how research helps us in our daily living

What is the importance of research in everyday life?

Chemotherapy. Browsing the internet. Predicting hurricanes and storms. What do these things have in common? For one, they all exhibit the importance of research in everyday life; we would not be able to do these today without preceding decades of trial and error. Here are three top reasons we recognise the importance of research in everyday life, and why it is such an integral part of higher education today.

Research increases the quality of life

According to Universities Canada , “Basic research has led to some of the most commercially successful and life-saving discoveries of the past century, including the laser, vaccines and drugs, and the development of radio and television.” Canadian universities, for example, are currently studying how technology can help breed healthier livestock, how dance can provide long-term benefits to people living with Parkinson’s, and how to tackle affordable student housing in Toronto.

We know now that modern problems require modern solutions. Research is a catalyst for solving the world’s most pressing issues, the complexity of which evolves over time. The entire wealth of research findings throughout history has led us to this very point in civilisation, which brings us to the next reason why research matters.

What does a university’s research prowess mean for you as a student? Source: Shutterstock

Research empowers us with knowledge

Though scientists carry out research, the rest of the world benefits from their findings. We get to know the way of nature, and how our actions affect it. We gain a deeper understanding of people, and why they do the things they do. Best of all, we get to enrich our lives with the latest knowledge of health, nutrition, technology, and business, among others.

On top of that, reading and keeping up with scientific findings sharpen our own analytical skills and judgment. It compels us to apply critical thinking and exercise objective judgment based on evidence, instead of opinions or rumours. All throughout this process, we are picking up new bits of information and establishing new neural connections, which keeps us alert and up-to-date.

Research drives progress forward

Thanks to scientific research, modern medicine can cure diseases like tuberculosis and malaria. We’ve been able to simplify vaccines, diagnosis, and treatment across the board. Even COVID-19 — a novel disease — could be studied based on what is known about the SARS coronavirus. Now, the vaccine Pfizer and BioNTech have been working on has proven 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection.

Mankind has charted such progress thanks to the scientific method. Beyond improving healthcare, it is also responsible for the evolution of technology, which in turn guides the development of almost every other industry in the automation age. The world is the way it is today because academics throughout history have relentlessly sought answers in their laboratories and faculties; our future depends on what we do with all this newfound information.

Popular stories

Boost your salary by 20%: the best online certifications for better careers and pay.

From dentistry to public health: The Indian student aiming for a World Health Organisation career

Corporate jargon 101: The most common business speak words and phrases every fresh grad must know

It’s not business: 5 most in-demand careers in Canada

International PhD students now eligible for UK Research and Innovation scholarships

International scholars make lasting contributions to the US: report

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• About This Blog
• Official PLOS Blog
• EveryONE Blog
• Speaking of Medicine
• PLOS Biologue
• Absolutely Maybe
• DNA Science
• PLOS ECR Community
• All Models Are Wrong
• About PLOS Blogs

A Guide to Using the Scientific Method in Everyday Life

The  scientific method —the process used by scientists to understand the natural world—has the merit of investigating natural phenomena in a rigorous manner. Working from hypotheses, scientists draw conclusions based on empirical data. These data are validated on large-scale numbers and take into consideration the intrinsic variability of the real world. For people unfamiliar with its intrinsic jargon and formalities, science may seem esoteric. And this is a huge problem: science invites criticism because it is not easily understood. So why is it important, then, that every person understand how science is done?

Because the scientific method is, first of all, a matter of logical reasoning and only afterwards, a procedure to be applied in a laboratory.

Individuals without training in logical reasoning are more easily victims of distorted perspectives about themselves and the world. An example is represented by the so-called “ cognitive biases ”—systematic mistakes that individuals make when they try to think rationally, and which lead to erroneous or inaccurate conclusions. People can easily  overestimate the relevance  of their own behaviors and choices. They can  lack the ability to self-estimate the quality of their performances and thoughts . Unconsciously, they could even end up selecting only the arguments  that support their hypothesis or beliefs . This is why the scientific framework should be conceived not only as a mechanism for understanding the natural world, but also as a framework for engaging in logical reasoning and discussion.

A brief history of the scientific method

The scientific method has its roots in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Philosophers Francis Bacon and René Descartes are often credited with formalizing the scientific method because they contrasted the idea that research should be guided by metaphysical pre-conceived concepts of the nature of reality—a position that, at the time,  was highly supported by their colleagues . In essence, Bacon thought that  inductive reasoning based on empirical observation was critical to the formulation of hypotheses  and the  generation of new understanding : general or universal principles describing how nature works are derived only from observations of recurring phenomena and data recorded from them. The inductive method was used, for example, by the scientist Rudolf Virchow to formulate the third principle of the notorious  cell theory , according to which every cell derives from a pre-existing one. The rationale behind this conclusion is that because all observations of cell behavior show that cells are only derived from other cells, this assertion must be always true. 

Inductive reasoning, however, is not immune to mistakes and limitations. Referring back to cell theory, there may be rare occasions in which a cell does not arise from a pre-existing one, even though we haven’t observed it yet—our observations on cell behavior, although numerous, can still benefit from additional observations to either refute or support the conclusion that all cells arise from pre-existing ones. And this is where limited observations can lead to erroneous conclusions reasoned inductively. In another example, if one never has seen a swan that is not white, they might conclude that all swans are white, even when we know that black swans do exist, however rare they may be.  

The universally accepted scientific method, as it is used in science laboratories today, is grounded in  hypothetico-deductive reasoning . Research progresses via iterative empirical testing of formulated, testable hypotheses (formulated through inductive reasoning). A testable hypothesis is one that can be rejected (falsified) by empirical observations, a concept known as the  principle of falsification . Initially, ideas and conjectures are formulated. Experiments are then performed to test them. If the body of evidence fails to reject the hypothesis, the hypothesis stands. It stands however until and unless another (even singular) empirical observation falsifies it. However, just as with inductive reasoning, hypothetico-deductive reasoning is not immune to pitfalls—assumptions built into hypotheses can be shown to be false, thereby nullifying previously unrejected hypotheses. The bottom line is that science does not work to prove anything about the natural world. Instead, it builds hypotheses that explain the natural world and then attempts to find the hole in the reasoning (i.e., it works to disprove things about the natural world).

How do scientists test hypotheses?

Controlled experiments

The word “experiment” can be misleading because it implies a lack of control over the process. Therefore, it is important to understand that science uses controlled experiments in order to test hypotheses and contribute new knowledge. So what exactly is a controlled experiment, then? 

Let us take a practical example. Our starting hypothesis is the following: we have a novel drug that we think inhibits the division of cells, meaning that it prevents one cell from dividing into two cells (recall the description of cell theory above). To test this hypothesis, we could treat some cells with the drug on a plate that contains nutrients and fuel required for their survival and division (a standard cell biology assay). If the drug works as expected, the cells should stop dividing. This type of drug might be useful, for example, in treating cancers because slowing or stopping the division of cells would result in the slowing or stopping of tumor growth.

Although this experiment is relatively easy to do, the mere process of doing science means that several experimental variables (like temperature of the cells or drug, dosage, and so on) could play a major role in the experiment. This could result in a failed experiment when the drug actually does work, or it could give the appearance that the drug is working when it is not. Given that these variables cannot be eliminated, scientists always run control experiments in parallel to the real ones, so that the effects of these other variables can be determined.  Control experiments  are designed so that all variables, with the exception of the one under investigation, are kept constant. In simple terms, the conditions must be identical between the control and the actual experiment.     

Coming back to our example, when a drug is administered it is not pure. Often, it is dissolved in a solvent like water or oil. Therefore, the perfect control to the actual experiment would be to administer pure solvent (without the added drug) at the same time and with the same tools, where all other experimental variables (like temperature, as mentioned above) are the same between the two (Figure 1). Any difference in effect on cell division in the actual experiment here can be attributed to an effect of the drug because the effects of the solvent were controlled.

In order to provide evidence of the quality of a single, specific experiment, it needs to be performed multiple times in the same experimental conditions. We call these multiple experiments “replicates” of the experiment (Figure 2). The more replicates of the same experiment, the more confident the scientist can be about the conclusions of that experiment under the given conditions. However, multiple replicates under the same experimental conditions  are of no help  when scientists aim at acquiring more empirical evidence to support their hypothesis. Instead, they need  independent experiments  (Figure 3), in their own lab and in other labs across the world, to validate their results. 

Often times, especially when a given experiment has been repeated and its outcome is not fully clear, it is better  to find alternative experimental assays  to test the hypothesis. 

Applying the scientific approach to everyday life

So, what can we take from the scientific approach to apply to our everyday lives?

A few weeks ago, I had an agitated conversation with a bunch of friends concerning the following question: What is the definition of intelligence?

Defining “intelligence” is not easy. At the beginning of the conversation, everybody had a different, “personal” conception of intelligence in mind, which – tacitly – implied that the conversation could have taken several different directions. We realized rather soon that someone thought that an intelligent person is whoever is able to adapt faster to new situations; someone else thought that an intelligent person is whoever is able to deal with other people and empathize with them. Personally, I thought that an intelligent person is whoever displays high cognitive skills, especially in abstract reasoning. 

The scientific method has the merit of providing a reference system, with precise protocols and rules to follow. Remember: experiments must be reproducible, which means that an independent scientists in a different laboratory, when provided with the same equipment and protocols, should get comparable results.  Fruitful conversations as well need precise language, a kind of reference vocabulary everybody should agree upon, in order to discuss about the same “content”. This is something we often forget, something that was somehow missing at the opening of the aforementioned conversation: even among friends, we should always agree on premises, and define them in a rigorous manner, so that they are the same for everybody. When speaking about “intelligence”, we must all make sure we understand meaning and context of the vocabulary adopted in the debate (Figure 4, point 1).  This is the first step of “controlling” a conversation.

There is another downside that a discussion well-grounded in a scientific framework would avoid. The mistake is not structuring the debate so that all its elements, except for the one under investigation, are kept constant (Figure 4, point 2). This is particularly true when people aim at making comparisons between groups to support their claim. For example, they may try to define what intelligence is by comparing the  achievements in life of different individuals: “Stephen Hawking is a brilliant example of intelligence because of his great contribution to the physics of black holes”. This statement does not help to define what intelligence is, simply because it compares Stephen Hawking, a famous and exceptional physicist, to any other person, who statistically speaking, knows nothing about physics. Hawking first went to the University of Oxford, then he moved to the University of Cambridge. He was in contact with the most influential physicists on Earth. Other people were not. All of this, of course, does not disprove Hawking’s intelligence; but from a logical and methodological point of view, given the multitude of variables included in this comparison, it cannot prove it. Thus, the sentence “Stephen Hawking is a brilliant example of intelligence because of his great contribution to the physics of black holes” is not a valid argument to describe what intelligence is. If we really intend to approximate a definition of intelligence, Steven Hawking should be compared to other physicists, even better if they were Hawking’s classmates at the time of college, and colleagues afterwards during years of academic research. 

In simple terms, as scientists do in the lab, while debating we should try to compare groups of elements that display identical, or highly similar, features. As previously mentioned, all variables – except for the one under investigation – must be kept constant.

This insightful piece  presents a detailed analysis of how and why science can help to develop critical thinking.

In a nutshell

Here is how to approach a daily conversation in a rigorous, scientific manner:

• First discuss about the reference vocabulary, then discuss about the content of the discussion.  Think about a researcher who is writing down an experimental protocol that will be used by thousands of other scientists in varying continents. If the protocol is rigorously written, all scientists using it should get comparable experimental outcomes. In science this means reproducible knowledge, in daily life this means fruitful conversations in which individuals are on the same page. 
• Adopt “controlled” arguments to support your claims.  When making comparisons between groups, visualize two blank scenarios. As you start to add details to both of them, you have two options. If your aim is to hide a specific detail, the better is to design the two scenarios in a completely different manner—it is to increase the variables. But if your intention is to help the observer to isolate a specific detail, the better is to design identical scenarios, with the exception of the intended detail—it is therefore to keep most of the variables constant. This is precisely how scientists ideate adequate experiments to isolate new pieces of knowledge, and how individuals should orchestrate their thoughts in order to test them and facilitate their comprehension to others.   

Not only the scientific method should offer individuals an elitist way to investigate reality, but also an accessible tool to properly reason and discuss about it.

Edited by Jason Organ, PhD, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Simone is a molecular biologist on the verge of obtaining a doctoral title at the University of Ulm, Germany. He is Vice-Director at Culturico (https://culturico.com/), where his writings span from Literature to Sociology, from Philosophy to Science. His writings recently appeared in Psychology Today, openDemocracy, Splice Today, Merion West, Uncommon Ground and The Society Pages. Follow Simone on Twitter: @simredaelli

• Pingback: Case Studies in Ethical Thinking: Day 1 | Education & Erudition

This has to be the best article I have ever read on Scientific Thinking. I am presently writing a treatise on how Scientific thinking can be adopted to entreat all situations.And how, a 4 year old child can be taught to adopt Scientific thinking, so that, the child can look at situations that bothers her and she could try to think about that situation by formulating the right questions. She may not have the tools to find right answers? But, forming questions by using right technique ? May just make her find a way to put her mind to rest even at that level. That is why, 4 year olds are often “eerily: (!)intelligent, I have iften been intimidated and plain embarrassed to see an intelligent and well spoken 4 year old deal with celibrity ! Of course, there are a lot of variables that have to be kept in mind in order to train children in such controlled thinking environment, as the screenplay of little Sheldon shows. Thanking the author with all my heart – #ershadspeak #wearescience #weareallscientists Ershad Khandker

Simone, thank you for this article. I have the idea that I want to apply what I learned in Biology to everyday life. You addressed this issue, and have given some basic steps in using the scientific method.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name and email for the next time I comment.

By Ashley Moses, edited by Andrew S. Cale Each year, millions of scientific research papers are published. Virtually none of them can…

By Ana Santos-Carvalho and Carolina Lebre, edited by Andrew S. Cale Excessive use of technical jargon can be a significant barrier to…

By Ryan McRae and Briana Pobiner, edited by Andrew S. Cale In 2023, the field of human evolution benefited from a plethora…

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

How Science Helps Us Find the Good

I’ve been covering the science of human goodness, off and on, for almost 10 years. In that time, I’ve seen a dramatic transformation in the way scientists understand how and why we love, thank, empathize, cooperate, and care for each other.

Of course, “goodness” doesn’t seem like a very scientific concept. It sounds downright squishy to many people, and thus unworthy of study. But you can count acts of goodness—and all science begins with counting. It’s the counting that has started to change our understanding of human life.

For example, in a study published in the January edition of the journal Mindfulness , psychologists C. Daryl Cameron and Barbara Fredrickson asked 313 adults if they had helped anyone during the previous week. Eighty-five percent said they had—by, say, listening to a friend’s problems, babysitting, donating to charity, or volunteering.

This small study reveals a truth that is consistently demonstrated in many domains of research: that daily human life is not characterized by violence, exploitation, or indifference. Far from it. The research—that is, the counting—reveals that we care deeply for one other, and that we would rather help our fellow beings than not. Even more, the science shows that refusing to help others can have debilitating, long-term mental and physical consequences for ourselves. Isolation hurts, physically ; so does aggression. Every angry word we utter fries neurons and wears out our hearts.

When I first started to write about the research, that was big news: Wow, human life isn’t as bad as we thought it was! Acts of goodness yield physical rewards! Good thoughts are good for our bodies! These insights led to a lot of predictably Pollyannaish media coverage.

But as the years went on, the science of goodness grew more complex. Scientists started to look at how the good and the bad interact. The study by Cameron and Fredrickson explores how we feel when we’re helping others, and they found that quite a few participants didn’t feel good at all. These people helped others out of a sense of obligation, and they felt disgust, contempt, stress, or resentment toward those they helped.

Today, the science of human goodness reveals that good and bad go hand in hand, and what ties us together can also tear us apart. So the important question becomes: How can I cultivate the good? The empirical answer to that question contains some surprises. Just as good and bad are linked, the science reveals how inextricably our inner world and the external one are tied together.

This is what the research currently suggests: If you want to find and foster the good in society, you need to start by searching for the goodness inside yourself.

The science of evil

You’ve probably heard of the famous Stanford Prison experiment. In 1971, the US Navy asked professor Philip Zimbardo to study the psychological effects of prison conditions. He did this by recruiting twenty-four young men as either guards or prisoners for a mock jail in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.

The results of the “experiment” are often cited as evidence for the innate depravity of human beings. Things went horribly wrong in the mock jail, as the guards brutally abused their authority and the prisoners turned on each other. Zimbardo himself was caught up in the inhumanity of the situation he had created.

The story of the Stanford Prison experiment has been told and re-told countless times, despite the fact that it’s widely considered to be an example of science gone wrong and its results have never been replicated. (There is even a new film about the experiment, starring Billy Crudup.)

Why are we so fascinated by this study in evil—as Zimbardo often calls it—and why does the word “evil” sound so much more serious and hard-edged than good?

Part of the answer lies in our inborn negativity bias. This is our hardwired tendency to notice and amplify threats. It explains why so many people tend to believe that human life is brutal and cold, despite all evidence to the contrary. Negativity bias is essential to natural selection: people who run away from a man with a gun or a car running a red light are more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. And these harrowing moments are more likely to burn themselves into our neurons than the gentle ones, so that we can avoid similar threats in the future.

The Stanford Prison experiment fascinates us in part because of its highly concentrated negativity. We’re really good at focusing the spotlight of our attention on things we think might hurt us.

But what happens when we put a spotlight on one thing? Everything else is thrown into darkness, as psychologist Paul Gilbert points out . This means we miss the good things that are outside of the spotlight. Something else happens as well: When we focus on bad things, we’re triggering the stress response, often below conscious awareness. If you think of the Stanford Prison experiment as a kind of model of real life—if you conceive of yourself as living in the equivalent of that basement—then you’re going to be stressed.

What is stress? As another Stanford professor, Robert Sapolsky , likes to say, stress is a tool nature gave us to survive lion attacks.

Of course, you’re not a primate on the African savannah menaced by lions. You’re a modern human who, for example, might be caught in a traffic jam. The spotlight of your attention—a mechanism built for a time when threats were much simpler—is focused only on your destination, which seems to be getting further and further away. The miracles that surround you escape your notice, like the fact that a trip that takes sixty minutes in your car would have taken your ancestors the better part of a day.

So what do you do instead of appreciating the good things? Sitting in that traffic jam, you turn the other cars into lions, and you feel threatened. You might shout obscenities, or scare your kids by pounding on the steering wheel. And yet—somehow!—this activity does not make the cars move any faster. Instead, the stress hurts you and others , mentally and physically. This evolutionary confusion is one of the tragedies of modern life.

You don’t need a Ph.D. to figure this out. Here’s an experiment you can perform right now, as you read this article:

• Think about something stressful that happened to you during the past week. Now scan your body: How does your chest, stomach, or neck feel?
• Then think about something good that happened during the same period, however small. Now what happens in your body?

Did you feel any difference, according to where your attention was focused? The research predicts that the stressful memory caused you physical discomfort—and it also predicts that too much long-term stress can take years off of your life, without fixing the problem. Your tight chest and clenched stomach doesn’t make the world a better place. In fact, it can make everything worse.

So what can you do? How do you bring out the good in yourself when your savannah-bred instincts tell you to scream and run people over with your car?

Counting the good things

Science has an answer, and it starts with counting. The questions you have to ask yourself are these:

• Am I counting the good things, too?
• Am I taking the time to shine light on things that make me happy and give my life meaning?
• Who thanked me today?
• To whom did I feel grateful?
• What acts of kindness or cooperation did I witness?

This is the essence of that much-maligned term “positive thinking”: we make it a goal to count the good things in life. That doesn’t mean we ignore the bad. Undeniably there are threats in the world, to our own well-being and that of others. There are also threats within ourselves—selfishness, laziness, short-sightedness, and so on. But all too often our negativity bias leads us to see only the bad, in other people as well as in ourselves.

When we try to think positively, we are making a conscious, cognitive effort to correct for our natural and understandable tendency to focus on threats. By counting the good things, we see reality more clearly.

Sometimes, seeing the good takes enormous personal strength, because we need to overcome the great power of the stress-induced, fight-or-flight response.

Let’s go back to the Stanford Prison experiment—and the career of Philip Zimbardo. His work didn’t stop in 1971. As the decades went on, Zimbardo moved beyond evil. He started asking himself how to cultivate the good in people. In recent years, he has studied heroism, the willingness to make sacrifices on behalf of other people. “The two lines of research aren’t as different as they might seem; they’re actually two sides of the same coin,” writes Zimbardo in Greater Good . He continues:

Some people argue humans are born good or born bad; I think that’s nonsense. We are all born with this tremendous capacity to be anything, and we get shaped by our circumstances—by the family or the culture or the time period in which we happen to grow up, which are accidents of birth; whether we grow up in a war zone versus peace; if we grow up in poverty rather than prosperity.

That statement encapsulates thirty years of scientific research into human goodness. Negativity bias isn’t the whole story. There’s more to us than fight or flight.

The interesting thing is that even in extreme circumstances, humans will override their habitual or instinctive responses. And when we do fight, we won’t just fight for ourselves. We can and do fight for others. If a certain kind of person sees a child walking in front of a car, she’ll put herself at risk to knock the child out of the way. Some individuals will deliberately put themselves between a gun and other people. We can and do override our short-term self-interest, all the time. Every day, some of us put ourselves in harm’s way so that others can live.

That heroic impulse is what Zimbardo now studies. He has researched who is most likely to commit heroic acts, and the prosaic answers include: black people more than whites, those who have experienced violence or disaster before, and people with more education. But he has also found that heroism is a skill. People are more likely to make sacrifices on behalf of others when they’ve made a conscious commitment to heroism and are trained to act heroically.

Helping people to cultivate such skills is one of the most important things we do at the Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley. We recently launched a new site, Greater Good in Action , which offers concrete, research-tested practices for individuals to cultivate strengths like awe, gratitude, empathy, and compassion.

This is the work of a lifetime. Changing yourself is no simple task. And changing the world? That can seem impossible.

Going from inner to outer

Writers like Barbara Ehrenreich and Oliver Burkeman have criticized positive thinking as a tool of social control. If you’re grateful for everything, they ask, how can you possibly see what’s wrong in the world? Does a focus on perfecting yourself mean that you ignore improving society?

I think it’s true that these are dangers to guard against, but research like Zimbardo’s—which includes nonviolent civil disobedience as an example of heroism—finds specific steps we can take to develop a more caring society, ones the critics might dismiss as self-centered or wishful thinking.

Remember the study of helping behavior by Cameron and Fredrickson that I mentioned at the beginning? They hypothesized that two mindful traits—a focus on the present moment and a non-judgmental acceptance of thoughts and experiences—would help people feel better about helping others.

The research confirmed their hypothesis: present-focused attention and non-judgmental acceptance both predicted more helping behavior. Mindful participants were more likely to experience emotions like compassion, joy, or elevation while giving help. In part this was because mindfulness helped them to put their own anxiety aside in order to focus on the needs of others. They just felt better when helping people, which likely led them to engage in more helping behavior in general.

It’s a result echoed in other studies. Paul Condon of Northeastern University and his colleagues put study participants through an eight-week mindfulness course. After the course, the meditators were called into a waiting room with no empty seats. An actress working for the researchers limped in on crutches and leaned against a wall. The researchers created the same situation for a group who didn’t go through the mindfulness course.

Here’s what they found: members of the group that studied mindfulness meditation were five times more likely to give up their seat to the woman on crutches than those who didn’t. The upshot of these two studies is that cultivating awareness of your own thoughts, feelings, and surroundings makes you more likely to see and meet the needs of others.

Mindfulness is also linked to greater compassion for ourselves—in other words, mindful people are quicker to comfort themselves when they screw up. The critics might think they’re just letting themselves off the hook, but the research says otherwise.

“We think we need to beat ourselves up if we make mistakes so that we won’t do it again,” said University of Texas psychologist Kristin Neff in a Greater Good interview . She continues:

But that’s completely counterproductive. Self-criticism is very strongly linked to depression. And depression is antithetical to motivation: You’re unable to be motivated to change if you’re depressed. It causes you to lose faith in yourself, and that’s going to make you less likely to try to change and conditions you for failure.

Mindfulness and self-compassion are also turning out to be tools to correct for different forms of implicit bias, such as racial discrimination. This shouldn’t surprise us. Too often, we believe that people are either racist or they’re not—but new research finds that’s just not true. As David Amodio, Susan Fiske, and other scientists have documented, everyone is prone to kneejerk bias. The trick is to cultivate enough self-awareness to know when you are being biased—to see the world as it is, not what we fear it is. This is what allows us to override automatic associations.

Several studies—most recently by Adam Lueke and Brian Gibson of Central Michigan University—find that even very brief training for young white people in mindfulness seems to limit unconscious negative reactions to black faces. This is perhaps because awareness of one’s own impulses can help us to override them. Many police departments are now training officers to be aware of the implicit biases that influence split-second decision-making.

To me, nothing better reveals the relationship between our inner lives and our social reality than the fight against implicit bias. Given the pervasive impact of racism—from the psychological insecurity it creates in minority communities to the huge gaps in wealth between different racial groups—I think we all have a responsibility to search inside ourselves for signs of bias.

But it can’t stop at just recognizing the problem. We also have to find the good in ourselves. We can start by recognizing that bias toward your own group isn’t a sign of your innate evil. It’s a sign that you are human. The next step is to forgive yourself, for these are feelings that all human beings have at one time or another. In forgiving ourselves, we open the door to forgiving others, and in forgiveness , we create the possibility for widespread social change. The very idea of forgiveness always implies that change is possible. From there, we can find the part of ourselves that wants to be fair to everyone , and embrace that as a goal. Like heroism, egalitarianism is a skill we can learn, a natural propensity that we can cultivate.

When we grow as individuals, we grow as a species. As we evolve together, let us count each act of love, empathy, and compassion, and not take our goodness for granted. In our distant evolutionary past, our survival depended on attention to the negative. Today, it may depend on our awareness of the good. 

About the Author

Jeremy Adam Smith

Uc berkeley.

Jeremy Adam Smith edits the GGSC's online magazine, Greater Good . He is also the author or coeditor of five books, including The Daddy Shift , Are We Born Racist? , and (most recently) The Gratitude Project: How the Science of Thankfulness Can Rewire Our Brains for Resilience, Optimism, and the Greater Good . Before joining the GGSC, Jeremy was a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University.

You May Also Enjoy

What Does Prejudice Reveal About What It Means to be Human?

The Good, the Bad, and the Brain

How to Deal with Prejudice

Reflecting on Your Basic Goodness

How Altruistic is the Greater Good Community?

How to Find the Good in People We Love

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Nih…turning discovery into health ®, research for healthy living.

Scientific and technological breakthroughs generated by NIH research have helped more people in the United States and all over the world live longer, healthier lives.  These advancements were achieved by making disease less deadly through effective interventions to prevent and treat illness and disability.

obesity-thumb.jpg

Obesity and Nutrition

Obesity puts people at risk for many health issues including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, arthritis, and certain types of cancer.

osteoarthritis.jpg

Over the past decades, scientists have made important strides toward helping people manage osteoarthritis.

Oral Health

NIH researchers consider the mouth an expansive living laboratory to understand infections, cancer, and even healthy development processes. 

Thanks to NIH research, we know a lot about the underlying causes of vision loss. 

« Previous: Transformative Technologies Next: The Promise of Precision Medicine »

This page last reviewed on November 16, 2023

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Psychology Can Improve Your Life

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

How can psychology apply to your everyday life? Do you think that psychology is just for students, academics, and therapists? Think again. Because psychology is both an applied and a theoretical subject, it can be used in a number of ways.

While research studies aren't exactly light reading material for the average person, the results of these experiments and studies can have significant applications in daily life. The following are some practical uses for psychology in everyday life.

Whether your goal is to quit smoking, lose weight, or learn a new language, lessons from psychology offer tips for getting motivated. To increase your motivational levels when approaching a task, use strategies derived from research in cognitive and educational psychology .

• Introduce new or novel elements to keep your interest high.
• Vary repetitive sequences to help stave off boredom.
• Learn new things that build on your existing knowledge.
• Set clear goals that are directly related to the task.
• Reward yourself for a job well done.

It doesn’t matter if you’re an office manager or a volunteer at a local youth group: Having good leadership skills will probably be essential at some point in your life. Not everyone is a born leader, but a few simple tips gleaned from psychological research can help you be a better leader.

One of the most famous studies on this topic looked at three distinct leadership styles . Based on the findings of this study and subsequent research, practice some of the following when you are in a leadership position.

• Offer clear guidance, but allow group members to voice opinions.
• Talk about possible solutions with members of the group.
• Focus on stimulating ideas and be willing to reward creativity.

Communication

Communication involves much more than how you speak or write. Research suggests that nonverbal signals make up a huge portion of our interpersonal communications. To communicate your message effectively, you need to learn how to express yourself nonverbally and to read the nonverbal cues of those around you.

• Use good eye contact.
• Start noticing nonverbal signals in others.
• Learn to use your tone of voice to reinforce your message.

Emotional Intelligence

Much like nonverbal communication, the ability to understand your emotions and the emotions of those around you plays an important role in your relationships and professional life. The term emotional intelligence refers to your ability to understand both your own emotions and those of other people.

Your emotional intelligence quotient is a measure of this ability. According to psychologist Daniel Goleman, your EQ may actually be more important than your IQ. To become more emotionally intelligent, consider some of the following strategies.

• Carefully assess your own emotional reactions.
• Record your experiences and emotions in a journal.
• Try to see situations from the perspective of another person.

Decision-Making

Research in cognitive psychology has provided a wealth of information about decision making. By applying these strategies to your life, you can learn to make wiser choices. The next time you need to make a big decision, try using some of these techniques.

• Use the “six thinking hats” approach by looking at the situation from multiple points of view, including rational, emotional, intuitive, creative, positive, and negative perspectives.
• Consider the potential costs and benefits of a decision.
• Employ a grid analysis technique that gives a score for how a particular decision will satisfy specific requirements you may have.

Press Play for Advice On Dealing With Decision Fatigue

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how to manage feelings of decision fatigue and how you can avoid it. Click below to listen now.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

Have you ever wondered why you can remember the exact details of childhood events, yet forget the name of the new client you met yesterday? Research on how we form new memories as well as how and why we forget has led to a number of findings that can be applied directly in your daily life. To increase your memory power:

• Focus on the information.
• Rehearse what you have learned.
• Eliminate distractions.

Money Management

Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky conducted a series of studies that looked at how people manage uncertainty and risk when making decisions. Subsequent research in this area, known as behavior economics, has yielded some key findings that you can use to manage your money more wisely.

One study found that workers could more than triple their savings by using some of the following strategies.  

• Don’t procrastinate. Start investing in savings now.
• Commit in advance to devote portions of your future earnings to your retirement savings.
• Try to be aware of personal biases that may lead to poor money choices.

Academic Success

The next time you're tempted to complain about pop quizzes, midterms, or final exams, consider that research has demonstrated that taking tests actually helps you better remember what you've learned, even if it wasn't covered on the test.

A study found that repeated test-taking may be a better memory aid than studying. Students who were tested repeatedly were able to recall 61% of the material, while those in the study group recalled only 40%.   How can you apply these findings to your own life? When trying to learn new information, self-test frequently in order to cement what you have learned into your memory.

Productivity

There are thousands of books and magazine articles telling us how to get more done, but how much of this advice is founded on actual research? Take the belief that multitasking can help you be more productive. In reality, research has found that trying to perform more than one task at a time seriously impairs speed, accuracy, and productivity.   Use lessons from psychology to increase your productivity more effectively.

• Avoid multitasking when working on complex or dangerous tasks.
• Focus on the task at hand.

Psychology can also be a useful tool for improving your overall health. From ways to encourage exercise and better nutrition to new treatments for depression, the field of health psychology offers a wealth of beneficial strategies that can help you to be healthier and happier.

• Studies have shown that both sunlight and artificial light can reduce the symptoms of seasonal affective disorder.
• Research has demonstrated that exercise can contribute to greater psychological well-being.  
• Studies have found that helping people understand the risks of unhealthy behaviors can lead to healthier choices.

Thaler RH, Benartzi S. Save More Tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving . J Political Econ . 2004;112(S1):S164-187. doi:10.1086/380085

Chan JC, McDermott KB, Roediger HL. Retrieval-induced facilitation: initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material . J Exp Psychol Gen . 2006;135(4):553-71. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.553

Ophir E, Nass C, Wagner AD. Cognitive control in media multitaskers . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA . 2009;106(37):15583-7. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106

Solberg PA, Halvari H, Ommundsen Y, Hopkins WG. A 1-year follow-up of effects of exercise programs on well-being in older adults . J Aging Phys Act . 2014;22(1):52-64. doi:10.1123/japa.2012-0181

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Jacks Of Science

Simple Answers to Scientific Questions

Importance Of Research In Daily Life

Whether we are students, professionals, or stay-at-home parents, we all need to do research on a daily basis.

The reason?

Research helps us make informed decisions.

It allows us to learn about new things, and it teaches us how to think critically.

There is an importance of research in daily life.

Let’s discuss the importance of research in our daily lives and how it can help us achieve our goals!

6 ways research plays an important role in our daily lives.

• It leads to new discoveries and innovations that improve our lives. Many of the technologies we rely on today are the result of research in fields like medicine, computer science, engineering, etc. Things like smartphones, wifi, GPS, and medical treatments were made possible by research.
• It informs policy making. Research provides data and evidence that allows policymakers to make more informed decisions on issues that impact society, whether it’s related to health, education, the economy, or other areas. Research gives insights into problems.
• It spreads knowledge and awareness. The research contributes new information and facts to various fields and disciplines. The sharing of research educates people on new topics, ideas, social issues, etc. It provides context for understanding the world.
• It drives progress and change. Research challenges existing notions, tests new theories and hypotheses, and pushes boundaries of what’s known. Pushing the frontiers of knowledge through research is key for advancement. Even when research invalidates ideas, it leads to progress.
• It develops critical thinking skills. The research process itself – asking questions, collecting data, analyzing results, drawing conclusions – builds logic, problem-solving, and cognitive skills that benefit individuals in their professional and personal lives.
• It fuels innovation and the economy. Research leads to the development of new products and services that create jobs and improve productivity in the marketplace. Private sector research drives economic growth.

So while not always visible, research underlies much of our technological, social, economic, and human progress. It’s a building block for society.

Conducting quality research and using it to maximum benefit is key.

Research is important in everyday life because it allows us to make informed decisions about the things that matter most to us.

Whether we’re researching a new car before making a purchase, studying for an important test, or looking into different treatment options for a health issue, research allows us to get the facts and make the best choices for ourselves and our families.

• In today’s world, there’s so much information available at our fingertips, and research is more accessible than ever.
• The internet has made it possible for anyone with an interest in doing research to access vast amounts of information in a short amount of time.

This is both a blessing and a curse; while it’s great that we have so much information available to us, it can be overwhelming to try to sort through everything and find the most reliable sources.

What is the importance of research in our daily life?

Research is essential to our daily lives.

• It helps us to make informed decisions about everything from the food we eat to the medicines we take.
• It also allows us to better understand the world around us and find solutions to problems.

In short, research is essential for our health, safety, and well-being. Without it, we would be living in a world of ignorance and misinformation.

What is the importance of research in our daily lives as a student?

As a student, research plays an important role in our daily life. It helps us to gain knowledge and understanding of the world around us.

• It also allows us to develop new skills and perspectives.
• In addition, research helps us to innovate and create new things. 
• Research is essential for students because it helps us to learn about the world around us. Without research, we would be limited to our own personal experiences and observations.
• Research allows us to go beyond our personal bubble and explore new ideas and concepts.
• It also gives us the opportunity to develop new skills and perspectives. 
• In addition, research is important because it helps us to innovate and create new things. When we conduct research , we are constantly learning new information that can be used to create something new.

This could be anything from a new product or service to a new way of doing things.

Research is essential for students because it allows us to be innovative and create new things that can make a difference in the world.

Consequently, while each person’s daily life routine might differ based on their unique circumstances, the role that research plays in our lives as students is an integral one nonetheless.

Different though our routines might be, the value of research in our lives shines through brightly regardless.  And that importance cannot be overstated .

How does research affect your daily life?

Every day, we benefit from the countless hours of research that have been conducted by scientists and scholars around the world.

• From the moment we wake up in the morning to the time we go to bed at night, we rely on research to improve our lives in a variety of ways.
• For instance, many of the items we use every day, such as our phones and laptops, are the result of years of research and development.
• And when we see a news story about a new medical breakthrough or a natural disaster, it is often the result of research that has been conducted over a long period of time.

In short, research affects our daily lives in countless ways, both big and small. Without it, we would be living in a very different world.

What are the purposes of research?

The word “research” is used in a variety of ways. In its broadest sense, research includes any gathering of data, information, and facts for the advancement of knowledge.

Whether you are looking for a new recipe or trying to find a cure for cancer, the process of research is the same.

You start with a question or an area of interest and then use different sources to find information that will help you answer that question or learn more about that topic.

“The purpose of research is to find answers to questions, solve problems, or develop new knowledge.”

It is an essential tool in business , education, science, and many other fields. By conducting research, we can learn about the world around us and make it a better place.

How to do effective research 

Research is a process of uncovering facts and information about a subject.

It is usually done when preparing for an assignment or project and can be either primary research, which involves collecting data yourself, or secondary research, which involves finding existing data.

Regardless of the type of research you do, there are some effective strategies that will help you get the most out of your efforts:

• First, start by clearly defining your topic and what you hope to learn. This will help you to focus your search and find relevant information more quickly.
• Once you know what you’re looking for, try using keyword searches to find websites, articles, and other resources that are relevant to your topic.
• When evaluating each source, be sure to consider its reliability and biases.
• Finally, take good notes as you read, and make sure to keep track of where each piece of information came from so that you can easily cite it later.

By following these steps, you can ensure that your research is both thorough and accurate.

How to use research to achieve your goals.

Achieving your goals requires careful planning and a lot of hard work.

But even the best-laid plans can sometimes go awry.

That’s where research comes in.

By taking the time to do your homework, you can increase your chances of success while also learning more about your topic of interest.

When it comes to goal-setting, research can help you to identify realistic targets and develop a roadmap for achieving them.

It can also provide valuable insights into potential obstacles and how to overcome them.

In short, research is an essential tool for anyone who wants to achieve their goals.

So if you’re serious about reaching your target, be sure to do your homework first.

So the next time you are faced with a decision, don’t forget to do your research!

It could very well be the most important thing you do all day.

Jacks of Science sources the most authoritative, trustworthy, and highly recognized institutions for our article research. Learn more about our Editorial Teams process and diligence in verifying the accuracy of every article we publish.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information: The HIPAA Privacy Rule; Nass SJ, Levit LA, Gostin LO, editors. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009.

Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

3 The Value, Importance, and Oversight of Health Research

The previous chapter reviewed the value of privacy, while this chapter examines the value and importance of health research. As noted in the introduction to Chapter 2 , the committee views privacy and health research as complementary values. Ideally, society should strive to facilitate both for the benefit of individuals as well as the public.

In addition to defining health research and delineating its value to individuals and society, this chapter provides an overview and historical perspective of federal research regulations that were in place long before the Privacy Rule was implemented. Because a great deal of medical research falls under the purview of multiple federal regulations, it is important to understand how the various rules overlap or diverge. The chapter also explains how the definition of research has become quite complex under the various federal regulations, which make a distinction between research and some closely related health practice activities that also use health data, such as quality improvement initiatives.

The chapter also reviews the available survey data regarding public perceptions of health research and describes the importance of effective communication about health research with patients and the public.

• CONCEPTS AND VALUE OF HEALTH RESEARCH

Definitions

Under both the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the Common Rule , “research” is defined as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” This is a broad definition that may include biomedical research, epidemiological studies, 1 and health services research, 2 as well as studies of behavioral, social, and economic factors that affect health.

Perhaps the most familiar form of health research is the clinical trial, in which patients volunteer to participate in studies to test the efficacy and safety of new medical interventions. But an increasingly large portion of health research is now information based. A great deal of research entails the analysis of data and biological samples that were initially collected for diagnostic, treatment, or billing purposes, or that were collected as part of other research projects, and are now being used for new research purposes. This secondary 3 use of data is a common research approach in fields such as epidemiology, health services research, and public health research, and includes analysis of patterns of occurrences, determinants, and natural history of disease; evaluation of health care interventions and services; drug safety surveillance; and some genetic and social studies ( Lowrance, 2002 ; Lowrance and Collins, 2007 ).

The Importance of Health Research

Like privacy, health research has high value to society. It can provide important information about disease trends and risk factors, outcomes of treatment or public health interventions, functional abilities, patterns of care, and health care costs and use. The different approaches to research provide complementary insights. Clinical trials can provide important information about the efficacy and adverse effects of medical interventions by controlling the variables that could impact the results of the study, but feedback from real-world clinical experience is also crucial for comparing and improving the use of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and diagnostics. For example, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a drug for a particular indication is based on a series of controlled clinical trials, often with a few hundred to a few thousand patients, but after approval it may be used by millions of people in many different contexts. Therefore, tracking clinical experience with the drug is important for identifying relatively rare adverse effects and for determining the effectiveness in different populations or in various circumstances. It is also vital to record and assess experience in clinical practice in order to develop guidelines for best practices and to ensure high-quality patient care.

Collectively, these forms of health research have led to significant discoveries, the development of new therapies, and a remarkable improvement in health care and public health. 4 Economists have found that medical research can have an enormous impact on human health and longevity, and that the resulting increased productivity of the population contributes greatly to the national economy ( Hatfield et al., 2001 ; Murphy and Topel, 1999 ) in addition to the individual benefits of improved health. If the research enterprise is impeded, or if it is less robust, important societal interests are affected.

The development of Herceptin as a treatment for breast cancer is a prime example of the benefits of research using biological samples and patient records ( Box 3-1 ) ( Slamon et al., 1987 ). Many other examples of findings from medical records research have changed the practice of medicine as well. Such research underlies the estimate that tens of thousands of Americans die each year from medical errors in the hospital, and research has provided valuable information for reducing these medical errors by implementing health information technology, such as e-prescribing ( Bates et al., 1998 ; IOM, 2000b ). This type of research also has documented that disparities in health care and lack of access to care in inner cities and rural areas result in poorer health outcomes ( Mick et al., 1994 ). Furthermore, medical records research has demonstrated that preventive services (e.g., mammography) substantially reduce mortality and morbidity at reasonable costs ( Mandelblatt et al., 2003 ), and has established a causal link between the nursing shortage and patient health outcomes by documenting that patients in hospitals with fewer registered nurses are hospitalized longer and are more likely to suffer complications, such as urinary tract infections and upper gastrointestinal bleeding ( Needleman et al., 2002 ). These findings have all informed and influenced policy decisions at the national level. As the use of electronic medical records increases, the pace of this form of research is accelerating, and the opportunities to generate new knowledge about what works in health care are expanding ( CHSR, 2008 ).

Examples of Important Findings from Medical Database Research. Herceptin and breast cancer: Data were collected from a cohort of more than 9,000 breast cancer patients whose tumor specimens were consecutively received at the University (more...)

Advances in health information technology are enabling a transformation in health research that could facilitate studies that were not feasible in the past, and thus lead to new insights regarding health and disease. As noted by the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, “Clinically rich information is now more readily available, in a more structured format, and able to be electronically exchanged throughout the health and health care continuum. As a result, the information can be better used for quality improvement, public health, and research, and can significantly contribute to improvements in health and health care for individuals and populations” ( NCVHS, 2007a ). The informatics grid recently developed with support from the National Cancer Institute (Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid, or caBIG) is an example of a how information technologies can facilitate health research by enabling broader sharing of health data while still ensuring regulatory compliance and protecting patient privacy ( Box 3-2 ).

caBIG (Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid). The National Cancer Institute’s caBIG Data Sharing and Intellectual Capital Workspace’s mission is to enable all constituencies in the cancer community—including researchers, physicians, (more...)

Science today is also changing rapidly and becoming more complex, so no single researcher or single site can bring all the expertise to develop and validate medical innovations or to ensure their safety. Thus, efficient sharing of information between institutions has become even more important than in previous eras, when there were fewer new therapies introduced. The expansion of treatment options, as well as the escalating expense of new therapies, mandates greater scrutiny of true effectiveness, 5 once efficacy has been demonstrated. This requires registries of patient characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events. Large populations are required to facilitate comparison of patient populations and to calculate risk/benefit estimates. For example, INTERMACS 6 (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) is a national registry for patients who are receiving mechanical circulatory support device therapy to treat advanced heart failure. This registry was devised as a joint effort of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, FDA, clinicians, scientists and industry representatives. Analysis of the data collected is expected to facilitate improved patient evaluation and management while aiding in better device development. Registry results are also expected to influence future research and facilitate appropriate regulation and reimbursement of such devices. Similarly, the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO), 7 an international consortium of health care professionals and scientists who focus on the development and evaluation of novel therapies for support of failing organ systems, maintains a registry of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and other novel forms of organ system support. Registry data are used to support clinical practice and research, as well as regulatory agencies. Another example is the database developed by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) for the collection, storage, analysis and publication of data pertaining to the patient waiting list, organ matching, and transplants. 8 Launched in 1999, this secure Internet-based system contains data regarding every organ donation and transplant event occurring in the United States since 1986.

Information-based research, such as research using health information databases has many advantages (reviewed by Lowrance, 2002 ). It is often faster and less expensive than experimental studies; it can analyze very large sets of data and may detect unexpected phenomena or differences among subpopulations that might not be included in a controlled experimental study; it can often be undertaken when controlled trials are simply not possible for ethical, technical, or other reasons, and it can be used to study effectiveness of a specific test or intervention in clinical practice, rather than just the efficacy as determined by a controlled experimental study. It can also reexamine data accrued in other research studies, such as clinical trials, to answer new questions quickly and inexpensively. However, information-based research does have limitations. Often it has less statistical rigor than controlled clinical studies because it lacks scientific control over the original data collection, quality, and format that prospective experimental research can dictate from the start. In addition to these scientific limitations, because of its relational and often distant physical separation from the data subjects, and the sheer volume of the records involved, obtaining individual consent for the research can be difficult or impossible.

Advances in information-based medical research could also facilitate the movement toward personalized medicine, which will make health research more meaningful to individuals. The goal of personalized medicine is to tailor prevention strategies and treatments to each individual based on his/her genetic composition and health history. In spite of the strides made in improving health through new treatments, it is widely known that most drugs are effective in only a fraction of patients who have the condition for which the drug is indicated. Moreover, a small percentage of patients are likely to have adverse reactions to drugs that are found to be safe for the majority of the population at the recommended dose. Both of these phenomena are due to variability in the patient population. Revolutionary advances in the study of genetics and other markers of health and disease are now making it possible to identify and study these variations, and are leading to more personalized approaches to health care—that is, the ability to give “the appropriate drug, at the appropriate dose, to the appropriate patient, at the appropriate time.” Achieving the goals of personalized medicine will lead to improvements in both the effectiveness and the safety of medical therapies.

Public Perceptions of Health Research

A number of studies have been undertaken to gauge the public’s attitude toward research and the factors that influence individuals’ willingness to participate in research. The surveys reviewed in this chapter focus on interventional clinical trials. A review of survey questions to gauge the public willingness to allow their medical records to be used in research can be found in Chapter 2 .

The Public Values Health Research

A number of studies suggest that most Americans have a positive view of medical research and believe that research is beneficial to society. A recent Harris poll found that nearly 80 percent of respondents were interested in health research findings, consistent with previous survey results ( Westin, 2007 ). A study in 2005 compiled data from 70 state surveys and 18 national surveys and found that the majority of Americans believe maintaining world leadership in health-related research is important. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said that it is very important, and 17 percent said that it is somewhat important. Only 4 percent of Americans reported that maintaining world leadership in health-related research is not impor tant ( Woolley and Propst, 2005 ). Similar results were found in a 2007 survey—76 percent of respondents reported that science plays a very important role in our health, and 78 percent reported that science plays a very important role in our competitiveness ( Research!America, 2007 ).

The Virginia Commonwealth University 2004 Life Sciences Survey also found that most Americans have a positive view of research. In this study, 90 percent of respondents agreed that developments in science have made society better; 92 percent reported that “scientific research is essential for improving the quality of human lives”; and 84 percent agreed that “the benefits of scientific research outweigh the harmful results” ( NSF, 2006 ).

Overall Experience When Participating in Research

Little is known about the attitudes of individuals who have actually participated in medical research. However, the available evidence suggests that most research participants have positive experiences. A recent Harris Poll found that 13 percent of respondents had participated in some form of health research, and 87 percent of those felt comfortable about their experience ( Westin, 2007 ). In a study focused on cancer, 93 percent of respondents who participated in research reported it as a very positive experience; 76 percent said they would recommend participation in a clinical trial to someone with cancer. Most physicians surveyed in this study stated that they believe clinical trial participants receive the best possible care, and have outcomes at least as good as patients receiving standard cancer treatment ( Comis et al., 2000 ). Another study found that 55 percent of individuals who participated in a research study would be willing to participate again in a future research study ( Trauth et al., 2000 ).

Willingness to Participate in Research

Public opinion surveys indicate that a majority of Americans are willing to participate in clinical research studies. In 2001, a compilation of studies commissioned by Research !America found that 63 percent of Americans would be willing to participate in a clinical research study ( Woolley and Propst, 2005 ). This percentage has remained stable over time. A 2007 Research!America survey also found that 63 percent of Americans would be very likely to participate in a clinical research study if asked ( Research!America, 2007 ); 68 percent of respondents reported that their desire to improve their own health or the health of others was a major factor in deciding whether to participate in a clinical research project ( Research!America, 2007 ).

Other surveys also suggest that willingness to participate in research focused on specific diseases is quite high. In one survey, the percentage of respondents indicating a willingness to participate in a medical research study was 88 percent for cancer, 86 percent for heart disease, 83 percent for a noncurable fatal disease, 79 percent for addiction, 78 percent for depression, and 76 percent for schizophrenia ( Trauth et al., 2000 ). Respondents with greater knowledge of how research is conducted were more willing to participate ( Trauth et al., 2000 ). Another study found that 8 of 10 Americans would consider participating in a clinical trial if faced with cancer. More than two-thirds of respondents said they would be willing to participate in a clinical trial designed to prevent cancer ( Comis et al., 2000 ).

Americans also seem to be very supportive of medical research that relies on genetic data. A 2007 survey found that 93 percent of Americans supported the use of genetic testing if the information collected is used by researchers to find new ways to diagnose, prevent, or treat disease ( Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2007 ). Two separate surveys found that 66 percent of Americans would be willing to donate their genetic material for medical research ( Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2007 ; Research!America, 2007 ). However, despite this apparent positive view of genetic research, 92 percent of Americans reported they were concerned about their genetic information being used in a “harmful way” ( Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2007 ).

Many factors, in addition to concerns about privacy and confidentiality ( Genetics & Public Policy Center, 2007 ; Research!America, 2007 ), may influence an individual’s willingness to participate in a medical research study. The Trauth survey found that individuals with higher income levels, with a college or graduate degree, or with children were more likely to participate in research. Age affected willingness to participate: 57 percent of respondents ages 18–34 were willing to participate in research, but only 31 percent of respondents ages 65 or older were willing ( Trauth et al., 2000 ).

Other factors that potentially influence an individual’s willingness to participate in research are race and ethnicity. It is well documented that minorities participate in health research at a much lower percentage than white Americans. Many cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic barriers could be responsible for this difference ( Giuliano et al., 2000 ), and study results have been variable on this issue. Several studies suggest that the low participation rates by racial and ethnic minority groups are due to their strong distrust of the medical research community compared to the general population ( Braunstein et al., 2008 ; Corbie-Smith et al., 1999 ; Farmer et al., 2007 ; Grady et al., 2006 ; Shavers et al., 2002 ).

However, other evidence suggests that the low percentage of minorities participating in research is related to minority groups’ lack of access to the research community ( Brown et al., 2000 ; Wendler et al., 2006 ; Williams and Corbie-Smith, 2006 ). Thus, it is likely that the low number of minority individuals participating in medical research is at least partly due to recruitment techniques that are ineffective for minority populations.

The survey that focused on cancer research suggests that one of the main reasons why individuals do not participate in research is lack of knowledge about the availability of clinical trials. In a survey of nearly 6,000 cancer patients, 85 percent said they were unaware of the opportunity to participate in a clinical trial. Respondents who did participate said they did so because of one of the following beliefs: (1) trials provide access to the best quality of care (76 percent), (2) their participation would benefit future cancer patients (72 percent), (3) they would receive newer and better treatment (63 percent), and (4) participation would get them more care and attention (40 percent) ( Comis et al., 2000 ).

A recommendation from a physician can also impact participation. In the United States, 48 percent of respondents to one survey reported that a physicians’ recommendation would be a major factor in deciding whether to take part in a research study. Nearly three-fourths of respondents also cited an institution’s reputation as a key factor to consider when deciding whether to participate in a study ( Research!America, 2007 ). Twenty percent of respondents in an Italian public survey indicated that the presence of a physician as a reference during a research study influenced their willingness to participate ( Mosconi et al., 2005 ).

In sum, surveys indicate that the vast majority of Americans have a positive view of medical research, believe that research is beneficial to society, and are interested in health research findings. Although little is known about the attitudes of individuals who have actually participated in medical research, the available evidence suggests that most research participants have positive experiences. Surveys also suggest that a majority of Americans are willing to participate in clinical research studies. Similar to the findings in Chapter 2 , surveys indicate that many factors, in addition to concerns about privacy and confidentiality, can potentially influence an individual’s willingness to participate in medical research, including the type of research and personal characteristics such as health status, age, education, and race. Notably, respondents with greater knowledge of how research is conducted were more willing to participate in research.

• OVERSIGHT OF HEALTH RESEARCH

Historical Development of Federal Protections of Health Information in Research

The development of international codes, federal legislation, and federal regulation of human subjects often occurred in response to past abuses in biomedical experiments (reviewed by Pritts, 2008 ) ( Box 3-3 ). The most well-known examples included (1) reported abuses of concentration camp prisoners in Nazi experiments during World War II, and (2) the Tuskegee syphilis study begun in 1932, in which researchers withheld effective treatment from affected African American men long after a cure for syphilis was found. Most of the current principles and standards for conducting human subjects research were developed primarily to protect against the physical and mental harms that can result from these types of biomedical experiments. Therefore, they focus on the principles of autonomy and consent. Although the standards apply to research that uses identifiable health information, research based solely on information is not their primary focus.

The Basis for Human Subjects Protections in Biomedical Research. Nuremberg Code The Nuremberg Code, created by the international community after the Nazi War Crimes Trials, is generally seen as the first codification (more...)

In the United States, perhaps the most influential inquiry into the protection of human subjects in research was the Belmont Report. The Belmont principles have been elaborated on in many settings, and served as the basis for formal regulation of human subjects research in the United States. In general, states do not directly regulate the activity of most researchers ( Burris et al., 2003 ). However, the Belmont Commission’s recommendations were reflected in the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Policy for Protection of Human Subjects Research , Subpart A of 45 C.F.R. 46 (“Subpart A”) in 1979. 9 These protections were considered a benchmark policy for federal agencies, and in December 1981, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research recommended 10 that all federal departments and agencies adopt the HHS regulations. 11

In 1982, the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy appointed a Committee for the Protection of Human Research Subjects to respond to the recommendations of the President’s commission. The committee agreed that uniformity of federal regulations on human subjects protection is desirable to eliminate unnecessary regulations and to promote increased understanding by institutions that conduct federally supported or regulated research. As a result, in 1991, other federal departments and agencies joined HHS in adopting a uniform set of rules for the protection of human subjects of research, identical to Subpart A of 45 C.F.R. 46, which is now informally known as the “ Common Rule .” Eighteen federal agencies have now adopted the Common Rule as their own respective regulations.

Overview of the Common Rule

The Common Rule governs most federally funded research conducted on human beings and aims to ensure that the rights of human subjects are protected during the course of a research project. The Common Rule stresses the importance of individual autonomy and consent; requires independent review of research by an Institutional Review Board (IRB); and seeks to minimize physical and mental harm. Privacy and confidentiality protections, although not defined in a detailed and prescriptive manner, are included as important components of risk in research.

The framework for achieving the goal of protecting human subjects is based on two foundational requirements: the informed consent of the research participant and the review of proposed research by an IRB. This section describes some of the basic parameters of the Common Rule (reviewed by Pritts, 2008 ). Particular provisions that interact with the HIPAA Privacy Rule are described in more detail in Chapter 4 .

Scope of the Common Rule

In general, the Common Rule applies only to research on human subjects that is supported by the federal government. 12 As noted previously, research is defined as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” 13

Under the Common Rule , a “human subject” is defined as “a living individual about whom an investigator … conducting research obtains (1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) Identifiable private information.” Private information is considered to be personally identifiable if the identity of the subject is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information.

The Common Rule applies to most human subjects research conducted using federal funds, but its influence is broader because most institutions that accept federal funds sign an agreement (a Federalwide Assurance or FWA) with HHS to abide by the Common Rule requirements in all research, regardless of funding source. Nonetheless, some privately funded human subjects research is conducted outside the purview of federal regulation ( Goldman and Choy, 2001 ; Williams, 2005 ). Companies and other organizations may voluntarily choose to apply the Common Rule to their research projects, and many do. However, research projects in which compliance is voluntary are not subject to oversight or disciplinary action by HHS ( Goldman and Choy, 2001 ; Williams, 2005 ).

Informed Consent 14

The Common Rule requires that a researcher obtain informed consent (usually in writing) from a person before he/she can be admitted to a study ( Williams, 2005 ). Informed consent is sought through a process in which a person learns key facts about a research study, including the potential risks and benefits, so that he/she can then agree voluntarily to take part or decide against it.

The Common Rule informed consent regulations focus primarily on the elements and documentation of informed consent rather than on the process used to obtain it. As to the process, the regulations require that informed consent be sought only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject with adequate opportunity to consider whether to participate. The Common Rule requires that information pertaining to informed consent be given in language understandable to the subject, and that the consent does not imply that the subject is giving up his/her legal rights or that the investigator is released from liability for negligence during the conduct of the study. 15

The Common Rule also specifies a number of elements that must be provided when informed consent is sought. These elements include:

• an explanation of the purposes of the research,
• the expected duration of the subject’s participation,
• the potential risks and benefits of the research,
• how confidentiality will be maintained,
• the fact that participation is strictly voluntary, and
• who the subject can contact to answer questions about the study or about his/her rights as a research participant.

In certain limited circumstances, the Common Rule allows an informed consent to be for unspecified future research. For example, under the Common Rule an informed consent can be used to obtain a person’s permission to study personally identifiable information maintained in a repository for future, unspecified research purposes ( HHS, 2003 ).

For the most part, the required elements of an informed consent address all types of research, although some are more relevant to biomedical research (e.g., the consent must include a disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject). One required element of informed consent is particularly relevant to research involving personally identifiable health information. The Common Rule requires an informed consent to include a statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained. 16

Institutional Review Boards

Adopting the principles of the Belmont Report, the Common Rule requires that protocols for human subjects research be reviewed by an IRB ( Box 3-4 ) before research may begin. 17 The IRB must meet certain membership requirements, including having members with different expertise and at least one member who is not affiliated with the investigator’s institution. The Common Rule specifies which level of IRB review is needed for various types of research and provides criteria for the IRB to consider during the review. Although the Common Rule does not specify the procedures an IRB must follow in its review of protocols, it does require the IRB to have written procedures for how it will review protocols and document IRB decisions.

Institutional Review Boards. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidebook, “the IRB is an administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects (more...)

The Common Rule requires that an IRB determine the following factors are satisfied to approve proposed research:

• Risks to subjects are minimized;
• Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result;
• The selection of subjects is equitable;
• Informed consent will be sought in accordance with the rules and will be documented;
• When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects; and
• When appropriate, adequate provisions are in place to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data. 18

An IRB may waive the requirement to obtain informed consent or approve an alteration of the consent form for some minimal risk research. The IRB may also waive the requirement for signed consent in certain circumstances. 19

Anonymized Data

As noted above, the Common Rule considers use of “private identifiable information” to be human subjects research. Data are considered personally identifiable if the identity of the subject is or may be readily ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information accessed by the researcher. 20 However, the Common Rule exempts from its requirements research that involves:

[T]he collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects. 21

Otherwise identifiable data may be deidentified or “anonymized” for purposes of the Common Rule if it is coded and certain other conditions are met ( HHS, 2004 ). Under Guidance issued by the Office for Human Research Protection, information is “coded” if identifying information (such as name or Social Security number) that would enable the investigator to readily ascertain the identity of the individual to whom the private information or specimens pertain has been replaced with a number, letter, symbol, or combination thereof (the code), and a key to decipher the code exists, enabling linkage of the identifying information to the private information or specimen.

Research involving only coded private information or specimens is not considered to involve human subjects under the Common Rule if the following conditions are met:

• The private information or specimens were not collected specifically for the currently proposed research project through an interaction or intervention with living individuals; and
• —The key to decipher the code is destroyed before the research begins;
• —The investigators and the holder of the key enter into an agreement prohibiting the release of the key to the investigators under any circumstances, until the individuals are deceased;
• —IRB-approved written policies and operating procedures for a repository or data management center prohibit the release of the key to investigators under any circumstances, until the individuals are deceased; or
• —Other legal requirements prohibit the release of the key to the investigators, until the individuals are deceased.

Under this standard, when a researcher accesses or receives data that have been coded and does not have access to the identifying key, the research is not considered human subjects research and is not subject to the Common Rule ’s requirements of informed consent or IRB review and approval of protocol.

Enforcement of the Common Rule

The Common Rule requirements for informed consent do not preempt any applicable federal, state, or local laws that require additional information to be disclosed to a subject in order for informed consent to be legally effective. 22

Federal funding can be suspended or withdrawn from an institution when it is found to be in material violation of the Common Rule . 23 There is no authority to impose penalties directly on individual researchers for violations. Neither does the Common Rule expressly provide a research participant with a private right of action. It should be noted, however, that recent cases indicate that courts may be willing to hold an institution liable under common law negligence theories where the approved informed consent form is determined to be less than adequate ( Shaul et al., 2005 ). 24

FDA Protection of Human Research Subjects

Some health research is also subject to FDA regulations. The FDA is charged by statute with ensuring the protection of the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects who participate in clinical investigations 25 involving articles subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 26 (the Act), as well as clinical investigations that support applications for research or marketing permits for products regulated by the FDA, including drugs, medical devices, and biological products for human use ( Box 3-5 ).

FDA Protection of Human Subjects Regulations. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Protection of Human Subjects Regulations aim to protect the rights of human subjects enrolled in research involving products that the FDA regulates (i.e., drugs, medical (more...)

In January 1981, the FDA adopted regulations governing informed consent of human subjects 27 and regulations establishing standards for the composition, operation, and responsibilities of IRBs that review clinical investigations involving human subjects. 28 At the same time, HHS adopted the Common Rule regulations on the protection of human research subjects. 29 The FDA’s regulations were harmonized with the Common Rule in 1991 to the extent permitted by statute. Key differences between FDA and HHS regulations include that the FDA does not allow for waiver or alteration of informed consent and requires that subjects be informed that the FDA may inspect their medical records. In addition, studies of efficacy based solely on medical records research are not permitted to support registration. Remaining differences in the rules are due to differences in the statutory scope or requirements ( Lee, 2000 ).

• DISTINGUISHING HEALTH RESEARCH FROM PRACTICE

The Common Rule and Privacy Rule make a somewhat artificial distinction between health research and some closely related health care practices, such as public health practice, quality improvement activities, program evaluations, 30 and utilization reviews, 31 all of which may involve collection and analysis of personally identifiable health information. However, determining which activities meet the definition of “research” is a major challenge for IRBs, Privacy Boards , 32 investigators, and health care practitioners because neither the regulations nor their interpretations by HHS provide clear guidance on how to distinguish research from activities that use similar techniques to analyze health information ( IOM, 2000a ).

It is important for IRBs and Privacy Boards to correctly distinguish among activities that are or are not subject to the various provisions of the Privacy Rule and the Common Rule . Only research requires formal IRB or Privacy Board review and informed consent. 33 Inappropriate classification of an activity as research can make it difficult or impossible for important health care activities, such as public health practice and quality improvement, to be undertaken. On the other hand, failure to correctly identify an activity as research could potentially allow improper disclosure of personally identifiable health information without sufficient oversight.

Thus, standard criteria are urgently needed for IRBs and Privacy Boards to use when making distinctions between health research and related activities, and the committee recommends that HHS consult with relevant stake holders to develop such standard criteria. HHS is aware of this need, and created a working document titled “What Is Research ?” However, the work on this project apparently has been delayed for unknown reasons ( NCURA, 2007 ). 34 As described below, a number of other models have already been proposed to help determine whether activities should be classified as research in the fields of public health and quality improvement, and these could be instructive for developing HHS guidance. Any criteria adopted by HHS should be regularly evaluated to ensure that they are helpful and producing the desired outcomes.

The following sections describe some ongoing efforts to develop such criteria in the fields of public health and quality improvement. The intent of the committee is not to endorse these particular models, but rather to illustrate the challenges associated with making these distinctions and establishing standard criteria.

Public Health Practice Versus Public Health Research

The Belmont Report defined health practice as “interventions designed solely to enhance the well-being of the person, patient or client, and which have reasonable expectation of success” ( CDC, 1999 ). To apply this definition to “public” health practice, the targeted beneficiary of the intervention must be expanded to include benefit to the community, rather than just a particular person. Neither the Common Rule nor the Privacy Rule provides a specific definition for public health research; rather public health research is included in the general definition of research. However, the Privacy Rule regulates public health practice differently from public health research (see Chapter 4 ).

An early model for distinguishing public health research from public health practice focused on the intent for which the activity was designed, noting that the intent of public health research is to “contribute to or generate generalizable knowledge,” while the intent of public health practice is to “conduct programs to prevent disease and injury and improve the health of communities” ( Snider and Stroup, 1997 ). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed a similar method with an expanded assessment of intent. For example, the model posits that in public health research, the intended benefits of the project extend beyond the study participants, and the data collected exceed the requirements for the care of the study participants. But for public health practice, the intended benefits of the project are primarily for the participants in the activity, or for the participants’ community, and the only data collected are those needed to assess or improve a public health program or service, or the health of the participants and their community. The model also assumes that public health practice is based on well-established medical interventions and is nonexperimental ( CDC, 1999 ). However, these models both have been criticized as too subjective and too dependent on the opinion of the person conducting the activity ( Gostin, 2008 ; Hodge, 2005 ).

A new, more comprehensive model incorporating much of the previous two was recently proposed as a more objective checklist to be used by IRBs, Privacy Boards , and interested parties ( Hodge, 2005 ; Hodge and Gostin, 2004 ). The foundations for this model are specific definitions of public health research: “the collection and analysis of identifiable health data by a public health authority for the purpose of generating knowledge that will benefit those beyond the participating community who bear the risks of participation,” and public health practice: “the collection and analysis of identifiable health data by a public health authority for the purpose of protecting the health of a particular community, where the benefits and risks are primarily designed to accrue to the participating community.”

The model is based on two primary assumptions. First, the actor performing the activity in question is a governmental public health official, agent, agency, or entity at the federal, tribal, state, or local level. Second, the activity in question involves the acquisition, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable health data. The model is then divided into two stages. Stage 1 is applied to all activities, and can be used to distinguish practice from research in the easiest cases. Stage 2 is only applied to those cases that are hard to distinguish, and where Stage 1 failed to lead to a definitive IRB/ Privacy Board decision ( Box 3-6 ).

A Model for Distinguishing Public Health Practice from Research. Stage 1 Public health practice:

Quality Improvement Versus Health Research

Quality improvement has been defined as “systematic, data-guided activities designed to bring about immediate, positive change in the delivery of health care in a particular setting” ( Baily, 2008 ). Quality improvement activities do not require IRB or Privacy Board approval under the Common Rule or the Privacy Rule, which classify quality improvement as a component of health care operations. 35

However, in many cases, it is difficult for health care providers, IRBs, and Privacy Boards to determine whether a particular activity is purely for quality improvement, or whether it also entails research. One survey 36 exploring opinions in the health care community about the need for IRBs to review various quality-related activities found that physicians conducting quality improvement were less likely than IRB chairs to believe that IRB review was required for a given hypothetical activity, or that informed consent was necessary ( Lindenauer et al., 2002 ). Recently, a highly publicized case has again brought the issue to the forefront for all the stakeholders ( Box 3-7 ).

A Case Study of Quality Improvement and Research. Peter Pronovost of Johns Hopkins University (JHU) led a quality improvement effort at 103 intensive care units (ICUs) in Michigan hospitals to reduce the number of catheter-related bloodstream infections. (more...)

Some members of the health care community have proposed requiring that all prospective quality improvement activities go through external review ( Bellin and Dubler, 2001 ), while others have outlined specific criteria to differentiate quality improvement activities from research.

For example, Casarett and colleagues developed a two-part test to identify quality improvement activities. The first test is whether the majority of patients are expected to benefit directly from “the knowledge to be gained” from the initiative. This means that the patients must actually benefit from the knowledge learned during the evaluation, not just from being a recipient of the protocol itself. If the patients are generally expected to directly benefit from the knowledge gained during the activity, then the activity is quality improvement. If not, the activity is research. The second test is whether the participants would be subjected to additional risks or burdens, including the risk of privacy breach, beyond the usual clinical practice in order to make the results of the initiative generalizable. If yes, then the initiative should be reviewed as research ( Casarett et al., 2000 ).

More recently, the Hastings Center published a report exploring the similarities and differences between research and quality improvement. The report emphasized three fundamental characteristics of quality improvement and three fundamental characteristics of research. The authors argue that individuals have a responsibility to participate in the quality improvement activities because all patients have an interest in receiving high-quality medical care, and the success of a quality improvement activity depends on the cooperation of all patients. In addition, the report notes that quality improvement activities are a low risk to the patient, so there is little justification for not participating. The report also assumes that quality improvement activities are based on existing knowledge about human health and should lead to immediate local improvements in the provision of medical care.

In contrast, the report notes that participation in research should be voluntary, and decisions to participate should be based on researchers’ full disclosure of all the potential risks and benefits. In addition, the authors assert that research is designed to create new knowledge about human health, rather than relying solely on existing knowledge, and that most research does not result in any direct benefit to the institution where the research is being conducted.

The authors concluded that IRBs are not the appropriate body for the ethical oversight of quality improvement activities. They argue that IRBs unnecessarily impose high transaction costs on these activities because of the difference in the way they are conducted compared to research. For example, in research, any changes in methodology require further IRB approval. In contrast, quality improvement activities involve frequent adjustments in the intervention, measurement, and goals of the activity based on the experience of the investigators. Requiring the investigator to revisit an IRB every time a small adjustment is needed in such an activity significantly increases the amount of time and effort required to conduct the initiative and to produce meaningful data. Also, the investigators involved in quality improvement activities ordinarily are already involved in the clinical care of participants and bear responsibility for the quality and safety of an intervention. Thus, the authors argue that there is no need for the additional oversight by an IRB to protect participant safety.

Rather, the report recommended integrating the ethical oversight of quality improvement activities into the ongoing management of an institution’s health care delivery system, suggesting that oversight of quality improvement could be left with the managers of clinical care organizations, and that consent to receive treatment should include consent to participate in any quality improvement project that is minimal risk. However, the report stated that if a project has the characteristics of both quality improvement and research, the project should be reviewed as both human subjects research and quality improvement ( Baily et al., 2006 ; Lynn et al., 2007 ).

In response to the ongoing confusion over when quality improvement rises to the level of research and requires IRB review, the IOM jointly hosted a meeting with the American Board of Internal Medicine in May 2008 to discuss this issue. Key members of the quality improvement community attended, and short- and long-term solutions to this problem were proposed. However, no written report from this meeting was produced and no general consensus was reached.

• THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC

As noted previously in this chapter, surveys indicate that the vast majority of Americans believe that health research is important and are interested in the findings of research studies. The majority of patients also appear to be willing to participate in health research, either by volunteering for a study to test a medical intervention or by allowing access to their medical records or stored biospecimens, under certain conditions. Their willingness to participate depends on trust in researchers to safeguard the rights and well-being of patients, including assurance of privacy and confidentiality, and the belief that it is a worthwhile endeavor that warrants their involvement. Yet patients often lack information about how research is conducted, and are rarely informed about research results that may have a direct impact on their health. The committee’s recommendations in this section are intended to address both the public’s desire for more information about health research and to help fulfill two of the committees overarching goals of the report: (1) improving the privacy and security of health information, and (2) improving the effectiveness of health research.

Disseminating Health Research Results

Ethicists have long suggested greater community involvement in health research studies, including more communication about research results (reviewed by Shalowitz and Miller, 2008a , b ). In addition, the IOM committee identified transparency—the responsibility to disclose clearly how and why personally identifiable information is being collected—as an important component of comprehensive privacy protections. A previous IOM report also recommended improved communication with the public and research participants to ensure that the protection process is open and accessible to all interested parties ( IOM, 2002 ). Effective communication would build the public’s trust of the research community and is consistent with the principles of fair information practices.

When patients consent to the use of their medical records in a particular study, health researchers should make greater efforts at the conclusion of the study to inform study participants about the results, and the relevance and importance of those results. Learning about clinically relevant findings from a study in which a patient has participated could make patients feel more integrated into the process and could encourage more to participate in future studies. A recent United Kingdom report on the use of personal data in health research concluded that public involvement in research is necessary for the success of information-based research, and that a public informed about the value of research is likely to have greater enthusiasm and confidence in research and the research community ( AMS, 2006 ). Moreover, direct feedback with study participants could lead to improved health care for the individuals if the results indicate that an altered course of care is warranted.

Nonetheless, there are multiple impediments, beyond cost, to providing meaningful feedback to participants. A summary of the results alone, while necessary and reasonable, can be seen as a token, and also raises questions about issues such as how best to write summaries, the stage at which results should be disseminated, and how to present research with uninformative outcomes. For example, one recent study found that sharing results directly with study participants was met with overwhelmingly favorable reactions from patients, but the study also revealed some obstacles ( Partridge et al., 2008 ). In a survey of women who had participated in a randomized trial of breast cancer therapy and had received a summary of the study results by mail, 95 percent reported that they were glad they received the results. Most respondents interpreted the results correctly, although incorrect interpretation of the results was associated with increased anxiety, as was dissatisfaction with treatment.

Although some guidelines for providing and explaining study results to research participants have been proposed, they differ in details because limited data are available on this subject, and thus standards are lacking ( Partridge and Winer, 2002 ; Partridge et al., 2008 ; Shalowitz and Miller, 2008b ; Zarin and Tse, 2008 ). Because transparency is best achieved by providing graded levels of information and guidance to interested parties ( IOM, 2002 ), it will be important to develop effective and efficient ways to communicate with various sectors of the population. A commitment to the principles of “plain language” 37 will be important. Broader adoption of electronic medical records may also be helpful in accomplishing this goal.

Research Registries

One way to make information about research studies more broadly available to the public is through registration of trials and other studies in public databases. HHS should encourage such registration of trials and other studies, particularly when research is conducted with an IRB/ Privacy Board approved waiver of consent or authorization (see Chapter 4 ). Numerous clinical trial registries already exist, and registration has increased in recent years (reviewed by Zarin and Tse, 2008 ). In 2000, the National Library of Medicine established a clinical trials registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov ), which has expanded to include information from several other trial registries and to serve as the FDA-required site for submissions about clinical trials subject to the FDA databank requirement. The FDA Amendments Act of 2007 38 expanded the scope of required registrations at ClinicalTrials.gov and provided the first federally funded trials results database. It mandates registrations of controlled clinical investigations, except for Phase I trials, of drugs, biologics, and devices subject to FDA regulation.

A policy of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), adopted in fall 2005, also requires prospective trial registration as a precondition for publication ( DeAngelis et al., 2004 ). This policy led to a 73 percent increase in trial registrations of all intervention types from around the world ( Zarin et al., 2005 ). Nearly 45,000 trials had been registered by fall 2007.

However, although the development of such registries is an important first step toward providing high-quality clinical trial information to the public, no centralized system currently exists to disseminate information about clinical trials of drugs or other interventions, making it difficult for consumers and their health care providers to identify ongoing studies. The current statutory requirements for registration and data reporting in the United States are not as broad as the transnational policies of the ICMJE or the World Health Organization, which call for the registration of all interventional studies in human beings regardless of intervention type ( Laine et al., 2007 ; Sim et al., 2006 ). Moreover, noninterventional studies, such as observational studies that play an increasingly critical role in biomedical research, are not generally included in these databases. Because many noninterventional studies are conducted with an IRB/ Privacy Board approved waiver of consent or authorization, including those studies in a registry could be an important method for increasing public knowledge of such studies.

Informing the Public About the Methods and Value of Research

As noted previously, clinical trials are the most visible of the various types of health research, but a great deal of information-based health research entails analysis of thousands of patient records to better understand human diseases, to determine treatment effectiveness, and to identify adverse side effects of therapies. This form of research is likely to increase in frequency as the availability of electronic records continues to expand. As we move toward the goal of personalized medicine, research results will be even more likely to be directly relevant to patients, but more study subjects will be necessary to derive meaningful results.

However, many patients probably are not aware that their medical records are being used in information-based research. For example, the recent study that used focus groups to examine the views of veterans toward the use of medical records in research found that the majority of participants (75 percent) were not aware that “under some circumstances, [their] medical records could be used in some research studies without [their] permission,” despite the fact that a notice of privacy practices, which included a statement that such research could occur, had been mailed to all participants less than a year prior to the study ( Damschroder et al., 2007 ).

Moreover, surveys show that many patients desire not only notice, but also the opportunity to decide whether to consent to such research with medical records. Those surveys further indicate that patients who wish to be asked for consent for each study are most concerned about the potentially detrimental affects of inappropriate disclosure of their personally identifiable health information, including discrimination in obtaining health or life insurance or employment.

As noted in Chapter 2 , strengthening security protections of health data should reduce the risk of security breaches and their potential negative consequences, and thus should help to alleviate patient concerns in this regard. But educating patients about how health research is conducted, monitored, and reported on could also help to ease patient concerns about privacy and increase patients’ trust in the research community, which as noted above is important for the public’s continued participation in health research. For example, datasets are most often provided to researchers without direct identifiers such as name and Social Security number. Furthermore, identifiers are not included in publications about research results. Also, under both the Privacy Rule and the Common Rule , a waiver of consent and authorization is possible only under the supervision of an IRB or Privacy Board , and a waiver is granted only when the research entails minimal risk and when obtaining individual consent and authorization is impracticable (see the previous section and also Chapter 4 ). Finally, professional ethics dictate that researchers safeguard data and respect privacy.

Conveying the value of medical records research to patients will be important. Surveys show that people are more supportive of research that is relevant to them and their loved ones. At the same time, educational efforts should stress the negative impact of incomplete datasets on research findings. Representative samples are essential to ensure the validity and generalizability of health research ( Box 3-8 ), but datasets will not represent the entire population if some people withhold access to their health information.

Selection Bias in Health Research. When researchers are required to obtain consent or authorization to access each individual’s medical record for a research study, it is likely that individuals’ willingness to grant access will not be (more...)

In addition, an educated public could also decrease the potential for biased research samples. A universal requirement for consent or authorization in medical records research leads to incomplete datasets, and thus to biased results and inaccurate conclusions. Some large medical institutions with a strong research history and reputation (e.g., Mayo Clinic) can obtain authorization and consent rates as high as 80 percent, but the 20 percent who refuse have distinct demographic and health characteristics. In fact, even a refusal rate of less than 5 percent can create selection bias in the data ( Jacobsen et al., 1999 ; see Chapter 5 for more detail). Conveying to the public the importance of health care improvements derived from medical records research and stressing the negative impact of incomplete datasets on research findings may increase the public’s participation in research and their willingness to support information-based research that is conducted with IRB or Privacy Board oversight, under a waiver of patient consent or authorization.

Numerous examples of important research findings from medical records research would not have been possible if direct patient consent and authorization were always required ( Box 3-1 ). For example, analysis of medical records showed that infants exposed to diethylstilbesterol (DES) during the first trimester of pregnancy had an increased risk of breast, vaginal, and cervical cancer as well as reproductive anomalies as adults. Similarly, studies of medical records led to the discovery that folic acid supplementation during pregnancy can prevent neural tube defects.

Thus, HHS and the health research community should work to edu cate the public about how research is done and the value it provides. All stakeholders, including professional organizations, nonprofit funders, and patient organizations, have different interests and responsibilities to make sure that their constituencies are well informed. For example, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Heart Association already have some online resources to help patients gather information about research that may be relevant to their conditions. But coordination and identification of best practices by HHS would be helpful, and research is needed to identify which segments of the population would be receptive to and benefit from various types of information about how research is done and its value in order to create and implement an effective plan.

Greater use of community-based participatory research, in which community-based organizations or groups bring community members into the research process as partners to help design studies and disseminate the knowledge gained, 39 could help achieve this goal. These groups help researchers to recruit research participants by using the knowledge of the community to understand health problems and to design activities that the community is likely to value. They also inform community members about how the research is done and what comes out of it, with the goal of providing immediate community benefits from the results when possible.

• CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on its review of the information described in this chapter, the committee agreed on a second overarching principle to guide the formation of recommendations. The committee affirms the importance of maintaining and improving health research effectiveness. Research discoveries are central to achieving the goal of extending the quality of healthy lives. Research into causes of disease, methods for prevention, techniques for diagnosis, and new approaches to treatment has increased life expectancy, reduced infant mortality, limited the toll of infectious diseases, and improved outcomes for patients with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other chronic diseases. Patient-oriented clinical research that tests new ideas makes rapid medical progress possible. Today, the rate of discovery is accelerating, and we are at the precipice of a remarkable period of investigative promise made possible by new knowledge about the genetic underpinnings of disease. Genomic research is opening new possibilities for preventing illness and for developing safer, more effective medical care that may eventually be tailored for specific individuals. Further advances in relating genetic information to predispositions to disease and responses to treatments will require the use of large amounts of existing health-related information and stored tissue specimens. The increasing use of electronic medical records will further facilitate the generation of new knowledge through research and accelerate the pace of discovery. These efforts will require broad participation of patients in research and broad data sharing to ensure that the results are valid and applicable to different segments of the population. Collaborative partnerships among communities of patients, their physicians, and teams of researchers to gain new scientific knowledge will bring tangible benefits for people in this country and around the world.

Surveys indicate that the majority of Americans believe that health research is important, are interested in the findings of research studies, and are willing to participate in health research. But patients often lack information about how research is conducted and are rarely informed about research results that may have a direct impact on their health. Effective communication could build the public’s trust of the research community, which is important because trust is necessary for the public’s continued participation in research. Moreover, direct feedback could lead to improved health care for study participants if the results indicate that an altered course of care is warranted.

Thus, the committee recommends that when patients consent to the use of their medical records in a particular study, health researchers should make greater efforts when the study ends to inform study participants about the results, and the relevance and importance of those results. Broader adoption of electronic health records may be helpful in accomplishing this goal, but standards and guidelines for providing and explaining study results to research participants or various sectors of the public are needed.

HHS should also encourage registration of trials and other studies in public databases, particularly when research is conducted with an IRB/ Privacy Board approved waiver of consent or authorization, as a way to make information about research studies more broadly available to the public. Numerous clinical trial registries already exist, and registration has increased in recent years, but no centralized system currently exists for disseminating information about clinical trials of drugs or other interventions, making it difficult for consumers and their health care providers to identify ongoing studies. Moreover, noninterventional studies, such as observational studies that play an increasingly critical role in biomedical research, are not generally included in these databases. Because many noninterventional studies are conducted with an IRB/Privacy Board approved waiver of consent or authorization, including such studies in a registry could be an important method for increasing public knowledge of those studies.

Interventional clinical trials are the most visible of the various types of health research, but a great deal of information-based health research entails analysis of thousands of patient records to better understand human diseases, to determine treatment effectiveness, and to identify adverse side effects of therapies. This form of research is likely to increase in frequency as the availability of electronic health records continues to expand. As we move toward the goal of personalized medicine, research results will be even more likely to be directly relevant to patients, but more study participants will be necessary to derive meaningful results.

However, many patients are likely not aware that their medical records are being used in information-based research, and surveys show that many patients desire not only notice, but also the opportunity to decide about whether to consent to such research with medical records. As noted in Chapter 2 , strengthening security protections of health data should reduce the risk of security breaches and their potential negative consequences, and thus should help to alleviate patient concerns in this regard. But educating patients about how health research is conducted, monitored, and reported could also increase patients’ trust in the research community. Thus, HHS and the health research community should work to educate the public about how research is done.

It will also be important for HHS and researchers to convey the value of health care improvements derived from medical records research, and to stress the negative impact of incomplete datasets on research findings. Representative samples are essential to ensure the validity and generalizability of health research, but datasets will not be representative of the entire population if some people withhold access to their health information. A universal requirement for consent or authorization in information-based research may lead to incomplete datasets, and thus to biased results and inaccurate conclusions. Numerous examples of important research findings from medical records research would not have been possible if direct patient consent and authorization were always required.

To ensure that beneficial health research and related activities continue to be undertaken with appropriate oversight under federal regulations, it will be important for HHS to also provide more guidance on how to distinguish the various activities. The Privacy Rule makes a distinction between health research and some closely related endeavors, such as public health and quality improvement activities, which also may involve collection and analysis of personally identifiable health information. Under the Privacy Rule (as well as the Common Rule ), these activities, which aim to protect the public’s health and improve the quality of patient care, are considered health care “practice” rather than health research. Therefore, they can be undertaken without consent or authorization, or an IRB/ Privacy Board waiver of consent or authorization. However, it can be a challenge for IRBs and Privacy Boards to distinguish among activities that are or are not subject to the various provisions of the Privacy Rule and the Common Rule, and inappropriate decisions may prevent important activities from being undertaken or could potentially allow improper disclosure of personally identifiable health information.

To address these difficulties, a number of models have been proposed that outline the criteria IRBs and Privacy Boards should use to distinguish practice and research. For example, one recent model provides a detailed checklist for IRBs and Privacy Boards to use in determining whether an activity is public health research and required to comply with the research provisions of the Privacy Rule, or public health practice that does not need IRB/Privacy Board review. The committee believes that standardizing the criteria is essential to support the conduct of these important health care activities.

Thus, HHS should convene the relevant stakeholders to develop standard criteria for IRBs and Privacy Boards to use when making decisions about whether protocols entail research or practice. There should be flexibility in the regulation to allow important activities to go forward with appropriate levels of oversight. Also, it will be important to evaluate whether these criteria are effective in aiding IRB/Privacy Board reviews of proposed protocols, and whether they lead to appropriate IRB/Privacy Board decisions.

These changes suggested above could be accomplished without any changes to HIPAA by making them a condition of funding from HHS and other research sponsors and by providing some additional funds to cover the cost.

• AMS (Academy of Medical Sciences). Personal data for public good: Using health information in medical research. 2006. [accessed August 28, 2008]. http://www ​.acmedsci.ac ​.uk/images/project/Personal.pdf .
• Baily MA. Harming through protection? New England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 258 (8):768–769. [ PubMed : 18287599 ]
• Baily MA, Bottrell M, Lynn J, Jennings B. The ethics of using QI methods to improve health care quality and safety. A Hastings Center Special Report. 2006; 36 (4):S1–S40. [ PubMed : 16898359 ]
• Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Teich JM, Burdick E, Hickey M, Kleefield S, Shea B, Vander VM, Seger DL. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998; 280 (15):1311–1316. [ PubMed : 9794308 ]
• Bellin E, Dubler NN. The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight. American Journal of Public Health. 2001; 91 (9):1512–1517. [ PMC free article : PMC1446813 ] [ PubMed : 11527790 ]
• Big Health. Big health consortium. 2008. [accessed October 29, 2008]. http://www ​.bighealthconsortium ​.org/about/
• Braunstein JB, Sherber NS, Schulman SP, Ding EL, Powe NR. Race, medical researcher distrust, perceived harm, and willingness to participate in cardiovascular prevention trials. Medicine. 2008; 87 (1):1–9. [ PubMed : 18204365 ]
• Brown DR, Fouad MN, Basen-Engquist K, Tortolero-Luna G. Recruitment and retention of minority women in cancer screening, prevention and treatment trials. Annals of Epidemiology. 2000; 10 :S13–S21. [ PubMed : 11189088 ]
• Burris S, Gable L, Stone L, Lazzarini Z. The role of state law in protecting human subjects of public health research and practice. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2003; 31 :654. [ PubMed : 14968667 ]
• Casarett D, Karlawish J, Sugarman J. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: Proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA. 2000; 284 (7):2275–2280. [ PubMed : 10807388 ]
• Casarett D, Karlawish J, Andrews E, Caplan A. Bioethical issues in pharmacoepidemiological research. In: Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2005. pp. 417–432.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Guidelines for defining public health research and public health non-research. 1999. [accessed March 4, 2008]. http://www ​.cdc.gov/od ​/science/regs/hrpp/researchdefinition ​.htm .
• CHSR (Coalition for Health Services Research). Framework for health services research policy for 2008. 2008. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://www ​.chsr.org/Policy_Priorities ​.pdf .
• Comis RL, Aldige CR, Stovall EL, Krebs LU, Risher PJ, Taylor HJ. A quantitative survey of public attitudes towards cancer clinical trials. Philadelphia, PA: Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups, Cancer Research Foundation of America, Cancer Leadership Council, and Oncology Nursing Society; 2000.
• Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans towards participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1999; 14 :537–546. [ PMC free article : PMC1496744 ] [ PubMed : 10491242 ]
• Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, Kalarickal RJ, Creswell JW, Hayward RA. Patients, privacy and trust: Patients’ willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Social Science & Medicine. 2007; 64 (1):223–235. [ PubMed : 17045717 ]
• DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJPM, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004; 292 (11):1363–1364. [ PubMed : 15355936 ]
• Farmer D, Jackson SA, Camacho F, Hall MA. Attitudes of African American and low socioeconomic status white women toward medical research. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2007; 18 :85–99. [ PubMed : 17337800 ]
• FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Certain estrogens for oral or parenteral use. Drugs for human use; drug efficacy study implementation. Federal Register. 1971; 36 (217):21537–21538.
• FDA. FDA public health advisory, deaths with antipsychotics in elderly patients with behavioral disturbances. 2005. [accessed August 18, 2008]. http://www ​.fda.gov/cder ​/drug/advisory/antipsychotics.htm .
• FDA. FDA alert [6/16/2008]: Information for healthcare professionals. Antipsychotics. 2008. [accessed August 18, 2008]. http://www ​.fda.gov/cder ​/drug/infosheets/hcp ​/antipsychotics_conventional.htm .
• Finkelstein EA, Fiebelkorn IC, Wang G. National medical spending attributable to overweight and obesity: How much, and who’s paying? Health Affairs Web Exclusive. 2003. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://content ​.healthaffairs ​.org/cgi/content ​/abstract/hlthaff.w3.219v1 . [ PubMed : 14527256 ]
• Furrow BR, Greaney TL, Johnson SH, Jost TS, Schwartz RL. Bioethics: Health care law and ethics. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West; 2004.
• GAO (Government Accountability Office). Scientific research: Continued vigilance critical to protecting human subjects. Washington, DC: GAO; 1996.
• Genetics & Public Policy Center. U.S. public opinion on uses of genetic information and genetic discrimination. 2007. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://www ​.dnapolicy ​.org/resources/GINAPublic ​_Opinion_Genetic ​_Information_Discrimination.pdf .
• Gill S, Bronskill S, Normand S, Anderson G, Sykora K, Lam K, Bell C, Lee P, Fischer H, Herrmann N, Gurwitz J, Rochon P. Antipsychotic drug use and mortality in older adults with dementia. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007; 146 :775–786. [ PubMed : 17548409 ]
• Giuliano AR, Mokuau N, Hughes C, Tortelero-Luna G, Risendal B, Ho RCS, Prewitt TE, McCaskill-Stevens WJ. Participation of minorities in cancer research: The influence of structural, cultural, and linguistic factors. Annals of Epidemiology. 2000; 10 :S22–S34. [ PubMed : 11189089 ]
• Goldman J, Choy A. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 2001. Privacy and confidentiality in health research; pp. C1–C34.
• Gostin LO. Public health law: Power, duty, restraint. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2008. Surveillance and public health research: Personal privacy and the “right to know.”
• Grady C, Hampson LA, Wallen GR, Rivera-Goba MV, Carrington KL, Mittleman BB. Exploring the ethics of clinical research in an urban community. American Journal of Public Health. 2006; 96 (11):1996–2001. [ PMC free article : PMC1751807 ] [ PubMed : 17018826 ]
• Hatfield M, Sonnenschein HF, Rosenberg LE. Exceptional returns: The economic value of America’s investment in medical research. 2001. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://www ​.laskerfoundation ​.org/advocacy/pdf/exceptional.pdf .
• Herbst AL, Ulfelder H, Poskanzer DC. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina. Association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. New England Journal of Medicine. 1971; 284 (15):878–881. [ PubMed : 5549830 ]
• HEW (Department of Health, Education and Welfare). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. 1979. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://ohsr ​.od.nih.gov ​/guidelines/belmont.html . [ PubMed : 25951677 ]
• HHS (Department of Health and Human Services). Institutional review boards and the HIPAA Privacy Rule. 2003. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http: ​//privacyruleandresearch ​.nih.gov/pdf/IRB_Factsheet.pdf .
• HHS. Guidance on research involving coded private information or biological specimens. 2004. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://www ​.hhs.gov/ohrp ​/humansubjects/guidance/cdebiol.pdf .
• Hodge JG Jr. An enhanced approach to distinguishing public health practice and human subjects research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2005; 33 (1):125–141. [ PubMed : 15934670 ]
• Hodge JG, Gostin LO. Public health practice vs. research: A report for public health practitioners including cases and guidance for making distinctions. Atlanta, GA: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists; 2004.
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). Health services research: Work force and educational issues. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995.
• IOM. Protecting data privacy in health services research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000a. [ PubMed : 25057723 ]
• IOM. To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000b. [ PubMed : 25077248 ]
• IOM. Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2002. [ PubMed : 20669487 ]
• Jacobsen S, Xia Z, Campion M, Darby C, Plevak M, Seltman K, Melton L. Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1999; 74 :330–338. [ PubMed : 10221460 ]
• Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Godlee F, Haug C, Hébert PC, Kotzin S, Marusic A, Sahni P, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, Verheugt FWA. Clinical trial registration—looking back and moving ahead. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 356 (26):2734–2736. [ PubMed : 17548427 ]
• Lee B. Comparison of FDA and HHS human subject protection regulations. 2000. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://www ​.fda.gov/oc/gcp/comparison ​.html .
• Lindenauer PK, Benjamin EM, Naglieri-Prescod D, Fitzgerald J, Pekow P. The role of the institutional review board in quality improvement: A survey of quality officers, institutional review board chairs, and journal editors. The American Journal of Medicine. 2002; 113 :575–579. [ PubMed : 12459404 ]
• Lowrance WW. Learning from experience, privacy and the secondary use of data in health research. London: The Nuffield Trust; 2002.
• Lowrance WW, Collins FS. Identifiability in genomic research. Science. 2007; 317 :600–602. [ PubMed : 17673640 ]
• Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, Jennings B, Levine RJ, Davidoff F, Casarett D, Corrigan J, Fox E, Wynia MK, Agich GJ, Speroff T, Schyve P, Batalden P, Tunis S, Berlinger N, Cronenwett L, Fitzmaurice M, Dubler NN, James B. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007; 146 (6):666–674. [ PubMed : 17438310 ]
• Mandelblatt J, Saha S, Teutsch S, Hoerger T, Siu AL, Atkins D, Klein J, Helfand M. The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 65: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2003; 139 :835–842. [ PubMed : 14623621 ]
• Mick S, Morlock LL, Salkever D, de Lissovoy G, Malitz F, Wise CG, Jones A. Strategic activity and financial performance of U.S. rural hospitals: A national study, 1983 to 1988. Journal of Rural Health. 1994; 10 (3):150–167. [ PubMed : 10138031 ]
• Mosconi P, Poli P, Giolo A, Apolone G. How Italian health consumers feel about clinical research: A questionnaire survey. European Journal of Public Health. 2005; 15 (4):372–379. [ PubMed : 16014662 ]
• Murphy K, Topel R. The economic value of medical research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1999.
• NCI (National Cancer Institute). Getting connected with caBIG: Data sharing and security framework. 2008. [accessed October 27, 2008]. https://cabig ​.nci.nih ​.gov/working_groups ​/DSIC_SLWG/data_sharing_policy/
• NCURA (National Council of University Research Administrators). Report on research compliance. 2007. [accessed March 4, 2008]. http://www ​.reportonresearchcompliance ​.com .
• NCVHS (National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics). Enhanced protections for uses of health data: A stewardship framework for “secondary uses” of electronically collected and transmitted health data. 2007a. [accessed December 19, 2007]. http://ncvhs ​.hhs.gov/071221lt.pdf .
• NCVHS, Ad Hoc Work Group on Secondary Uses of Health Data. Testimony of the cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG) Data Sharing and Intellectual Capital (DSIC) workspace. 2007b August 1, 2007
• Needleman J, Buerhaus P, Mattke S, Stewart M, Zelevinsky K. Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002; 346 (22):1715–1722. [ PubMed : 12037152 ]
• NSF (National Science Foundation). Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2006. Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Chapter 7.
• OHRP (Office for Human Research Protections). IRB guidebook, part I.A. 2008a. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://www ​.hhs.gov/ohrp ​/irb/irb_guidebook.htm .
• OHRP. OHRP concludes case regarding Johns Hopkins University research on hospital infections. 2008b. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://www ​.hhs.gov/ohrp/news/recentnews ​.html#20080215 .
• Partridge A, Winer E. Informing clinical trial participants about study results. JAMA. 2002; 288 :363–365. [ PubMed : 12117402 ]
• Partridge AH, Wolff AC, Marcom PK, Kaufman PA, Zhang L, Gelman R, Moore C, Lake D, Fleming GF, Rugo HS, Atkins J, Sampson E, Collyar D, Winer EP. The impact of sharing results of a randomized breast cancer clinical trial with study participants. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2008 June 10 [ PubMed : 18543100 ]
• Pitkin R. Folate and neural tube defects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2007; 85 (1):285S–288S. [ PubMed : 17209211 ]
• Pritts J. The importance and value of protecting the privacy of health information: Roles of HIPAA Privacy Rule and the Common Rule in health research. 2008. [accessed March 15, 2008]. http://www ​.iom.edu/CMS/3740/43729/53160 ​.aspx .
• Research!America. America speaks: Poll summary. Vol. 7. Alexandria, VA: United Health Foundation; 2007.
• Schneeweiss S, Setoguchi S, Brookhart A, Dormuth C, Wang P. Risk of death associated with the use of conventional versus atypical antipsychotic drugs among elderly patients. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2007; 176 :672–632. [ PMC free article : PMC1800321 ] [ PubMed : 17325327 ]
• Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: Attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Medicine. 2008a May 13; 5 (5):e91. [ PMC free article : PMC2375946 ] [ PubMed : 18479180 ]
• Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. The search for clarity in communicating research results to study participants. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2008b September; 34 (9):e17. [ PubMed : 18757617 ]
• Shaul RZ, Birenbaum S, Evans M. Legal liability in research: Early lessons from North America. BMC Medical Ethics. 2005; 6 (4):1–4. [ PMC free article : PMC1182131 ] [ PubMed : 15953387 ]
• Shavers VL, Lynch CF, Burmeister LF. Racial differences in factors that influence the willingness to participate in medical research studies. Annals of Epidemiology. 2002; 12 :248–256. [ PubMed : 11988413 ]
• Sim I, Chan A-W, Gülmezoglu AM, Evans T, Pang T. Clinical trial registration: Transparency is the watchword. The Lancet. 2006; 367 (9523):1631–1633. [ PubMed : 16714166 ]
• Slamon D, Clark G, Wong S, Levin W, Ullrich A, McGuire W. Human breast cancer: Correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the her-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987; 235 (4785):177–182. [ PubMed : 3798106 ]
• Snider DE, Stroup DF. Defining research when it comes to public health. Public Health Reports. 1997; 112 :29–32. [ PMC free article : PMC1381834 ] [ PubMed : 9018284 ]
• Thorpe KE, Florence CS, Howard DH, Joski P. The impact of obesity in rising medical spending. Health Affairs Web Exclusive. 2004. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://content ​.healthaffairs ​.org/cgi/content ​/abstract/hlthaff.w4.480v1 . [ PubMed : 15496437 ]
• Trauth JM, Musa D, Siminoff L, Jewell IK, Ricci E. Public attitudes regarding willingness to participate in medical research studies. Journal of Health & Social Policy. 2000; 12 (2):23–43. [ PubMed : 11184441 ]
• Veurink M, Koster M, Berg L. The history of DES, lessons to be learned. Pharmacy World & Science. 2005; 27 (3):139–143. [ PubMed : 16096877 ]
• Wendler D, Kington R, Madans J, Van Wye G, Christ-Schmidt H, Pratt LA, Brawley OW, Gross CP, Emanuel E. Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research? PLoS Medicine. 2006; 3 (2):201–210. [ PMC free article : PMC1298944 ] [ PubMed : 16318411 ]
• Westin A. How the public views privacy and health research. 2007. [accessed November 11, 2008]. http://www ​.iom.edu/Object ​.File/Master/48 ​/528/%20Westin%20IOM ​%20Srvy%20Rept%2011-1107.pdf .
• Williams ED. Federal protection for human research subjects: An analysis of the Common Rule and its interactions with FDA regulations and the HIPAA Privacy Rule, CRS report for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; 2005.
• Williams IC, Corbie-Smith G. Investigator beliefs and reported success in recruiting minority participants. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2006; 27 :580–586. [ PubMed : 16839822 ]
• Winston FK, Durbin DR, Kallan MJ, Moll EK. The danger of premature graduation to seat belts for young children. Pediatrics. 2000; 105 (6):1179–1183. [ PubMed : 10835054 ]
• WMA (World Medical Association). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 1964. [accessed August 21, 2008]. http://ohsr ​.od.nih.gov ​/guidelines/helsinki.html . [ PubMed : 16010903 ]
• Woolley M, Propst SM. Public attitudes and perceptions about health-related research. JAMA. 2005; 294 (11):1380–1384. [ PubMed : 16174697 ]
• Zarin DA, Tse T. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials. Science. 2008; 319 :1340–1342. [ PMC free article : PMC2396952 ] [ PubMed : 18323436 ]
• Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. New England Journal of Medicine. 2005; 353 (26):2779–2787. [ PMC free article : PMC1568386 ] [ PubMed : 16382064 ]

Epidemiology is the study of the occurrence, distribution, and control of diseases in populations.

Health services research has been defined as a multidisciplinary field of inquiry, both basic and applied, that examines the use, costs, quality, accessibility, delivery, organization, financing, and outcomes of health care services to increase knowledge and understanding of the structure, processes, and effects of health services for individuals and populations ( IOM, 1995 ).

The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics has noted that “secondary uses” of health data is an ill-defined term, and urges abandoning it in favor of precise description of each use ( NCVHS, 2007a ). Thus, the committee chose to minimize use of the term in this report.

See Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information , 64 Fed. Reg. 59918, 59967 (preamble to rule proposed November 3, 1999) for a discussion on the benefits of health records research.

Effectiveness can be defined as the extent to which a specific test or intervention, when used under ordinary circumstances, does what it is intended to do. Efficacy refers to the extent to which a specific test or intervention produces a beneficial result under ideal conditions (e.g., in a clinical trial).

See http://www ​.intermacs.org .

See http://www ​.elso.med.umich.edu .

See http://www ​.unos.org/Data .

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now HHS) had previously issued policy and guidance on the protection of human subjects. See Williams (2005) .

In its report “First Biennial Report on the Adequacy and Uniformity of Federal Rules and Policies, and their Implementation, for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research , Protecting Human Subjects.”

45 C.F.R. part 46 (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.101 (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(d) (2005).

This section on informed consent is based largely on a Congressional Research Service report ( Williams, 2005 ), as adapted by Pritts (2008) .

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.116(b) (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.103 (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.111 (2005). There are additional factors if the study includes subjects who are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence.

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d); 46.117(c) (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(f) (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.101(b)(4) (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.116(e) (2005).

See 45 C.F.R. § 46.123 (2005).

See also Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute , 782 A. 2d 807 (Md. Ct. App. 2001); Gelsinger v. University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas filed September 18, 2000), available at http://www ​.sskrplaw.com ​/links/healthcare2.html .

The FDA has defined “clinical investigation” to be synonymous with “research.”

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Section 505(i), 507(d), or 520(g) of 21 U.S.C. 355(i), 357(d), or 360j(g) (1972).

See 21 C.F.R. part 50 (2008); 46 Fed. Reg. 8942 (1981).

See 21 C.F.R. part 56 (2008); 46 Fed. Reg. 8958 (1981).

See 45 C.F.R. part 46 (2005); 46 Fed. Reg. 8366 (1981).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines program evaluation as the “systematic investigation of the merit, worth, or significance of organized public health action,” noting that such evaluations are “systematic ways to improve and account for public health actions by involving procedures that are useful, feasible, ethical, and accurate.” They can be based on goals, processes, outcomes, or value ( http://www ​.cdc.gov/mmwr ​/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4811a1.htm ).

The Utilization Review Accreditation Commission defines utilization review as “the evaluation of the medical necessity, appropriateness, and efficiency of the use of health care services, procedures, and facilities under the provisions of the applicable health benefits plans” ( http://www ​.urac.org/about/ ).

Another type of oversight board defined by the Privacy Rule. See Chapter 4 .

Under the Privacy Rule, consent is referred to as authorization. See Chapter 4 .

Personal communication, C. Heide, Office for Civil Rights, HHS, May 29, 2008.

The Privacy Rule defines the term “health care operations” by listing a number of specific activities that qualify as health care operations. These include “conducting quality assessment and improvement activities, population-based activities relating to improving or reducing health care costs, and case management and care coordination.” See 45 C.F.R. § 164.501 (2006).

A total of 444 surveys were mailed to the medical directors of quality improvement and IRB chairs at hospitals with 400 or more beds that belong to the Council of Teaching Hospitals of the Association of American Medical Colleges, and to the editors of all U.S.-based medical journals that publish original research and appear in the Abridged Index Medicus. 236 surveys were returned, for a 53 percent response rate. The survey consisted of six brief scenarios that asked respondents to determine whether the described project needed IRB review and informed consent.

See http: ​//plainlanguage.gov/index.cfm .

FDA, Public Law 110–85 § 801 (2007).

See http://www ​.ahrq.gov/research/cbprrole ​.htm .

• Cite this Page Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information: The HIPAA Privacy Rule; Nass SJ, Levit LA, Gostin LO, editors. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. 3, The Value, Importance, and Oversight of Health Research.
• PDF version of this title (1.6M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• The Value, Importance, and Oversight of Health Research - Beyond the HIPAA Priva... The Value, Importance, and Oversight of Health Research - Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Science In Everyday Life: 50 Examples Showing How Science Impacts Our Daily Activities

Science plays a vital role in our daily lives, even if we don’t always realize it. From the alarm that wakes us up to the phones we scroll through before bed, advancements in science, technology, engineering, and math touch every aspect of our routines.

If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer on examples of science in daily life: Science gives us technology like smartphones, WiFi, microwaves, and virtual assistants . It brings us medical treatments, weather forecasts, and green energy solutions.

Fields like chemistry, biology, and physics explain the world around us and advancements that enhance how we live.

This comprehensive guide provides over 50 examples demonstrating the many amazing ways science impacts our lives. We’ll cover common technologies, healthcare innovations, environmental applications, and insights science provides into the world around us.

Read on to gain appreciation for just how integral STEM is to our modern lives.

Technology Innovations from Science

Smartphones and wifi.

Smartphones have become an integral part of our lives, and we can thank science for their existence. These devices combine various technologies, such as wireless communication, touchscreen displays, and powerful processors, all made possible through scientific advancements.

With the advent of WiFi technology, we can now connect our smartphones to the internet seamlessly, allowing us to access information, communicate with others, and stay connected wherever we go. According to a report by Statista, there are over 3.8 billion smartphone users worldwide, highlighting the widespread impact of this technology.

Virtual Assistants and AI

Virtual assistants, like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant, have become an integral part of our daily lives. These AI-powered technologies are the result of extensive research and development in the field of artificial intelligence.

They can perform a wide range of tasks, from answering questions and setting reminders to controlling smart home devices. Virtual assistants have revolutionized the way we interact with technology and have made our lives more convenient.

According to a study by Pew Research Center, around 46% of Americans use voice assistants, showcasing the widespread adoption of this technology.

Streaming Entertainment

Gone are the days when we had to wait for our favorite TV shows or movies to air on traditional television networks. Thanks to scientific advancements, we now have streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video that allow us to enjoy a vast library of entertainment content on demand.

Streaming services rely on technologies like high-speed internet connections and video compression algorithms, which have made it possible to deliver high-quality content to our devices. According to a report by Conviva, global streaming hours increased by 57% in 2020, highlighting the growing popularity of streaming entertainment.

Kitchen Appliances

Science has also revolutionized our kitchens with innovative appliances that make cooking and food preparation easier and more efficient. From microwave ovens and induction cooktops to smart refrigerators and programmable coffee makers, these appliances utilize scientific principles to enhance our culinary experiences.

For example, microwave ovens use electromagnetic waves to heat food quickly, while induction cooktops use magnetic fields to generate heat directly in the cookware. These advancements have saved us time and energy in the kitchen, allowing us to focus on creating delicious meals.

Healthcare and Medicine

Medical treatments and drugs.

Science plays a crucial role in the development of medical treatments and drugs. Through extensive research and experimentation, scientists are able to discover new medications and therapies that help treat diseases and improve the quality of life for patients.

From antibiotics to cancer-fighting drugs, science has revolutionized the field of medicine. For instance, in recent years, breakthroughs in immunotherapy have provided hope for patients with previously untreatable cancers, offering them a chance at a longer and healthier life.

Medical Imaging and Scans

The advancement of medical imaging technology has greatly contributed to the field of healthcare. X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, and ultrasounds are all examples of medical imaging techniques that allow doctors to visualize the internal structures of the body without invasive procedures.

These imaging tools aid in the diagnosis and monitoring of various conditions, such as broken bones, tumors, and organ abnormalities. With the help of these technologies, doctors can make more accurate and timely diagnoses, leading to better treatment outcomes for patients.

Prosthetics and Implants

Science has also revolutionized the field of prosthetics and implants, providing individuals with enhanced mobility and improved quality of life. With advancements in materials science and robotics, prosthetic limbs have become increasingly sophisticated, allowing amputees to regain functionality and perform daily activities with greater ease.

Additionally, advancements in medical implants, such as pacemakers and artificial joints, have significantly improved the lives of individuals with chronic conditions, enabling them to live longer and more fulfilling lives.

Genetic Testing

Genetic testing is another area where science has had a significant impact on healthcare. With advancements in DNA sequencing technology, scientists are now able to analyze an individual’s genetic makeup and identify potential genetic disorders or predispositions to certain diseases.

This information can be used for early detection and prevention, allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their health. Genetic testing has also paved the way for personalized medicine, where treatments can be tailored to an individual’s specific genetic profile, leading to more effective and targeted therapies.

Energy and Environment

Renewable energy.

Renewable energy plays a crucial role in reducing our carbon footprint and preserving the environment. Solar power, for example, harnesses the energy from the sun and converts it into electricity, providing a sustainable and clean alternative to traditional fossil fuels.

Wind power is another example, where the kinetic energy of the wind is converted into electricity through wind turbines. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), renewable energy accounted for 26% of global electricity generation in 2018, and this number is expected to rise significantly in the coming years.

Harnessing the power of renewable energy sources not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also leads to economic growth and job creation in the renewable energy sector.

Water Filtration and Conservation

Science has greatly contributed to improving water filtration systems and promoting water conservation. Advanced technologies such as reverse osmosis and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection are used to remove impurities and pathogens from water, making it safe for consumption.

These filtration systems are essential in areas where access to clean drinking water is limited. Additionally, scientific research has led to the development of water-saving devices and techniques, such as low-flow showerheads and rainwater harvesting systems.

These innovations help conserve water resources and reduce water wastage, ultimately benefiting both the environment and our daily lives.

Weather Forecasting

Weather forecasting relies heavily on scientific advancements to accurately predict and analyze weather patterns. Meteorologists use a variety of tools and technologies, including satellites, radar systems, and computer models, to collect data and make predictions about future weather conditions.

By understanding atmospheric phenomena and analyzing historical data, scientists can provide crucial information regarding upcoming storms, hurricanes, and other weather events. Accurate weather forecasts not only help us plan our daily activities but also play a vital role in disaster preparedness and mitigation efforts, potentially saving lives and minimizing damage.

Recycling and Waste Management

In today’s world, proper waste management and recycling have become essential for the health of our environment. Science has played a significant role in developing efficient recycling processes and waste management systems.

Recycling helps reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills and conserves valuable resources. Through various scientific methods, materials such as paper, plastic, glass, and metal can be recycled and used for the production of new products.

Furthermore, advancements in waste management technologies, such as waste-to-energy systems, enable the conversion of waste materials into renewable energy sources. These innovations not only reduce the environmental impact of waste but also contribute to a more sustainable and circular economy.

Science continues to drive innovations and advancements in the energy and environmental sectors. By embracing renewable energy, implementing efficient water filtration and conservation methods, improving weather forecasting accuracy, and promoting recycling and waste management, we can create a more sustainable and environmentally friendly future.

Transportation Innovations

Aircraft technology.

Aircraft technology has come a long way since the Wright brothers’ first flight. Today, we have advanced and sophisticated airplanes that allow us to travel to any corner of the world in a matter of hours.

From the use of composite materials to improve fuel efficiency, to the development of quieter engines and advanced navigation systems, science has played a crucial role in revolutionizing air travel. The aerodynamic design of modern airplanes allows them to achieve incredible speeds while maintaining stability and safety.

This not only makes air travel more convenient for passengers but also reduces the environmental impact of aviation.

Automotive Engineering

The field of automotive engineering has witnessed tremendous advancements, making our cars safer, more efficient, and more comfortable. Science has enabled the development of innovative safety features such as airbags, ABS brakes, and collision avoidance systems, which have significantly reduced the number of accidents and saved countless lives.

The use of lightweight materials and aerodynamic designs has made cars more fuel-efficient, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the integration of GPS technology and smart infotainment systems has made navigation and entertainment more convenient for drivers and passengers alike.

Traffic Optimization Systems

With the increasing number of vehicles on the road, traffic congestion has become a major issue in many cities around the world. Science has played a vital role in developing traffic optimization systems that help manage and reduce congestion.

These systems use advanced algorithms and real-time data to analyze traffic patterns and suggest the most efficient routes for drivers. By optimizing traffic flow, these systems not only save time for commuters but also reduce fuel consumption and air pollution.

Examples of such systems include smart traffic lights, intelligent transportation systems, and traffic management apps.

Supply Chain Logistics

Supply chain logistics involves the management and coordination of the flow of goods and services from the point of origin to the point of consumption. Science has revolutionized this field by introducing innovative technologies and processes that improve efficiency and reduce costs.

For example, the use of barcode scanning, RFID tags, and GPS tracking has made inventory management more accurate and streamlined. Advanced analytics and predictive modeling help optimize routing and scheduling, ensuring timely delivery while minimizing transportation costs.

These innovations have transformed the way goods are transported, making supply chains more efficient and responsive to customer demands.

Insights into Our World

Science plays a fundamental role in our daily lives, often in ways we may not even realize. From the stars in the sky to the products we use, science provides us with valuable insights and understanding. Let’s explore some examples of how science impacts our everyday activities.

Astronomy and Space Science

Have you ever looked up at the night sky and marveled at the stars? Astronomy, the study of celestial objects and phenomena, helps us understand the vastness of the universe. Through telescopes and satellites, scientists have made groundbreaking discoveries about galaxies, planets, and even the origins of the universe itself.

Websites like NASA offer a wealth of information and breathtaking images that bring the wonders of space closer to us.

Physics Principles at Work

Physics is the study of matter and energy, and its principles can be found in many aspects of our daily lives. For example, the laws of motion explain why objects fall to the ground, why vehicles move, and why we can ride a bicycle.

Understanding these principles allows us to design safer cars, build sturdy bridges, and even enjoy thrilling roller coaster rides. Physics is not just for scientists in labs; it’s all around us!

Earth Sciences – Climate, Seismology

Earth sciences, such as climatology and seismology, provide us with valuable knowledge about our planet. Climate science helps us understand the changes happening in our environment and the impact of human activities on the Earth’s climate.

Seismology, the study of earthquakes, allows us to monitor and predict seismic activity, helping to save lives and minimize damage. Websites like climate.gov and USGS offer comprehensive information on these topics.

Chemistry in Everyday Products

Chemistry is present in countless products we use every day, from cleaning supplies to personal care items. For instance, the chemical reactions that occur in batteries power our smartphones and other electronic devices.

Additionally, the development of new materials and pharmaceuticals relies heavily on chemical research. Understanding the principles of chemistry allows us to create safer and more efficient products. Websites like American Chemical Society provide valuable resources on the role of chemistry in our daily lives.

Science is an integral part of our lives, providing us with knowledge and improving our understanding of the world around us. Whether it’s exploring the mysteries of space, harnessing the power of physics, studying our planet’s climate, or utilizing chemistry in everyday products, science impacts our daily activities in profound ways.

As this extensive list of examples shows, science fundamentally shapes our daily lives in modern society. Cutting-edge innovations that enhance how we live, work, communicate, travel, stay healthy, and understand the world all stem from scientific discovery.

Fields like physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and engineering create astounding technologies, life-saving medications, and solutions for sustainability. They also unlock deeper insights into our own bodies, the environment, and the universe around us.

So whether you’re video chatting on your phone, cooking dinner, driving your car, or just breathing – you have science to thank! Our modern world simply would not function without the dedicated work of scientists pushing boundaries every day.

Similar Posts

University Of The People Computer Science Degree: A Complete Overview

Are you interested in earning an affordable, accredited computer science degree online? University of the People (UoPeople) offers access to tuition-free bachelor’s and master’s programs in computer science to students worldwide. In this comprehensive guide, we provide an in-depth look at UoPeople’s computer science curriculum, admissions, reputation, and more. If you’re short on time, here’s…

How To Do A Science Project

Science projects allow you to apply the scientific method to better understand the world around you. Whether it’s for a class assignment, a science fair, or just your own curiosity, conducting an organized science experiment can be an enriching and rewarding experience. Read on for a step-by-step guide to planning and executing a successful science…

What Science Courses Are Taught In 12Th Grade? An In-Depth Look

As a high school senior, you’re so close to graduation! This final year is crucial for cementing your science knowledge and skills before college. Choosing the right science curriculum can also boost your applications if you plan to major in a science field. If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer: Most 12th graders…

Does Environmental Science Have Math?

From analyzing pollution levels to modeling climate change, environmental science plays a crucial role in understanding and protecting our planet. But how much math does an environmental science career actually involve? Let’s dig into the numbers. If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer: Yes, environmental science relies heavily on mathematical concepts and skills…

How Many Years Of Science Do You Take In High School?

High school is a critical time for students to gain exposure to science courses and develop interests that may shape their college and career paths. If you’re wondering how much science you’ll take during your high school career, read on for a detailed overview of the typical science course sequence and graduation requirements. The quick…

Examining The Challenging Nature Of Scientific Pursuits

Science has produced awe-inspiring advancements that have transformed human civilization. Yet the process of making new discoveries involves tackling extremely difficult intellectual challenges. In this comprehensive article, we’ll take a deep dive into the complex, demanding nature of science and why mastering it requires such rigorous effort. If you’re short on time, here’s the gist:…

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

Teaching resources

Found 3 resources for the concept: Scientific knowledge helps us make decisions that affect our lives every day.

How science works

Grade Level(s):

• California Academy of Sciences

Resource type:

• Science Story

Discipline:

• Life Science

Time: 10 minutes

This Science in Action video uses the Understanding Science Flowchart to follow arachnologist Charles Griswold and colleagues as they describe the process involved in an exciting new spider discovery.

View details »

Hydrogeology: Learning by discovery in an urban environment

• On the Cutting Edge
• field-based investigation
• Earth science

Time: Quarter-long project

This is an example of a student-driven, instructor-guided field experiments on a budget. Schools that cater to under-represented students are often those with limited resources, however, student-driven discovery in the field is an effective tool for engaging students in the natural environment and in hydrogeology. Effective strategies for addressing the special needs of urban students are included.

Ozone depletion: Uncovering the hidden hazard of hairspray

• UC Museum of Paleontology
• Physical Sciences

Time: 2 hours

Follow a group of scientists from around the world as they work together to understand - and then help fix - a problem that threatens the future of the planet: a hole in the ozone layer. Get tips for using science stories in class .

Subscribe to our newsletter

• Understanding Science 101
• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool
• Misconceptions

See highlights from GHTC's 2023 Innovating for Impact Awards

Sign up to receive news and updates from GHTC.

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to the data-use policies outlined in this privacy notice.

5 ways science is transforming global health and saving lives

Science expands our understanding, makes the impossible possible, and helps us build the future we want for all people. science drives the work of ghtc, so we wanted to take a step back to reflect on five ways science is transforming global health..

Science expands our understanding, makes the impossible possible, and helps us build the future we want for all people. Science drives the work of our Global Health Technologies Coalition, so we wanted to take a step back to reflect on five ways science is transforming global health:

1. Science is generating treatments, cures, and vaccines to tackle the world’s most devastating diseases. 

From a vaccine that has put us at the brink of eradicating polio to antiretroviral treatments that have dramatically extended the lives of people living with HIV and AIDS, science has generated new health technologies that have driven tremendous progress in global health. Thanks to investments in science and research, 82 new vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, and other lifesaving global health tools have been developed and introduced since 2000. These tools include a new meningitis A vaccine —which has already saved 378,000 lives and prevented 673,000 new infections since 2010—and new child-friendly malaria drugs that have helped cut childhood malaria deaths by 65 percent since 2000. Science has also fueled a robust pipeline of over 670 global health technologies now in development poised to further build upon these gains.

2. Science is helping us understand the unique needs of users and communities so we can design the right tools for impact.

3. Science is helping us predict, detect, and track emerging health risks so we can be better prepared to confront tomorrow's challenges.

From using weather patterns to forecast the risk of insect-borne disease outbreaks, to employing genomics and evolutionary theory to predict how bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics, to advancing new hybrid systems that combine crowdsourced data with traditional disease surveillance, science is helping us better predict, detect, and track infectious disease outbreaks and other emerging health challenges. Early detection can make the difference between an outbreak becoming an epidemic and is critical to mounting an effective response.

4. Science is helping us understand what works and what doesn't so we can better target interventions and design health programs for maximum impact. 

How often does an insecticide-treated bed net need to be replaced , and how many tears can it sustain before its stops working? In an era of limited resources, can we predict which technologies and interventions are likely to save the most lives in a country if brought to scale? How do we get people to change their handwashing habits to reduce diarrheal disease and childhood deaths? These are the questions big and small that scientists, data analysts, and other health researchers are working to answer in labs, offices, and program sites across the United States and world. The answers they get are helping us better target health solutions and refine health programming to more save lives and more dollars.

5. Science is putting information and data at our fingertips to help us fight global diseases and health challenges in new and unusual ways.

The revolution in mobile technology, digital health, and big data is transforming our approach to fighting global diseases and health challenges. Health care workers are using mobile devices to track immunization coverage door-to-door and monitor vaccine supplies to prevent stockouts, doctors are using SMS to remind patients to take their tuberculosis drugs and treatment adherence, and health ministries are deploying new data visualization toolsto turn a mountain of data into accessible and actionable information to guide decision on to best deploy and target resources.

Science creates a foundation upon which improvements in global health are built. It unlocks discoveries and fuels innovation, informs policies and programs, breaks down barriers, and ultimately advances better, healthier lives for all people. At this moment in time, it is more vital than ever that we build a convincing case of the benefits that flow from science and the importance of strong investment in science and research.

In global health, science matters because #scienceserves and science saves.

About the authors

Jamie bay nishi ghtc.

Jamie served as GHTC Executive Director for seven years until the end of 2023, leading the coalition’s policy and advocacy portfolio, as well as managing its engagement with GHTC members and other stakeholders and partners in government, the private sector, and civil society. She has over 12 years of experience in business development, project management, stakeholder engagement, and strategic partnership building.

Marissa Chmiola GHTC

Marissa manages the development and implementation of the coalition’s communications activities, overseeing GHTC’s digital presence, media outreach, events, publications, and internal communication practices. She also manages GHTC's monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive learning and donor reporting... read more about this author

Other Breakthroughs Blog posts you may like:

Research roundup: progress in fighting ntds and tb, polio eradication setbacks, and the crisis surrounding..., global health r&d gamified.

Premium Content

Can scientists ‘solve’ stress? They’re trying.

From cardiovascular disease and obesity to a weakened immune system, the side effects of stress can be life-altering. But there may be a way to prevent those outcomes.

As modern-day stress ratchets up to what feels like unbearable levels, researchers are striving to learn more about the precise mechanisms through which it affects our body and mind. The hope is that by unlocking more about how stress works physiologically, we can find ways to prevent it from permanently harming people.

Over the last five decades, scientists have established beyond doubt that persistent stress really can poison our overall health. In addition to increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease , stress plays a role in obesity and diabetes and can weaken the immune system , leaving us more vulnerable to infectious diseases. You can recover swiftly from an episode of acute stress—for example, the alarm one might feel when caught unprepared for a presentation. Chronic stress, on the other hand, is more toxic as it is an unrelenting circumstance that offers little chance for a return to normalcy. Financial strain, having a bully for a boss, and social isolation are all examples.

Today chronic stress seems to be increasing worldwide, as people grapple with rapid socioeconomic and environmental change.   A 2023 national survey by the American Psychological Association found that stress has taken a serious toll since the start of the pandemic , with the incidence of chronic illnesses and mental health problems going up significantly, especially among those ages 35 to 44.

( Do you have chronic stress? Look for these signs. )

So far, one of the major realizations among scientists is that stress harms all of us in different and powerful ways. But is there any way to avoid it—or at least recover more quickly? Some promising avenues of research offer hope for the future.

Preventing chronic stress from harming you in the first place

Groundbreaking studies in orphans showed how stress in early life can leave an indelible mark on the brain.

For Hungry Minds

“Chronic stress in early life has more serious and lasting effects, because that’s when a lot of connections are being laid down in the brain,” says Aniko Korosi, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam who has been conducting experiments on mice to elucidate that link between early-life stress and brain development.

Korosi may have found a surprising link between stress and the resulting nutrient composition in the brain . She and her colleagues noticed that mouse pups that had been exposed to stress in the first week of their lives—having been moved from their mother’s care to a cage—had lower levels of certain fatty acids and amino acids in their brains compared with pups being raised in a stress-free environment.

She wondered if it was possible to normalize a stressed pup’s development by feeding it a diet rich in the specific nutrients its brain would be lacking. To find out, the researchers first fed a supplemented diet to the mothers so it would pass through their milk, then continued to provide it in the pups’ feed for two weeks after they were weaned. A few months later, the researchers tested the now adult mice in learning and memory. Unlike stressed mice that had never received an enriched diet, these mice did not display cognitive impairments.

( How wild animals cope with stress—from overeating to sleepless nights. )

“I was surprised that changing the nutrition could have such a powerful effect, because it’s such an easy intervention,” Korosi says.

If further studies provide more evidence of the nutritional pathway, she says, there would be a strong basis for supplementing the diets of infants born to mothers living in stressful conditions.

Developing an early warning system for stress

Katie McLaughlin, a psychologist at the University of Oregon, is investigating how mental health problems arise in adolescents as they’re going through a particularly vulnerable time in their lives, transitioning to adulthood.

She and her colleagues are still collecting data , but a smaller, precursor study tracking 30 teenagers offers clues about what the researchers might learn—and how it might help them identify stress before it goes too far.  

In that study, McLaughlin found that the extent of stress experienced by a subject in the month before their lab visit changed how their brain responded to emotionally impactful information such as when they were shown a picture of a threatening face. The brain’s prefrontal cortex, which helps regulate emotions, showed less activation when the subject had experienced higher levels of stress.

McLaughlin is optimistic that data from the ongoing study will help pinpoint changes in behavior as well as brain activity that predict the emergence of mental health problems like anxiety and depression. This could enable the development of targeted interventions delivered to teenagers at just the right time, she says. If the identified marker of stress were a sudden decrease in sleep duration or a sharp decline in social interactions, for example, it would be possible to push the intervention out to the individual on their smartphone.

“Like, here’s a reminder about good sleep hygiene, or this might be a good time to check in with your counselor at school about what’s been going on in your life,” McLaughlin explains.

( ‘Hysterical strength’? Fight or flight? This is how your body reacts to extreme stress. )

Learn more about stress and how to manage it

Preventing inflammation caused by chronic stress.

Gaining a deeper understanding of how stress affects the immune system may also help find a way to reverse those effects.

You May Also Like

Does meditation actually work? Here’s what the science says.

How to cope with stress at work—and avoid burning out

Do natural adaptogens like ginseng actually combat stress?

In the 1980s, psychologist Janice Kiecolt-Glaser and her virologist husband, Ronald Glaser, began exploring the physiological impact of stress on two notably stressed segments of society: medical students and older caregivers. The researchers found the students’ immune systems were less robust when they were taking exams than during non-exam times—and that stress altered the body’s response to vaccines.

Researchers then administered the flu and pneumonia vaccines to individuals responsible for a spouse with dementia. Unlike medical students taking exams, who were likely stressed only in the short term, these people were experiencing unrelenting stress. When tested at set periods after inoculation, they had fewer antibodies compared with a control group —they couldn’t maintain their protective response. “That gave us good evidence that the changes brought on by stress were biologically meaningful,” says Kiecolt-Glaser, now an emeritus professor at the Ohio State University.

Around the same time, researchers led by Sheldon Cohen, now emeritus professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, delivered cold-causing viruses into the nostrils of about 400 adult volunteers in the U.K. “The more stress they reported prior to our exposing them to a virus, the higher the risk was for them to develop a cold,” says Cohen. The duration and type of stress mattered: Chronic economic or interpersonal stress were what really put people at high risk—and the longer it went on, the greater the susceptibility to falling sick.

Cohen and his colleagues also learned that when exposed to viruses, chronically stressed people tended to produce an excess of cytokines—proteins that serve as messengers of the immune system, traveling to sites of infection and injury and activating inflammation and other cellular processes to protect the body. Too many cytokines cause an excess of inflammation.

Researchers still don’t know enough about how stress alters the immune system’s ability to regulate cytokines to devise an intervention to reduce the inflammation, but in one way, these findings signal some hope: There are clear targets for more work to be done.  

Understanding stress on a cellular level

The future of understanding and combating stress may lie in our DNA.

In 2023, Ursula Beattie, then a doctoral student at Tufts University, and her colleagues found possible evidence that stress can overwhelm DNA’s repair mechanisms . In their study, researchers repeatedly tapped on sparrow cages with pens, played the radio loudly, and other actions designed to cause distress but no physical harm. Blood and tissue samples from the sparrows after three weeks of this unpleasant treatment revealed damage to the DNA. “It’s like if you had two pieces of string coiled up, just like DNA, and you took a pair of scissors and cut them,” Beattie says.

While these kinds of double-strand breaks in DNA occur all the time in sparrows and other species, including humans, the damage is typically reversed through self-repair mechanisms. In a chronic-stress setting, “those repair mechanisms get overwhelmed, which is how we see a buildup of DNA damage,” Beattie explains. The damage in the birds appears to be the most severe in cells of the liver, she adds, suggesting that for humans, too, the extent and type of damage inflicted by stress might be different for different tissues of the body.

Separately, Kiecolt-Glaser and psychologist Lisa Christian at OSU are conducting a longitudinal study to determine whether chronic stress ages you more quickly. If results support a smaller, earlier study, it appears that chronically stressed caregivers not only are more likely to get sick and heal more slowly but they also show signs of accelerated aging.

We’re still learning how deep stress goes into our bodies. But these exploratory findings mean we’re getting closer to solving the puzzle that is stress, which promises a future where we can better meet the ongoing demand for change.

( 20 stress-relief gifts for the frazzled friend in your life. )

Related Topics

• MENTAL HEALTH
• PUBLIC HEALTH

20 stress-relief gifts for the frazzled friend in your life

‘Hysterical strength’? Fight or flight? This is how your body reacts to extreme stress

Extreme heat can be deadly – here’s how to know if you’re at risk

Epidurals may do more than relieve pain—they could save lives

Do you really need 10,000 steps a day? Here’s what the science says.

• Paid Content
• Environment
• Photography
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• World Heritage
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Experts Optimistic About the Next 50 Years of Digital Life
• 4. The internet will continue to make life better

Table of Contents

• 1. Themes about the next 50 years of life online
• 2. Internet pioneers imagine the next 50 years
• 3. Humanity is at a precipice; its future is at stake
• 5. Leading concerns about the future of digital life
• About this canvassing of experts
• Acknowledgments

A large share of respondents predict enormous potential for improved quality of life over the next 50 years for most individuals thanks to internet connectivity, although many said the benefits of a wired world are not likely to be evenly distributed.

Andrew Tutt , an expert in law and author of “An FDA for Algorithms,” said, “We are still only about to enter the era of complex automation. It will revolutionize the world and lead to groundbreaking changes in transportation, industry, communication, education, energy, health care, communication, entertainment, government, warfare and even basic research. Self-driving cars, trains, semi-trucks, ships and airplanes will mean that goods and people can be transported farther, faster and with less energy and with massively fewer vehicles. Automated mining and manufacturing will further reduce the need for human workers to engage in rote work. Machine language translation will finally close the language barrier, while digital tutors, teachers and personal assistants with human qualities will make everything from learning new subjects to booking salon appointments faster and easier. For businesses, automated secretaries, salespeople, waiters, waitress, baristas and customer support personnel will lead to cost savings, efficiency gains and improved customer experiences. Socially, individuals will be able to find AI pets, friends and even therapists who can provide the love and emotional support that many people so desperately want. Entertainment will become far more interactive, as immersive AI experiences come to supplement traditional passive forms of media. Energy generation and health care will vastly improve with the addition of powerful AI tools that can take a systems-level view of operations and locate opportunities to gain efficiencies in design and operation. AI-driven robotics (e.g., drones) will revolutionize warfare. Finally, intelligent AI will contribute immensely to basic research and likely begin to create scientific discoveries of its own.”

Arthur Bushkin , an IT pioneer who worked with the precursors to ARPANET and Verizon, wrote, “Of course, the impact of the internet has been dramatic and largely positive. The devil is in the details and the distribution of the benefits.”

Mícheál Ó Foghlú , engineering director and DevOps Code Pillar at Google, Munich, said, “Despite the negatives I firmly believe that the main benefits have been positive, allowing economies and people to move up the value chain, ideally to more rewarding levels of endeavor.”

Perry Hewitt , a marketing, content and technology executive, wrote, “On an individual basis, we will think about our digital assets as much as our physical ones. Ideally, we will have more transparent control over our data, and the ability to understand where it resides and exchange it for value – negotiating with the platform companies that are now in a winner-take-all position. Some children born today are named with search engine-optimization in mind; we’ll be thinking more comprehensively about a set of rights and responsibilities of personal data that children are born with. Governments will have a higher level of regulation and protection of individual data. On an individual level, there will be greater integration of technology with our physical selves. For example, I can see devices that augment hearing and vision, and that enable greater access to data through our physical selves. Hard for me to picture what that looks like, but 50 years is a lot of time to figure it out. On a societal level, AI will have affected many jobs. Not only the truck drivers and the factory workers, but professions that have been largely unassailable – law, medicine – will have gone through a painful transformation. Overall I am bullish in our ingenuity to find a higher and better use for those humans, but it seems inevitable that we’ll struggle through a murky dip before we get there. By 2069, we’ll likely be out the other end. My biggest concern about the world 50 years out is the physical condition of the planet. It seems entirely reasonable that a great deal of our digital lives will be focused on habitable environments: identifying them, improving them, expanding them.”

David Cake , an active leader with Electronic Frontiers Australia and vice chair of the ICANN GNSO Council, wrote, “Significant, often highly communication and computation technologically driven, advances in day-to-day areas like health care, safety and human services, will continue to have a significant measurable improvement in many lives, often ‘invisible’ as an unnoticed reduction in bad outcomes, will continue to reduce the incidence of human-scale disasters. Advances in opportunities for self-actualisation through education, community and creative work will continue (though monetisation will continue to be problematic).”

Eugene H. Spafford , internet pioneer and professor of computing sciences at Purdue University, founder and executive director emeritus of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security, commented, “New uses, information sources and paradigms will improve the lives of many. However, the abuses, dilution of privacy and crime will also make things worse.”

Jeff Jarvis, director of the Tow-Knight Center at City University of New York’s Craig Newmark School of Journalism, commented, “One need be fairly cynical about one’s fellow humans and somewhat hubristic about one’s own exceptional abilities to argue that most people will act against their own self-interest to adopt technologies that will be harmful to them. This is why I am driven nuts by the contentions that we have all become addicted to our devices against our will, that the internet has made us stupid in spite of our education, that social media has made us uncivil no matter our parenting, as if these technologies could, in a mere matter of a few years, change our very nature as human beings. Bull. This dystopian worldview gives people no credit for their agency, their good will, their common sense, their intelligence and their willingness to explore and experiment. We will figure out how to adopt technologies of benefit and reject technologies that harm. Of course, there will be exceptions to that rule – witness America’s inability to come to terms with an invention made a millennium ago: gunpowder. But much of the rest of the civilized world has figured that one out.”

Andrew Odlyzko , professor at the University of Minnesota and former head of its Digital Technology Center and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute, said, “Assuming we avoid giant disasters, such as runaway climate change or huge pandemics, we should be able to overcome many of the problems that plague humanity, in health and freedom from physical wants, and from backbreaking or utterly boring jobs. This will bring in other problems, of course.”

Pedro U. Lima , an associate professor of computer science at Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, said, “Most of the focus on technology and particularly AI and machine learning developments these days is limited to virtual systems (e.g., apps for travel booking, social networks, search engines, games). I expect this to move, in the next 50 years, into networking people with machines, remotely operating in a myriad of environments, such as homes, hospitals, factories, sport arenas and so on. This will change work as we know it today, as it will change medicine (increasing remote surgery), travel (autonomous and remotely-guided cars, trains, planes), entertainment (games where real robots, instead of virtual agents, evolve in real scenarios). These are just a few ideas/scenarios. Many more, difficult to anticipate today, will appear. They will bring further challenges on privacy, security and safety, which everyone should be closely watching and monitoring. Beyond current discussions on privacy problems concerning ‘virtual world’ apps, we need to consider that ‘real world’ apps may enhance many of those problems, as they interact physically and/or in proximity with humans.”

Timothy Leffel , research scientist, National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, predicted, “Future historians will observe that, in many ways, the rise of the internet over the next few decades will have improved the world, but it hasn’t been without its costs that were sometimes severe and disruptive to entire industries and nations.”

Dave Gusto , co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, commented, “Fifty years is a terrifically long time for forecasting. A lot might be riding on, for example, what happens with the current conflict around net neutrality and the way that public or private interests get to shape the net from now forward. But within either pathway – public-interest dominated or private-interest dominated – the ability of some actors to enjoy the highest-end benefits and many actors to use what they can access or can manage to learn is a likely contour to the overall system. I think that a vast diversity of uses will characterize the future system, focusing on experience, entertainment and education, enhanced by AR and VR.”

A representative for a Middle Eastern telecommunication directorate wrote that online life will continue to be a plus in most individuals’ lives, adding, “As far as technological history is concerned, there has been no single case that the advance of technology and innovation has worsened the lives of individuals. This is similarly valid for AI.”

Living longer and better lives is the shining promise of the digital age

Many respondents to this canvassing agreed that internet advancement is likely to lead to better human-health outcomes, although perhaps not for everyone. As the following comments show, experts foresee new cures for chronic illnesses, rapid advancement in biotechnology and expanded access to care thanks to the development of better telehealth systems.

Steve Crocker , CEO and co-founder of Shinkuro Inc., internet pioneer and Internet Hall of Fame member, responded, “Life will improve in multiple ways. One in particular I think worth mentioning will be improvements in health care in three distinct ways. One is significantly better medical technology related to cancer and other major diseases. The second is significantly reduced cost of health care. The third is much higher and broader availability of high-quality health care, thereby reducing the differences in outcomes between wealthy and poor citizens.”

Susan Etlinger , an industry analyst for Altimeter Group expert in data, analytics and digital strategy, commented, “Many of the technologies we see commercialized today began in government and university research labs. Fifty years ago, computers were the size of walk-in closets, and the notion of personal computers was laughable to most people. Today we’re facing another shift, from personal and mobile to ambient computing. We’re also seeing a huge amount of research in the areas of prosthetics, neuroscience and other technologies intended to translate brain activity into physical form. All discussion of transhumanism aside, there are very real current and future applications for technology ‘implants’ and prosthetics that will be able to aid mobility, memory, even intelligence, and other physical and neurological functions. And, as nearly always happens, the technology is far ahead of our understanding of the human implications. Will these technologies be available to all, or just to a privileged class? What happens to the data? Will it be protected during a person’s lifespan? What happens to it after death? Will it be ‘willed’ as a digital legacy to future generations? What are the ethical (and for some, religious and spiritual) implications of changing the human body with technology? In many ways, these are not new questions. We’ve used technology to augment the physical form since the first caveman picked up a walking stick. But the key here will be to focus as much (or more) on the way we use these technologies as we do on inventing them.”

Bernie Hogan , senior research fellow at Oxford Internet Institute, wrote, “Tech will make life better for individuals but not for societies. Life-saving drugs, genetic medicine, effective talk therapy, better recommender systems will all serve individuals in a satisfying way. I am concerned, however, that these will create increased dependency and passivity. We already have trends toward better-behaved, less-experimental and less-sexually-active youth. The increased sense that one’s entire life is marked from cradle to grave will create a safer and more productive life, but perhaps one that is a little less low-risk and constrained.”

Kenneth Grady , futurist and founding author of The Algorithmic Society blog, responded, “Fifty years from now today’s notions of privacy will feel as out of date as horse and buggy transportation feels to us. Our homes, transportation, appliances, communication devices and even our clothes will be constantly communicating as part of a digital network. We have enough pieces of this today that we can somewhat imagine what it will be like. Through our clothes, doctors can monitor in real time our vital signs, metabolic condition and markers relevant to specific diseases. Parents will have real-time information about young children. The difference in the future will be the constant sharing of information, data updates and responses of all these interconnected devices. The things we create will interact with us to protect us. Our notions of privacy and even liability will be redefined. Lowering the cost and increasing the effectiveness of health care will require sharing information about how our bodies are functioning. Those who opt out may have to accept palliative hospice care over active treatment. Not keeping track of children real-time may be considered a form of child neglect. Digital will do more than connect our things to each other – it will invade our bodies. Advances in prosthetics, replacement organs and implants will turn our bodies into digital devices. This will create a host of new issues, including defining ‘human’ and where the line exists between that human and the digital universe – if people are always connected, always on are humans now part of the internet?”

Martin Geddes , a consultant specializing in telecommunications strategies, said, “I am optimistic that we will find a new harmony with technology, having been in dissonance for a long time. This will not be due to newfound wisdom or virtue, but due to the collapse of longstanding cultures and structures that are psychopathic in nature, including today’s central banking systems and mass-surveillance systems. The digital and nano/biotech renaissance is only just beginning, and it will in particular transform health care. Our ‘satnav for live’ will help us navigate all daily choices that impact well-being.”

Danil Mikhailov , head of data and innovation for Wellcome Trust, responded, “My view is that the internet and related digital tech such as AI 50 years from now will have mostly positive effects, but only if we manage its development wisely. In health, the pervasiveness of powerful algorithms embedded in mobile tech doing things like monitoring our vitals and cross-referencing with our genetic information, will mean longer and healthier lives and the disappearance of many diseases. Similarly, AI embedded in devices or wearables can be applied to predict and ameliorate many mental health illnesses. However, there is potential for there to be huge inequalities in our societies in the ability of individuals to access such technologies, causing both social disruption and new causes for mental health diseases, such as depression and anxiety. On balance, I am an optimist about the ability of human beings to adjust and develop new ethical norms for dealing with such issues.”

Dan Robitzski , a reporter covering science and technology for Futurism.com, commented, “The powers that be are not the powers that should be. Surveillance technology, especially that powered by AI algorithms, is becoming more powerful and all-present than ever before. But to look at that and say that technology won’t help people is absurd. Medical technology, technology to help people with disabilities, technology that will increase our comfort and abilities as humans will continue to appear and develop.”

Emanuele Torti , a research professor in the computer science department at the University of Pavia, Italy, responded, “The digital revolution will bring benefits in particular for health, providing personalized monitoring through Internet of Things and wearable devices. The AI will analyze those data in order to provide personalized medicine solutions.”

João Pedro Taveira , embedded systems researcher and smart grids architect for INOV INESC Inovação, Portugal, wrote, “The most noticeable change for better in the next 50 years will be in health and average life expectancy. At this pace, and, taking into account the developments in digital technologies, I hope that several discoveries will reduce the risk of death, such as cancer or even death by road accident. New drugs could be developed, increasing the active work age and possibility maintaining the sustainability of countries’ social health care and retirement funds.”

José Estabil , director of entrepreneurship and innovation at MIT’s Skoltech Initiative, commented, “AI, like the electric engine, will affect society in ways that are not linearly forecastable. (For example, the unification of villages through electric engines in subways has created what we know as Paris, London, Moscow and Manhattan). Another area AI can have impact is in creating the framework within genomics, epigenomics and metabolomics can be used to keep people healthy and to intervene when we start to deviate from health. Indeed, with AI we may be able to hack the brain and other secreting cells so that we can auto-generate lifesaving medicines, block unwanted biological processes (e.g., cancer), and coupled to understanding the brain, be able to hack at neurological disorders.”

Jay Sanders , president and CEO of the Global Telemedicine Group, responded, “Haptics will afford the ability to touch/feel at a distance so that in the medical space a physician at one location will literally be able to examine a patient at a distance.”

A director of marketing for a major technology platform company commented, “I was an early user of ARPANET at Carnegie Mellon University, and even then we were able to utilize internet technology to solve human health problems to make citizens’ lives better and improve their access to care and services to improve their health outcomes. The benefits of the internet in the health care industry have continued to improve access to care and services, particularly for elderly, disabled or rural citizens. Digital tools will continue to be integrated into daily life to help the most vulnerable and isolated who need services, care and support. With laws supporting these groups, benefits in these areas will continue and expand to include behavioral health and resources for this group and for others. In the area of behavioral health in particular, digital tools will provide far-reaching benefits to citizens who need services but do not access them directly in person. Access to behavioral health will increase significantly in the next 50 years as a result of more enhanced and widely available digital tools made available to practitioners for delivering care to vulnerable populations, and by minimizing the stigma of accessing this type of care in person. It is a more affordable, personalized and continuous way of providing this type of care that is also more likely to attain adherence.”

The cyborg generation: Humans will partner more directly with technology

Many experts foresaw a future where the integration of technology and the human body would lead to a hybridization of humanity and technology.

Barry Chudakov , founder and principal of Sertain Research and author of “Metalifestream,” commented, “In 50 years the internet will not be a place to access through a device; it will be the all-surrounding ether of actions and intentions as machine intelligence and learning merge with human intelligence. This will be a natural evolution of adopting the logic of our tools and adjusting our lives accordingly. Pathways to digital life will be neural pathways inside our bodies and brains. We will eat our technology. What is now external mediated through devices will become neural, mediated through neural triggers along neural pathways. Having gone (and living) inside us, the merger with our tools and devices will continue to accelerate due to advances in machine learning. Human identity will morph into an open question, an ongoing discussion.”

Sam Lehman-Wilzig , associate professor and former chair of the School of Communication, Bar-Ilan University, Israel, wrote, “Given the huge (and completely unpredicted) changes of the ‘internet’ over the past 50 years, this question demands out-of-the-box thinking, which I will do here. Literally. In my estimation, within the next 50 years the internet will mainly become the platform for brain-to-brain communication, i.e., no keyboard, no voice, no screen, no text or pictures – merely ‘neuronic’ communication (thought transmission) at the speed of light, with internet speeds reaching terabytes per second, if not more than that. This also means that the main ‘content’ will be various forms of full-experience VR, fed directly to our brains by professional content providers – and perhaps (a bit science-fictiony at this stage) from our brains to other brains as well. The consequences of such a ‘hive mind’ communication are difficult (if not impossible) to predict, but certainly it will constitute a radical break with past human society.”

Joaquin Vanschoren , assistant professor of machine learning at Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, responded, “We will be able to interact with each other and the world’s information more directly, without going through web interfaces, maybe using a brain-internet interface. A lot more content will be generated automatically, by AI systems that help us fill in the holes in our knowledge and make it more easily accessible.”

Frank Kaufmann , president of Filial Projects and founder and director of the Values in Knowledge Foundation, said, “Virtually nothing from today’s internet will be recognizable 50 years from now. Connectivity will become ever more ethereal and divorced from devices. Speeds will have exceeded what can any longer be sensed by the human organism. Storage will seem limitless, as it will exceed all possible need. Most connectivity will be integrated into the biological organism.… Tech will enable creative people to create more. It will enable good people to do more good. It will enable lazy people to be more lazy. It will enable bad people to do more bad. It will enable family and social people to be closer and more loving. It will enable lonely and isolated people to become more isolated. It will enable radical advances in all things people do – sports, arts, medicine, science, literature, nature exploration, etc.”

Karen Oates , director of workforce development for La Casea de Esperanza, commented, “At the rate at which technology is evolving, the internet as we currently know it and interact with it will have morphed into something very different. I can see people allowing implants in their bodies so they can connect to whatever the internet becomes – leveraging it as an auxiliary brain. This also, however, opens the door for manipulation and potential control of people. Like anything, technology can be used for good or evil. Much will be dependent on to what extent an individual is willing to sacrifice independence for comfort, security, etc.”

Several other respondents voiced concerns about this future. A law professor based at a U.S. university said, “The book ‘Re-Engineering Humanity’ provides a reasonable description of the slippery, sloped path we’re on and where we seem likely to be heading. The authors’ big concern is that humans will outsource so much of what matters about being human to supposedly smart technical systems that the humans will be little more than satiated automatons.”

David J. Krieger , co-director of the Institute for Communication & Leadership in Lucerne, Switzerland, wrote, “Everything will be ‘personalized’ but not individualized. The European Western paradigm of the free and autonomous individual will no longer be a major cultural force. Network collectivism will be the form in which human existence, now no longer ‘humanist’ will play itself out. There will be no other life than digital life and no one will really have the opportunity to live offline. And if so, then there will probably be a three-class society consisting of the cyborgs, the hybrids and the naturals. This will of course generate new forms of social inequality and conflict.”

Despite the likely drawbacks many respondents see the hybrid future as a strong possibility.

Mike Meyer , a futurist and administrator at Honolulu Community College, commented, “The world in 50 years is likely to be very difficult to imagine or understand in today’s language. The options available will be contingent on many layers of both technology and human adaption that will occur over the next 50 years. This will be true as the steady acceleration of the rate of change continues based loosely on Moore’s Law leading to true quantum computing. Genetic engineering combined with nano components that may also be bioelectronic in nature will allow planetary network communication with implants or, perhaps, full neural lace. The primary distinction will be between those people with full communication plus memory and sensor augmentation versus those who choose not to use artificial components in their bodies. Everyone will use a planetwide network for all communication and process activity whether through augmentation or very small headbands or other options that are not implanted.”

Ray Schroeder , an associate vice chancellor at the University of Illinois, Springfield, wrote, “Connected technologies and applications will become much more seamlessly integrated into people’s lives. Technologies are emerging, such as MIT’s AlterEgo, that point to practical telepathy in which human thought will directly connect with supercomputers – and through those computers with other people. This kind of thought-based communication will become ubiquitous through always-on, omnipresent networks. Personal devices will fade away as direct connectivity becomes ubiquitous. These advances will enable instant virtual ‘learning’ of new ideas and the whole range of literature. One will be able to ‘recall’ a novel or a treatise as if one had studied it for years. Such will be the state of augmented memory. There will be attempts to apply new rules/laws, but technological capability will most often trump artificial restrictions. This will further empower people, by the power of their purchases and choice-to-use to set standards of acceptability and preference.”

David Klann , consultant and software developer at Broadcast Tool & Die, responded, “Further integration of humans and machines is inevitable. More devices will be implanted in us, and more of our minds will be ‘implanted’ in devices. The inevitable ‘Singularity’ will result in changes to humans and will increase the rate of our evolution toward hybrid ‘machines.’ I also believe that new and modified materials will become ‘smart.’ For instance, new materials will be ‘self-aware’ and will be able to communicate problems in order to avoid failure. Ultimately, these materials will become ‘self-healing’ and will be able to harness raw materials to manufacture replacement parts in situ. All these materials, and the things built with them will participate in the connected world. We will see continued blurring of the line between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ life.”

Anonymous respondents predicted:

• “Artificial general intelligence and quantum computing available in a future version of the cloud connected to individual brain augmentation could make us augmented geniuses, inventing our daily lives in a self-actualization economy as the conscious-technology civilization evolves.”
• “There is a probability of technological singularity. So far all the trends lead to it; it is hard to imagine a future in which this does not happen.”
• “Connective symbiosis – human-human, machine-human, human-machine – will continue to thicken.”
• “Implants in humans that continuously connect them to the web will lead to a loss of privacy and the potential for thought control, decline in autonomy.”

Everyone agrees that the world will be putting AI to work

The technology visionaries surveyed described a much different work environment from the current one. They say remote work arrangements are likely to be the rule, rather than the exception, and virtual assistants will handle many of the mundane and unpleasant tasks currently performed by humans.

Ed Lyell , longtime internet strategist and professor at Adams State University, wrote, “If we can change the governance of technology to focus on common good growth and not a division of winner/loser then we can see people having more control over their lives. Imagine that the tough, hard work, dangerous jobs are done by machines guided by computers and AI. We can see the prototype of these in how the U.S. is now fighting wars. The shooting is done by a drone guided by a smart guy/gal working a 9-to-5 job in an air-conditioned office in a nice town. Garbage could be picked up, sorted, recycled, all by robots with AI. Tedious surgery completed by robots and teaching via YouTube would leave the humans to the interesting and exciting cases, not the redoing of same lessons to yet more patients/students. Humans could live well on a 20-hour work week with many weeks of paid vacation. Having a job/career could become a positive, not just a necessity. With 24/7 learning and just-in-time capacity, people could change areas or careers many times with ease whenever they become bored. This positive outcome is possible if we collectively manage the creation and distribution of the tools and access to the use of new emerging tools.”

Jim Spohrer , director of the Cognitive OpenTech Group at IBM Research-Almaden, commented, “Everyone will have hundreds of digital workers working for them. Our cognitive mediators will know us in some ways better than we know ourselves. Better episodic memories and large numbers of digital workers will allow expanded entrepreneurship, lifelong learning and focus on transformation.”

Kyle Rose , principal architect, Akamai Technologies, wrote, “As telepresence and VR become more than research projects or toys, the already small world will shrink further as remote collaboration becomes the norm, resulting in major social changes, among them allowing the recent concentration of expertise in major cities to relax and reducing the relevance of national borders. Furthermore, deep learning and AI-assisted technologies for software development and verification, combined with more abstract primitives for executing software in the cloud, will enable even those not trained as software engineers to precisely describe and solve complex problems. I strongly suspect there will be other, unpredictable disruptive social changes analogous to the freer movement of capital enabled by cryptocurrencies in the last decade.”

David Schlangen , a professor of applied computational linguistics at Bielefeld University, Germany, said, “Physical presence will matter less, as high-bandwidth transmissions will make telepresence (in medicine, in the workplace, in in-person interactions) more viable.”

Ken Goldberg , distinguished chair in engineering, director of AUTOLAB and CITRIS at the University of California, Berkeley, said, “I believe the question we’re facing is not ‘When will machines surpass human intelligence?’ but instead ‘How can humans work together with machines in new ways?’ Rather than worrying about an impending Singularity, I propose the concept of Multiplicity: where diverse combinations of people and machines work together to solve problems and innovate. In analogy with the 1910 High School Movement that was spurred by advances in farm automation, I propose a ‘Multiplicity Movement’ to evolve the way we learn to emphasize the uniquely human skills that AI and robots cannot replicate: creativity, curiosity, imagination, empathy, human communication, diversity and innovation. AI systems can provide universal access to sophisticated adaptive testing and exercises to discover the unique strengths of each student and to help each student amplify his or her strengths. AI systems could support continuous learning for students of all ages and abilities. Rather than discouraging the human workers of the world with threats of an impending Singularity, let’s focus on Multiplicity where advances in AI and robots can inspire us to think deeply about the kind of work we really want to do, how we can change the way we learn and how we might embrace diversity to create myriad new partnerships.”

Kristin Jenkins , executive director of BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, said, “Access to information is enormously powerful, and the internet has provided access to people in a way we have never before experienced. This means that people can learn new skills (how to patch your roof or make bread), assess situations and make informed decisions (learn about a political candidate’s voting record, plan a trip), and teach themselves whatever they want to know from knowledgeable sources. Information that was once accessed through print materials that were not available to everyone and often out of date is now much more readily available to many more people. Ensuring access is another huge issue with internet 2.0/AI. Access to these tools is not guaranteed even within the U.S. – presumably one of the best places in the world to be wired. In many cases, access to current technology in developing areas of the world allows populations to skip expensive intermediate steps and use tools in a way that improves their quality of life.  Ensuring that people all over the world have access to tools that can improve their lives is an important social justice issue.”

Rich Ling , a professor of media technology at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, responded, “In the next 50 years there will be significant changes in the way that we work. The disruption of that will play through to the way people identify themselves and can also be turned into political movements. AI is on the point of eliminating a wide variety of jobs and professions (taxi driver, accountant, law clerk, etc.). At the same time a large portion of our identity often comes from an idealized sense of our work. Witness the notion of being a cowboy. This is a real job for a small number of people, but it is an identity for many. In the same way, there is an identity in being a truck driver, an insurance adjuster, etc. It often does not have the same panache as the idealized version of being a cowboy, but it’s nonetheless an identity. If that is taken away from people it can, in the worst case, lead to populist political movements. I answered that the general trend will be positive, but I expect that it is not a simple path to better lives through the application of IT. There are many social and eventually political issues that will be played out.”

Divina Frau-Meigs , professor of media sociology at Sorbonne Nouvelle University, France, and UNESCO chair for sustainable digital development, responded, “The most important trend to follow is the way game/play will become the new work. Convergence of virtual reality and immersive devices will modify the rules determining how we interact with each other and with knowledge and information in the future. These ‘alternative’ realities will enable more simulations of situations in real life and will be necessary in decision-making every step of our daily lives. We will need to be conscious of the distinction between game and play, to allow for leisure time away from rule-bound game-as-the-new-work. This will be particularly necessary for environmental issues to be solved creatively.”

Estee Beck , assistant professor at the University of Texas and author of “A Theory of Persuasive Computer Algorithms for Rhetorical Code Studies,” responded, “Society will shift toward educating the public on reading and writing code at an accelerated rate. Coding literacy will become part of K-12 curricula to prepare citizens for both STEM-related careers and consumer-oriented DIY solutions of tech problems. On the latter, because of the mass coding literacy spread in primary and secondary schooling, the ‘handyman’ will evolve into a tech tinkerer or handyman 2.0. Already acquainted with basic and intermediate home maintenance of basic lighting, plumbing and painting, the handyman 2.0 will fix code in home appliances, run software updates to modify and personalize processes in the home. The handyman 2.0 might run their own server and develop a self-contained smartphone and security system to protect against internet-related attacks. For those unable or uninterested in being a handyman 2.0, they can hire general and specialized contractors from a new industry of handymen 2.0. This industry – with public and private certifications – will employ hundreds of thousands of laborers and enjoy revenues in the billions.”

Hume Winzar , associate professor and director of the business analytics undergraduate program at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, wrote, “Working and study at a distance will be normalized, so lifestyle options will be wider. We won’t need to live/work/study in a major city to enjoy the best of what is available. Done right, it will expand opportunity for many, too.”

Barrack Otieno , general manager at the Africa Top-Level Internet Domains Organization, wrote, “I expect technology to enhance the work environment. The internet will mostly be used to enhance communication, coordination and collaboration.”

Benjamin Kuipers , a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan, wrote, “In the post-World War II era, many people believed that American society was essentially benevolent, providing opportunities for political, economic and social advancement for individuals and families over decades and generations. This was somewhat true for the majority, but dramatically untrue for many minorities. We may have the opportunity to provide this societal benevolence for everyone in our society. The technological, often digital, tools we are creating have the promise of greatly increasing the resources available in society. While it may be possible to automate some current jobs, people have an intrinsic need for meaningful work. If we can use these new resources to support them, many jobs can be created to provide meaningful work for many people, and to improve the environment for everyone in society. Some examples of such jobs are child and elder care, and creation and maintenance of green spaces ranging from urban parks to rural farms to wilderness environments and many others. A national service requirement for young people gets certain kinds of work done, but also provides training in practical skills and practical responsibility, and also exposes individuals to the diversity of our society. Technological change produces resources that allow new things to be done and reduces certain constraints on what can be done. But we need to learn which goals we should pursue.”

Lane Jennings , a recent retiree who served as managing editor for the World Future Review from 2009 to 2015, wrote, “Entire classes of humans (drivers, construction workers, editors, medical technicians, etc.) are likely to be replaced by AI systems within the next 50 years. Whether individual members of such groups feel their lives have been improved or made worse will vary depending on many factors. Suffice it to say that public support of some kind to give displaced workers the means to live in relative security and comfort is essential. Moreover, this support must be provided in a way that preserves self-respect and promotes optimism and ambition. A world of former workers who perceive themselves as having been prematurely retired while machines provide the goods and services they once supplied seems to me highly unstable. To be happy, or at least contented, people need a purpose beyond simply amusing themselves and passing time pleasantly. One of the major functions of the internet in 2069 may be to facilitate contact between people with skills who want to work and jobs that still need doing in spite of high-tech robots and ubiquitous AI.”

Mark Crowley , an assistant professor expert in machine learning and core member of the Institute for Complexity and Innovation at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, wrote, “Technology affects people asymmetrically. Diseases will be cured with machine learning, profits will rise with automation and artists, engineers and scientists will be able to do more with less time and resources than ever before. However, many people will lose the only jobs they’ve ever known, and many others will feel alienated and left behind. Will society take steps to adapt its social standards? Will education adapt to prepare each generation for the reality ahead rather than focusing on the past? Will we allow people to live, with dignity, their own life, even if rapid technological changes leave them without a job that we would traditionally call ‘useful’ or productive? That depends on politics.”

Josh Calder , a partner at the Foresight Alliance, commented, “Changes will be for the better if the wealth generated by automation is spread equitably, and this will likely require significant changes to economic systems. If wealth concentration is accelerated by automation, the average person could be worse off.”

In 2069 the ‘new normal’ will be …

If the future is to change as dramatically and rapidly as many of the survey respondents believe, the world will see seismic shifts in norms and in what might be considered “normal” life.

Cliff Lynch , director of the Coalition for Networked Information, responded, “Over the next 20 to 30 years I expect to see enormous renegotiation of the social, cultural and political norms involving the digital environment.”

Alistair Nolan a senior policy analyst in the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, wrote, “I speculate that individuals’ interaction with digital technologies will become much more pervasive and intimate than it is already. Digital technology will be used to counter some of the stresses created by economic development and a digital culture. Digital avatars, for example, might provide intelligent company for the old and lonely, coaching those subject to psychological disorders, encouraging and guiding the sedentary to adopt healthier lifestyles, and so on. But changes and societal stresses brought by digital technologies may require a fundamental overhaul of the social contract. A new digital social contract will likely be needed, the specifics of which we cannot be sure now, but the contours of which we see suggested today in proposals ranging from universal basic income to institutionally mandated time free from digital distraction. The hope is that political processes allow our social arrangements to adjust at a pace commensurate with broader technological change, and that dysfunction in political processes is not aggravated by digital technologies. It has been commented that when humankind attempts to take astronauts to Mars the primary challenge will not be technological. Instead, it will be social: namely, the ability of unrelated individuals to live in close confinement for long periods of time. At the level of entire polities, in a similar way, our primary challenge may be living together in civil ways, attending to the full range of human needs, while the technology brings opportunities to carry us forward, or carry us off course.”

Betsy Williams , a researcher at the Center for Digital Society and Data Studies at the University of Arizona, wrote, “Free internet-connected devices will be available to the poor in exchange for carrying around a sensor that records traffic speed, environmental quality, detailed usage logs, and video and audio recordings (depending on state law). There will be secure vote-by-internet capabilities, through credit card or passport verification, with other secure kiosks available at public facilities (police stations, libraries, fire stations and post offices, should those continue to exist in their current form). There will be a movement online to require real-name verification to comment on more reputable sites; however, this will skew participation tremendously toward men, and the requirements will be reversed after a woman is assaulted or killed based on what she typed in a public-interest discussion.”

Pamela Rutledge , director of the Media Psychology Center, responded, “Starting with Generation Z and going forward, internet and 24/7 real-time connectivity will no longer be viewed as a ‘thing’ independent from daily life, but integral, like electricity. This has profound psychological implications about what people assume as normal and establishes baseline expectations for access, response times and personalization of functions and information. Contrary to many concerns, as technology becomes more sophisticated, it will ultimately support the primary human drives of social connectedness and agency. As we have seen with social media, first adoption is noncritical – it is a shiny penny for exploration. Then people start making judgments about the value-add based on their own goals and technology companies adapt by designing for more value to the user – we see that now in privacy settings and the concerns about information quality…. Technology is going to change whether we like it or not – expecting it to be worse for individuals means that we look for what’s wrong. Expecting it to be better means we look for the strengths and what works and work toward that goal. Technology gives individuals more control – a fundamental human need and a prerequisite to participatory citizenship and collective agency. The danger is that we are so distracted by technology that we forget that digital life is an extension of the offline world and demands the same critical, moral and ethical thinking.”

Geoff Livingston , author and futurist, commented, “Technology will become a seamless experience for most people. Only the very poor who cannot afford technology and the very rich who can choose to separate themselves from it will be free from connectedness. When I consider the current AI conversation, I often think the real evolution of sentient beings will be a hybrid connectedness between human and machine. Our very existence and day-to-day experience will be through an augmented experience that features faster thinking and more ethereal pleasures. This brings a question of what is human? Since most of us will be living in a machine-enhanced world, the perspective of human reality will always be in doubt. Most will simply move through their existence without a thought, able to change and alter it with new software packages and algorithms, accepting their reality as the new normal. Indeed, perception will become reality. There will be those who decry the movement forward and wish for yesteryear’s unplugged mind. The counter movement against the internet of 2070 will be significant, and yet much like today’s Luddite, it will find itself in the deep minority. For though the cultural implications will be significant, the internet of 2070 offers the world a much more prosperous and easier life. Most will choose comfort over independence from devices.”

Meryl Alper , an assistant professor of communication at Northeastern University and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, wrote, “Parents will be inundated by non-intuitive, AI-sourced information about their children (e.g., their moods, their behaviors) through the data collected about them in their everyday lives. Parents will face a choice about knowing too much about every single aspect of what their child does and says (be it with them or without them) or not knowing all the details – while being aware that someone else (teachers, doctors, law enforcement) is compiling this information for later determinations of some kind about their child. Parents will ultimately be encouraged to automate this data-intensive parenting, but this itself will create more work for parents (and thus more work for parents to outsource).”

Uta Russmann , professor in the Department of Communication at FHWien der WKW University of Applied Sciences for Management & Communication, warned, “In 50 years every aspect of our life will be connected, organized and hence, partly controlled, as technology platform and applications businesses will take this opportunity. A few global players will dominate the business; smaller companies (startups) will mostly have a chance in the development sector. Many institutions, such as libraries, will disappear – there might be one or two libraries that function as museums to show how it used to be. People who experienced today’s world will definitely value the benefits and amenities they have through technology (human-machine/AI collaboration). If technology becomes part of every aspect of our lives we will have to give up some power and control. People thinking in today’s terms will lose a certain amount of freedom, independency and control over their lives. People born after 2030 will probably just think these technologies produced changes that are mostly for the better. It has always been like this – people have always thought/said ‘in the old days everything was better.’”

Danny Gillane , a netizen from Lafayette, Louisiana, commented, “The content owners will become the platform companies (Disney, Time Warner, etc.), and the platform companies will become the content owners (Comcast, Netflix, etc.). In the U.S., we will give up more privacy to gain more convenience. We will have to choose between paying with our wallets or paying with our personal information in order to keep up with the Joneses. Collaboration and communication will become less personal as more of it will be done through virtual reality and through our devices. The promise of worldwide connection will lessen as Europe places restrictions on tech companies to protect its citizens’ rights, but the U.S. will pass laws to protect shareholders even at the expense of its citizens’ rights. Unless the focus of technology innovation moves away from consumer entertainment and communication products (such as social networks) and more toward medical and scientific advances, we will see fewer people truly benefiting from the internet. The money that fuels America’s politics already fuels its legislative efforts, or lack of, with regard to technology. So, I actually don’t think we’ll see any actual change, unless one considers for-profit companies having an even larger presence in more parts of our lives more often and in more ways.”

Justin Reich , executive director of MIT Teaching Systems Lab and research scientist in the MIT Office of Digital Learning, responded, “The trends toward centralization and monopolization will persist. The free, open internet that represented a set of decentralized connections between idiosyncratic actors will be recognized as an aberration in the history of the internet. Today’s internet giants will probably be the internet giants of 50 years from now. In recent years, they’ve made substantial progress in curtailing innovation through acquisitions and copying. As the industry matures, they will add regulatory capture to their skill sets. For many people around the world, the internet will be a set of narrow portals where they exchange their data for a curtailed set of communication, information and consumer services.”

Michael R. Nelson , a technology policy expert for a leading network services provider who worked as a technology policy aide in the Clinton administration, commented, “We will see more change and disruption in the next 10 years than we have seen in the last 20. If governments and incumbents allow it, we could see twice as much. All we know about 2069 is that data storage, network capacity and tools to turn data into knowledge will be basically unlimited and cost almost nothing. But, we also know that the wisdom needed to use the power of technology will not be available to everyone. And we also know that political forces will try to create scarcity and favor some groups over others. Let us hope that the engineers innovate so fast that consumers have the tools and choices they need to overcome such constraints.”

Guy Levi , chief innovation officer for the Center for Educational Technology, based in Israel, wrote, “Digital tools will be part of our body inside and remotely, and will assist us in decision- making constantly, so it will become second nature. Nonetheless, physical feelings will still be exclusively ‘physical,’ i.e., there will be a significant difference between the ‘sensor-based feelings’ and real body feelings, so human beings will still have some advantages over technology. This, I believe, will last forever. Considering this, physical encounters among people will become more and more important and thus relationships, especially between couples, will prosper. It will be the return of LOVE.”

No need to give it orders – your digital assistant already knows what you want

Many of these experts expect that – despite some people’s worries over privacy issues – digital experiences will be far more personalized in 2069. One likely trend: Instead of having to directly communicate requests to a device, AI-enabled, database-fed digital technologies will anticipate individuals’ needs and provide customized solutions.

Michael Wollowski , associate professor of computer science and software engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, expert in the Internet of Things, diagrammatic systems and artificial intelligence, wrote, “Much of our lives will be automated. Better yet, we will be in control of the degree of automation. Technology will assume the role of a polite personal assistant who will seamlessly bow in and out. Technology based on learned patterns of behavior will arrange many things in our lives and suggest additional options.”

Peter Reiner , professor and co-founder of the National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia, Canada, commented, “The internet will remain a conduit for information about us as well as a tool for us to access information about the world. Whilst many commentators rightly worry about the degree to which apps can know about us today, we are only at the early stages of corporate and governmental surveillance of our inner lives. In 50 years’ time, apps will be remarkably more sophisticated in terms of their knowledge about us as agents – our wants and desires, our objectives and goals. Using that information, they will be able make decisions that align with our personal goals much better than they can do today, and as this happens they will become bona fide extensions of our minds – digital (or as seems likely, quantum-based) information-processing interfaces that are always available and seamlessly integrate with the human cognitive toolkit. These cognitive prostheses will be so much a part of our everyday lives that we will barely notice their existence. Our reliance upon them will be both a strength and a weakness. Our cognitive prowess will substantially expand, but we will feel diminished in their absence.”

David Zubrow , associate director of empirical research at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, said, “Networked devices, data collection and information on demand will become even more ubiquitous. I would hope that better curation of information along with its provenance occurs. The trend of digital assistants that learn your preferences and habits from all the devices that you interact with will become integrated with each other and take on a persona. They may even act on your behalf with a degree of independence in the digital and physical worlds. As AI advances and becomes more independent and the internet becomes the world in which people live and work, laws for responsibility and accountability of the actions of AI will need to be made.”

Daniel Siewiorek , a professor with the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted, “We will all have virtual coaches that learn and grow with us. They will be in communication with the virtual coaches of others, allowing us to learn from the experience of others. For example, my grandfather could teach me how to swing a baseball bat through his virtual coach even though my grandfather passed away before I was born.”

Gary Kreps , distinguished professor of communication and director of the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, wrote, “Future computing systems will be fully integrated into everyday life, easy to access and use, and adaptable to meeting individual preferences and needs. These devices will serve as integrated personal assistants that can intuitively provide users with relevant information and support. There will be no need for typing in requests, since systems will be voice- and perhaps even thought-activated. These systems will adapt to user communication styles and competencies, using familiar and easy to understand messages to users. These messages will be presented both verbally and visually, with the ability to incorporate vivid examples and relevant interesting stories for users. Information content will build upon user preferences, experiences and needs. These personal computing systems will learn about users and adapt to changing user needs, assisting users in accomplishing important tasks and making important decisions. These systems will also automatically network users to relevant personal and professional contacts to facilitate communication as desired by users. The systems will also help users control other forms of technology, such as transportation, communication, health care, educational, occupational, financial, recreational and commercial applications. Care must be taken to program these systems to be responsive to user preferences and needs, easy to use, adaptive to changing conditions and easy for users to control.”

Ian Rumbles , a quality-assurance specialist at North Carolina State University, said, “Fifty years from now the internet will be available to us through us thinking, versus using a keyboard or speaking. The display of data will be visible only to the user and how that display is shown will be totally customized for that user. The ability to obtain answers to questions and look up information in a format that is defined by the user will greatly improve the lives of people.”

More leisure time expected in ‘real life’ and virtual worlds

Could it be true that technology will finally create more free time? Some respondents in this study expect that the evolution of digital technologies will allow for more leisure activities and less “work.” Some predict people may choose to live most of their lives in a virtual reality that lacks the messy authenticity of real life. They also predict that in the widening global media marketplace of the future individuals will have access to a wider range of entertainment options than ever before.

Dan Schultz , senior creative technologist at the Internet Archive, said, “The world is about to have a LOT more time on its hands, a culture-redefining level of newfound time. Governments will need to figure out how to ensure people are compensated for that time in ways that don’t correlate to capitalistic value, and people are going to need creative outlets for their free time. We’re going to need better mental health services; we’re going to need to finally redefine the public education system to shift away from the 19th century factory model. It will either be a golden age for invention, leisure, entertainment and civic involvement, or it will be a dystopia of boredom and unemployment.”

James Gannon , global head of e-compliance for emerging technology, cloud and cybersecurity at Novartis, responded, “In 50 years machine-to-machine communication will have reduced a lot of menial decision-making for the average person. Smart-home technology manages the basic functions of the household, negating the need for many manual labor roles such as cleaners and gardeners. Many services are now delivered remotely such as telehealth and digital therapeutics…. Technology and the internet have already dramatically increased the standard of living for billions of people; this trend will not cease.”

Chao-Lin Liu , a professor at National Chengchi University, Taiwan, commented, “If we can handle the income and work problems, lives will be easier for most due to automation.”

Paola Perez , vice president of the Internet Society chapter in Venezuela and chair of the LACNIC Public Policy Forum, responded, “Technology will make everything in our lives. We won’t drive, we won’t cook. Apps are going to be adapted to all our needs. From the moment we wake up we are going to have technology that cooks for us, drives for us, works for us and suggests ideas for our work. Problems are going to be solved. But all our data is going to be known by everybody, so we won’t have private lives.”

Alex Smith , partner relationship manager at Monster Worldwide, said, “Everything will be centered around saving us time – giving us back more time in our days.”

A professor of communications said, “Simple, mundane tasks will be taken care of by AI, allowing more time for creative thinking, arts, music and literature.”

David Wells , the chief financial officer at Netflix at the time of this canvassing, has an idea for how to fill all of that free time. He predicted, “Continued global connectedness with our entertainment, music and news will mean global popularity of some media with a backdrop of local flavor that may be regional and/or hyper local. 3D visual (virtual) rendering will evolve and become integrated into user interfaces, discovery interfaces along with AI assistants, and will heavily define learning and entertainment.”

Gabor Melli , senior director of engineering for AI and machine learning for Sony PlayStation, responded, “By 2070, most people will willingly spend most of their lives in an augmented virtual reality. The internet and digital life will be extraordinary and partially extraplanetary. Innovations that will dramatically amplify this trajectory are unsupervised machine learning, fusion power and the wildcard of quantum computing.”

Valarie Bell , a computational social scientist at the University of North Texas, commented, “While the gadgets and tools we may have in the future may result in more conveniences, like when ovens turned into microwaves, we find with technology that we trade quality and uniqueness for convenience and uniformity. What tastes better and provides a better experience? The homemade chocolate cake Grandma made from scratch with attention to great ingredients and to baking the cake until it’s perfectly moist OR the microwaved chocolate-cake-for-one? The microwave cake takes less than 10 minutes and you simply add water, but Grandma’s cake is not over-processed, and you taste the real butter, real vanilla, real chocolate instead of powdered butter flavoring and powdered chocolate substitute. Technology will bring us things faster, perhaps even cheaper, but not necessarily better.”

Michel Grossetti , a sociologist expert in systems and director of research at CNRS, the French national science research center, wrote, “The boundaries between private life and work or public life will continue to blur.”

Social connections, community and collaboration will be improved

Some experts expect that digital advances will lead to better communication among disparate groups, resulting in stronger interpersonal relationships and positive community development. A number of respondents said that physical barriers to communication and community building will mostly disappear over the next half century. They are hopeful that greater connectivity will lead to better collaboration in response to major world problems, more equitable distributions of wealth and power and easier access to information and resources.

Tomas Ohlin , longtime professor at Linköping and Stockholm universities in Sweden, predicted, “AI will exist everywhere. The internet will, after a few decades, be replaced by a more value-added surface on top of our present system. Its governing will be truly decentralized, with participation from many. Cultural differences will exist on this surface, with borders that will differ from the present. However, there will not be as many borders as today; this new information society is a society with flexible borders. Human beings are friendly, and the world we create reflects this. Communication and contact between everybody is a fundamental and positive resource that will lead to fewer conflicts.”

Bryan Alexander , futurist and president of Bryan Anderson Consulting, responded, “I’m convinced we’ll see individuals learn how to use technologies more effectively, and that collectively we’ll learn how to reduce harm.”

Charles Zheng , a researcher into machine learning and AI with the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, commented, “Life will not qualitatively change much for people in the middle and upper classes of society. The biggest impact will be to the lower classes, and will mostly be positive. The increase in information gathering in all levels of society will also improve the efficiency of social welfare programs. Access to information becomes democratized as cities start offering free, basic Wi-Fi and the government hosts AI educational programs which can teach young people how to find jobs and access public resources. The increase in networking also makes … social nonprofits more effective at helping the disadvantaged. Government accountability is also improved now that people at all levels of society can leave reviews about government services online.”

Craig Mathias , principal at Farpoint Group, an advisory firm specializing in wireless networking and mobile computing, commented, “Civilization itself centers on and thus depends upon communication of all forms. The more we communicate, the better the opportunities for peace and prosperity on a global basis. It would be difficult to imagine communications without the internet, now and especially in the future.”

Gene Crick , director of the Metropolitan Austin Interactive Network and longtime U.S. community telecommunications expert, wrote, “Genuine universal technology access has become a vital issue for every community. AI/IT can make powerful tools, resources and opportunities available to anyone interested. To help rhetoric become reality, we could adopt and insist on a few fundamental principles, including standards for openness and accountability. How? Just a notion but perhaps a modernized version of the National Science Foundation internet administration transfer two decades ago.  Though the outcome was far from pretty, those who participated felt we got the job done. Today’s improved communications tools could make possible a much simpler, more widespread ‘grassroots’ discussion and decision process.”

Liz Rykert , president at Meta Strategies, a consultancy that works with technology and complex organizational change, responded, “We will see more and more integration of tools that support accountability. An early example of this is the use of body cams by police. The internet will let us both monitor and share data and images about what is happening, whether it is a devastating impact of climate change or an eventful incident of racism. Continued access to tools of accountability and access to knowledge and collaborative opportunities will support people to be both bold and collaborative as they seek new solutions. The internet will be the base to support these efforts as well as the platform that will continue to serve as the means for how we will work together to respond to problems either urgent (like a flood or fire) or longer-term like solving problems like affordable housing.”

Matt Belge , founder and president of Vision & Logic, said, “Humanity has always strived to be connected to other humans, and writing, publishing, art and education were all efforts to serve this desire. This desire is so deeply seated, this desire for connection, that it will drive everything we do. Privacy will become less of a concern and transparency will become more of the norm in the next 50 years. Therefore, I expect technology to enable deeper and more personal connections with fewer secrets and greater openness. Specifically, AI will help people with like interests work together, form deeper relationships and collaborate on advancing our entire species. I believe humans are always striving for more and more connection with other humans and technology is evolving in ways to facilitated this.”

Sam Ladner , a former UX researcher for Amazon and Microsoft, now an adjunct professor at Ontario College of Art & Design, wrote, “We will continue to see a melding of digital and analog ‘selves,’ in which humans will now consider their digital experiences less and less divorced from their face-to-face experiences. Face-to-face social connections will become ever more precious, and ever more elusive. Having an ‘in real life’ relationship will be a commodity to be exploited and a challenge to keep. Physical experiences will increasingly be infused with digital ‘backchannel’ experiences, such as an ongoing digital conversation either in text, images or VR, while the physical event carries on. Likewise, IRL (in real-life) events will become even more exclusive, expensive and a source of cultural capital. Isolated people will fail to see their isolation before it reaches a desperate point, because collectively, we will fail to see physical connections as a key ingredient to ward off loneliness. Loneliness will take on a new meaning; digital friends will assist some isolated people, but loneliness will focus more on lack of human touch, and face-to-face eye contact. New medical disorders will emerge, based on this social withdrawal, and given the aging demographic, a public policy crisis will overwhelm nation-states’ budgets and capabilities. Lonely, aging, physically infirm people may find relief in online forums of all sorts, but we will be surprised to learn what a total absence of IRL interaction will yield.”

Peggy Lahammer , director of health/life sciences at Robins Kaplan LLP and legal market analyst, commented, “Historically access to natural resources, with limited intelligence on how to best use those resources, provided the means to survive and prosper. As we continue to become more specialized in our expertise and less skilled in many tasks required to survive, we are more dependent on others with specialized talents. I believe the internet and a connected world have fueled this transformation and will continue to do so in the next 50 years. The internet will continue to connect people around the globe and cause instability in areas where people have limited resources, information or specialized skills necessary to thrive.”

Bert Huang , an assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science at Virginia Tech focused on machine learning, wrote, “I believe the internet can meet the promise of helping people connect to all of humanity. The main concern I see with the internet is that it plays counter to human intuitions about scale. When humans see thousands of like-minded individuals on the internet, it is too easy to believe that those thousands of people represent all of humanity. One promise of the internet is that it would allow people to interact with, and learn from, individuals with widely different backgrounds, unifying the human species in way that was previously impossible. Unfortunately, the more recent effect has apparently been that people are further entrenched in their own narrow views because they are surrounded on the internet with inconceivably large numbers of people sharing their own views. These large numbers make it difficult for people to fathom that other valid views exist. I believe technology can and will help alleviate this problem.”

A technical information science professional commented, “The daily living ‘operations’ will change drastically from today – how we work, how we take care of family, how we ‘commute’ from place to place, how we entertain and so on. However, the fundamental of living, creating and maintaining meaningful relationships with others will be more dominant focus of our lives, and those concerns and efforts will not change.”

Several of the expert respondents who said they believe humanity will be better off in the future thanks to digital life said that in 50 years individuals will have greater autonomy and more control over their personal data.

Eileen Donahoe , executive director of the Global Digital Policy Incubator at Stanford University, commented, “I envision a dramatic change in terms of how we think about people’s ownership and control of their own data. People’s data will be seen as a valuable commodity and platforms will arise to facilitate data sovereignty for individuals. If we move toward development and deployment of platforms and systems that allow individuals autonomy to choose when and where they exchange their data for goods and services, this will constitute an important positive step toward wider distribution of the benefits of a data-driven society.”

Greg Lloyd , president and co-founder at Traction Software, responded, “The next 50 years will see performance of hardware, storage and bandwidth increase and cost decrease at a rate no less than the past 50 years. This means that the resources available to any person – at the cost of a current smartphone and network subscription – will be close to the resources supporting a Google regional center. This will turn the advertising supported and privacy invasive economic model of the current internet on its head, making it possible for anyone to afford dedicated, private and secure resources to support a Prospero and Ariel-like world of certified and secure services. That people agreed to grant access to their most private resources and actions to platform companies in order to support use of subsidized internet services will become as oddly amusing as the fact that people once earned their living as flagpole sitters. Your smartphone and its personal AI services will be exactly that: your property, which you pay for and use with confidence. When you use certified agents or services, you’ll have choices ranging from free (routine commerce, public library or government services) to fabulously expensive (the best legal minds, most famous pop stars, bespoke design and manufacturing of any artifacts, membership in the most exclusive ‘places’). In all cases your personal smartphone (or whatever it turns into) will help you negotiate enforceable contracts for these services, monitor performance and provide evidence any case of dispute. Think Apple with a smart lawyer, accountant, friend and adviser in your smartphone, not Facebook becoming Silicon Valley’s version of Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil.’”

James Scofield O’Rourke , a professor of management at the University of Notre Dame specializing in reputation management, commented, “I foresee two large applications of digital connections such as the internet over the next half century. First, I see access to information, processes and expertise that would either be delayed or inaccessible today. Second, I see a much larger degree of autonomy for the individual. This could mean everything from driverless trucks, automobiles and other vehicles to individual control over our immediate environment, our assets and possessions, and our ability to choose. In exchange, of course, the notion of privacy will virtually disappear.”

R “Ray” Wang , founder and principal analyst at Silicon Valley-based Constellation Research, said, “The new internet can also be a place where we decentralize human rights, enabling an individual to protect their data privacy and stay free. Keep in mind privacy is not dead. It’s up to us as a society to enforce these human rights.”

Susan Aaronson , a research professor of international affairs and cross-disciplinary fellow at George Washington University, responded, “I admit to being a techno optimist. I believe that true entrepreneurs ‘see’ areas/functions that need improvements and will utilize technologies in ways that make it easier for, as an example, the blind to see.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Emerging Technology
• Future of the Internet (Project)
• Internet of Things
• Online Privacy & Security

A quarter of U.S. teachers say AI tools do more harm than good in K-12 education

Many americans think generative ai programs should credit the sources they rely on, americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, q&a: how we used large language models to identify guests on popular podcasts, computer chips in human brains: how americans view the technology amid recent advances, most popular, report materials.

• Shareable quotes from experts about the next 50 years of digital life

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Feeling loved in everyday life linked with improved well-being

Poets and songwriters may tend to focus their artistry on passion and romance, but it may be those unsung, brief feelings of love throughout the day that are connected with psychological well-being, according to a team of researchers led by two Penn State Institute for Computational and Data Sciences (ICDS) researchers. They added that the findings could one day lead to interventions aimed at boosting well-being.

In two studies, the researchers found that people who experienced higher "felt love" -- brief experiences of love and connection in everyday life -- also had significantly higher levels of psychological well-being, which includes feelings of purpose and optimism, compared to those who had lower felt love scores. They also found that people with higher felt love tended to have higher extraversion personality scores, while people with lower felt love scores were more likely to show signs of neuroticism.

"We took a very broad approach when we looked at love," said Zita Oravecz, assistant professor of human development and family studies and ICDS faculty co-hire. "Everyday felt love is conceptually much broader than romantic love. It's those micro-moments in your life when you experience resonance with someone. For example, if you're talking to a neighbor and they express concern for your well-being, then you might resonate with that and experience it as a feeling of love, and that might improve your well-being."

According to the researchers, the baseline of the subjects' felt love experiences, in general, rose throughout the study, suggesting that the nudges to recognize examples of love and connection during the study may also have gradually increased the subjects' overall sense of being loved. Stronger experiences of felt love, in turn, are associated with improvements in psychological well-being.

"It's something that we've seen in the literature on mindfulness, when people are reminded to focus attention on positive things, their overall awareness of those positive things begins to rise," said Oravecz. "Similarly, just by paying attention to those everyday moments of felt love, we may also increase our awareness of the overall positive aspects of love in our daily lives. This effect replicates in both studies, implying that raising awareness of felt love in day-to-day life may itself be an intervention that raises levels of felt love over a longer period of time."

The researchers, who report their findings in the current issue of Personality and Individual Differences , added that because the studies have only shown a correlation between felt love and well-being, more research would be needed to establish a causal relationship. If a firmer connection is established, the researchers said possible interventions could be designed, such as sending regular reminders to a person's smartphone to draw attention to the felt love that they may be experiencing in that moment to raise psychological well-being. Similar interventions have been designed for mindfulness and gratitude.

The team relied on smartphone technology to gather data from participants throughout their everyday lives. In the first study, they recruited 52 people of various ages. The second study consisted of 160 undergraduate students. Participants received six random prompts throughout the day over a four-week period to assess felt love and well-being, according to Timothy Brick, assistant professor of human development and family studies and ICDS co-hire. He added that sending these messages randomly throughout the day was critical to manage the possible effects of expectation bias.

"It's important from a research point-of-view," said Brick. "If the participants expect a call or a text at a certain time of day, they are no longer reacting to what's going on in their daily life, but are expecting the prompt and reacting to that expectation."

Gathering data multiple times throughout the day from more than 200 subjects over a month can produce a lot of data, said Brick. Also, these everyday experiences of love tend to fluctuate during the study, which can result in what the researchers termed "noisy" data.

"It's often very difficult to measure psychological quantities because we don't always have a great idea about what's going on in our own heads," said Brick.

Oravecz added, "But with the right statistical methods, we can start to get at questions about difficult constructs like love or compassion, and hopefully build interventions to promote them."

To analyze this large amount of noisy data, the researchers used nuanced statistical tools. According to Oravecz, the researchers specifically used a Bayesian latent stochastic differential equations model to cut through the noise in the data and identify processes happening underneath. This method is especially suited to help scientists investigate intricate social systems, which often involve relationships that generate complex, highly variable data, she said.

According to the researchers, this statistical method may be used more as social scientists begin to gather large amounts of real-world data from sensors on wearable devices. The researchers used computational resources of ICDS's advanced computer infrastructure for their analysis.

The team also included Jessica Dirsmith, clinical assistant professor of education, Duquesne University; Saeideh Heshmati, assistant professor of psychology, Claremont Graduate University; and Joachim Vandekerckhove, associate professor of cognitive sciences, University of California Irvine.

This research was supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

• Social Psychology
• Relationships
• Intelligence
• Child Development
• Spirituality
• Learning Disorders
• Platonic love
• Intellectual giftedness
• Maternal bond
• Post-traumatic stress disorder

Story Source:

Materials provided by Penn State . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Zita Oravecz, Jessica Dirsmith, Saeideh Heshmati, Joachim Vandekerckhove, Timothy R. Brick. Psychological well-being and personality traits are associated with experiencing love in everyday life . Personality and Individual Differences , 2020; 153: 109620 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109620

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Future Climate Impacts Put Whale Diet at Risk
• Charge Your Laptop in a Minute?
• Caterpillars Detect Predators by Electricity
• 'Electronic Spider Silk' Printed On Human Skin
• Engineered Surfaces Made to Shed Heat
• Innovative Material for Sustainable Building
• Human Brain: New Gene Transcripts
• Epstein-Barr Virus and Resulting Diseases
• Origins of the Proton's Spin
• Symbiotic Bacteria Communicate With Plants

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Study reveals the hidden ways math helps us in everyday life

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A psychological intervention implemented to help students cope and learn more in a tough statistics course did more than just help them in the class, a new study found.

Researchers found the intervention helped students improve their math literacy – what scientists call ‘numeracy’ – which was vital for success in the course.

But it also helped the intervention students, compared to students who did not get the intervention, demonstrate better financial literacy and make better health-related decisions during the semester they took the course, findings revealed.

“Improved math skills helped these students outside of class,” said Ellen Peters, lead author of the study and professor of psychology at The Ohio State University.

“This study showed that knowing how to use numbers is important for everyone, even if you think you’re not using math. Numeracy helps people in their everyday lives.”

The  study appears in the journal PLOS ONE .

The study involved 221 students enrolled in an undergraduate psychology statistics course at Ohio State that is required for all psychology majors.

“Many students are not huge fans of the class because of the math involved, but it is a requirement,” said Peters, who is director of the Decision Sciences Collaborative at Ohio State.

The researchers wanted to see if a psychological intervention called values affirmation could help students succeed in the class by making them more comfortable dealing with the math that may intimidate them. The hope was that this would have a snowball effect, helping students in other areas of their life where numeracy is important.

Values affirmation has been shown in other studies to be helpful in a variety of educational situations.

Students first completed the values affirmation exercise near the beginning of the course. They were given a list of six values (including relationships with family and friends, spiritual/religious values and science/pursuit of knowledge) and asked to rank them in importance to themselves personally.

Half the students affirmed their values by spending 10 to 15 minutes writing why their most important value was meaningful to them.

The other half of the students, the study’s control group, took their least important value and wrote about why it might be meaningful for someone else.

The students repeated the exercise a second time right before their first exam.

This simple exercise had some impressive positive effects. The researchers found that students who participated in the values affirmation did significantly better on a test of their objective numeracy skills at the end of the course compared to their scores at the beginning. The students in the control group did not see improved scores.

Students also completed a questionnaire at the beginning and the end of the course that measured how good they thought they were at math and how much they preferred numbers over words. Results showed that students who completed the values affirmation showed no change in this subjective numeracy measure from the beginning to the end.

Researchers saw that lack of change as a positive development because those in the control group showed declines in how good they thought they were by the end of the course, presumably because of the stress and difficulties they faced in the statistics class.

While it may seem strange that a psychological intervention could help improve math skills, other studies have shown similar results. The key is that values affirmation reminds students of who they are and what is important to them in life. That, in turn, is thought to make them less stressed out about the math requirements and help them achieve some early successes in class, Peters said.

Those early successes then give students something to build on. “It has a snowball effect. Values affirmation is thought to help students get some early wins in class. That leads them to try harder and get more achievements and it creates a cycle of success,” Peters said.

The success in improving numeracy was important. But Peters said she was most interested in seeing if a boost in the students’ math literacy could help them in the real world. And the research found that it did.

Results showed that the better numeracy scores seen with the values affirmation led to students scoring higher on a financial literacy test. In addition, these students showed better health-related behaviors, intentions and habits (such as avoiding cigarettes and practicing safe sex) over the course of the class.

In contrast, students in the control group showed declines in both financial literacy and health behaviors from the beginning to the end of the semester, Peters said.

“We were able to show that numeric ability really matters outside of class. Math isn’t just for people who want a STEM career. It is for all of us,” she said.

Researchers also found that students who did the values affirmation exercise and showed better numeracy received better grades in the statistics class, had stronger intentions to take future math classes, and actually took more math classes in their college career. These results were correlational, however, and without a total effect of the intervention on these positive results so that the researchers couldn’t prove that values affirmation was the cause.

The researchers also examined whether the values affirmation and improved numeracy would improve financial outcomes, such as whether the students had an emergency fund. Similar correlational results were found, without a total effect, and Peters said more research is needed on this issue.

How can stronger numeracy skills help students make better health and financial decisions? While the answer to that question is beyond the scope of this study, Peters said evidence suggests people who are better at numbers also have a stronger understanding of probability and are less influenced by emotions in the moment. This helps them better understand the personal risk involved in health decisions such as smoking or having unprotected sex, so they make better choices.

Numbers are an important part of financial literacy and help people understand how mortgages and credit-card debt work, so it is not surprising that math skills help in this regard, she said.

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Other co-authors from Ohio State’s Department of Psychology were Brittany Shoots-Reinhard, Mary Kate Tompkins, Louise Meilleur, Aleksander Sinayev, Martin Tusler, Laura Wagner and Jennifer Crocker. Dan Schley, a former Ohio State graduate student now at Erasmus University, was also a co-author.

Contact: Admissions | Webmaster | Page maintained by University Communications

Request an alternate format of this page | Web Services Status | Nondiscrimination notice

Davos 2023: Eight ways technology will impact our lives in the future

The next generation will live a very different life to us, thanks to technology. Image:  Pexels/ThisIsEngineering

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Julie Masiga

Natalie marchant.

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} The Metaverse is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, tech and innovation.

Listen to the article

• Technology will be a vital tool for creating a cleaner, safer and more inclusive world, but what changes can we expect to see?
• Panelists on the Technology for a More Resilient World session at Davos discussed future trends and developments in tech.
• Be it the metaverse, smart glasses or large language models, the world as we know it may never be quite as we first imagined it.

Technology can be an important tool in the transition to a cleaner, safer and more inclusive world. But what strategic opportunities are there for technology to be an accelerator of progress and how is it likely to affect the next generation?

Leaders gathered on day two of Davos to talk about how technology and platforms will change the world, what tech trends and developments we’re likely to see, and even provide a glimpse into what our grandchildren can expect in future.

The Technology for a More Resilient World session featured Nicholas Thompson, CEO, The Atlantic; Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman, Bharti Enterprises; Arvind Krishna, Chairman and CEO, IBM Corporation; Julie Sweet, Chair and CEO, Accenture; and Cristiano Amon, President and CEO, Qualcomm Incorporated.

Here’s a selection of what they had to say:

1. Technology is boosting productivity

Businesses are increasingly looking to digitally transform their operations amid an incredible demand for things to be more intelligent and connected, says Cristiano Amon , President and CEO of Qualcomm Incorporated. “I think technology right now, probably more than ever – especially when we talk about the current economic environment – we see that there is this desire of companies to digitally transform and use technology to become more efficient and more productive,” he said.

2. Glasses will overtake mobile phones

The future of computing will become virtual as computing platforms continue to evolve – just as it evolved from personal computers to mobile phones, says Amon . What we now know as the video call, particularly post-COVID, will soon become a holographic image in front of you seen through smart glasses.

“The technology trend is the merging of physical and digital spaces. I think that’s going to be the next computing platform and eventually, it’s going to be as big as phones. We should think about that happening within the decade,” he adds.

Have you read?

How to follow davos 2023, we are closing the gap between technology and policy, 3. the rise of quantum computing.

Quantum computing won’t replace classical computing but it will begin to solve problems in the physical world - materials, chemistry, encryption and optimization problems - within a few years, according to Arvind Krishna , Chairman and CEO, IBM Corporation. Indeed, quantum computing is already so good you may want to think about it now. “I would strongly urge everybody to invest in quantum-proof decryption now for any data, that you really, really care about,” he advises.

4. 5G will create lots more use cases

5G will create a lot of new use cases including drone management, robotic surgery and autonomous vehicles, says Sunil Bharti Mittal , Chairman, Bharti Enterprises. Industrial applications will particularly benefit due to their larger capacity. “In the meanwhile, people will get used to better connections, higher speeds, and lower latency for their regular devices as well,” he adds, before warning: “It’s going to cost a lot of money.”

5. ChatGPT-like tech will become the norm

Large language models will become a given because they lower the cost of artificial intelligence (AI) by allowing you to have multiple models over one base, giving you a speed advantage, says Krishna . “Beyond language is going to be a given, language because code can be a form of language and then you can go to, ‘what else can be a form of language?’ Legal documents, regulatory work etc,” he adds.

6. Great things will need good data

The recent excitement around ChatGPT has demonstrated the potential of having large amounts of data and the great things you do with it, but it has also highlighted the need for ‘good’ data, says Julie Sweet , Chair and CEO, Accenture. “We love what’s going on right now, with everyone talking about it. Because in many cases people have been doubters about why you need to have really clean data connecting to external data, use these then foundational models on specific use cases – a lot is going to be in digital manufacturing, in agriculture, industrial use cases – and it reminds everyone you have to get the data right.”

7. The metaverse is evolving very quickly

The metaverse is evolving faster than expected because it taps into human need while also creating something new, observes Sweet . “With human need, what we’ve discovered is that when you immerse yourself in an experience together, you learn better and you can also do things better,” she says. “We estimate there will be $1 trillion of revenue influenced by the metaverse by 2025.”

8. We will see a democratization of services

Our grandchildren will live in a very different world thanks to the democratization of products and services that are currently only available to the elite or wealthy, predicts Mittal . “Sitting like this, in the metaverse, you’ll probably have a few million people join from around the world, to experience what we’re experiencing today,” he says. “You’re going to see the benefit of technology really impacting people’s lives on a daily basis, and they will live a very different life to us.”

Watch the full session here .

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Forum Institutional .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Institutional update

World Economic Forum

May 21, 2024

Reflections from MENA at the #SpecialMeeting24

Maroun Kairouz

May 3, 2024

Day 2 #SpecialMeeting24: Key insights and what to know

Gayle Markovitz

April 28, 2024

Day 1 #SpecialMeeting24: Key insights and what just happened

April 27, 2024

#SpecialMeeting24: What to know about the programme and who's coming

Mirek Dušek and Maroun Kairouz

Climate finance: What are debt-for-nature swaps and how can they help countries?

Kate Whiting

April 26, 2024

There are many options for what to drink , but water is the best choice for most people who have access to safe drinking water. It is calorie-free and as easy to find as the nearest tap.

Water helps to restore fluids lost through metabolism, breathing, sweating, and the removal of waste. It helps to keep you from overheating, lubricates the joints and tissues, maintains healthy skin, and is necessary for proper digestion. It’s the perfect zero-calorie beverage for quenching thirst and rehydrating your body.

How Much Water Do I Need?

Water is an essential nutrient at every age, so optimal hydration is a key component for good health. Water accounts for about 60% of an adult’s body weight. We drink fluids when we feel thirst, the major signal alerting us when our body runs low on water. We also customarily drink beverages with meals to help with digestion. But sometimes we drink not based on these factors but on how much we think we should be drinking. One of the most familiar sayings is to aim for “8 glasses a day,” but this may not be appropriate for every person.

General recommendations

• The National Academy of Medicine suggests an adequate intake of daily fluids of about 13 cups and 9 cups for healthy men and women, respectively, with 1 cup equaling 8 ounces. [1] Higher amounts may be needed for those who are physically active or exposed to very warm climates. Lower amounts may be needed for those with smaller body sizes. It’s important to note that this amount is not a daily target, but a general guide. In the average person, drinking less will not necessarily compromise one’s health as each person’s exact fluid needs vary, even day-to-day.
• Fever, exercise, exposure to extreme temperature climates (very hot or cold), and excessive loss of body fluids (such as with vomiting or diarrhea) will increase fluid needs.
• The amount and color of urine can provide a rough estimate of adequate hydration. Generally the color of urine darkens the more concentrated it is (meaning that it contains less water). However, foods, medications, and vitamin supplements can also change urine color. [1] Smaller volumes of urine may indicate dehydration, especially if also darker in color.
• Alcohol can suppress anti-diuretic hormone, a fluid-regulating hormone that signals the kidneys to reduce urination and reabsorb water back into the body. Without it, the body flushes out water more easily. Enjoying more than a couple of drinks within a short time can increase the risk of dehydration, especially if taken on an empty stomach. To prevent this, take alcohol with food and sips of water.
• Although caffeine has long been thought to have a diuretic effect, potentially leading to dehydration, research does not fully support this. The data suggest that more than 180 mg of caffeine daily (about two cups of brewed coffee) may increase urination in the short-term in some people, but will not necessarily lead to dehydration. Therefore, caffeinated beverages including coffee and tea can contribute to total daily water intake. [1]

Keep in mind that about 20% of our total water intake comes not from beverages but from water-rich foods like lettuce, leafy greens, cucumbers, bell peppers, summer squash, celery, berries, and melons.

Aside from including water-rich foods, the following chart is a guide for daily water intake based on age group from the National Academy of Medicine:

Preventing Dehydration: Is Thirst Enough?

As we age, however, the body’s regulation of fluid intake and thirst decline. Research has shown that both of these factors are impaired in the elderly. A Cochrane review found that commonly used indicators of dehydration in older adults (e.g., urine color and volume, feeling thirsty) are not effective and should not be solely used. [3] Certain conditions that impair mental ability and cognition, such as a stroke or dementia, can also impair thirst. People may also voluntarily limit drinking due to incontinence or difficulty getting to a bathroom. In addition to these situations, research has found that athletes, people who are ill, and infants may not have an adequate sense of thirst to replete their fluid needs. [2] Even mild dehydration may produce negative symptoms, so people who cannot rely on thirst or other usual measures may wish to use other strategies. For example, aim to fill a 20-ounce water bottle four times daily and sip throughout the day, or drink a large glass of water with each meal and snack.

Symptoms of dehydration that may occur with as little as a 2% water deficit:

• Confusion or short-term memory loss
• Mood changes like increased irritability or depression

Dehydration can increase the risk of certain medical conditions:

• Urinary tract infections
• Kidney stones
• Constipation  

Like most trends of the moment, alkaline water has become popular through celebrity backing with claims ranging from weight loss to curing cancer. The theory behind alkaline water is the same as that touting the benefits of eating alkaline foods, which purportedly counterbalances the health detriments caused by eating acid-producing foods like meat, sugar, and some grains.

From a scale of 0-14, a higher pH number is alkaline; a lower pH is acidic. The body tightly regulates blood pH levels to about 7.4 because veering away from this number to either extreme can cause negative side effects and even be life-threatening. However, diet alone cannot cause these extremes; they most commonly occur with conditions like uncontrolled diabetes, kidney disease, chronic lung disease, or alcohol abuse.

Alkaline water has a higher pH of about 8-9 than tap water of about 7, due to a higher mineral or salt content. Some water sources can be naturally alkaline if the water picks up minerals as it passes over rocks. However, most commercial brands of alkaline water have been manufactured using an ionizer that reportedly separates out the alkaline components and filters out the acid components, raising the pH. Some people add an alkaline substance like baking soda to regular water.

Scientific evidence is not conclusive on the acid-alkaline theory, also called the acid-ash theory, stating that eating a high amount of certain foods can slightly lower the pH of blood especially in the absence of eating foods supporting a higher alkaline blood pH like fruits, vegetables, and legumes. Controlled clinical trials have not shown that diet alone can significantly change the blood pH of healthy people. Moreover, a direct connection of blood pH in the low-normal range and chronic disease in humans has not been established.

BOTTOM LINE: If the idea of alkaline water encourages you to drink more, then go for it! But it’s likely that drinking plain regular water will provide similar health benefits from simply being well-hydrated—improved energy, mood, and digestive health

Is It Possible To Drink Too Much Water?

There is no Tolerable Upper Intake Level for water because the body can usually excrete extra water through urine or sweat. However, a condition called water toxicity is possible in rare cases, in which a large amount of fluids is taken in a short amount of time, which is faster than the kidney’s ability to excrete it. This leads to a dangerous condition called hyponatremia in which blood levels of sodium fall too low as too much water is taken. The excess total body water dilutes blood sodium levels, which can cause symptoms like confusion, nausea, seizures, and muscle spasms. Hyponatremia is usually only seen in ill people whose kidneys are not functioning properly or under conditions of extreme heat stress or prolonged strenuous exercise where the body cannot excrete the extra water. Very physically active people such as triathletes and marathon runners are at risk for this condition as they tend to drink large amounts of water, while simultaneously losing sodium through their sweat. Women and children are also more susceptible to hyponatremia because of their smaller body size.

Fun Flavors For Water  

Infused water

Instead of purchasing expensive flavored waters in the grocery store, you can easily make your own at home. Try adding any of the following to a cold glass or pitcher of water:

• Sliced citrus fruits or zest (lemon, lime, orange, grapefruit)
• Crushed fresh mint
• Peeled, sliced fresh ginger or sliced cucumber
• Crushed berries

Sparkling water with a splash of juice

Sparkling juices may have as many calories as sugary soda. Instead, make your own sparkling juice at home with 12 ounces of sparkling water and just an ounce or two of juice. For additional flavor, add sliced citrus or fresh herbs like mint.

TIP: To reduce waste, reconsider relying on single-use plastic water bottles and purchase a colorful 20-32 ounce refillable water thermos that is easy to wash and tote with you during the day. 

Are seltzers and other fizzy waters safe and healthy to drink?

BOTTOM LINE: Carbonated waters, if unsweetened, are safe to drink and a good beverage choice. They are not associated with health problems that are linked with sweetened, carbonated beverages like soda.

• Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is a member of the Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network’s (NOPREN) Drinking Water Working Group. A collaborative network of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the NOPREN Drinking Water Working Group focuses on policies and economic issues regarding free and safe drinking water access in various settings by conducting research and evaluation to help identify, develop and implement drinking-water-related policies, programs, and practices. Visit the network’s website to access recent water research and evidence-based resources.
• The Harvard Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity provides tools and resources for making clean, cold, free water more accessible in environments like schools and afterschool programs, as well as tips for making water more tasty and fun for kids.
• The National Academy of Sciences. Dietary References Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate. https://www.nap.edu/read/10925/chapter/6#102 Accessed 8/5/2019.
• Millard-Stafford M, Wendland DM, O’Dea NK, Norman TL. Thirst and hydration status in everyday life. Nutr Rev . 2012 Nov;70 Suppl 2:S147-51.
• Hooper L, Abdelhamid A, Attreed NJ, Campbell WW, Channell AM, et al. Clinical symptoms, signs and tests for identification of impending and current water-loss dehydration in older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Apr 30;(4):CD009647.

Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

Daily fibre supplement could help brain function in over-60s

A daily fibre supplement could help improve brain function in over 60-year-olds in only 12 weeks, research suggests.

The study showed that the simple and cheap addition of prebiotics – plant fibres that help healthy bacteria grow in your gut – to a person’s diet can improve performance in memory tests associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease .

However, the supplements – inulin and fructooligosaccharides (FOS) – were found to have no effect on muscle strength over the three months.

Dr Mary Ni Lochlainn, research first author of King’s College London, said: “We are excited to see these changes in just 12 weeks.

“This holds huge promise for enhancing brain health and memory in our ageing population.

“Unlocking the secrets of the gut-brain axis could offer new approaches for living more healthily for longer.”

Researchers at TwinsUK, the UK’s largest adult twin registry based at the university, looked at how targeting microbiota – the micro-organisms in the intestines – could have an impact on both muscle health and brain function.

Thirty-six twin pairs – a total of 72 people – over the age of 60 were given either sachets of a dummy supplement or the actual supplement every day for 12 weeks.

Everyone in the study also carried out resistance exercises and ate a protein supplement aimed at improving muscle function.

After monitoring the group remotely via video, online questionnaires and cognitive tests, researchers found the fibre supplement led to significant changes in the makeup of a person’s gut microbiome .

According to the study, published in Nature Communications, there was a particular increase in the numbers of beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium.

The group receiving the fibre supplement did better in brain function tests, including the paired associates learning test, which is an early marker for Alzheimer’s disease, together with tests of reaction time and processing speed.

Researchers suggest these measures are important for everyday activities like reacting to traffic or preventing a simple trip-up from turning into a fall.

Claire Steves, senior author and professor of ageing and health at King’s College London, said: “These plant fibres, which are cheap and available over the counter, could benefit a wide group of people in these cash-strapped times.

“They are safe and acceptable too. Our next task is to see whether these effects are sustained over longer periods and in larger groups of people.”

Sign up to the Front Page newsletter for free: Your essential guide to the day's agenda from The Telegraph - direct to your inbox seven days a week.

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Handwashing
• Hand Hygiene as a Family Activity
• Hand Hygiene FAQs
• Handwashing Facts
• Publications, Data, & Statistics
• Health Promotion Materials
• Global Handwashing Day
• Clean Hands and Spaces: Handwashing and Cleaning in Educational Facilities
• Life is Better with Clean Hands Campaign
• Clinical Safety
• Healthcare Training
• Clean Hands Count Materials

About Hand Hygiene for Patients in Healthcare Settings

• Patients in healthcare settings are at risk of getting infections while receiving treatment for other conditions.
• Cleaning your hands can prevent the spread of germs, including those that are resistant to antibiotics, and protects healthcare personnel and patients.
• Patients and their loved ones can play a role in asking and reminding healthcare personnel to clean their hands.

Your hands can spread germs.

• Hands have good germs that your body needs to stay healthy. Hands can also have bad germs on them that make you sick.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizer kills most of the bad germs that make you sick.

• Alcohol-based hand sanitizers kill the good and bad germs, but the good germs quickly come back on your hands.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizer does not create antimicrobial-resistant germs.

• Alcohol-based hand sanitizers kill germs quickly and in a different way than antibiotics.
• Using alcohol-based hand sanitizers to clean your hands does not cause antimicrobial resistance.

Steps to take

When patients and visitors should clean their hands.

• Before preparing or eating food.
• Before touching your eyes, nose, or mouth.
• Before and after changing wound dressings or bandages.
• After using the restroom.
• After blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
• After touching hospital surfaces such as bed rails, bedside tables, doorknobs, remote controls, or the phone.

How to clean hands

With an alcohol-based hand sanitizer:.

• Put product on hands and rub hands together.
• Cover all surfaces until hands feel dry.
• This should take around 20 seconds.

With soap and water:

• Wet your hands with warm water. Use liquid soap if possible. Apply a nickel- or quarter-sized amount of soap to your hands.
• Rub your hands together until the soap forms a lather and then rub all over the top of your hands, in between your fingers and the area around and under the fingernails.
• Continue rubbing your hands for at least 15 seconds. Need a timer? Imagine singing the "Happy Birthday" song twice.
• Rinse your hands well under running water.
• Dry your hands using a paper towel if possible. Then use your paper towel to turn off the faucet and to open the door if needed.

Clean Hands Count Campaign Materials‎

Ask your healthcare provider to clean their hands.

• Wearing gloves alone is not enough for your healthcare provider to prevent the spread of infection.
• "Before you start the exam, would you mind cleaning your hands again?"
• "Would it be alright if you cleaned your hands before changing my bandages?"
• "I didn't see you clean your hands when you came in, would you mind cleaning them again before you examine me?"
• "I'm worried about germs spreading in the hospital. Will you please clean your hands once more before you start my treatment?"

Speak up for clean hands in healthcare settings

• Clean your own hands and ask those around you to do the same.
• Don't be afraid to use your voice: it's okay to ask your healthcare provider to clean their hands.
• "I saw you clean your hands when you arrived some time ago, but would you mind cleaning them again?"

Frequently asked questions

Is there such a thing as too clean.

• Germs are everywhere. They are within and on our bodies and on every surface you touch. But not all germs are bad. We need some of these germs to keep us healthy and our immune system strong.
• Your hands have good germs on them that your body needs to stay healthy. These germs live under the deeper layers of the skin.
• Your hands can also have bad germs on them that make you sick. These germs live on the surface and are easily killed/wiped away by the alcohol-based hand sanitizer.
• Using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer is the preferred way for to keep your hands clean.

Washing with soap and water: 15 versus 20 seconds

• Wash your hands for more than 15 seconds, not exactly 15 seconds.
• The time it takes is less important than making sure you clean all areas of your hands.
• Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are the preferred way to clean your hands in healthcare facilities.

Which one? Soap and water versus alcohol-based hand sanitizer

An alcohol-based hand sanitizer is the preferred method for cleaning your hands when they are not visibly dirty because it:

• Is more effective at killing potentially deadly germs on hands than soap.
• when moving from soiled to clean activities with the same patient or resident.
• when moving between patients or residents in shared rooms or common areas.
• Improves skin condition with less irritation and dryness than soap and water.

Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings Published 2002

Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings

What CDC is doing

CDC's Clean Hands Count campaign offers posters, factsheets, and brochures for healthcare providers and patients.

Keep reading: Clean Hands Count materials

Healthcare personnel

When and how to practice hand hygiene. Learn more .

New Training and Education Resources available for Healthcare Professionals.

Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings Video Series link: Education Courses | Hand Hygiene | CDC

Clean Hands

Having clean hands is one of the best ways to avoid getting sick and prevent the spread of germs to others.

For Everyone

Health care providers.