Mindfulness, total sleep quality, and alcohol consumption may help explain why people who stay up late have a greater risk of depression, according to a new study publishing March 19, 2025, in the open-access journalPLOS Oneby Simon Evans of University of Surrey, UK, and colleagues.
Previous research has shown that night owls who stay up late, called “evening chronotypes,” have more depression symptoms than people who are early risers, or “morning chronotypes.” In the new study, Evans and colleagues collected data from 546 university students using an online questionnaire. The data included self-reported information on the students’ sleep patterns, mindfulness, rumination tendencies, alcohol use, and depression and anxiety levels.
The study confirmed that people with an evening chronotype were at a notably higher risk for depression and that the association could be explained by differences in mindfulness, sleep quality, and alcohol consumption. On average, evening chronotypes had poorer sleep quality, higher alcohol consumption, and acted with less mindfulness than morning chronotypes.
The study was limited in its ability to prove cause-and-effect because of its cross-sectional design which relied on data at only one time point. In addition, the findings may not apply to age groups outside of the university students included in the study.
With those caveats in mind, the authors conclude that interventions aimed at mindfulness, sleep and alcohol use might have the potential to reduce depression risk, amongst young adults in particular.
The authors add: “With many young adults’ experiencing poor mental health, these study findings are particularly important—many young adults tend to stay up late and the results point to how interventions could be implemented to reduce their risk of depression.”
People with cardiometabolic disorders—such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease—could increase their chances of living longer by adopting a healthy plant-based diet, according to a study being presented at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session (ACC.25).
While previous studies have assessed the benefits of plant-based diets in a general population, this new study is the first to focus on their benefits in people with cardiometabolic disorders, which are rising in prevalence worldwide and bring an increased risk of premature death.
“Among populations with cardiometabolic disorders, higher adherence to a healthful plant-based diet was significantly associated with a lower risk of total, cardiovascular and cancer mortality,” said Zhangling Chen, MD, PhD, of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University in Changsha, China, and the study’s lead author. “More intake of healthy plant-based foods, less intake of unhealthy plant-based foods and less intake of animal-based foods are all important.”
Cardiometabolic disorders stem from a variety of genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors and affect the health of the cardiovascular system and how the body processes food. While some medications can help manage these disorders, diet and other lifestyle factors are key in preventing the progression to serious forms of heart disease and cancer that are associated with cardiometabolic disorders.
Researchers analyzed data from nearly 78,000 people with cardiometabolic disorders who participated in large prospective studies in the United Kingdom, United States and China. The pooled datasets included 55,000 adults from the U.K. Biobank (UKB) between 2006-2022, 18,000 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES) between 1999-2018 and almost 4,500 Chinese adults from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Study (CLHLS) between 2006-2018.
Based on their responses to 24-hour dietary recall interviews or dietary questionnaires at baseline, researchers assigned each participant a score on two indexes. People who reported a diet high in healthy plant-based foods such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, tea and coffee scored higher on the healthful plant-based diet index, while those who reported a diet higher in refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages and animal-based foods scored higher on the unhealthful.
Overall, closer adherence to a healthful plant-based diet was associated with a 17% to 24% lower risk of death from any cause, cardiovascular disease or cancer, while closer adherence to an unhealthful plant-based diet brought a 28% to 36% increased risk of death from any cause, cardiovascular disease or cancer.
For the analysis, researchers adjusted for confounding factors such as demographics, dietary and lifestyle factors. Results were consistent across subgroups by age, race, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index and physical activity. They were also consistent in people with different types of cardiometabolic disorders and in people from the U.K., U.S. and Chinese cohorts when these groups were analyzed separately, even though the U.K. and U.S. groups were significantly younger, with an average age of 57 years and 59 years, respectively, compared with the Chinese group, which had an average age of 84 years.
In a separate study that only used NHANES data and did not focus on people with cardiometabolic disorders, the same research group found that a greater adherence to a healthy beverage pattern was associated with a lower risk of premature death. They defined a healthy beverage pattern as one high in tea, coffee and low-fat milk and low in alcohol, whole-fat milk, fruit juice and sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages.
“These findings may help individuals with cardiometabolic disorders make heathier lifestyle choices,” Chen said. “It is important to identify and develop cost-effective strategies to promote health among individuals with cardiometabolic disorders.”
For both studies, the researchers said that dietary data were self-reported by study participants at baseline and not assessed again, so the studies were not able to reflect any dietary changes participants may have made. They added that some potentially confounding factors were difficult to eliminate and suggested that additional prospective studies in diverse global populations would help to strengthen the evidence and confirm the importance of healthy food and beverage consumption patterns in broader populations.
Lifestyle and health factors that are linked with heart disease appear to have a greater impact on cardiovascular risk in women than men, according to a study being presented at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session (ACC.25).
While factors such as diet, exercise, smoking and blood pressure have long been linked with heart disease risk, the new study is the first to show that these associations are collectively stronger in women than men. According to the researchers, the findings suggest that sex-specific screening or risk assessment approaches could give a more accurate picture of cardiovascular risk and better motivate people to adopt heart-healthy habits.
“For the same level of health, our study shows that the increase in risk [related to each factor] is higher in women than in men—it’s not one-size-fits-all,” said Maneesh Sud, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of medicine, interventional cardiologist and clinician scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto and the study’s lead author. “This is novel and something that hasn’t been seen in other studies.”
The study focused on eight factors associated with heart disease: diet, sleep, physical activity, smoking, body mass index, blood glucose, lipids and blood pressure. Overall, the results showed that women were more likely to have fewer negative risk factors and more positive ones compared with men. However, women with more negative risk factors faced a more pronounced increase in their chance of a heart attack, stroke or other cardiovascular event compared to men with a similar risk factor profile.
“We found that women tend to have better health than men, but the impact on outcomes is different,” Sud said. “The combination of these factors has a bigger impact in women than it does in men.”
The researchers analyzed data from over 175,000 Canadian adults who enrolled in the Ontario Health Study between 2009-2017. None of the participants had heart disease at baseline and about 60% were women. Each participant was classified as having ideal or poor health in terms of each of the eight risk factors, and these scores were combined to calculate an overall risk factor profile as poor (fewer than five positive factors or more than three negative factors), intermediate (five to seven positive factors) or ideal (ideal across all eight factors).
During a median follow-up period of just over 11 years, researchers tracked the incidence of seven heart disease outcomes—heart attack, stroke, unstable angina (chest pain that results from restricted blood flow to the heart), peripheral arterial disease (narrowed blood vessels in the arms or legs), heart failure, coronary revascularization (procedures to open blocked arteries) and cardiovascular death—among participants in each of the three groupings.
In the study population, significantly more women were categorized as having ideal health, with 9.1% of women and 4.8% of men scoring a perfect 8 out of 8. Women were also less likely to be categorized as having poor health, with 21.9% of women and 30.5% of men falling into this category. In terms of individual risk factors, women were more likely than men to have ideal diet, blood glucose, cholesterol and blood pressure, while women were slightly less likely than men to have ideal physical activity levels.
After adjusting for age, the results showed that participants of both sexes saw an elevated risk of heart disease if they had poor or intermediate health compared to those with ideal health, but these differences were more extreme in women than men. Women with poor health had nearly five times the risk of heart disease as women with ideal health, while men with poor health had 2.5 times the risk of heart disease as men with ideal health. Women with intermediate health had 2.3 times the risk as those with ideal health, while men with intermediate health had 1.6 times the risk as those with ideal health.
Further study is needed to understand how each factor might be affecting outcomes differently in men and women based on either biological or sociocultural factors, the researchers said.
The researchers plan to conduct additional analyses to determine whether there are any differences in risk factor impacts among people of different racial and ethnic groups or among women before and after menopause.
Everyone ages, but, sometimes, people outlive all predictions. Previous research has uncovered an unlikely factor related to longevity: intelligence (Bäckman & MacDonald, 2006; Bosworth & Siegler, 2002).
However, intelligence isn’t a simple characteristic. There are many traits that contribute to it that can be tested—from memory to mathematical logic. In a 2024 Clinical Psychological Science study, Paolo Ghisletta of the University of Geneva linked longevity specifically to one of those traits: verbal fluency, the measure of one’s vocabulary and ability to use it.
Ghisletta’s research used samples from the Berlin Aging Study, which started collecting data shortly before the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 (Baltes & Mayer, 1999). It tracked 516 people aged 70 to 105 from enrollment to their death, over as long as 18 years in some cases. The study measured factors like dental health, stress levels, and economic well-being, as well as cognition. This makes it a “rich and rare data set,” said Ghisletta in an interview.
For the current study, researchers sampled nine different cognitive tests to understand if different aspects of intelligence might be more closely linked to longevity than others.
The tests measured four cognitive abilities: verbal fluency, perceptual speed, verbal knowledge, and episodic memory. Perceptual speed is a measure of one’s ability to compare, scan, or perform pattern-assessing tasks with visual cues quickly. Verbal knowledge is a measure of one’s vocabulary. Episodic memory is a measure of one’s ability to recall and remember personal experiences.
Each of these categories was measured with several tests. One of the tests, for instance, measured verbal fluency by requiring participants to name as many animals as they could within 90 seconds.
Compiling data on the different cognitive skills, Ghisletta and his team incorporated information about how the participants’ performance changed and estimated their risk of dying over time. They then developed a model that related the observed changes to risk of death. This required input from researchers across multiple universities with expertise in a type of data analysis called joint multivariate longitudinal survival model.
“Today, it’s gotten much easier to do this kind of research because there are more data available. There are more people who are willing to collaborate. There are better tools,” Ghisletta said.
Applying these novel tools, the researchers discovered that verbal fluency alone seemed to be significantly linked to longevity, though the explanation behind this connection is not clear. One popular theory, Ghisletta explained, is that the physical body is inextricably linked to mental, emotional, and cognitive processes. “All of these domains are just declining together, whether it’s cognition, personality, emotions, or biological, medical decline in general,” he said.
Following that theory, verbal fluency would be a good measure of well-being, Ghisletta explained, because it’s a complex process that relies on multiple cognitive abilities. This might include long-term memory, vocabulary, efficiency, and visual memory. So, when you’re testing your verbal fluency, “you are doing something very interesting,” he said.
This research answers questions that Ghisletta has had since his time as a postdoctoral researcher in the 1990s. But it only became possible to perform analyses of this sort recently. He said this paper underscores the importance of collaboration between labs and makes him hopeful for more fruitful papers to come.
“It’s a good time to be doing research. I’m really happy to work with young PhD students and have them play around with these different data sets and variables and the theoretical questions that we want to answer,” Ghisletta said. “Although we are building up knowledge, every day, there’s still so much here to discover.”
References
Bäckman, L., & MacDonald, S. W. S. (2006). Death and cognition. Synthesis and outlook. European Psychologist, 11(3), 224–235.
Baltes, P. B., & Mayer, K. U. (Eds.). (1999). The Berlin Aging Study: Aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge University Press.
Increased consumption of fruit, dietary fibre, dairy products and caffeine may be associated with a reduced risk of tinnitus (ringing in the ears), suggests an analysis of the available evidence, published in the open access journal BMJ Open.
The researchers stress that their findings can’t establish a direct (causal) relationship and should be interpreted with care because of the low quality of the evidence. But they say possible reasons may involve the protective effects of these diets on blood vessels and nerves, as well as their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.
Tinnitus is the perception of sound (ringing, buzzing or clicking) when there’s no external source. Data suggests it affects around 14% of adults worldwide and is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and in severe cases, suicide.
There is no cure, but treatments such as counselling, behavioral therapy, medications, and hearing aids can help to reduce symptoms.
Diet can also have a significant impact on tinnitus. It’s thought that eating high-quality nutrients can have a positive effect on hearing by improving blood flow to the inner ear and reducing oxidative damage and inflammation. But previous studies show conflicting results and it’s still uncertain which specific foods worsen or relieve symptoms.
To explore this further, the researchers trawled research databases looking for studies linking tinnitus and diet in adults published up to May 2024.
They found eight observational studies involving 301,533 people that assessed 15 dietary factors using validated questionnaires that were of suitable quality to include in their analysis.
The dietary factors included carbohydrates, caffeine, eggs, fruits, fibres, fat, meat, protein, sugar, fish, vegetables and dairy.
The combined findings revealed that increased consumption of fruit, dietary fibre, dairy products and caffeine was associated with a reduced occurrence of tinnitus. These reductions were 35% for fruit intake, 9% for dietary fibre, 17% for dairy products, and 10% for caffeine intake.
No associations were found between other dietary factors and tinnitus and results were consistent after further analyses, although the authors note that the association between caffeine intake and tinnitus remains contentious.
The authors acknowledge that due to the observational design of included studies, causality cannot be established, and the relatively small number of included studies may have led to certain conventionally accepted beneficial dietary factors (such as vegetables and eggs) not demonstrating significant differences.
However, they suggest that “the primary underlying mechanisms may involve the protective effects of these diets on blood vessels and nerves, as well as their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties” and say further large-scale studies are needed “to complement and verify the relationship between dietary intake and tinnitus.”
PHILADELPHIA – Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) located H5N1 bird flu virus in samples of raw, or unpasteurized, milk in tests in four states in April 2024, and bird flu has been detected in commercially sold raw milk, many Americans do not know that consuming raw milk and its products poses greater health risks than consuming pasteurized milk and its products, especially for children. Consuming raw milkcan expose one to Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Listeria, and Brucella – and, potentially, H5N1 bird flu.
A majority of U.S. adults (56%) knows that drinking raw milk from cows, sheep, or goats is less safe than drinking pasteurized milk. But over 4 in 10 Americans either are not sure (25%), think raw milk is “just as safe to drink” as pasteurized milk (12%) or think it is “safer to drink” (6%), according to a recent survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. The findings are statistically unchanged from APPC’s July 2024 survey. Almost a third of people (32%) know that drinking raw milk increases a person’s risk of foodborne illness, though 14% think it has no effect and 51% are not sure.
The survey, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 10, 2025, among more than 1,700 empaneled U.S. adults, also finds that two-thirds (66%) do not know that children are more vulnerable than adults to getting sick from the viruses and bacteria that can occur in raw milk. (See the topline for data.)
“Consuming raw milk and raw milk products can make you sick and pasteurization reduces the risk of milk-borne illness,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute. “Looking for the pasteurization label before buying or consuming milk or milk products such as cheese is good practice.”
Bird flu
As of March 10, 2025, 70 confirmed U.S. cases of H5 bird flu have been detected in people in 13 states, nearly all from exposure to infected poultry or dairy herds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). One death from bird flu has been reported, involving a patient in Louisiana. To date there have been no reported cases of human-to-human transmission.
From January 2022 through March 11, 2025, bird flu has been detected in nearly a thousand dairy herds in 17 states, and it has affected over 166 million poultry and wild aquatic birds, covering all states. Globally, according to the World Health Organization, from Jan. 1, 2003-Dec. 12, 2024, “954 cases of human infection with avian influenza A(H5N1) virus were reported from 24 countries. Of these 954 cases, 464 were fatal.”
Researchers have found that mice can be infected with bird flu by drinking raw milk. Although the FDA does not currently know whether H5N1 can be transmitted to humans through the consumption of raw milk, a study with mice suggests that the virus in “untreated milk can infect susceptible animals that consume it.” The National Institutes of Health says this suggests “that drinking raw milk may pose a risk of transmission to people.”
Raw milk and bird flu
Bird flu in raw milk: The vast majority of U.S. adults do not know that bird flu has been detected to date only in raw milk, not pasteurized milk. Just 17% know that bird flu has been found only in raw milk. Two percent incorrectly say bird flu has been found only in pasteurized milk, 7% say it has been found in both, 7% say it has been found in neither, and over two-thirds of those surveyed (68%) are not sure.
Raw milk and your chances of getting bird flu: Almost a quarter of people (22%) say drinking raw milk increases the chances you will get H5N1 or bird flu, up from 15% in July 2024, though this is unchanged from November 2024. An equal number (22%) say drinking raw milk has no effect one way or the other on whether you will get bird flu, though fewer people believe that today than in November 2024 (35%). Over half of those surveyed (53%) are not sure what effect drinking raw milk has on getting bird flu, up from 43% in November 2024.
The FDA has said that by heating milk to a specific temperature for a time pasteurization kills harmful bacteria and viruses, and that pasteurization will inactivate the bird flu virus if it is present in raw milk.
Raw milk and health claims
APPC’s survey, which included non-milk drinkers, finds a small proportion of respondents (4%) who report having consumed raw or unpasteurized milk in the past 12 months, unchanged from our July 2024 survey. Another 2% were not sure whether they had consumed raw milk.
Survey respondents are equally split between those who say raw milk has more nutrients than pasteurized milk (28%) and those who say it has about the same amount of nutrients (28%). Forty percent are not sure. The FDA says pasteurization kills pathogens in raw milk “without any significant impact on milk nutritional quality.”
Promoters of raw milk have made many claims about its health benefits – but the FDA has categorized a number of them as misconceptions, as is explained here (current as of March 5, 2025). Though minorities believe in these claims, the survey finds that many more people – about half of U.S. adults or more – are not sure whether the claims are true or false:
Bone thinning (osteoporosis): About 1 in 4 people (26%) believe that raw milk is “about as effective” as pasteurized milk at preventing osteoporosis, although 10% incorrectly believe raw milk is more effective and 59% are unsure. The FDA says raw milk is not more effective than pasteurized milk at preventing osteoporosis.
Lactose intolerance: 40% believe that it is false to say that regularly consuming raw, unpasteurized milk cures lactose intolerance. But 10% incorrectly say this is true and 50% are not sure. The FDA says raw milk does not cure lactose intolerance.
Asthma: 39% believe it is false to say that regularly consuming raw milk reduces the symptoms of asthma, but 7% believe it is true and 54% are not sure. The FDA says that raw milk does not cure or treat asthma and allergy.
Immune system: 30% believe it is false to say that regularly consuming raw milk enhances the human immune system, but 23% think it is true and 47% are not sure. The FDA says raw milk “is not an immune system building food and is particularly unsafe for children,” who are usually more vulnerable to pathogens in raw milk than adults.
Children’s vulnerability to sickness: About a third (35%) know that children are typically more vulnerable than adults to getting sick from the viruses and bacteria that can occur in raw milk. But 5% incorrectly think they are less vulnerable, 16% think they are “about as vulnerable,” and 45% are not sure.
Government regulation of raw milk
The FDA has prohibited the interstate sale of raw milk since 1987, but 30 states in the United States allow its sale in some form, according to the FDA. Survey respondents were asked for their views on government regulation of raw milk sales and sellers:
Interstate raw milk sales: Nearly a quarter of those surveyed (24%) favor the interstate sale of raw milk, and a slightly larger group (28%) opposes it, statistically unchanged from September 2024. Nearly half of respondents either are not sure (18%) or neither favor nor oppose it (29%).
Raw milk sales within a state: Nearly a quarter (24%) favor the unrestricted sale of raw milk in the state in which they live, and another quarter (25%) say the sale of raw milk should be banned, except for farmers selling from their own dairy herds on their own land. Fourteen percent say the sale of raw milk should be banned in their states, and 37% are not sure.
Government intrusion: Nearly a third (32%) agree that federal government regulations of raw unpasteurized milk are “another example of unnecessary government intrusion in people’s lives,” while a like number (34%) disagree. A third (33%) neither agree nor disagree.
The rights of raw milk sellers: A quarter (25%) agree that state laws prohibiting the sale of raw milk violate the constitutional rights of raw milk sellers, while a third (34%) disagree, and 41% neither agree nor disagree. (Asked of a random half-sample.)
Warning labels: Over half (56%) do not think that state laws requiring labels on raw milk containers warning about the risks of consuming raw milk violate the constitutional rights of raw milk sellers, while 14% think the state laws do violate their rights. Nearly a third (30%) neither agree nor disagree. (Asked of a random half-sample.)
USDA testing of raw milk: Asked in how many of the states the U.S. Department of Agriculture is testing raw milk for bird flu virus, 74% are not sure. Two percent say “none,” and a quarter of those surveyed say either “some” (10%), “most” (9%), or “all” (5%). As of Jan. 8, 2025, the USDA says its National Milk Testing Strategy has enrolled 28 states, accounting for nearly 65% of the nation’s milk production.
APPC’s Annenberg Science and Public Health knowledge survey
The survey data come from the 23rd wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,716 U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. Most have been empaneled since April 2021. To account for attrition, replenishment samples have been added over time using a random probability sampling design. The most recent replenishment, in September 2024, added 360 respondents to the sample. This wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge (ASAPH) survey was fielded Jan. 30-Feb. 10, 2025. The margin of sampling error (MOE) is ± 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for nearly four years. In addition to Jamieson, APPC’s team on the survey includes research analysts Laura A. Gibson and Shawn Patterson Jr.; Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research; and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of APPC.
In a new study, an international team of neuroscientists led by the University of Vienna has shown that experiencing nature can alleviate acute physical pain. Surprisingly, simply watching nature videos was enough to relieve pain. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, the researchers found that acute pain was rated as less intense and unpleasant when watching nature videos – along with a reduction in brain activity associated with pain. The results suggest that nature-based therapies can be used as promising complementary approaches to pain management. The study was recently published in the renowned journalNature Communications.
"Pain processing is a complex phenomenon" explains study lead and doctoral student Max Steininger from the University of Vienna. In order to better understand it and identify treatment options, Steininger and his colleagues investigated how nature exposure influences pain: participants suffering from pain were shown three types of videos: a nature scene, an indoor scene, and an urban scene. The participants rated the pain while their brain activity was measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging. The results were clear: when viewing the nature scene, the participants not only reported less pain but also showed reduced activity in brain regions associated with pain processing.
By analyzing the brain data, the researchers showed that viewing nature reduced the raw sensory signal the brain receives when in pain. "Pain is like a puzzle, made up of different pieces that are processed differently in the brain. Some pieces of the puzzle relate to our emotional response to pain, such as how unpleasant we find it. Other pieces correspond to the physical signals underlying the painful experience, such as its location in the body and its intensity. Unlike placebos, which usually change our emotional response to pain, viewing nature changed how the brain processed early, raw sensory signals of pain. Thus, the effect appears to be less influenced by participants’ expectations, and more by changes in the underlying pain signals," explains Steininger.
Claus Lamm, head of research in the group, adds: "From another ongoing study, we know that people consistently report feeling less pain when exposed to natural environments. However, the underlying reason for this has remained unclear – until now. Our study suggests that the brain reacts less to both the physical source and the intensity of the pain."
The current study provides important information on how nature can help alleviate pain and highlights that nature-based therapeutic approaches can be a useful addition to pain treatment. The fact, that this effect was observed by simply watching nature videos suggests that taking a walk outdoors may not be necessary. Virtual nature – such as videos or virtual reality – appears to be effective as well. This opens up a wide range of possible applications in both the private and medical sectors, providing people with a simple and accessible way to relieve their pain.
The study was conducted at the University of Vienna in collaboration with researchers from the Universities of Exeter and Birmingham (UK) and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development.
Researchers from the fields of neuroscience and environmental psychology worked together on this research topic for the first time at the University of Vienna. Claus Lamm and Mathew White are also members of the interdisciplinary Environment and Climate Research Hub (ECH) at the University of Vienna. The ECH brings together researchers from a wide range of disciplines to produce outstanding scientific knowledge that can provide solutions to pressing problems such as climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution.
