The deliberate destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian war unleashed a hidden environmental crisis, destroying ecosystems and releasing polluted sediments into downstream water systems, according to a new study. The findings provide critical new insights into the prolonged ecological risks of strategic dam destruction during warfare and the effects that may persist for years beyond war. “Our work highlights the far-reaching environmental consequences of the [Kakhovka Dam] destruction and raises concerns not only about the use of water as a weapon, but also about risks posed by aging dams around the world,” write the authors. Dams are critical pieces of modern water infrastructure, supporting agriculture, energy production, and water supply. While the likelihood of structural failure is relatively low, aging infrastructure and the growing impacts of climate change have raised concerns about their stability. However, an often-overlooked risk factor is human conflict, as the deliberate destruction of dams – despite being prohibited under the Geneva Conventions – has increasingly been used as a weapon of war through intentional destruction, amplifying both humanitarian and environmental crises. A recent example of this was the military destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine in June 2023. The collapse not only caused catastrophic flooding but also released pollutants trapped in reservoir sediments. While the economic and societal impacts of the destruction have been discussed, the long-term environmental effects and their human hazards remain poorly understood. Combining field surveys, remote sensing data, and hydrodynamic modeling, Oleksandra Shumilova and colleagues assessed the human hazards resulting from the Kakhovka Dam collapse and predicted ecosystem recovery trends following the disaster. According to the findings, the dam’s destruction resulted in substantial erosion, soil loss, and vegetation uprooting, driving extensive habitat destruction. Perhaps more concerning, the rapid draining of the reservoir triggered a “toxic time-bomb,” releasing as much as 1.7 cubic kilometers of sediments contaminated by a host of pollutants, including heavy metals, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Given their persistent nature, these pollutants will pose severe long-term ecological and human health risks across the affected area. Shumilova et al. predict that within five years, 80% of the ecosystem functions lost due to the dam’s presence will be restored and that biodiversity in the floodplain is likely to recover significantly within two years. However, while heavy metal contamination can be mitigated through bioremediation (i.e. using plants to absorb pollutants), the persistent pollutants will remain a major concern.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health’s recent decision to impose a 15% cap on facilities and administrative (F&A) cost reimbursements threatens to undermine the quality and sustainability of university research by slashing indirect funding by $4 billion. In a Policy Forum, Jeongwon Choi and colleagues argue that this policy is fundamentally flawed, as it disregards the essential role of indirect costs, such as infrastructure, utilities, and administrative support, in enabling scientific research. The current system, governed by rigorous federal oversight and audits, ensures that F&A reimbursements are fair and necessary, varying across institutions based on actual costs. NIH’s argument that reducing F&A costs will redirect more funds to direct research is misleading, as indirect and direct costs are interdependent. Cutting F&A funding will ultimately weaken research capacity rather than enhance it. In response to several lawsuits disputing this decision, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelly issued a temporary restraining order on the policy. According to Choi et al., Judge Kelly’s skepticism of NIH’s justification underscores that this policy is not a cost-saving measure for efficiency but rather a funding reduction in disguise, with potentially detrimental consequences for the U.S. research ecosystem. Cutting F&A funding will ultimately weaken research capacity, stifle scientific competitiveness, and impose increased financial strain on institutions. “The scientific community, firms that depend on university research, members of Congress and their constituents, and Judge Kelly in particular, should consider these implications of the proposed plan,” write the authors.  “The consequences of failing to do so […] are simply too dire to ignore.”

A study, published in Cancer Cell, shows that high-grade glioma tumor cells harboring DNA alterations in the gene PDGFRA responded to the drug avapritinib, which is already approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to treat gastrointestinal stromal tumors with a PDGFRA exon 18 mutation as well advanced systemic mastocytosis and indolent systemic mastocytosis.

In a recently published article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Marisha Burden, MD, MBA, and Liselotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, introduce evidence-based work design, a unique approach that confronts the growing divide between frontline clinicians and administrative leaders in health care.

A person’s “bioenergetic age”—or how youthfully their cells generate energy—might be a key indicator of whether they’re at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, new research from Weill Cornell Medicine shows. The study, published Feb. 24 in Nature Communications, suggests healthy living can turn back the bioenergetic clock for some people, helping them fend off Alzheimer’s as effectively as a new drug called lecanemab.