News

New model helps to figure out which distant planets may host life

Published

1 year ago

July 24, 2025

The Conversation

Last Updated on July 24, 2025 by Daily News Staff

planets — Some ‘water worlds’ like Jupiter’s moon Europa could potentially be habitable for life.
NASA/JPL-Caltech/SETI Institute

Daniel Apai, University of Arizona

The search for life beyond Earth is a key driver of modern astronomy and planetary science. The U.S. is building multiple major telescopes and planetary probes to advance this search. However, the signs of life – called biosignatures – that scientists may find will likely be difficult to interpret. Figuring out where exactly to look also remains challenging.

I am an astrophysicist and astrobiologist with over 20 years of experience studying extrasolar planets – which are planets beyond our solar system.

My colleagues and I have developed a new approach that will identify the most interesting planets or moons to search for life and help interpret potential biosignatures. We do this by modeling how different organisms may fare in different environments, informed by studies of limits of life on Earth.

New telescopes to search for life

Astronomers are developing plans and technology for increasingly powerful space telescopes. For instance, NASA is working on its proposed Habitable Worlds Observatory, which would take ultrasharp images that directly show the planets orbiting nearby stars.

My colleagues and I are developing another concept, the Nautilus space telescope constellation, which is designed to study hundreds of potentially Earthlike planets as they pass in front of their host stars.

A number of spherical telescopes next to a spaceship. — Future telescopes, like the proposed Nautilus, could help search the skies for habitable planets.
Katie Yung, Daniel Apai /University of Arizona and AllThingsSpace /SketchFab, CC BY-ND

These and other future telescopes aim to provide more sensitive studies of more alien worlds. Their development prompts two important questions: “Where to look?” and “Are the environments where we think we see signs of life actually habitable?”

The strongly disputed claims of potential signs of life in the exoplanet K2-18b, announced in April 2025, and previous similar claims in Venus, show how difficult it is to conclusively identify the presence of life from remote-sensing data.

When is an alien world habitable?

Oxford Languages defines “habitable” as “suitable or good enough to live in.” But how do scientists know what is “good enough to live in” for extraterrestrial organisms? Could alien microbes frolic in lakes of boiling acid or frigid liquid methane, or float in water droplets in Venus’ upper atmosphere?

To keep it simple, NASA’s mantra has been “follow the water.” This makes sense – water is essential for all Earth life we know of. A planet with liquid water would also have a temperate environment. It wouldn’t be so cold that it slows down chemical reactions, nor would it be so hot that it destroys the complex molecules necessary for life.

However, with astronomers’ rapidly growing capabilities for characterizing alien worlds, astrobiologists need an approach that is more quantitative and nuanced than the water or no-water classification.

Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

A community effort

As part of the NASA-funded Alien Earths project that I lead, astrobiologist Rory Barnes and I worked on this problem with a group of experts – astrobiologists, planetary scientists, exoplanet experts, ecologists, biologists and chemists – drawn from the largest network of exoplanet and astrobiology researchers, NASA’s Nexus for Exoplanet System Science, or NExSS.

Over a hundred colleagues provided us with ideas, and two questions came up often:

First, how do we know what life needs, if we do not understand the full range of extraterrestrial life? Scientists know a lot about life on Earth, but most astrobiologists agree that more exotic types of life – perhaps based on different combinations of chemical elements and solvents – are possible. How do we determine what conditions those other types of life may require?

Second, the approach has to work with incomplete data. Potential sites for life beyond Earth – “extrasolar habitats” – are very difficult to study directly, and often impossible to visit and sample.

For example, the Martian subsurface remains mostly out of our reach. Places like Jupiter’s moon Europa’s and Saturn’s Moon Enceladus’ subsurface oceans and all extrasolar planets remain practically unreachable. Scientists study them indirectly, often only using remote observations. These measurements can’t tell you as much as actual samples would.

A view of Mars' dusty, rocky surface. — Mars’ hot, dusty surface is hostile for life. But scientists haven’t been able to study whether some organisms could lurk beneath.
NASA/JPL-Caltech/Malin Space Science Systems

To make matters worse, measurements often have uncertainties. For example, we may be only 88% confident that water vapor is present in an exoplanet’s atmosphere. Our framework has to be able to work with small amounts of data and handle uncertainties. And, we need to accept that the answers will often not be black or white.

A new approach to habitability

The new approach, called the quantitative habitability framework, has two distinguishing features:

First, we moved away from trying to answer the vague “habitable to life” question and narrowed it to a more specific and practically answerable question: Would the conditions in the habitat – as we know them – allow a specific (known or yet unknown) species or ecosystem to survive?

Even on Earth, organisms require different conditions to survive – there are no camels in Antarctica. By talking about specific organisms, we made the question easier to answer.

Second, the quantitative habitability framework does not insist on black-or-white answers. It compares computer models to calculate a probabilistic answer. Instead of assuming that liquid water is a key limiting factor, we compare our understanding of the conditions an organism requires (the “organism model”) with our understanding of the conditions present in the environment (the “habitat model”).

Both have uncertainties. Our understanding of each can be incomplete. Yet, we can handle the uncertainties mathematically. By comparing the two models, we can determine the probability that an organism and a habitat are compatible.

As a simplistic example, our habitat model for Antarctica may state that temperatures are often below freezing. And our organism model for a camel may state that it does not survive long in cold temperatures. Unsurprisingly, we would correctly predict a near-zero probability that Antarctica is a good habitat for camels.

An image of thick plumes of smoke coming from rocks under the sea. — A hydrothermal vent deep in the Atlantic Ocean. These vents discharge incredibly hot plumes of water, but some host hearty microorganisms.
P. Rona / OAR/National Undersea Research Program (NURP); NOAA

We had a blast working on this project. To study the limits of life, we collected literature data on extreme organisms, from insects that live in the Himalayas at high altitudes and low temperatures to microorganisms that flourish in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor and feed on chemical energy.

We explored, via our models, whether they may survive in the Martian subsurface or in Europa’s oceans. We also investigated if marine bacteria that produce oxygen in Earth’s oceans could potentially survive on known extrasolar planets.

Although comprehensive and detailed, this approach makes important simplifications. For example, it does not yet model how life may shape the planet, nor does it account for the full array of nutrients organisms may need. These simplifications are by design.

In most of the environments we currently study, we know too little about the conditions to meaningfully attempt such models – except for some solar system bodies, such as Saturn’s Enceladus.

The quantitative habitability framework allows my team to answer questions like whether astrobiologists might be interested in a subsurface location on Mars, given the available data, or whether astronomers should turn their telescopes to planet A or planet B while searching for life. Our framework is available as an open-source computer model, which astrobiologists can now readily use and further develop to help with current and future projects.

If scientists do detect a potential signature of life, this approach can help assess if the environment where it is detected can actually support the type of life that leads to the signature detected.

Our next steps will be to build a database of terrestrial organisms that live in extreme environments and represent the limits of life. To this data, we can also add models for hypothetical alien life. By integrating those into the quantitative habitability framework, we will be able to work out scenarios, interpret new data coming from other worlds and guide the search for signatures of life beyond Earth – in our solar system and beyond.

Daniel Apai, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Astronomy and Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Economy

Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.

Published

2 days ago

August 3, 2026

Daily News Staff

us capitol in washington dc
Donor States. — Photo by Ivan Dražić on Pexels.com

Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.

But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.

That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.

What Is a Donor State?

Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.

Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.

A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.

These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.

Only Three Donor States in 2023?

According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.

Those states were:

New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.

Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.

Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.

At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.

The reality is considerably more complicated.

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don't necessarily measure government dependency.

COVID Changed the Numbers

Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.

The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.

Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.

Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.

That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.

California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor

California provides perhaps the best example.

In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.

But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.

Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.

In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.

Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.

New York Tells a Similar Story

New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.

Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.

Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.

As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.

Arizona Is a Net Recipient

Arizona presents a different picture.

Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.

Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.

That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.

But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”

Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.

Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.

All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.

Texas Receives More Than It Sends

Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.

Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.

Again, the number needs context.

Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.

Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.

The Surprising Leader: Virginia

If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.

Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.

Why?

Location.

Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.

Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.

The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.

A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.

Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?

Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:

Social Security
Medicare and Medicaid
Military bases and personnel
Defense contracts
Federal employee salaries
Highway and transit funding
Scientific and university research
Agricultural programs
Veterans benefits
Disaster assistance
Federal grants
Infrastructure projects
Federal agency operations

A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.

Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors

Federal income taxes are progressive.

People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.

States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.

That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.

The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.

The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.

In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.

So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?

In a broad accounting sense, yes.

Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.

But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.

Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.

A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.

Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.

The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.

The Bigger Picture

The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.

The numbers are real, but they require context.

A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.

Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:

Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.

They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.

And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.

Food Truths

The Truth About the “Chemical” in McDonald’s Burger Buns: Should Consumers Be Concerned?

What’s in the Burger Buns:The “yoga mat chemical” controversy changed how consumers view food additives. Here’s what azodicarbonamide is, why McDonald’s removed it, and what the science actually says.

Published

6 days ago

July 30, 2026

Rod Washington

The Truth About the "Yoga Mat Chemical" in McDonald's Burger Buns — Image Credit: Adobe Stock

For years, headlines and social media posts have warned consumers about a so-called “yoga mat chemical” found in hamburger buns served by major fast-food chains. The claims sparked widespread concern, prompted petitions, and eventually led several restaurant companies—including McDonald’s—to change their recipes.

But what was the chemical, and is there actually a health risk today?

What Was the Controversial Ingredient?

The ingredient at the center of the controversy was azodicarbonamide (ADA), a chemical used as a dough conditioner. It helped improve the texture of bread, making dough easier to handle and producing softer, more consistent buns.

Ironically, the same compound is also used in manufacturing certain foamed plastics, including some yoga mats and shoe soles. That connection gave rise to the viral nickname, “the yoga mat chemical.”

While the comparison was technically accurate, it also lacked important context. Food-grade azodicarbonamide and industrial applications are very different, and many chemicals have multiple uses across industries.

Why Did People Become Concerned?

The concern wasn’t simply that ADA was used in food. Scientists focused on what happens during baking.

When bread is baked, most azodicarbonamide breaks down into other compounds. Some laboratory studies involving animals raised questions about one of these breakdown products, called semicarbazide (SEM), when administered in high doses.

Those findings prompted some countries to take a more cautious regulatory approach.

mouthwatering close up of a double patty hamburger 2026 03 26 04 39 10 utc — Image Credit: Adobe Stock

Why Is It Banned in Some Countries?

The European Union and Canada do not permit azodicarbonamide as a flour treatment agent. Their food safety policies often follow the precautionary principle, removing ingredients when safer alternatives exist or when scientific uncertainty remains.

In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that azodicarbonamide is safe when used within approved limits.

These differing regulations don’t necessarily mean one side believes the ingredient is dangerous while the other believes it is harmless. Instead, they reflect different philosophies about regulating food additives.

Does McDonald’s Still Use It?

No.

McDonald’s removed azodicarbonamide from its U.S. hamburger buns in 2014 following growing consumer demand for simpler ingredient lists.

Today’s buns no longer contain the ingredient, joining a broader trend among food manufacturers to eliminate additives that have become controversial with consumers.

Are There Other Ingredients Consumers Should Know About?

Modern commercial bread still contains ingredients designed to improve freshness, texture, and shelf life.

These may include:

Calcium propionate to prevent mold
Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) as a dough conditioner
Enzymes that improve consistency
Emulsifiers that help maintain softness

These ingredients have been evaluated by food safety agencies and are generally recognized as safe when used according to regulations.

The Bigger Health Picture

Nutrition experts generally agree that focusing on one ingredient can distract from the larger issue.

The greatest health risks associated with fast food are more closely linked to:

High sodium intake
Excess saturated fat
Added sugars
Large portion sizes
Frequent consumption of ultra-processed foods

An occasional fast-food meal is unlikely to determine someone’s long-term health. Overall dietary patterns, physical activity, sleep, and other lifestyle factors have a much greater impact.

Consumer Awareness Is Changing the Food Industry

Whether or not an ingredient poses a measurable health risk, public concern can influence corporate decisions.

Over the past decade, many food companies have reformulated products to remove controversial ingredients, reduce artificial additives, and simplify ingredient labels. In many cases, those changes have been driven as much by consumer preferences as by regulatory requirements.

The Bottom Line

The “yoga mat chemical” story captured public attention because it combined science, food safety, and memorable marketing. While azodicarbonamide was once used in some hamburger buns, including those supplied to McDonald’s, the company removed it from its U.S. buns years ago.

Current evidence suggests consumers are better served by paying attention to their overall diet rather than worrying about a single ingredient that has already disappeared from many products.

Being an informed consumer means looking beyond the headlines, understanding the science, and recognizing that nutrition is about the complete picture—not just one ingredient.

Association of Black Cardiologists to Celebrate Legacy and Leadership at 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards

Published

1 week ago

July 27, 2026

Daily News Staff

AdobeStock 326809259 scaled — Adobe Stock

The Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) is bringing its signature celebration of impact back to New York City this fall—spotlighting leaders and organizations working to make cardiovascular care more equitable, more accessible, and more effective. The 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Program & Fundraiser is set for Saturday, October 3, 2026 (6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m.) at Cipriani Wall Street in Manhattan.

For ABC, the evening is more than a high-profile awards program. It’s a cornerstone fundraising event that helps power the organization’s year-round work—supporting medical student scholarships, fellowships, education, and programs designed to strengthen the pipeline of diverse clinicians and researchers while improving outcomes in communities that carry a disproportionate burden of heart disease.

The official invitation for the ABC 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Program & Fundraiser, taking place October 3, 2026, at Cipriani Wall Street in New York City.

A fundraising night with long-term stakes

ABC leaders say the Spirit of the Heart Awards is built around a simple idea: celebrating progress while investing in the people who will drive the next wave of change.

Event co-chair Icilma Fergus, MD—Director of the Cardiovascular Disparities Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center and Board Chair of ABC—framed the night as a forward-looking commitment.

“This gathering is about more than one evening of celebration; it is about investing in the future of cardiovascular health for years to come,” Fergus said in the announcement. She added that the support generated through the event helps expand opportunities for aspiring clinicians, researchers, and leaders whose work can transform care and improve lives nationwide.

Honorary Chairperson: Samin K. Sharma, MD

ABC announced Samin K. Sharma, MD as the event’s Honorary Chairperson. Sharma serves as Chief of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Institute, and the Anandi Lal Sharma Professor of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In the release, ABC highlighted Sharma’s international reputation in interventional cardiology and physician education, noting that he has trained cardiovascular specialists from around the world while advancing the field through research, mentorship, and patient care.

“I am honored to serve as Honorary Chairperson for this important event,” Sharma said. “The Spirit of the Heart Awards Program reflects the power of partnership, philanthropy, and leadership to advance cardiovascular health.”

The Association of Black Cardiologists will host the 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Oct. 3, 2026 in NYC to honor leaders advancing heart health equity and fund scholarships. — The official invitation schedule for the ABC 16th Annual Spirit of the Heart Awards Program & Fundraiser, taking place October 3, 2026, at Cipriani Wall Street in New York City.

A full weekend of impact, including policy

The awards program is part of a broader weekend of programming. On Friday, October 2, ABC will host its Annual Policy Pulse Summit at Venable LLP in New York City, convening leaders to discuss policy issues shaping the future of cardiovascular health.

What to expect at the Spirit of the Heart Awards

ABC is positioning the evening as both a celebration and a community gathering—bringing together leaders from healthcare, philanthropy, industry, and advocacy.

The event will be co-emceed by:

Sandra Bookman, award-winning journalist and anchor of Eyewitness News on ABC7/WABC-TV New York
Thomas Cunningham IV, President and Chief Content Officer of BrandCunningham

The program is expected to include:

Presentation of the Spirit of the Heart Awards
Recognition of medical student scholarship recipients
Special guest appearances
A live auction
Musical entertainment

Event co-chair Barbara Hutchinson, MD, PhD, President of Chesapeake Cardiac Care, emphasized the role of sustained collaboration in moving the needle on heart health.

“The Spirit of the Heart Awards Program is a reminder that lasting progress in cardiovascular health is achieved through vision, partnership, and sustained commitment,” Hutchinson said.

How to attend, sponsor, or support

ABC is directing attendees and supporters to its event site for tickets, sponsorship opportunities, and donations:

Event info / tickets / sponsorship / donations: https://abcardioevents.org

About the Association of Black Cardiologists

Founded on the belief that “every heart counts,” the Association of Black Cardiologists works to promote prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and to advance health equity by eliminating disparities. ABC’s membership is open to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or vocation. The organization’s work spans education, advocacy, research, patient and community outreach, and leadership development.

Organization website: https://abcardio.org

Source and media contact

Press release source (PRNewswire): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/association-of-black-cardiologists-to-celebrate-legacy-and-leadership-at-16th-annual-spirit-of-the-heart-awards-302206000.html

Media Contact (from the release):

Akeia Blue, VP of Communications
419395@email4pr.com
240-321-9227

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!