If you shop on Google Flights, you get a quick comparison for different itineraries: One flight’s carbon emissions may be average, while another’s are 14% higher. But if you go shopping for a new laptop, you likely won’t find quick, comprehensible information on different models’ sustainability bonafides, despite the of producing and discarding electronics. In part, that’s because understanding a device’s emissions is difficult and time-consuming, even for experts.��

����ԭ�� researchers developed an artificial intelligence system that automatically estimates the environmental impacts of making different electronic devices. The system uses AI agents — programs that perform tasks autonomously — to comb through publicly available data and conduct life cycle assessments, or LCAs. The system achieves an average error rate of 5%-19%, similar to the accuracy of LCAs conducted by experts.

The team June 12 in Nature Electronics.��

AI agents have recently grown increasingly capable of performing complex tasks. Today’s agents can search the web and pull information about electronic parts from product descriptions, images and documents.��

“Some of our previous research made me curious about how LCA experts perform environmental assessments — and whether that process could be automated,” said lead author , a UW doctoral student in the Allen School. “So to understand the bottlenecks firsthand, and then built a system that emulates these interactions with two AI agents. Each of them mimics different roles in the LCA process.”

One agent acts as a sort of analyst, defining what information needs to be gathered and how it will fit together. It also reviews results for accuracy. The second agent is more like an engineer. It scrapes publicly available data for information on an electronic device’s components. That might entail sifting through spreadsheets, or looking up images of the insides of devices and taking chip information from them — including from sources not typically used for LCAs, such as and posts on.��

The two agents work in a loop. The first sets the scope, the second gathers information. The first then looks that information over and might send the second agent searching again, and so on. The agents then reference to convert the complete list of parts to carbon estimates.

The team also developed a new method to bypass this detailed data collection and directly estimate carbon footprints. For common devices like laptops and smartphones with publicly available carbon footprint reports, they found that products with similar specs like screen size and processors clustered around similar carbon values, because only a handful of companies make specialized parts for all these devices. So an unknown device’s footprint can be represented as a weighted average of similar products.��

They also use this to estimate the carbon for materials not in LCA databases. For example, a new type of sustainable plastic could be estimated based on plastics with similar properties and chemistry.

“We tried this ‘nearest-neighbors’ approach and found that for materials, it’s actually better than the standard approach of a human picking the single closest entry,” said Zhang. “When estimating missing emissions factors in a test, the average error for our method was 23%. Human experts had an average error of 143%.”��

The authors note that while the aim of the system is to help reduce carbon emissions overall, running AI models requires energy, so they’ve taken several steps to mitigate its impact. They use small AI models that aren’t as energy-intensive as general-purpose models. They also start the process by running a search to see if the device’s estimated emissions have already been calculated. If so, it can stop there. If the system does need to call its AI models repeatedly, estimating a device’s carbon footprint is currently on par with the emissions generated by brewing a cup of tea.

The team plans to collaborate with companies in the future to help automate their workflows.��

“A lot of big companies have sustainability teams that perform these LCAs,” Iyer said. “Our hope is that automating this will actually free up their time, so they can spend their time reducing the carbon footprint of the products themselves, instead of hunting down elusive stats.”��

Co-authors include , a UW student in the Allen School;, , a UW postdoctoral researcher in the Allen School; , a UW doctoral student in the Allen School; , a UW professor in the Allen School; of Wesleyan University, who completed this research as a UW doctoral student in the Allen School; of the University of Notre Dame; of Northeastern University; and of Brown University, who completed this research as a UW assistant professor in the Allen School.��

This research was funded by Amazon Research Awards and the National Science Foundation. Zhang was supported by the .

For more information, contact Iyer at vsiyer@uw.edu and Zhang at zzhihan@cs.washington.edu.

Quantum materials are a class of exotic materials with special properties that are governed by rather than . Those properties — like , and unusual forms of magnetism — often originate in the tiny repeating patterns of atoms inside crystals, but through clever engineering they can be observed and controlled at a more human scale. Quantum materials are helping to power the quickly growing field of , and could find their way into future generations of energy-efficient electronics.��

Designing new materials from the atomic scale up, however, requires intense modeling and simulation. Some materials may appear ordinary when viewed as small clusters of atoms, yet reveal new and useful properties when their atomic building blocks repeat and interact over larger distances. Researchers must be able to accurately predict behaviors at large scales in order to find materials with practical applications — otherwise designing new materials is a slow and costly trial-and-error process.

In the past 50 years, supercomputers have helped materials scientists solve some of those thorny prediction problems, but two recent studies from the ����ԭ�� demonstrate how newer computing techniques can help researchers sniff out promising quantum materials to pursue. , published June 2 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows how researchers can use artificial intelligence to simulate dozens of sheets of atoms stacked in intricate patterns, a process that produces complex and potentially useful quantum behaviors. , published June 8 in Nature Communications, shows how quantum computers can create a self-improving design loop by discovering new materials that could themselves be components of future quantum computers.��

“What is exciting is that AI and quantum computing are beginning to change not just what problems we can solve, but how we do research,” said , a UW associate professor of materials science and engineering and the senior author of both studies.

These two new tools — AI and quantum computing — are complementary in that they each excel at a different kind of simulation problem. With the right training, an AI model can act as a fast and relatively inexpensive surrogate of a supercomputer, extrapolating the behavior of huge material systems from a relatively small dataset. Cao and collaborators used this approach to stack virtual sheets of atoms on top of one another over and over — a process that created completely new phenomena that were absent on a smaller scale, but would have been impractical to model by traditional supercomputing. From there, researchers can try to make the most promising materials in the lab to prove out the simulations.

Quantum computers, on the other hand, are essentially powered by the same quantum phenomena — like entanglement — that Cao and other materials researchers want to study. Such phenomena can be difficult to simulate using traditional computers or AI systems, but quantum computers are naturally suited to the task. In the study, Cao and his team used a quantum computer to study an exotic phase of matter known as a .��

Moving forward, Cao and his team plan to further build out their datasets and eventually develop models that can simulate a much wider range of materials. They also hope to combine their AI and quantum computing systems into a more powerful and flexible hybrid tool.

“The next step is to bring these tools together,” Cao said. “We can use AI to guide quantum simulations, and quantum computers to generate new data and insights that improve AI models.”

“We are at the start of a new era,” said , UW professor and chair of materials science and engineering and co-author of both studies. “Our field is fundamentally changing. Things that were literally impossible a couple of years ago are now becoming routine. And we are only beginning to see what AI and quantum computing will make possible for quantum materials.”

was led by , a UW doctoral student of materials science and engineering. was led by , a UW doctoral student of physics. A complete list of authors is included with the studies.

The authors acknowledge the support of Amazon and the Department of Energy.

For more information, contact Cao at tingcao@uw.edu.

Every summer, , ����ԭ�� associate professor of biology, and members of her lab head to northern Botswana to study how large predators, such as lions and African wild dogs, are affected by climate change and other shifts in their environment.

The researchers are particularly interested in understanding how these predators are changing their behavior — including where they go and when they reproduce — as the days get hotter and as the animals are more likely to come into contact with people. One example is a project studying how interactions between lions and wild dogs, which don’t typically get along, might change during heatwaves and droughts.

Abrahms is returning to Botswana again this summer, along with two other researchers in her lab: , a UW research scientist in biology, and , a UW doctoral student in biology. , UW professor of environmental and forest sciences, will also be joining for parts of the season. UW News asked Rafiq and Poulin a few questions about their upcoming work for the occasional series “In the Field,” which highlights UW field efforts.

Tell us about the trip. Where are you going?

Kasim Rafiq: Our team will be traveling to the fringes of the . We have a long-standing partnership with , which has been operating a long-term monitoring program there since the 1990s. As part of this program, Wild Entrust operates a remote bush camp that we work out of, which we affectionately call “Wild Dog Camp,” or “Dog Camp” for short. This is really just a collection of tents in the middle of the African bush, and everything is non-permanent, meaning it could be quickly taken apart.

The camp is located in an area managed by the local community for wildlife tourism, and it borders the . So, it’s a wild landscape with lots of wildlife and lush vegetation. There’s no fence around the camp, so it’s not uncommon for animals to wander through the camp day and night, including lions, elephants, leopards and various species of snakes.

Have you visited this site before?

KR: I first came to Dog Camp in 2013 as a research assistant and then I completed my master’s and doctoral research there studying leopards. For my doctoral project, I stayed at the camp for two years because leopards are pretty tricky to study. I’ve been back to Dog Camp every year since I joined the Abrahms Lab as a research scientist in 2021.

I feel very privileged to have been able to work with the people in camp for such a long period of time. It’s been special to see how the camp has developed over that period, and also to maintain relationships with the Botswana-based teams.

MP: I joined the Abrahms Lab in 2024 and spent time in the field that year to become familiar with the carnivores that we study. I returned in 2025 and I began to learn essential field skills, such as how to track and follow carnivores in the bush. I’m excited for my third visit to the field site this year.

How do you study these creatures?

KR: We use a combination of techniques. We directly watch these predators and use new conservation technologies to monitor animals year-round and during periods when it’s just not possible to follow them, such as when it’s too wet.

One key technology we use is wildlife tracking collars that use GPS sensors to let us see where the animals are going and accelerometers and microphones to let us know what they’re doing. We like to think of these collars as Fitbits for wildlife. Just like your fitness tracker helps you better understand your movement and your sleep, these collars allow us to get deep insights into an animal’s behavior.

Can you talk about some of the projects you’re working on?

MP: I’m looking at how social structure in wild dogs may influence how they respond to environmental change. Wild dogs live in tight-knit packs, just like grey wolves in North America. In each pack, usually only one lead pair has pups, while the rest of the pack — often aunts, uncles and older siblings — all work together to babysit, feed and protect the pups.

In my research, I am investigating how a pack’s “social profile,” such as its size, family ties and history, affects how the animals adjust their movement patterns during heatwaves and droughts. I’m also looking at how increasing temperatures affect the timing of these dogs’ reproduction.

Overall, I’m interested in understanding if the benefits of living in a group, such as the higher hunting success, pup care, and reproductive success seen in larger packs, might help buffer the impacts of environmental change on animal populations.

What are your goals for this trip?

KR: This year, our plan is to deploy tracking collars on the long-term lion and African wild dog study populations across our field site. The data that we’ll get from these collars is crucial for helping us understand how behaviors change year after year as a result of environmental change.

A key part of this field season will also involve following animals with these sensors and collecting video recordings of them doing different behaviors, such as where and how they hunt and feed. We will use the video data to train AI models that allow us to better understand how climate change is affecting these behaviors.

What’s something you really enjoy about doing this field work — especially something that might not occur to most people?

KR: Two of the things I enjoy most are the behind-the-scenes parts of the work that are critical to this type of fieldwork, but that people rarely think about or see.

First, I really enjoy tracking animals. There’s something quite meditative about following a wild animal’s footprints through the grass.

The second is vehicle mechanics. Around 80% of fieldwork is fixing your Land Rover when it breaks down for some unknown reason, and although that tinkering can be frustrating, it’s also fun. Some of my favorite memories in the bush come from sitting in the sand and taking apart the engine.

MP: I love tracking animals using radio telemetry. The tracking collars we put on animals send out radio signals that we can detect with an antenna and receiver. By listening for the “ping,” we can tell which direction the animal is in and roughly how far away it is. The carnivores we study roam across huge areas, so tracking them often means a lot of driving on rough roads and not always having successful searches. But, hearing that first — often really faint — “ping” is always super exciting, and finding the animals feels rewarding.

I also especially love being in the field around sunrise and sunset, when the landscape looks golden, feels peaceful and the animals are most active.

More generally, is there anything you find surprising about doing field work?

KR: Although fieldwork is intensive and often the busiest part of the year, it’s busy in a very different way from office work. I’m often surprised that, despite the long hours, I feel more energized in the field than I do at my desk. I think part of that comes from being so close to the animals and the landscape you’re trying to understand.

I’m also a big believer that, although technologies like GPS collars and audio recorders now allow us to collect huge amounts of data from the comfort of our offices, those data are only as useful as our ability to interpret them. To do that well, you really need to understand your study animal. There are many ways to build that understanding, from reading books to watching documentaries, but for me, nothing compares to spending time in the field. I always come back with a dozen new ideas that have appeared while simply sitting and watching the animals.

MP: Doing field work is really enlightening. It’s extremely valuable because it gives us a better understanding of the animals and their environment. By observing where animals spend their time, how they interact with one another and with other species, and the challenges they face, we can develop more meaningful research questions. Spending time in the field also sparks creativity, because it allows us to see and notice unexpected behaviors and inspires new ideas for research.

For more information, contact Rafiq at rafiqk@uw.edu and Poulin at mpoulin1@uw.edu.

The increased public attention on racial injustice after influenced how Black and white employees interacted at work, new ����ԭ�� research suggests.

The study, recently published in , examines how major societal events tied to race and injustice can shape workplace behavior. Researchers specifically investigated how the heightened salience of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement impacted cooperation between Black and white coworkers.

“Organizations are often treated as relatively self-contained systems where formal goals, incentives and task structures determine how employees interact,” said co-author , professor of management in the UW Foster School of Business. “But employees do not leave the outside world at the door. When major societal events occur, people carry those emotions, anxieties and identities with them into the workplace.”

The study examines responses to “mega-threats,” a term used to describe highly-publicized and emotionally-charged events involving violence or injustice against marginalized groups. Such events can threaten people’s sense of identity and alter how they relate to others at work. To investigate these dynamics, researchers used an unexpected but enlightening proxy: the National Basketball Association (NBA).

“The NBA is essentially a collection of mini-organizations,” Gupta said. “Players from different racial backgrounds must cooperate intensively in order to succeed, and importantly, their cooperation can actually be measured.”

Using detailed data from more than 124,000 player-to-player interactions during the 2014 to 2015 NBA season, the researchers tracked how passing rates aligned with the rise of the BLM movement. Passing behavior offered a direct behavioral measure of workplace cooperation.

The findings revealed strikingly different responses among Black and white players. Black players increased cooperation with other Black players — marked by more passes — but did not reduce cooperation with white teammates. The passing behavior of white players showed standard cooperation with other white players, but white players became less likely to cooperate with Black teammates.

The researchers then conducted two experiments in which participants were randomly exposed to either materials describing highly publicized incidents of race-based injustice or unrelated information. Participants were then asked to decide about collaborating with other Black and white participants, showing how heightened awareness of these events shapes cooperation.

For Black participants, attention to BLM increased identification with their racial group and strengthened feelings of solidarity with other Black individuals. This increased their willingness to cooperate with fellow Black coworkers.

White participants, however, experienced a different psychological reaction. Researchers found that many white participants experienced a sense of “moral taint” associated with acts of racial injustice committed by members of their racial group. This shame increased concern that attempts at interracial cooperation might be rejected, misunderstood or viewed skeptically by Black coworkers. As a result, many white participants became more hesitant to initiate cooperation across racial lines.

“They did not necessarily become hostile,” Gupta said. “Rather, many seemed to retreat inward because they feared that their gestures might be unwelcome or misinterpreted.”

The researchers also uncovered an important exception. The tendency of white employees to withdraw from interracial cooperation was significantly weaker when the Black coworker held higher professional status.

In the NBA context, white players remained more willing to cooperate with Black teammates who occupied higher-status positions on the team. This suggests that workplace norms and professional role expectations can partially offset the interpersonal strain created by major societal conflicts.

The study highlights how societal events surrounding race and injustice can shape workplace relationships in subtle but important ways. The researchers argue that organizations need to recognize that employees may react differently to racial injustice depending on whether they identify with the victims or feel implicated by association with the perpetrators.

The study also suggests that organizations hoping to foster productive interracial collaboration during periods of social tension may need to create environments that reduce fears of rejection and encourage open, psychologically safe interaction across group boundaries.

“Both groups may need support, though for very different reasons,” Gupta said. “Organizations cannot assume that societal tensions remain outside the workplace. These events can alter patterns of trust, communication and cooperation in ways that directly affect organizational functioning.”

For more information, contact Gupta at abhinavg@uw.edu.

The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system has been rapidly expanding since its launch in 2021. Now, researchers at ����ԭ�� affiliated Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (PNSN) have finished all planned installations, bringing the two-state total to spread across Washington and Oregon.

ShakeAlert detects ground motion from earthquakes before it is felt, giving people precious time to drop, cover and hold on. An earthquake exceeding magnitude 5 will trigger an automated cell phone alert from the , or WEA, which also sends AMBER alerts. Millions of people benefit from the network as is, but the researchers are still exploring ways to improve it.

“When we launched ShakeAlert, we felt confident that we had enough seismic stations to do a good job with early warning, but that wasn’t the optimal number. Now, with the buildout complete, we have coverage where it was lacking at launch,” said , director of PNSN and a UW professor in Earth and space sciences.

However, expanding the network to include sensors on the ocean floor could help Pacific Northwest residents contend with the area’s greatest hazard — the Cascadia Subduction Zone.

The West Coast is a hotbed for seismic activity. Nestled in the , an array of volcanoes circling the Pacific Ocean where 90% of Earth’s quakes occur, the region’s volatile geology clashes with its growing population. Early warning systems can give people seconds to minutes of time to prepare for shaking, and a sense of how strong it will be.

Just over a year ago, a midsized earthquake under Orcas Island offered ShakeAlert in Washington. Multiple seismometers in the area picked up the signal and ran it back to headquarters for verification. The earthquake wasn’t quite big enough to trigger a WEA automated alert, or cause major damage, but in the affected region it did notify people��with early warning apps such as MyShake, as well as all Android mobile devices.

“The system detected the earthquake rapidly, accurately assessed its magnitude and automatically sent out a warning — all in a handful of seconds,” said Tobin. “It was the first event that met all the criteria in Washington and it worked really well.”

During a larger earthquake, warnings will be automatic no matter the app or operating system. Warnings will also trigger certain public safety measures: Schools can connect PA systems to ShakeAlert for rapid updates, public transit may slow trains to avoid derailment and fire station doors will go up to allow firetrucks out even if electricity is lost.

Right now, the system is most effective for land-based earthquakes because the sensors are on land. Expanding the sensor network to include offshore, ocean bottom seismometers could improve detection and warning time for offshore earthquakes, namely a much-anticipated megathrust earthquake at the Cascadia Subduction Zone.

“The fundamental problem we have is that our seismic network — hundreds and hundreds of stations — is on land, but the biggest earthquake hazard comes from off our coast,” Tobin said. “Earthquake detection works much better when the earthquake is in the area of your network, not off to one side.”

Seismometers can be placed on the ocean floor, but they must be connected to cables for early warning, which is expensive. Japan installed an impressive that cost $120 million following the devastating 2011 earthquake. The country now has more than 200 seismometers covering its subduction zones.

The Cascadia Subduction Zone has a handful of existing offshore sensors — five near Vancouver Island and two off the coast of Oregon. A UW-led project this summer to the Oregon cable, which spans hundreds of seafloor miles, crossing the subduction zone twice. None of the offshore sensors are in the ShakeAlert network, but adding them could be impactful.

, a UW postdoctoral researcher in Earth and space science, recently at the Seismological Society of America’s annual meeting detailing the potential benefits of adding offshore seismic monitoring.

Krauss found with modeling that incorporating just a few ocean bottom sensors improved detection time for offshore earthquakes and warning time for millions of people. In hypothetical earthquake scenarios, the sensors picked up ground motion faster and improved magnitude estimates because they were closer to the fault.

“ShakeAlert is all about figuring out that an earthquake is happening as fast as possible, so having sensors nearby is essential,” Krauss said. “But in these magnitude 8 or 9 scenarios, it’s not just about detecting it, but realizing how big it is, and fast.”

The researchers also explored incorporating telecommunications cables into the sensor network using a method called distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), which records ground motion based on cable stretch. Incorporating DAS could extend the reach of existing cables even further than sensors, translating to “huge warning time improvements,” Krauss said.

Different combinations produced varying improvements in both detection and warning time, depending on where the hypothetical earthquake occurred. Regardless, having sensors always beat not having them. While there are several hurdles to clear before ocean bottom sensors can be brought into ShakeAlert, Krauss said none are insurmountable.

“Although we’ve marked this milestone of completing our station buildout, that doesn’t mean we’re not continuously improving the ShakeAlert system,” Tobin said. “We’re working to make it faster, better and more reliable.”

For more information, contact Tobin at htobin@uw.edu and Krauss at zkrauss@uw.edu.����

Fish that split their lives between fresh and salt water often face obstacles getting back and forth. Dams and roads fracture river networks and interfere with traditional migratory routes, sparking concerns about fish health and abundance, as well as biodiversity on a broader scale.

Efforts to restore fish passage are cropping up across the country, but these projects come with hefty price tags. In a new study, , ����ԭ�� researchers explore whether this money is being well spent by examining the process that determines which projects are prioritized.

The current standard, called score and rank, involves evaluating barriers one by one and assigning a score based on potential gains, such as habitat expansion. Top-ranking projects become leading candidates for funding, but score and rank systems don’t always account for barriers in the full river context. High-scoring projects can yield stranded investments, where removing the barrier doesn’t have the desired outcome because of other barriers downstream or immediately upstream.

“Ideally, barriers that are most downstream will score higher, because they need to come out before the fish can benefit from upstream restoration, but approaches to scoring vary, so this isn’t always the outcome,” said lead author , a UW associate professor of marine and environmental affairs.

As an alternative to score and rank, this study presents a mathematical computer program called optimization. Optimization synthesizes many inputs to make the most of a budget. It can serve as a performance indicator for other systems and highlight opportunities for improving an underperforming system.

“It’s looking at a portfolio instead of going barrier by barrier. In doing so, you can explicitly account for watershed connectivity and evaluate the performance of score and rank,” Jardine said.

As concerns about the health of rivers mounted in recent years, state and federal governments have allocated billions of dollars toward reconnecting them. Fragmentation is an established threat to biodiversity, and recent studies show that a vast majority of river length is not protected by conservation measures.

Washington state is in the midst of a court ordered multibillion dollar effort to remove barriers that block salmon and steelhead from swimming upstream to spawn. The combines score and rank with optimization in a hybrid approach. Similar projects elsewhere tend to use score and rank.

“I think people see optimization as a black box because it’s not as obvious why a barrier rose to the top of the priority list,” Jardine said. “With score and rank, they understand the scores and the process, but we don’t really know what the outcome will be.”

In this study, researchers use fish passage in Western Washington as a case study to compare score and rank to optimization. They show that score and rank performs decently well when the only goal is opening up as much habitat as possible, but adding other variables into the mix, such as habitat quality, compromises its performance.

While optimization has the capability to balance variables, it might not work for everyone. The program needs data to run and someone with a mathematical background to run it. Still, even small tweaks to the score and rank approach can produce results that rival optimization.

“Major change is hard, but minor changes may be enough,” Jardine said.

Because these projects often represent the values of multiple stakeholders, it’s important to include safeguards against stranded investments.

“You need to work from downstream up to make sure the success of a project isn’t contingent upon other projects,” Jardine said. “We’re spending a lot of money on this, but the total cost of restoring all barriers is much higher than the budget, so it’s really important that we make the most out of the financial resources that we have.”

Additional co-authors include , a UW postdoctoral researcher in environmental and marine affairs; , who completed this research as a UW master’s student in environmental and marine Affairs;�� J Kahn, who completed this research as a UW master’s student in quantitative ecology and resource management; Andrew Cooke, a UW research consultant in environmental and forest sciences, , a UW research scientist in environmental and forest sciences; , a UW associate professor of aquatic and fishery sciences and , , , and of NOAA.

This study was funded by Washington Sea Grant and the Rae S. and Bell M. Shimada Endowed Faculty Fellowship in Memory of Warren S. Wooster.

For more information, contact Jardine at jardine@uw.edu.�� ����

Is it a doctor’s job to get the best outcomes for their patients or to tell the truth? What happens when these two things are not aligned? These are questions that ����ԭ�� students have to wrangle with in Biol 180: Introductory Biology. The goal, says , UW assistant professor of biology, is to have students experience a more nuanced side of biology. There is not always one right answer, and issues of power and relationships often come into play.

Theobald aims to connect the biology concepts the students learn in class to real-world issues, something she hopes will help both retain students in the biology major at the UW and help non-majors in the class with their future careers.

Just how common is it for biology curricula to include real-world examples? One way to answer this question is to look at educational resources for biology instructors.

In published in Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, Theobald and her team examined almost 3,000 science guidelines and assessment questions from 16 sources — including MCAT practice questions and questions from the Washington Comprehensive Assessment of Science and AP biology tests — for any connections to society. Of the approximately 200 elements — about 7% — that had real-world implications, many discussed ethics and public health issues.

UW News spoke with Theobald; lead author , UW postdoctoral fellow in biology; and co-author , UW doctoral student in biology, to find out more about these results and what they mean for biology education today.

Why do you think so few learning objectives and assessment questions were connected to real-world examples?

Carly Busch: One reason is probably that there’s a perception that real-world connections are not a part of the primary purpose of the course, that they only belong as an addendum or an aside.

This perception makes sense in some ways, given how departments and institutions have conceptualized biology and what biology undergraduate students expect to get out of a biology degree. But the lack of these connections to society was also remarkable, because I think they play a really important role in developing undergraduate students holistically and broadly as they continue on in their science careers. Real-world examples can support students’ interest in science and help them develop their scientific identity.

Madison Meuler: I think there is also a belief of, “Oh well, this is an intro biology class. If this person is going to be a scientist, they’ll get training in the societal stuff later.” But I think there’s value in having this type of information even in intro courses.

Students in these courses may or may not go on to major in biology, and may or may not pursue a career in STEM. But even if this is their only science course in college, what could they take away from it that can help them be an informed citizen in the world?

Science plays a huge role in politics and in a lot of decisions that affect people’s day-to-day lives. It’s a missed opportunity if you’re not making those connections in the classroom. We want students, regardless of their future careers, to at least walk away being equipped with some skills to critically analyze the role that science is playing in society.

You found that roughly half of the questions that did mention society only vaguely referenced real-world scenarios. Can you give examples of implicit versus explicit mentions?

CB: So the most vague mention was from the American Association of Immunologists’ recommendations for an undergraduate immunology course. This is one of the advanced subtopics that they list: the implications of Emil Von Behring’s . We coded it as a vague mention because some of those implications could be related to society, not only focused on scientific experiments.

An example of explicit incorporation is from the bioinformatics core competencies. It asks students to explain the implications, good and bad, of being able to walk into a doctor’s office and have your genome sequenced and analyzed, or of being able to obtain genetic information from direct-to-consumer testing services. There we have a very clear example of students being asked to think about how the science concept fits in with society.

Do you think that connecting science to society can help retain students in science?

CB: We haven’t tested this yet, but based on prior research, there is reason to believe that incorporating these connections is going to help students be more engaged in what they’re learning in class. Engagement is closely tied to students’ performance outcomes, which often make or break their decision to persist in a major.

There is also a theory that helping students apply what they’re learning in the classroom to things happening in their lives and in their communities .

This is something I am excited to study in the future — to understand how making these connections expands students’ perceptions of what science is and who does science. The types of research questions that most scientists ask are on topics they personally are interested in. Maybe they study wildflowers in Washington because they love hiking, and they’ve always been struck by how beautiful the flowers are. That’s the beauty of being an academic researcher: You get to explore all of the different things that you’re curious about.

MM: Connecting content to real-world experiences could also increase retention by helping students feel a sense of belonging in the classroom. You’re far less likely to persist in a class if you feel like you don’t belong in that physical space, right? The course content definitely plays a role in that.

I think that making these connections between content and societal issues could help students start thinking things like, “Oh, this is a thing I care about, how could I design a study that could provide evidence to help inform a policy decision?”

Elli Theobald: Students have said to me, “I don’t want to be a scientist because I want to help people.” And that’s a problem. If we’re teaching science in a way that makes it feel like it isn’t helping people, then we’re doing something wrong. It’s just such a huge disservice to biology because we’ll lose so many amazing and capable students who could push our field forward.

This study looked at biology education resources. Do you know if biology instructors are already incorporating more real-world connections in their courses? ��

CB: If instructors aren’t getting support but they’re still making these connections in the classroom, it’s because they are putting that onus on themselves and choosing to add it. I applaud all instructors who are making these connections, and I fully expect that more connections are being made than and in these resources. We are currently collecting actual course materials from intro bio courses to see where instructors are making these connections.

But I also think that it would be such a valuable resource for instructors to have more support in making those connections. Here’s where I think really bolstering the amount of resources for instructors could provide more scaffolding for instructors to be able to provide a variety of connections, or to even recognize opportunities to make these connections in the course objectives. One of my hopes for this work is that it helps to provide motivation for those sorts of materials.

ET: Instructors are amazing. They’re working so hard to connect the content in some way to students’ lives, or to find the best, coolest examples. They need to have support from their institutions to be able to do more of this in their classrooms.

This research was funded by The National Science Foundation.

For more information, contact Theobald atellij@uw.edu Busch at cbusch3@uw.edu and Meuler at mmeuler@uw.edu.

Plants may not appear aggressive, but they can still defend themselves while under attack. When caterpillars chomp the leaves of bean plants, these plants release gases that lure predatory wasps. The wasps prey on the caterpillars, saving the plants from further destruction. In a paper , a UW-led team demonstrated that this defense strategy is run by a protein called INR, or inceptin receptor. The researchers grew bean plants with naturally occurring mutations in the INR gene alongside plants with functional INR in an experimental field in Oaxaca, Mexico. The knock-out plants didn’t emit gases and attracted far fewer wasps. This result helps explain a previous study by this team that first identified the biochemical pathway behind this defense mechanism. These results also showcase how the tiny actions of a single protein can affect the behavior of wasps and caterpillars, and in turn, protect the health of the plant. This could benefit nearby plants as well, the researchers said. Beans are often grown alongside “,” such as corn, with the idea that each plant provides a benefit for the others. Beans help make the soil richer for their companions, and, through the actions of INR, could also protect their neighbors from pests.

For more information, contact senior author , UW associate professor of biology, at astein10@uw.edu.����

The other UW co-authors are , , , and . A full list of co-authors and funding is included .

Decades of satellite data show Himalayan rivers migrating rapidly in response to climate change

The movement of rivers is often described in terms of flowing water, but the path a river takes can also change. Some migration is normal, but in the Himalayas, rivers seem to be scrambling faster than scientists anticipated. In a study , researchers show that rivers in the Tibetan Plateau moved twice as much from 2000 to 2020 as they did from 1980 to 2000. As glaciers melt and frozen ground thaws in response to rising temperatures, rivers are inundated with silty meltwater from surrounding glaciers. The water picks the path of least resistance through softening ground. The “movement” includes small lateral shifts, big swings that cut off entire sections of river and occasionally, . The international team attributes their observations to climate change, which is driving temperatures up faster here than many other places. More than 2 billion people rely on these rivers for fresh water and researchers are concerned about communities downstream, as well as the potential for similar patterns that may play out elsewhere.

For more information, contact co-author , UW professor of Earth and space sciences at bigdirt@uw.edu.����

A full list of co-authors and funding is .

Researchers shrink eye-catching structure down to the nano scale��

made using a network of freestanding bars suspended by a web of thin, tense cables. The organization of the bars and cables allows the network of tension and compression forces to lock everything into place, creating a lightweight yet stiff structure. Tensegrities of different sizes are common in nature — examples include and the that help living cells maintain their shape — as well as in diverse manmade structures like , and . Now, a team of engineers at the UW have found a way to create tensegrities as small as five micrometers across — roughly a tenth of the width of a human hair. in the aptly-named journal Small, researchers used a specialized and a resin compound to print bar-and-cable structures about 30 micrometers across. They then heated the materials to 900 degrees celsius, causing the structures to shrink by over 80%. As they shrank, the thinner cables constricted more than the bars, resulting in nanostructures with specific, locked-in levels of stress that were up to 250% stiffer than the starting structures. The team is now working on ways to build larger materials composed of tiny tensegrities, which could eventually usher in a new class of stiff, light and impact-resistant materials.

For more information, contact lead author , a UW doctoral student of mechanical engineering.

Other UW co-authors are , , Zainab S. Patel, , and . Funding information is included .��

Scientists find a key water source for atmospheric rivers

In December 2025, brought a seemingly endless onslaught of precipitation to Washington that caused and washed away roads and homes. In published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, UW researchers help explain where all that water came from. They describe a link between the , a weather pattern that brings moisture east across the Pacific, and atmospheric rivers. Hypotheses about this connection have emerged from previous studies, but researchers couldn’t physically draw it until now. By tracking precipitation and wind patterns from 2000 to 2024, the UW researchers show that heavy rainfall and flooding are more likely when MJO is active, which happens several times a year. By identifying the MJO as a key moisture source for powerful atmospheric rivers, the researchers hope to improve forecast accuracy and give people more lead time to prepare for incoming storms.

For more information, contact co-author , UW professor of atmospheric and climate science at shuyic@uw.edu.

Other UW co-authors are and . Funding information is .

Over the past decade, cities around the world have increasingly turned to nature-based infrastructure to become more resilient in the face of a changing climate. Urban forests provide shade during heat waves and improve air quality; wetlands filter stormwater and reduce flooding; and restored oyster reefs filter water, create habitat and reduce wave energy along shorelines. When carefully designed and managed, these “nature-based solutions” can support climate adaptation, biodiversity and public health.

There’s a catch, however: Living things are not static building materials. They evolve and adapt in response to changing conditions, sometimes in unpredictable ways. As the climate shifts, the natural systems that humans depend on shift too.��

, professor of urban design and planning at the ����ԭ��, studies how cities and nature influence one another. in Science, Alberti and collaborators explore how evolutionary change can affect the long-term performance of nature-based solutions.

UW News spoke with Alberti about what’s at stake and how city planners can work with evolution rather than simply reacting to it.

Why did you want to study evolution within nature-based solutions?

MA: Today, an increasing share of infrastructure investment is going to nature-based solutions because they can cost-effectively reduce climate-driven risks to cities while supporting biodiversity, public health and climate adaptation. However, their long-term performance depends on a fundamental biological process that is still rarely considered in design: evolution. These systems are not static infrastructure. They depend on living organisms — plants, microbes, oysters, corals and others — whose traits can shift over time as urban environments change. Cities expose these organisms to heat, drought, flooding, pollution, nutrient enrichment, disease, habitat fragmentation and new species interactions. Those pressures influence which organisms survive, reproduce and continue providing the ecological functions that cities rely on. Over time, ecological and evolutionary responses may alter the very processes that allow these systems to cool neighborhoods, filter water, stabilize shorelines or reduce wave energy.

So the central question is not simply whether a project works on day one. It is whether it can continue to perform as the organisms within it respond to climate stress, urban pressures and the intervention itself.

The problem is that implementation of nature-based solutions is outpacing the science needed to evaluate long-term performance. For these solutions to serve as resilient infrastructure, they must be designed as living, dynamic, evolving systems.

Did you find examples where evolutionary change can affect infrastructure performance?

MA: We found examples showing that evolutionary change can affect traits directly linked to the performance of nature-based solutions. Urban or climate pressures can favor traits that alter the processes these systems rely on, affecting their ability to deliver intended functions.

For example, coastal marsh plants such as are used to stabilize sediment, reduce erosion and help buffer waves. In marshes exposed to excess nutrients from sources such as fertilizer runoff, wastewater, stormwater and upstream land use, however, Spartina can shift biomass allocation toward shoots and away from roots. This shift can reduce the sediment-stabilization function that restoration projects depend on.

In another example, urban tree populations may evolve greater drought tolerance to help them survive hotter and drier periods. But evolutionary responses that improve survival do not necessarily preserve the desired functions for cities. Those trees may persist but grow more slowly or produce less canopy, which could in turn reduce shade, carbon uptake or pollutant removal.

When can evolution strengthen nature-based solutions?

MA: Evolution can strengthen nature-based solutions when populations have enough variation in traits to help them survive and retain their function under changing conditions. Coral reefs are a great example of this. Corals build reef structure, support biodiversity, store carbon and help reduce wave energy along shorelines. and functional decline. To increase their resilience, researchers are testing assisted-evolution approaches, . On the Great Barrier Reef, this includes selecting corals that maintain photosynthetic performance and stable symbiotic relationships under heat stress.

These approaches could help sustain reef-based coastal protection as oceans warm, but they also carry risks, including reduced genetic diversity, tradeoffs with other functions and uncertain responses to future conditions.

Oyster reefs show the same principle in another coastal system. filter water, create habitat, support fisheries and build reef structures that reduce wave energy. They face disease, warming, acidification, and low oxygen. Selective breeding and genomic tools can help identify oyster lines better suited to these conditions, but restoration efforts should avoid narrowing genetic diversity. Genetically diverse, site-appropriate stocks are more likely to maintain the functions that coastal communities value.

What were your biggest takeaways from reviewing the available research?

MA: The key lesson is that nature-based solutions are not static assets. Their performance depends on ecological and evolutionary processes that continue after design and deployment.

A second lesson is that context matters. In urban environments, environmental factors, such as temperature, pollution, hydrology and soil conditions, can vary across neighborhoods, blocks and shoreline segments. The same species or design may therefore perform differently in different parts of a city.

Third, variation is central to resilience. Genetic diversity, trait diversity and community diversity can increase the capacity of a system to respond to changing conditions.

Fourth, current adaptation does not guarantee future performance. Populations of organisms in long-urbanized environments may be adapted to present conditions, but those adaptations may not align with future climates.

Finally, a reminder and a caution: Evolution does not necessarily favor the traits that make species effective nature-based solutions. Traits that help organisms persist under urban stress may not be the same traits that support cooling, water filtration, shoreline protection or habitat formation. The challenge for planners is to design and manage these systems so that survival and function remain aligned over time.

What steps can urban designers and planners take?

MA: Planners should design for long-term performance. That means asking: Which organisms provide the desired function? Which traits matter for that function? What environmental pressures will those organisms face? Is there enough genetic, trait or species variation to support future adaptations?

In practice, this means using diverse, site-appropriate source material and considering both local adaptation and future climate conditions. It also means reducing pressures that can weaken performance, such as excess nutrients, contaminants and pollution, while maintaining the habitat conditions organisms need to persist and adapt over time.

It also means monitoring differently. Cities should track not only whether a project is working now, but also whether the organisms, traits and ecological processes that support its performance are changing over time.��

Designing nature-based solutions for changing climate conditions requires sustaining genetic diversity, supporting ecological function and maintaining evolutionary potential.

UW co-authors include , a doctoral student of urban design and planning. A complete list of co-authors is .

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

For more information, contact Marina Alberti at malberti@uw.edu.

Burrowing shrimp are small marine excavators native to Washington. They make their homes deep in the sediment by digging, turning the ground to Swiss cheese. This presents a problem for shellfish farmers, whose clams and oysters are often smothered under layers of displaced sediment.

Burrowing shrimp have been a nuisance for at least a century. In 1929, : “Oyster growers have tried various means of defense against these persistent burrowers. But there seems to be as yet no really adequate and at the same time practical method of coping with the marine ‘crayfish.'”

Shellfish farmers used to use pesticides to kill the shrimp, but the chemicals also posed risks to other organisms, such as salmon and crabs, and could be transported in water outside the shellfish growing area. The Department of Ecology in 2018. Since then, family-owned shellfish farms have been losing large portions of their growing grounds to burrowing shrimp.

Research led by the UW, and funded by the state, has yielded a non-chemical, proof-of-principle method for killing shrimp in targeted areas. The method, borrowing from the construction industry, uses a custom-built platform to apply vibration and pressure to a 50-square-foot region of sediment. This compacts the sediment and effectively traps shrimp in their burrows. Starved of oxygen, the shrimp die after a few days.

The researchers tested this method at four sites around Willapa Bay, Washington. It worked just as well as pesticides, reducing the number of live shrimp by between 72% and 98%.

“The challenge of managing burrowing shrimp on private tidelands has many dimensions. There still need to be enough shrimp to serve as food for gray whales and sturgeon, and the whole shrimp population is connected by a long larval phase in the ocean,” said senior author , UW professor of biology. “Once back in the estuary though, these shrimp can live for up to 10 years. Even a moderately sized shrimp, about four inches long, can bring a handful of sediment to the surface every day, dropping that on top of everything. We’re trying to find the balance — how to keep them out of shellfish beds, but let them grow elsewhere.”

The team May 12 in the Journal of Shellfish Research.

“Burrowing shrimp have decimated our farm,” said Ken Wiegardt, a fifth-generation oyster farmer and head of Jolly Roger Oysters in Willapa Bay. “We’ve lost 75% of our nursery ground and, as a result, the farm’s carrying capacity has fallen from 265,000 bushels of market-ready oysters to 75,000 bushels. Last month I had to lay off three oyster shuckers, each of whom had been with me for many years, because I just don’t have the oysters to process. The health of the Willapa Estuary as well as my business and all of my employees depend on finding an effective tool.”

Over the years farmers and researchers have toyed with the idea of trying to “mechanically” control shrimp populations.

“The idea was, ‘Let’s crush them underground, or crush them when they come to the surface,'” Ruesink said. “There are old photographs that show people using vehicles, such as repurposed tanks and snow crawlers, to try to target the shrimp.”

This idea resurfaced at a recent conference. Over lunch, Ruesink and shellfish growers decided . After careful analysis, the method proved ineffective.

Ruesink’s co-author, Alan Trimble, who was previously a research scientist at UW and is now volunteering on this project, had an idea for why the “crushing” experiment had failed.

“He told me, ‘You’re thinking like a dirt farmer and you need to start thinking like a concrete engineer instead,'” Ruesink said. “That’s when he mentioned these concrete vibrators in construction. When you pour concrete, if you don’t get all the bubbles out of it, it won’t be as strong. This is a consolidation technique for a wet slurry of particulates, which is exactly what a mud flat is.”

Ruesink and Trimble ran three experiments to test whether a concrete vibrator, a hand-held metal tube with a motor powered by a generator, could kill the shrimp. For each experiment the team compared sediment cores from treated plots to cores from untreated plots. The researchers took core samples on multiple days after treatment and counted live versus dead shrimp.

In an earlier experiment, the team tried using the vibrator while standing in the water. This method was successful in killing shrimp, but also not practical for scaling up. Jennifer Ruesink/����ԭ��

The best option was a custom-built floating platform with six vibrators mounted through a hollow part in the middle. Ruesink and Trimble added weights near each vibrator head to provide pressure in addition to vibration, a winning combination that compressed the sediment and killed the shrimp. The specific cause of death was asphyxiation, not the vibration.

While this proof-of-principle experiment seems promising, there’s more work to do before shellfish farmers can implement it. Right now it’s a time-consuming and labor-intensive process because everything is manually operated. Also, more studies need to be done to determine the long-term impacts to the ecosystem, from the shrimp in neighboring non-shellfish farm mudflats to other creatures living in the area.

“What we’ve done so far is introduce a novel control mechanism. No one had thought that you could trap the shrimp underground,” Ruesink said. “But this research wouldn’t have happened without the investment from the state and the private landowners and growers. I have such a deep appreciation for the opportunity to work with folks on something that is clearly affecting their lives.”

The researchers performed field trials on the private tidelands of Pacific Shellfish, Bay Center Farms and John Heckes. This research was funded by the Washington State Department of Agriculture.

For more information, contact Ruesink at ruesink@uw.edu. For more information about Jolly Roger Oysters, contact Wiegardt at oysterman73@hotmail.com.