God would never allow any of his creatures to become extinct. As the poet Alexander Pope wrote in An Essay on Man (1734), "who sees with equal eye, as God of all, a hero perish, or a sparrow fall."

The prevailing concept was that of a "great chain of being" that linked the animals to man to the angels to God. Breaking any link in that chain implied the destruction of the whole chain. In the same poem, Pope also wrote: "Where, one step broken, the great scale's destroy'd; From Nature's chain whatever link you strike, Ten or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike."

By the late 1700s, however, it was becoming more and more apparent that many of the recently discovered fossils had no living counterparts. Remote corners of the world were being explored, and although many new and surprising beasts were discovered, clearly the gigantic beasts were not hiding in South America or Africa or the East Indies. Many strange fossils, such as the bones of hippopotami in Paris and London, were clearly related to tropical animals, but it was assumed that these bones had been washed from the tropics during the Great Flood.

The notion of extinction was still blasphemous. The New World soon provided unequivocal evidence that these large bones were not simply gigantic humans. In 1739, Charles le Moyne, the second Baron de Longueil, left Montreal with French and Indian troops to fight the Chickasaw Indians along the Ohio River. Somewhere along the Ohio he found the remains of what appeared to be three elephants. When the war ended in 1740, le Moyne collected the bones and shipped them to New Orleans and ultimately to Paris, where they came to the attention of French naturalists.

In the 1740s and 1750s, English settlers in the region sent more of these bones from Big Bone Lick, Kentucky, off to England and also to Benjamin Franklin in America. Most of the bones (especially the tusks) were clearly like those of elephants and mammoths, but the teeth were puzzling. They were clearly unlike any living elephant, yet they were part of an animal of elephantine size. (We now know that these were specimens of the American mastodon, Mammut americanum.) Franklin speculated that the teeth were reminiscent of a carnivorous animal, although he and others later decided it was a vegetarian.

In 1769, the famous British anatomist William Hunter took the carnivory suggestion seriously and suggested this was not a true elephant but a "pseudelephant" or "American incognitum" (Latin for "unknown") that had independently developed ivory tusks:

"This monster, with the agility and ferocity of a tiger . . . cruel as the bloody panther, swift as the descending eagle, terrible as the angel of night. . . . And if this animal was indeed carnivorous, which I believe cannot be doubted, though we may as philosophers regret it, as men we cannot but thank Heaven that its whole generation is probably extinct."

This very precocious suggestion was still not accepted by naturalists of the time. Nevertheless, remains of the "incognitum" and also of the Siberian mammoth (including frozen carcasses with hair and skin) were turning up again and again. Georges Louis Leclerc, the Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), concluded in his Théorie de la terre in 1749 that although most of the supposedly extinct animals were hiding somewhere in an unknown region, it was likely that the large terrestrial mammals such as the mammoth and "incognitum" had actually perished.

By 1778, Buffon was relating their disappearance to his ideas of violent cataclysms in Earth's early history. During this time the climate was warmer and polar regions had once been tropical, so "elephants" (meaning mammoths) could live in Siberia. This implied a nonbiblical Earth of much greater antiquity. Buffon suggested it was as much as 75,000 to 3,000,000 years old, rather than the 6,000 years demanded by most literalist biblical scholars.

Naturally, such revolutionary ideas were not popular with the theologians in the Sorbonne. Buffon was protected by the king, however, so he was not persecuted for his heresy, although his ideas were not widely accepted either. The fact of extinction was finally proved by one of the greatest scientists of all time, the Baron Georges Cuvier (1769-1832).

Jean Leopold Frederic Georges Cuvier was an impressive man. Tall of stature, he had a "massive" head crowned by a large mane of hair. One admirer wrote that his head "gave to his entire person an undeniable cachet of majesty and to his face an expression of profound meditation." After his death, scientists weighed his brain and found that it was a massive 1830 grams [4 pounds], more than 400 grams [14 ounces] above average, and 200 grams [7 ounces] heavier than any brain ever measured at that time.

More important, he was one of the most brilliant men of his time, with a command of many subjects, some of which he invented all by himself. Before Cuvier, natural history was a field that resembled stamp collecting, with many amateur naturalists compiling long lists and descriptions of new species without analyzing the similarities in their anatomy. Cuvier almost single-handedly revolutionized natural history by dissecting many different animals and discovering their underlying similarities and differences.

This became the foundation of comparative anatomy, a subject that has been fundamental to biology ever since. Naturalists and explorers sent him their fossil bones, and he was the first to correctly describe many types of extinct animals. Cuvier solved the mystery of the puzzling fossil teeth called the "Great Incognitum" and recognized them as the teeth of the elephant-like mastodons. He also correctly deciphered the huge marine lizards we now know as mosasaurs.

For this reason, he is also considered to be the founder of vertebrate paleontology. Cuvier is most famous for his "law of correlation of parts," wherein he discovered that certain types of anatomical features tend to be associated. If you are a flesh eater, you will have sharp teeth and claws; if you are a plant eater, you will have flat grinding teeth and hooves; and so on. Using this law, paleontologists have been able to reconstruct whole animals from just a few key bones because the other parts of the anatomy are so predictable.

Excerpted from The Story of the Mammals in 25 Discoveries: Amazing Fossils and the People Who Found Them by Donald R. Prothero. Copyright (c) 2026 Donald R. Prothero. Used by arrangement with the Publisher. All rights reserved.

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

'> What medieval people made of fossils before vertebrate paleontology can raise the risk of neurodegenerative disorders such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), so finding an effective treatment for these blows could be useful for warding off debilitating conditions down the line.

The new research, published in the journal Communications Biology, included only lab rats, so there's more work to be done to translate the findings to humans. But the early results hint at a new application for psilocybin — a drug that's already been explored for a range of other conditions, including depression, PTSD and anorexia.

Live Science spoke with study co-author Argel Aguilar-Valles, an associate professor of neuroscience at Carleton University in Ontario, about the new study and how the research might eventually translate to treatments for repetitive head injuries.

Nicoletta Lanese: In this new study you focus on mild head trauma. Why does that minor level of injury still raise concern?

Argel Aguilar-Valles: This work was spearheaded by our collaborator, Dr. Craig Ferris at Northeastern University in Boston. The idea was to focus on the cumulative effect of those milder head hits, or injuries, that happen quite commonly; a lot of children and older adults can have repeated instances of these events of head trauma, and it doesn't necessarily lead to any immediate treatment or hospitalizations because they are considered fairly mild.

But over time, there's evidence that this can lead to cumulative and long-term effects that can affect the health outcomes of these individuals, particularly as we age. It's a risk factor for several forms of dementia. So the idea was to try to model this with a milder version of head injury [in lab rats].

So it's repeated — it's three hits — they're controlled, they're fairly mild. And they produce some alterations in the brain networks that are evident in using either MRI [which looks at the brain's structure] or functional MRI [which analyzes brain activity] analysis.

NL: So these are head impacts that don't come with the symptoms associated with concussions?

AAV: It's always difficult to compare [what a rat is experiencing] to what a human might experience, especially here. One good way to put it is that there's no loss of consciousness ‪—‬ so in those instances where the hits happen but you don't black out.

NL: Is there anything available now to manage and treat these mild impacts?

AAV: Well, as far as I'm aware, there's not really an intervention. I've experienced this secondhand with my children. Sometimes, they will come back from school and then they [the teachers] say, "OK, they had a hit on the head; there's a bump, but they didn't lose consciousness or anything."

Then sometimes, you go to the doctor concerned and typically you're told, "OK, just keep them under observation." If there's no vomiting, nausea, if there was no loss of consciousness, typically they just send you home and say keep an eye. Put some ice on it. Maybe don't overexert yourself in the next few days — and that's about it.

There is no intervention — for instance, if we do this [treatment], it's going to prevent you from developing dementia 50 years down the line. There's obviously nothing like that, particularly when you have repeated instances and the effects are cumulative.

NL: What made psilocybin seem like a potentially promising treatment for head trauma?

AAV: My group specifically has had an interest in testing the ability of molecules collectively known as psychoplastogens. We didn't coin the term, but it basically refers to all of these drugs that produce these brain-plasticity effects [changes in the brain's structure and activity]. These include serotonergic psychedelics [such as psilocybin and LSD, which affect serotonin receptors], and also things like ketamine or even MDMA.

We observe changes in cultured neurons in response to these drugs, in terms of dendritic complexity and increased synaptic spine density [changes in neurons' incoming and outgoing wires]. And in vivo [in live animals], you also observe functional reorganization of networks. All of these drugs have the ability to trigger these mechanisms. They do it through different pharmacological targets, but they all converge on some of these plasticity effects.

There are deficits in this plasticity in psychiatric illnesses, but also, obviously, in neurological disorders and even neurodegenerative disorders, where these plasticity mechanisms are completely nonfunctional.

So, we wanted to test the limit of the ability of these molecules to rescue, or to provide some therapeutic relief, in conditions where you have physical damage or neurodegenerative pathological mechanisms underlying the disorders. We observed — and not only us, but several other labs have also observed — that some of these molecules do seem to provide some level of therapeutic relief. [Editor's note: The current study looked only at physical trauma, but other labs have started to explore psilocybin for neurodegenerative disorders.]

It's still unclear if they're disease-modifying, in the sense they could provide lasting changes that can modify the course of the disorder. But so far, the evidence indicates that they can at least help to ameliorate some of the negative consequences of either neurodegeneration models or physical trauma, like in this case.

NL: Psychedelics have been more thoroughly studied for conditions like depression. In both depression and head trauma, could similar mechanisms explain the drug's potential benefits?

AAV: Some of the cellular effects might be similar. But the underlying condition can look quite different. Even if you think of two cases of depression, they can look very, very different. The drugs are going to be engaging similar mechanisms, but also the context in which these mechanisms are occurring will probably affect the outcome. What is remarkable about these drugs is that they seem to be working in both cases, so they're certainly tackling something that might be common in both situations.

We don't know the limits of these drugs yet. I'm not trying to imply that they don't have limits; what I'm trying to say is that our knowledge is incomplete. We don't know when they will work better than other potential treatment options.

I feel that will come when their clinical use is more widespread and we have a better idea of how they work in the heterogeneous populations that clinicians have in real life. In our animal models, conditions are very, very controlled and homogeneous, so they respond in a certain, similar way, whereas in the clinic, you observe huge disparity [in responses].

NL: Is there reason to think that psilocybin would be more promising than other psychoplastogens?

AAV: I think a lot of the focus on psilocybin has been because it's one of the psychedelics that's been more widely tested both in clinic and preclinical settings.

I'm not a clinician, but one of the reasons why psilocybin is favored over others is the length of the psychedelic trip. It's a few hours. If you go with something like LSD, it will last much longer. While the person is under the influence of the drug and undergoing the trip, there needs to be clinical supervision, so it becomes really challenging logistically to arrange sessions with psychedelics that last a long time.

That's also motivated preclinical research, like ours, to focus on this drug, as opposed to others that may have similar effects. From a potential translational perspective, it might be a safer bet to study this drug.

NL: In clinical trials of psychedelics, scientists often use a very small dose to try to avoid triggering strong hallucinogenic effects. Was that a goal with the rats?

AAV: No, they're probably experiencing something — this is a relatively high dose. A lot of people use 1 milligram of psilocybin per kilogram of body weight. In this case, they were using 3 milligram per kilogram, and it was based on previous imaging studies where they looked at the effects of this drug.

One measure we use is the "head twitch response," which is a behavioral measure that we commonly use in rodent work to test the hallucinogenic potential of a drug. This is a very rapid head movement that occurs in response to the serotonergic psychedelics. It's a behavioral response that correlates with hallucinogenic potential, and not perfectly.

For psilocybin, it's been very well characterized in the sense that it's mediated by the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor [in rodents], which is the same receptor that mediates hallucinations and the psychedelic trip in humans.

NL: What notable changes did you see in the rats in this study?

AAV: The measurements were done nearly three weeks after the injury. It's relatively short if you think of a human, but for a mouse, things happen much faster metabolically and physiologically. There was at least evidence of increased phosphorylation of tau [changes in a specific brain protein tied to Alzheimer's], and that was reversed by the treatment with psilocybin. That was certainly one surprising finding, and it's worth following up, I believe.

But also the hyperconnectivity — the brain's functional connectivity was really dramatically affected in the treated rodents with the head hits. They not only recovered but went to higher levels than the control-group animals.

We don't really know what the meaning of that is, but certainly it's quite remarkable how the networks became hyperconnected. And hopefully that means something positive for the animals. But it was certainly surprising, the level of recovery of that particular measure.

NL: And these effects were seen throughout the brain?

AAV: There were effects in a lot of brain regions — the thalamus, the hippocampus, the basal ganglia, and all different parts of the cortex, etc. One of the things that stands out from this study was the connectivity of dopaminergic nuclei [hubs of dopamine production in the middle of the brain]. Their connectivity is really fundamentally changed by the hits and then by the treatment with psilocybin.

These modulatory regions, the dopaminergic regions, are concentrated in one part of the brain, but they affect overall brain function because they have these widespread connections. So they're really crucial for a lot of functions, and we're seeing effects in these regions — that's really intriguing.

NL: Is it known whether the strength of the psychedelic trip has anything to do with the degree of benefit?

AAV: It is currently a hotly debated topic in the psychedelic field, whether the intensity of the psychedelic experience has anything to do with the beneficial effects or not. You can envision situations like psychological trauma, as opposed to physical trauma, where that trip might be part of the therapeutic mechanisms. It becomes evident in the debriefing sessions after psychedelic treatment, where it seems like in some cases, the psychedelic experience is fundamental.

But these are fairly correlative measures — if the two happen at the same time, it doesn't mean that they are linked together causally. So that's something that is being tested actively. One of the ways is the development of these non-hallucinogenic analogues that seemingly trigger similar plasticity mechanisms as their psychedelic counterparts do [without causing a trip].

I don't think we've had the first clinical trial with these drugs yet. Some of them may have undergone Phase I clinical trials just for safety, but I believe none of them have been tested in Phase II trials yet [in which their effectiveness is explored for specific conditions].

NL: Given this work is in rats, what are the next steps to translate this into a treatment for people?

AAV: Extending the observations, like other groups have done — looking at what happens if you do give this treatment months after the events. It's still unclear to me if, with this model we have, you will have effects months later.

We have some correlative measures that potentially BDNF expression [a gene for brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which helps neurons grow connections] is increased, and also the levels of its receptor, called TrkB. That is a possibility that needs to be further investigated, trying to find out whether these neurotrophic factors are crucial for the effects that we're seeing.

And obviously, the psychedelic trip is still a potential issue. But testing whether these non-hallucinogenic derivatives have the same lasting effects as their hallucinogenic counterparts do — that will be crucial and that can, in some cases, potentially facilitate the translation [into treatments]. Because not every person reacts the same way to these hallucinogenic compounds, and not everybody has the same risks.

NL: I assume the non-psychedelic options might be better for children, for instance?

AAV: We don't know what the consequences [of psychedelic use] are in a developing brain. There's not enough data. That will be obviously a big thing to sort out before recommending the use of these drugs, and maybe some of those non-hallucinogenic derivatives may hold the answer for that — for those cases where you really don't want to induce a full-on psychedelic experience.

There's also schizophrenia and a bunch of other psychiatric diagnoses with psychosis associated with them — from bipolar or psychosis-like events or episodes — where you might not want to apply a serotonergic psychedelic.

NL: Looking ahead to the next five to 10 years, what do you hope to see in the field?

AAV: There's a lot of enthusiasm in the field and a lot of push to try to characterize and understand better these drugs, from a basic perspective or a cellular level up to a brain wave level and then also the psychological effects. So there are a lot of different disciplines implicated in studying these drugs, and I think that's really exciting. That will hopefully lead to a wealth of knowledge about these drugs — not only their effects but also their limitations and their potential risks.

Hopefully we will have a balanced approach as scientists, to be able to really tease apart in which cases it [psychedelic treatment] will be really useful and in which cases the risks outweigh the benefits. That will be crucial to understand.

There's a lot of potential there, but we should proceed with caution.

This interview has been condensed and edited lightly for clarity. This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.

Help us improve Live Science Pro: We're always trying to make our content better. Leave us feedback about Pro here.

'> Could psilocybin treat brain injuries? Neuroscientist explains how psychedelics could fill a gap in head trauma care