Inspectors and police are seen raiding the Al Jazeera offices in Jerusalem, Israel, on May 5, 2024, and confiscating its equipment. | Saeed Qaq/NurPhoto via Getty Images Press freedom is in a state of emergency in Israel and Gaza. Israel’s decision to shut down Al Jazeera’s operations in the country signaled an escalation in an already hostile environment for journalists covering the war in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has previously called Al Jazeera a “mouthpiece for Hamas,” accused the Qatar-based news network of threatening Israel’s national security and used powers granted under an emergency law to shutter the outlet. He has not identified what specifically about Al Jazeera’s coverage the government believed crossed that line. “The government headed by me unanimously decided: the incitement channel Al Jazeera will be closed in Israel,” Netanyahu wrote Sunday on X in Hebrew. For years, many experts in Israeli politics have been warning about the country’s gradual embrace of far-right undemocratic principles. Now, as Israel prepares for an imminent invasion of Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah, the Netanyahu government is impinging on freedom of the press in a way that may limit oversight and should put the world’s liberal democracies on guard. “This move sets an extremely alarming precedent for restricting international media outlets working in Israel,” Carlos Martinez de la Serna, program director for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said in a statement. “The Israeli cabinet must allow Al-Jazeera and all international media outlets to operate freely in Israel, especially during wartime.” What we know Months ago, the Israeli government adopted an emergency law to censor foreign journalists deemed threats to national security while the war in Gaza proceeds. Pro-Iranian channel Al Mayadeen was previously censored under the law, with Netanyahu’s security cabinet citing its “wartime efforts to harm [Israel’s] security interests and to serve the enemy’s goals” following the October 7 attack by Hamas, which receives funding from Iran. Two of the network’s journalists were subsequently killed in an Israeli bombing in southern Lebanon. The government has been talking about invoking the law against Al Jazeera since at least early November, when communications minister Shlomo Karhi claimed the network had “photographed and published” the positioning of IDF forces, “broadcast military announcements by Hamas,” and “distorted facts in a way which incited masses of people to riot.” On Sunday, the government finally brought down the ax, restricting the network’s ability to broadcast from Israel and to be viewed by Israelis, as well as seizing broadcast equipment. The block is in place for 45 days, with the option of a 45-day extension. In a statement, Al Jazeera called the decision a “criminal act that violates human rights and the basic right to access of information.” It’s not clear how the decision will impact the network’s ability to cover the war from Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Why does it matter? The decision to shut down Al Jazeera is the latest escalation against journalists trying to cover the war both in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories. Throughout the war, Israel has said that it cannot guarantee journalists’ safety in Gaza and has denied foreign journalists access to the region. As of May 3, at least 97 journalists and media workers have been killed over the course of the war, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. By some counts, that’s more than were killed during the entire two-decade Vietnam War. Journalists covering the war have also faced assaults, threats, cyberattacks, and censorship, as well as contended with communications blackouts in Gaza. There are also multiple reports of killings of reporters’ family members in Palestine. Under international law, journalists don’t constitute a separate, protected class from civilians overall. However, because it is illegal to intentionally target civilians or launch an attack that does not distinguish between military targets and civilians, it is also illegal to intentionally target journalists. Media cannot be considered military targets even when they are being employed for propaganda purposes unless they make an “effective contribution to military action” or they “incite war crimes, genocide or acts of violence,” according to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Nevertheless, independent investigations from Reporters Without Borders have alleged that Israel has intentionally targeted journalists on multiple occasions. For Israel, which is increasingly losing the international war of public opinion, all of this is a means of undermining independent reporting that could further damage its image abroad. It could also obscure the reality on the ground. The war has made independent reporting difficult, with dozens of outlets’ offices destroyed, in addition to journalists being killed. In that vacuum, Hamas and Israel frequently offer dueling narratives that are often impossible to verify.

It’s only the beginning of the cicada eruption. | Sean Rayford/Getty Images Trillions of these noisy insects are set to take to the skies in the first double brood event in 221 years. For the first time in 221 years, this spring will seebillions, if not trillions, of cicadas take to the skies in a rare synchronized event that will transform our ecosystems for years to come. In forests across the United States, two groups, or “broods,” of these noisy insects will crawl out from their underground dwellings to sprout wings, mate, lay eggs, and eventually die. In the Midwest, there’s Brood XIX, which pops up every 13 years, and Brood XIII, which emerges every 17 years and is concentrated in the Southeast. The mass eruption, scientists believe, is strategic, but many mysteries about cicadas remain: Why do their alarm clocks use prime numbers? For that matter, how do they keep time? We’ll explain everything we know about this spectacular double brood event here. Follow along.

Rapper Drake at “Lil Baby & Friends Birthday Celebration Concert” at State Farm Arena on December 9, 2022, in Atlanta. | Prince Williams/WireImage Everyone was fighting with everyone — until Kendrick Lamar proved to be the ultimate challenger. To borrow a phrase from our foremost cultural observer, Azealia Banks, the boys are fighting. Since the explosive drop of producer Metro Boomin and rapper Future’s first joint album, We Don’t Trust You, on March 22, a cold war has broken out involving the duo and the rest of hip-hop’s top-tier (male) millennial roster: Drake, J. Cole, Kendrick Lamar, and A$AP Rocky. It’s been a strange few weeks, with shots being thrown in an extremely public and increasingly amusing way. In an utterly baffling move, Cole made a public apology for his own diss track, bowing out of the beef early. Meanwhile, like any argument you might see among a group of rich women on Bravo, Drake is being put on blast for his rumored plastic surgery. (Thank you, Megan Thee Stallion.) This isn’t the first time this particular group of A-listers — all of whom dominated the mainstream rap charts of the 2010s — have exchanged lyrical blows. In particular, Drake and Lamar have sneak-dissed each other for a while now. However, to the average music listener, all these men have a more well-known history of collaboration, including features, a joint album, and tour stops. Lamar’s fiery verse, however, on the We Don’t Trust You track “Like That,” has shattered any remaining semblance of camaraderie. In the weeks since, Future and Metro have released yet another rage-fueled album, hilariously titled We Still Don’t Trust You. Drake clunkily released his own sprawling diss, “Push Ups,” name-dropping everyone from SZA to Maroon 5 to Swifties. (Did I mention Uma Thurman is also involved?) Lamar responded with two back-to-back disses: first, the scathing track “euphoria,” and, later, “6:16 in LA,” which had a surprising producer credit from Taylor Swift’s righthand man, Jack Antonoff. Over the weekend, though, tensions between Lamar and Drake reached a fever pitch. The rappers exchanged several explosive diss tracks with some pretty dark, criminal allegations. It was Kendrick who ultimately seemed more prepared. After nearly 15 tumultuous years in the game, it’s no surprise that Drake has once again found himself on the receiving end of some hate. At first, it seemed like this latest feud was exactly what rap’s sensitive king needed in a rather uninspired era in his career, defined by a rather dull musical output and gross jabs at women. However, following Lamar’s verbal lashings, a PR cleanup may be needed. Who’s beefing with who? Johnny Nunez/Getty Images for the Recording Academy Kendrick Lamar wins the Best Rap Album award for Mr. Morale & the Big Steppers during the 65th Grammy Awards at Crypto.com Arena on February 5, 2023, in Los Angeles, California. A few weeks ago, Future and Metro essentially released a breakup album from their frequent collaborator and former comrade, Drake. (Drake and Future have nearly 30 collaborations combined, and Metro executive-produced their 2015 mixtape What A Time to Be Alive.) We Don’t Trust You is packed with subliminal messages seemingly directed at Drake, regarding his shady maneuvers. However, it was Kendrick’s relatively gentle prodding on the track “Like That” that was ultimately the most incendiary. On the track — which has sat at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 for three weeks in a row now — he raps “Motherfuck the big three, it’s just big me,” renouncing his informal association with rap peers Drake and Cole. On the recent Drake song “First Person Shooter,” off his latest album For All the Dogs, Cole claimed on his guest verse that he, Drake, and Lamar are the “Big 3” of the current era of hip-hop. Nevertheless, Lamar’s ire on “Like That” is mostly pointed at his noted frenemy Drake, brushing off his purportedly unstoppable commercial success. “Your best work is a light pack,” he asserts. “N—, Prince outlived Mike Jack.” Cole responded first on April 5 with the track “7-Minute Drill,” featured on his aptly titled mixtape Might Delete Later. Cole throws shots at Lamar’s Pulitzer Prize-winning discography, calling his latest album Mr. Morale and The Big Steppers “tragic” and claiming his Grammy-winning sophomore album Good Kid, Maad City “put [listeners] to sleep.” He also promises to “humble” Lamar if “push comes to shove.” However, by April 10, Cole had rescinded his warning shot, including removing “7-Minute Drill” from streaming platforms. At his annual Dreamville Festival, he issued a heavily mocked quasi-apology to Lamar. “I tried to jab [Lamar] back, and I try to keep it friendly,” he told the crowd in North Carolina. “But at the end of the day when I listen to it, and when it comes out and I see the talk, that don’t sit right with my spirit.” Before Drake could unleash his own diss, Future and Metro released the follow-up, We Still Don’t Trust You, on April 12. This time, A$AP Rocky got some punches in. On the song “Show of Hands,” he rapped “N—s in they feelings over women. What, you hurt or something? I smash before you birthed, son. Flacko hit it first, son.” This is presumably a response to Drake apparently dissing A$AP and his partner Rihanna, whom Drake previously dated, on his song “Fear of Heights.” (Fans have also speculated that A$AP means he previously slept with the mother of Drake’s son.) Another one of Drake’s most famous industry mates, The Weeknd, appears on both Future and Metro albums. However, on We Still Don’t Trust You’s eighth track, “All to Myself,” he sings, “I thank God that I never signed my life away.” Fans interpreted that as a jab about Drake’s label OVO Sound, which, despite his heavy association with the label, The Weeknd ultimately never signed to. Who is Drake dissing on “Push Ups”? On Saturday, April 13, Drake’s long-awaited response titled “Push Ups (Drop & Give Me Fifty)” mysteriously made its way to the internet. The seemingly unmixed demo made many social media users speculate whether the song was AI-generated before noted hip-hop commentator DJ Akademiks eventually played it — noticeably with some tweaks, like the omission of a line about P. Diddy and a different beat — on his livestream. Hip-hop radio station Power 105 also streamed a high-quality version of the song. Given Drake’s comments on Instagram over the weekend, including a photo of Uma Thurman single-handedly taking on a group of fighters in the 2003 film Kill Bill, all signs point to the track being legitimate. That said, “Push Ups” is a hefty (and expectedly humorous) diss record, taking aim at Drake’s aforementioned opps while pulling some other parties into the crossfire. One of them is the Weeknd’s manager, CashXO, who he accuses of “blowing Abel’s bread trickin.” He also takes shots at Memphis Grizzlies player Ja Morant, who fans are speculating he was previously in a love triangle with. In probably the silliest development of this multi-pronged feud, he throws some digs at rapper Rick Ross, another frequent collaborator of his. “This n— turning 50,” Drake raps. “Every song that made it on the chart he got it from Drizzy.” Ross swiftly followed up with his own diss called “Champagne Moments,” which quickly went viral. Among other insults and accusations, he calls Drake, who’s mixed, “white boy” and claims he got a nose job. Johnny Nunez/WireImage Drake and Rick Ross at P. Diddy’s Ciroc The New Years Eve Party at his home on December 31, 2013, in Miami Beach, Florida. As for Lamar, Drake offers a pretty comprehensive rebuttal, poking fun at Lamar for apparently wearing a “size 7 shoe” and his collaborations with pop acts like Maroon 5 and Taylor Swift’s “Bad Blood.” (Lest we forget, Drake has also linked up with Swift for a check.) He also names some artists who he feels have surpassed Lamar’s stardom, including SZA, who’s signed to Lamar’s own Top Dawg Entertainment label. (She apparently doesn’t want to be involved.) There’s also a bar that many listeners, including DJ Akademiks, interpreted as an audacious mention of Lamar’s fiancé, Whitney Alford (“I be with some bodyguards like Whitney”). However, this could also be a misreading of a more obvious reference to the Whitney Houston film, The Bodyguard. Drake’s latest round with Kendrick took a particularly dark turn Ahead of Lamar dropping his response, “euphoria,” Drake released another diss track for Lamar on April 19 called “Taylor Made Freestyle” using AI-generated vocals from 2Pac and Snoop Dogg to “spit” on his behalf. Drake’s weaponization of artificial intelligence, specifically regarding the deceased Tupac Shakur, generated mixed responses online. Some fans were amused by his “innovation,” while others, including Snoop, seemed downright confused. However, after his and Lamar’s most recent round of disses, these criticisms would be the least of his concerns. On April 30, Lamar finally dropped his rebuttal titled “euphoria” on streaming platforms. He spends most of the 6-minute track poking holes in Drake’s public persona. Among other digs, he questions the Canadian rapper’s proximity to Black American culture and his relationships with women. A few days later, Lamar followed up with “6:16 in LA,” claiming that Drake has a “leak” in his camp. Presumably, Drake wanted to get ahead of any dirt Lamar could possibly expose by dropping the track “Family Matters” this past Friday, along with a music video. In addition to Lamar, Drake has some more words for Ross, The Weeknd, and even Pharrell Williams. However, it’s Lamar’s fiancée, Whitney Alford, who’s the primary target of Drake’s claims. First, he suggests that one of Lamar’s children is actually fathered by his general manager, Dave Free, who’s also the former president of Lamar’s former label, Top Dawg Entertainment. Then he makes the more troubling allegation that Lamar “puts his hands on” Alford. “They hired a crisis management team to clean up the fact that you beat on your queen,” he says at the end of the track. Seemingly tipped off by a mole, Lamar followed up just a few minutes later with “meet the grahams,” with cover art featuring a box of the weight-loss drug Ozempic supposedly prescribed to Drake. In that song, Lamar addresses his verses to Drake’s son, Adonis, and Drake’s parents. “Dear Adonis, I’m sorry that man is your father,” he bluntly opens the track. He also dedicated a verse to Drake’s alleged 11-year-old daughter, who would be the second child the rapper has kept hidden from the public. Drake, however, was quick to jump on Instagram and shut down the claim that he had a secret daughter. More strikingly, though, Lamar refers to Drake as a “predator” and even likens him to Harvey Weinstein. Later that evening, Lamar dropped yet another track — this time, produced by DJ Mustard, who seemingly also has beef with Drake — “Not Like Us,” where he outright calls Drake a “pedophile.” In particular, social media lost it over the triple entendre, “tryna strike a chord, and it’s probably A-minor.” On May 5, it seemed like Drake was ready to bow out after releasing the track “The Heart Part 6.” In addition to the curious claim that he purposely planted false information for Lamar to use, he spends most of the song denying that he sleeps with underage girls. He even addresses a controversial incident from 2018, when Stranger Things actor Millie Bobby Brown, who was then 14 years old, stated in an interview that she texted the rapper about boys. In a haphazard move, Drake attempts to connect these claims to Lamar’s own trauma, referencing the “one record where [Lamar] said [he] got molested” titled “Mother I Sober” — only Lamar doesn’t state that he was sexually abused on the song. In rapping about his cousin who was accused of sexual assault, he claims twice on the track that his cousin didn’t touch him, despite his family not believing him. Drake ends the song with a rambling spoken outro, similar to Nicki Minaj’s Megan Thee Stallion diss “Big Foot” earlier this year. “I’m not going to lie,” he says. “This shit was some good exercise.” In a noticeably exhausted tone, he says “it is what it is,” seemingly waving a white flag. Drake has previously thrived in beefs — but can he win when the whole industry is against him? For the most part, Drake has handled his public gang-up with an expected sense of humor and irreverence. However, with the latest releases, he seems to be fighting a battle he can’t win, using wishy-washy bars to attempt to toss off some serious allegations. It’s worth noting that Drake’s domestic-abuse claims against Lamar are just as serious. Nevertheless, rap fans on social media seem more invested in the seedy gossip that’s surrounded Drake’s mostly private romantic life, including these unsettling accusations about underage girls. Plus, after years of dominating the rap scene and making enemies out of several rappers, it seems social media users are ready to see the rapper taken down a few pegs. @xeviuniverse Everyone has their own reasons to dislike him but are aware of everyone elses reasons, makes him unlikable#greenscreen ♬ original sound - Xevi As anyone who’s even slightly followed rap over the past decade and a half can attest, this isn’t Drake’s first time engaging in warfare with his peers. Most famously, his career has seen headline-generating battles with Meek Mill, Pusha T, Joe Budden, and Kanye West. Arguably, his most infamous tiff was the culmination of a long-brewing beef with Pusha T in 2018, where the Virginia rapper exposed Drake’s formerly hidden son, Adonis, to the world. Despite the brief moment of humiliation, Drake ultimately emerged the victor — that is, if you’re using chart numbers and general popularity as a determining metric. After his moderately received victory lap of an album, Views, he was given a more gripping narrative to fuel his blockbuster 2018 album Scorpion. At the same time, he was once again proving his mass appeal outside of the rap audiences with party bangers like “God’s Plan,” “Nice For What,” and “In My Feelings,” all of which reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100. More recently, however, Drake has been involved in several seemingly one-sided beefs with famous women. On his 2023 song with 21 Savage, “Circo Loco,” he threw out a not-so-subtle diss at rapper Megan Thee Stallion (“This bitch lie ’bout getting shots but she still a stallion”), joining a chorus of famous men disputing her now-proven claims that singer Tory Lanez shot her in the foot in 2020. During the rollout of For All the Dogs, he vexed actor Halle Berry, who claimed he used a photo of her for the artwork for his single “Slime You Out” without her permission. Additionally, he’s attempted to reignite drama with his former fling Rihanna. Aside from his digs on “Fear of Heights,” he played their collaboration “Work” at one of his concerts just to claim that he “doesn’t sing [the] song anymore.” Drake’s songwriting is often propelled by a sweeping sense of grievance and an obsession with the past and his haters (he’s not that different from Taylor Swift after all!). However, his constant feelings of victimhood within his relationships with women — and the subsequent, more blatant misogyny that’s grown out of that — has begun to wear on critics and parts of his female fanbase. It’s an observation that Lamar has sharply utilized in his diss tracks over the weekend. While this latest beef originally seemed like an ultimately invigorating experience for Drake in a snoozy part of his career, Lamar’s accusations of pedophilia and other predatory behavior will presumably leave a strong stench on Drake’s public image. It’ll be fascinating to see whether the seemingly invincible rapper can maintain fans’ respect after such dark claims. However, history has proven that male rappers can still thrive despite the most sordid allegations. Update, May 6, 2 pm: This story was originally published on April 17 and has been updated multiple times, most recently to include Kendrick Lamar’s new diss tracks, “meet the grahams” and “Not Like Us,” as well as Drake’s rejoinder, “The Heart Part 6.”

A Brood X cicada molts in Washington, DC. | Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images How to summon a cicada. In the coming weeks, billions of periodical cicadas will rise up from the ground across the midwestern and southeastern United States. As they do, they’ll sprout wings, mate, and die within a few weeks. If you live in an area where Brood XIII and Brood XIX cicadas are expected, you will not mistake their arrival. In addition to littering the ground with exoskeletons, in their frenzied quest for mates, cicadas make a ton of noise. That loud buzzing sound is produced by a chorus of males, who sing together from the trees to attract females. Interested females respond with a quick flip of their wings, which produces more subtle clicking sounds. The males will then change their tunes and try to home in on the clicking females in order to mate. It turns out that humans can summon — and dare I say, seduce — a male cicada by imitating those female cicada clicks. Why might you want to do this? Perhaps it could be helpful in collecting cicadas for a protein-packed meal. Up to you! Esteemed nature documentarian and activist Sir David Attenborough demonstrates how to summon one. “I can imitate the female’s wing flip with a snap of my fingers,” Attenborough says in his unmistakably husky voice in this clip from a 2005 BBC program below. By snapping his fingers, Attenborough draws the cicada toward him, closer and closer. And then the cicada jumps toward Attenborough, to continue the courtship in a more intimate matter. “The noise is awful,” Attenborough says as the cicada hums sweet nothings into his ear. Update, May 6, 12 pm ET: This piece, originally published in 2016, has been updated for 2024 with details about Brood XIII and XIX.

Gabrielle Berbey and Peter Balonon-Rosen are joining as producers. Andrea Kristinsdottir is joining as an audio engineer. Vox managing editor Natalie Jennings announced today that Gabrielle Berbey, Peter Balonon-Rosen, and Andrea Kristinsdottir are joining the site’s audio division. Berbey begins her role today, and Balonon-Rosen and Kristinsdottir will start May 13. Gabrielle Berbey is joining Vox as a producer on the forthcoming Future Perfect podcast. She is a reporter and producer whose stories have aired on narrative shows across public radio. Previously, she produced for WNYC’s More Perfect and The Experiment, a collaboration between WNYC and the Atlantic. She also led the production of a series on the history of Spam and how it shaped meatpacking’s labor movement. She began her career at PBS, where she helped produce Frontline’s investigative podcast and worked on Ken Burns’s series about Muhammad Ali. Her reporting has been featured on shows such as Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting, Planet Money, Latino USA, and 99% Invisible. Peter Balonon-Rosen is joining Today, Explained as a producer. He comes from Throughline, the NPR narrative history podcast, where he was most recently the lead producer on a series about the history and future of constitutional amendments. Before that, he was at Marketplace for six years, where he was the founding producer of This Is Uncomfortable, a narrative show about wealth and inequality. At Marketplace, he also worked as a producer/reporter on the Uncertain Hour podcast, where he reported a collaboration with Reveal about minor league baseball’s labor history. Peter is drawn to stories about inequality, culture, and racial identity. Andrea Kristinsdottir is joining Vox as an audio engineer. She is a Signal and Webby Award-winning audio engineer, composer, and sound designer. Some of her favorite projects from the last few years are Blind Plea, LeVar Burton Reads, The Paris Review, Storytime With Seth Rogen, and “Before Route One” for BBC’s Between the Ears. Hailing from Iceland, she has lived in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Japan, and several US states.

Cornelia Li for Vox Why are more and more older people spending their dying years behind bars? In late 2018, Richard Washington sent a memo to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with the subject line “Notice I am being killed.” The 64-year-old man, who decades earlier was convicted on armed robbery charges, was serving a 63-year prison sentence in Arizona. In his letter, he alleged that the Department of Corrections was refusing to give him medication for his various health issues, which included diabetes, hypertension, and hepatitis C. Because of the lack of treatment, Washington wrote, “My greatest fear is that I’m going to die more sooner than later.” About six weeks later, he was dead. In state after state, prison systems have long been plagued by inadequate health care, resulting in the spread of treatable diseases and, in many cases, preventable deaths behind bars. But a key demographic trend threatens to make that problem even worse: Over the last several decades, America’s prison population has been rapidly aging, and, as in Washington’s case, prisoners’ health needs have become more significant as a result. People who were 55 years old or older made up about 3 percent of the US prison population in 1991; by 2021, they accounted for 15 percent. The total number of older prisoners is also steadily growing, with no signs of abatement: In 2020, there were about 166,000 incarcerated people aged 55 years or older; that number grew to about 178,000 in 2021 and 186,000 in 2022. The graying of America’s incarcerated population is effectively turning the US prison system into a de facto nursing home, leaving hundreds of thousands of older people in its care each year. The result is skyrocketing costs: The Bureau of Prisons’ health care spending on federal inmates rose from $978 million in 2009 to $1.34 billion in 2016, and various state governments have seen similar increases. Still, conditions in American prisons continue to be detrimental to people’s health and often lead to accelerated aging. Prisoners, for example, are much more likely to exhibit signs of cognitive decline, including dementia, at an earlier age than the general population, and one study found that a 59-year-old in prison has the same morbidity rate — that is, how often people get a disease — as a nonincarcerated 75-year-old. “We have facilities that aren’t considered humane,” said Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice. “They’re not places for elderly people who have dementia and diabetes and maybe walkers or wheelchairs.” All of this raises both a moral and practical policy question that lawmakers have to face: Why are we forcing older people to spend their dying years in prison when they can get better care elsewhere? People aren’t just aging behind bars; police are locking up the elderly One of the explanations for the aging prison population is simple: Since the 1970s and the age of mass incarceration — when the American prison population ballooned and gave the United States the distinction of imprisoning more people than any other country in the world — people have been aging behind bars. The other explanation, however, is less obvious: Older people have been getting arrested at higher rates than they used to. In 1991, for example, people who were 55 years of age or older made up only 2 percent of adults who were arrested; by 2021, they made up 8 percent, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit that does criminal justice research and advocacy. The Marshall Project also found a similar pattern: Between 2000 and 2020, there was nearly a 30 percent increase in the number of arrests of people over 65, despite the overall number of arrests dropping by nearly 40 percent. That spike is especially surprising because people tend to age out of crime: Recidivism rates for older people are significantly lower than they are for younger people. According to a 2017 report by the United States Sentencing Commission that tracked people for eight years after they were released from prison, nearly 68 percent of people who were under 21 at the time of their release were rearrested. By contrast, just over 13 percent of people over 65 were rearrested. So why are arrests among older people suddenly on the rise? The resurging trend across many American cities and states to further criminalize poverty and impose harsher punishments for petty crimes, including things like shoplifting, is partly to blame because the groups of people who become common targets for police are getting older. “People who are unhoused and people suffering from mental health disorders and substance use disorders are also aging,” said Mike Wessler, the communications director at the Prison Policy Initiative. “If you look across the country right now, we’re obviously seeing efforts to ramp up policing of people who are unhoused, people with untreated mental health disorders, people with substance use disorder. So it’s almost a certainty that in the coming years we are probably going to see this problem get worse.” People experiencing cognitive decline, including those suffering from dementia, can also be especially vulnerable during interactions with police. Henry Hart, a 76-year-old with dementia in Maryland, for example, was arrested when he had what his daughter described as a mental breakdown. During the incident, Hart had grown agitated and hit her, and when she called for paramedics to take him to the hospital, police showed up at the scene instead. Officers ultimately arrested him for assault despite his family members’ pleas. After spending time in jail, Hart’s condition seemed to get notably worse, according to his daughter. “As Maryland’s population ages, experts fear that police will encounter people with dementia more often and without recognizing the condition or knowing how to respond to it,” Baltimore Sun reporters Angela Roberts and Cassidy Jensen wrote. “Arrest or jail time can be especially harmful to people with dementia, given their mental and physical vulnerability, experts say.” There’s also evidence that beefing up law enforcement has had a negative impact on older people. While younger people have become less likely to be arrested for drug-related crimes than in the past, arrests of older people for drug-related offenses have spiked. Between 2000 and 2018, for example, drug-related arrests of people over the age of 50 rose by 92 percent — the fastest increase out of any age group. And while substance use disorder among older people is on the rise, addressing the problem through stricter law enforcement is not a practical solution. “It’s a heck of a lot easier to order the National Guard to go stand on subway platforms than it is to figure out how to expand mental health treatment in the state; than to figure out how to address substance use disorders in the state; than to figure out how to address the housing crisis in the state,” Wessler said. The consequences of an aging prison population Studies have shown that incarcerated people have signs of aging at a faster rate than others as a result of prison conditions, and that each year in prison can shave years off of someone’s life. “Health care behind bars is bad even in the best scenarios,” Wessler said. “And that’s kind of by design in a lot of respects: Prisons are not places that are therapeutic or designed to heal; they are places that are designed to punish.” Infectious diseases tend to disproportionately affect prisoners compared to the general population, and the Covid pandemic in particular showed why prisons are especially dangerous for older people. Deaths of inmates rose by nearly 50 percent in the first year of the pandemic, and while mortality rates increased for prisoners across all ages, older people saw the highest surge in mortality. By contrast, among the general population, it was younger people who saw the highest increase in death rates. From a public policy standpoint, the aging prison population is a failure on multiple fronts. Most importantly, prisons cause people to age more quickly and die prematurely. After all, while so-called “natural” deaths — that is, death from disease or old age — make up the vast majority of deaths behind bars, they often receive little scrutiny despite the fact that many of them have been found to be the result of medical neglect. But it’s also costing states a lot of money — money that is clearly not well spent. In Texas, for example, the state’s prison health care costs increased by more than $250 million between 2012 and 2019, although the prison population actually decreased by 3 percent during that time. The state’s prison population aged 55 or older, on the other hand, had increased by 65 percent during that same period, according to data reviewed by the Texas Tribune. Some lawmakers have noted this is unsustainable. As former state Sen. John Whitmire told the Tribune, “Nobody’s tougher on crime than me, but once you’ve incarcerated a guy past the point that he’s a threat to anybody, I’d like to save that $500,000 to put him in a nursing home as a condition of parole, take that money, and spend it on either other public safety efforts or prison costs.” The system as it is, in other words, isn’t benefiting anyone. It’s both deadlier and more financially costly. And from a moral standpoint, it’s hard for a society to defend these outcomes. “Do we morally think that it is good to have people spend their dying years behind bars, especially for drug crimes from the ’80s and ’90s?” Wessler said. “That strikes me as morally wrong in addition to being bad public policy.” Tougher penalties turn into de facto death sentences In many ways, America’s aging prisons are the expected end result of the tough-on-crime approaches and surge in arrests of the 1980s and 1990s. A study by researchers at the the State University of New York at Albany, the University of Pennsylvania, and the RAND Corporation, found that young people who were locked up in the 1990s spent more time behind bars than any other generation, in large part because of tougher and longer sentences, higher recidivism rates, and escalating punishments for people who are rearrested. And that generation is now aging behind bars, unlikely to ever come out of prison. “These extreme sentence lengths paired with narrow release mechanisms — meaning fewer ways to actually leave the system — led to this huge crisis of older adults in American prisons,” Eisen, from the Brennan Center, said. “Because what you had is more people coming in, people staying for longer, and then fewer avenues for release because of mandatory minimums, because of three strikes [laws], because of life without parole.” While many older people in prison today are being sent there for petty crimes, it’s also true that many others, particularly those serving longer sentences, have been convicted of serious crimes. But regardless of what a person is guilty of, the fate of a death behind bars — which can be the result of inadequate medical care and botched treatments — could itself be seen as a cruel punishment, especially when people no longer pose a threat to society. Take, for example, the case of Walter Jordan, another elderly Arizona prisoner whose story is eerily similar to Richard Washington’s. Jordan, a 67-year-old man who was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping, was serving a life sentence. In a memo he wrote to a federal judge in 2017, he alleged that the state’s Department of Corrections and its private health care contractor had delayed his treatment for skin cancer. The memo was, in his words, a “notice of impending death.” Jordan wrote that he was in pain and suffering from memory loss. He alleged that other prisoners were also being denied care, and he wrote that as a result of his delayed treatment, he would be “lucky to be alive for 30 days.” Jordan was right: Just over a week later, he was dead. A physician who reviewed his case found that Jordan could have survived had he received adequate care. The situation was “horrific,” the physician wrote. “He suffered excruciating needless pain from cancer that was not appropriately managed in the months prior to his death.” There are more humane approaches. States and the federal government can start, for example, by expanding eligibility for compassionate release, which truncates sentences but tends to be reserved for people with terminal illnesses. Parole — which can sometimes have unintended consequences including strict rules that often result in parolees being sent back to prison — can also be especially beneficial to elderly prisoners who can get better health care outside of prison. And yet, tough-on-crime laws like those recently passed in Louisiana are making it harder for prisoners to be eligible for parole. Governors can also make use of their pardon powers and commute sentences for older prisoners who have shown signs of rehabilitation. And instead of readopting a tough-on-crime approach that will likely result in more arrests of older people, states and the federal government can support social safety net programs that would lift older people out of poverty and homelessness, reducing their odds of being arrested in the first place. America’s jail and prison population peaked in 2008, when more than 2.3 million people were behind bars. And while it has mostly declined since then — especially during Covid, when many prisoners were released as the virus ravaged prisons — it has recently been ticking back up. “We have far too many people in our prisons,” Eisen said. One of the fastest ways to address that problem is to release older people, who generally don’t pose a public safety risk. “This is a population that shouldn’t be behind bars.” But until lawmakers acknowledge that the current prison system is failing some of the most vulnerable people in its care, cases like Washington’s or Jordan’s will become all the more common. And more and more people who are now serving time in an American prison will slowly come to learn that their punishment has morphed into a death sentence.

There’s a significant impediment to maximizing CRISPR’s potential for developing novel therapies: the lack of diversity in genetics research. | Paige Vickers/Vox; Getty Images The genetic data that underpins CRISPR has a big diversity problem. Medicine has entered a new era in which scientists have the tools to change human genetics directly, creating the potential to treat or even permanently cure diseases by editing a few strands of troublesome DNA. And CRISPR, the gene-editing technology whose creators won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2020, is the face of this new normal. CRISPR’s novel harnessing of bacterial proteins to target disease-carrying genes has reshaped medical research over the past decade. While gene-editing itself has been around for more than 30 years, scientists can use CRISPR to edit genomes faster, cheaper, and more precisely than they could with previous gene-editing methods. The method’s novel harnessing of bacterial proteins to target disease-carrying genes has reshaped medical research over the past decade. As a result, investigators have gained far more control over where a gene gets inserted and when it gets turned on. That in turn has opened the door to a new class of better gene therapies — treatments that modify or replace people’s genes to stop a disease. Last December, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first-ever CRISPR-based therapy, designed to treat sickle cell disease. In February, the treatment, called Casgevy, gained approval from the European Commission as well. It joins the dozen or so pre-CRISPR gene therapies that are already available to patients. But there’s a significant impediment to maximizing CRISPR’s potential for developing novel therapies: the lack of diversity in genetics research. For decades, gene therapy has been defined by both its enormous therapeutic potential, and by the limitations imposed by our imprecise knowledge of human genetics. Even as gene-editing methods, including CRISPR, have become more sophisticated over the years, the data in the genetic databases and biobanks that scientists use to find and develop new treatments are still riddled with biases that could exclude communities of color from enjoying the full benefits of innovations like CRISPR. Unless that gap is closed, CRISPR’s promise won’t be fully fulfilled. Gaps in research Developing effective gene therapies depends on growing our knowledge of the human genome. Data on genes and their correlation with disease have already changed the way cancer researchers think about how to design drugs, and which patients to match with which drug. Scientists have long known that certain genetic mutations that disrupt regular cell functions can cause cancer to develop, and they have tailored drugs to neutralize those mutations. Genetic sequencing technology has sped that progress, allowing researchers to analyze the genetics of tumor samples from cancer patients after they’ve participated in clinical trials to understand why some individuals respond better than others to a drug. In a clinical trial of the colorectal cancer drug cetuximab, investigators found retrospectively that tumors with a mutation in the KRAS gene (which helps govern cell growth) did not respond to treatment. As a result, clinicians are now asked to confirm that patients do not have the mutation in the KRAS gene before they prescribe that particular drug. New drugs have been developed to target those mutations in the KRAS gene. It’s a step-by-step process from the discovery of these disease-related genes to the crafting of drugs that neutralize them. With CRISPR now available to them, many researchers believe that they can speed this process up. The technology is based on — and named after — a unique feature in the bacterial immune system that the organism uses to defend itself against viruses. CRISPR is found naturally in bacteria: It’s short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, and it functions like a mugshot database for bacteria, containing snippets of genetic code from foreign viruses that have tried to invade in the past. When new infections occur, the bacteria deploys RNA segments that scan for viral DNA that matches the mugshots. Special proteins are then dispatched to chop the virus up and neutralize it. Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images The headquarters at CRISPR Therapeutics, which received the first FDA approval for a treatment that uses the CRISPR gene-editing technology. To develop CRISPR into a biotech platform, this protein-RNA complex was adapted from bacteria and inserted into human and animal cells, where it proved similarly effective at searching for and snipping strands of DNA. Using CRISPR in humans requires a few adjustments. Scientists have to teach the system to search through human DNA, which means that it will need a different “mugshot database” than what the bacteria originally needed. Critical to harnessing this natural process is artificial RNA, known as a guide RNA. These guide RNAs are designed to match genes found in humans. In theory, these guide RNAs search for and find a specific DNA sequence associated with a specific disease. The special protein attached to the guide RNA then acts like molecular scissors to cut the problematic gene. CRISPR’s therapeutic potential was evident in the breakthrough sickle cell treatment approved by the FDA late last year. What made sickle cell such an attractive target is not just that it affects around 20 million people or more worldwide, but that it is caused by a mutation in a single gene, which makes it simpler to study than a disease caused by multiple mutations. Sickle cell is one of the most common disorders worldwide that is caused by a mutation in a single gene. It was also the first to be characterized at a genetic level, making it a promising candidate for gene therapy. In sickle cell disease, a genetic mutation distorts the shape of a person’s hemoglobin, which is the protein that helps red blood cells carry and deliver oxygen from the lungs to tissues throughout the body. For people with sickle cell disease, their red blood cells look like “sickles” instead of the normal discs. As a result, they can get caught in blood vessels, blocking blood flow and causing issues like pain, strokes, infections, and death. Since the 1990s, clinicians have observed that sickle cell patients with higher levels of fetal hemoglobin tend to live longer. A series of genome-wide association studies from 2008 pointed to the BCL11A gene as a possible target for therapeutics. These association studies establish the relationships between specific genes and diseases, identifying candidates for CRISPR gene editing. Casgevy’s new CRISPR-derived treatment targets a gene called BCL11A. Inactivating this gene stops the mutated form of hemoglobin from being made and increases the production of normal non-sickled fetal hemoglobin, which people usually stop making after birth. Out of the 45 patients who have received Casgevy since the start of the trials, 28 of the 29 eligible patients who have stayed on long enough to have their results analyzed reported that they have been free of severe pain crises. Once the treatment moves out of clinical settings, its exact effects can vary. And if the underlying data set doesn’t reflect the diversity of the patient population, the gene therapies derived from them might not work the same for every person. The nuances of genetics Sickle cell disease as the first benefactor of CRISPR therapy makes sense because it’s a relatively simple disorder that has been studied for a long time. The genetic mutation causing it was found in 1956. But ironically, the same population that could benefit most from Casgvey may miss out on the full benefits of future breakthrough treatments. Scientists developing CRISPR treatments depend on what’s known as a reference genome, which is meant to be a composite representation of a “normal” human genome that can be used to identify genes of interest to target for treating a disease. However, most of the available reference genomes are representative of white Europeans. That’s a problem because not everybody’s DNA is identical: Recent sequencing of African genomes shows that they have 10 percent more DNA than the standard reference genome available to researchers. Researchers have theorized that this is because most modern humans came out of Africa. As populations diverged and reconcentrated, genetic bottlenecks happened, which resulted in a loss of genetic variation compared to the original population. Most genome-wide association studies are also biased in the same way: They have a lot of data from white people and not a lot from people of color. So while those studies can help identify genes of importance that could lead to effective treatments for the population whose genes make up the majority of the reference data — i.e., white people — the same treatments may not work as well for other nonwhite populations. “Broadly, there’s been an issue with human genetics research — there’s been a major under-representation of people of African ancestry, both in the US and elsewhere,” said Sarah Tishkoff, professor of genetics and biology at the University of Pennsylvania. “Without including these diverse populations, we’re missing out on that knowledge that could perhaps result in better therapeutics or better diagnostics.” Even in the case of the notorious breast cancer gene BRCA1, where a single gene mutation can have a serious clinical impact and is associated with an increased risk of developing cancer, underlying mutations within the gene “tend to differ in people of different ancestries,” Tishkoff said. These differences, whether large or small, can matter. Although the vast majority of human genomes are the same, a small fraction of the letters making up our genes can differ from person to person and from population to population, with potentially significant medical implications. Sometimes during sequencing, genetic variations of “unknown significance” appear. These variants could be clinically important, but because of the lack of diversity in previous research populations, no one has studied them closely enough to understand their impact. “If all the research is being done in people of predominantly European ancestry, you’re only going to find those variants,” Tishkoff said. Tammy Ljungblad/The Kansas City Star/Tribune News Service via Getty Images A patient receives treatment for sickle-cell disease in 2018, prior to the FDA’s approval in late 2023 of a new CRISPR-based therapy for the condition. Those limitations affect scientists up and down the developmental pipeline. For researchers using CRISPR technology in preclinical work, the lack of diversity in the genome databases can make it harder to identify the possible negative effect of such genetic variation on the treatments they’re developing. Sean Misek, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, started developing a project with the goal of investigating the differences in the genetic patterns of tumors from patients of European descent compared to patients of African descent. CRISPR has become a versatile tool. Not only can it be used for treatments, but it can also be used for diagnostics and basic research. He and his colleagues intended to use CRISPR to screen for those differences because it can evaluate the effects of multiple genes at once, as opposed to the traditional method of testing one gene at a time. “We know individuals of different ancestry groups have different overall clinical responses to cancer treatments,” Misek said. “Individuals of recent African descent, for example, have worse outcomes than individuals of European descent, which is a problem that we were interested in trying to understand more.” What they encountered instead was a roadblock. When Misek’s team tried to design CRISPR guides, they found that their guides matched the genomes in the cells of people with European and East Asian ancestry, whose samples made up most of the reference genome, but not on cells from people of South Asian or African ancestry, who are far less represented in databases. In combination with other data biases in cancer research, the guide RNA mismatch has made it more difficult to investigate the tumor biology of non-European patients. Genetic variations across ancestry groups not only affect whether CRISPR technology works at all, but they can also lead to unforeseen side effects when the tool makes cuts in places outside of the intended genetic target. Such side effects of “off-target” gene edits could theoretically include cancer. “A big part of developing CRISPR therapy is trying to figure out if there are off-targets. Where? And if they exist, do they matter?” said Daniel Bauer, an attending physician at Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center. To better predict potential off-target edits, Bauer collaborated with Luca Pinello, associate professor at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, who had helped develop a tool called CRISPRme that makes projections based on personal and population-level variations in genetics. To test it, they examined the guide RNA being used for sickle cell disease treatment, and found an off-target edit almost exclusively present in cells donated by a patient of African ancestry. It is currently unclear if this off-target edit detected by the CRISPRme tool has any negative consequences. When the FDA approved the sickle-cell therapy in December 2023, regulators required a post-marketing study to look into off-target effects. Any off-target edits affecting a person’s blood should be easily detected in the blood cells, and drawing blood is easier to do than collecting cells from an internal organ, for example. The genetic variant where the off-target effect occurred can be found in approximately every 1 in 10 people with African ancestry. “The fact that we actually were able to find a donor who carried this variant was kind of luck,” Bauer said. “If the cells we were using were only of European ancestry, it would’ve been even harder to find.” “Most of these [off-target] effects probably won’t cause any problems,” he said. “But I think we also have these great technologies, so that’s part of our responsibility to look as carefully as we can.” To CRISPR or not to CRISPR These issues recur again and again as investigators hunt for novel treatments. Katalin Susztak, professor of medicine and genetics at the University of Pennsylvania, thinks one promising candidate for a future CRISPR therapy is a standout gene for kidney disease: APOL1. Researchers identified the gene when they looked into kidney disease risk in African Americans. While genome-wide association studies turned up thousands of distinct genes increasing risk for people of European ancestry, in African Americans, this single gene was responsible for “3 to 5 times higher risk of kidney disease in patients,” said Susztak. The APOL1 variant is common among African Americans because it protects people from developing African sleeping sickness, which is spread by the Tsetse fly present across much of the continent. This is similar to the story of the sickle cell mutation, which can protect people from malaria. “The variant is maybe only 5,000 years old, so this variant has not arisen in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else. Just in West Africa,” Susztak said. “But because of the slave trades, West Africans were brought to the United States, so millions of people in the United States have this variant.” The variant also predisposes people to develop cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and COVID-related disease, “which maybe explains why there was an increased incidence of deaths in African Americans during COVID than in Europeans,” Susztak said. “APOL1 is potentially a very interesting target [for CRISPR] because the disease association is strong.” A CRISPR treatment for kidney disease is currently being investigated, but using the tool comes with complications. Cutting the APOL1 gene would set off an immune response, Susztak noted, so they will have to somehow prevent undesirable side effects, or find a related, but editable gene, like they did with sickle cell. An alternative RNA-based strategy utilizing CRISPR is also in the works. DNA needs to be transcribed into a messenger RNA sequence first before it can be turned into proteins. Instead of permanently altering the genome, RNA editing alters the sequence of RNAs, which can then change what proteins are produced. The effects are less permanent, however, lasting for a few months instead of forever — which can be advantageous for treating temporary medical conditions. And it may turn out that gene therapy is simply not the right approach to the problem. Sometimes, a more conventional approach still works best. Susztak said that a small molecule drug developed by Vertex — which works similarly to most drugs except special classes like gene therapies or biologics — to inhibit the function of the APOL1 protein has enjoyed positive results in early clinical trials. An outlook on the future of CRISPR Even with these limitations, more CRISPR treatments are coming down the pike. As of early last year, more than 200 people have been treated with experimental CRISPR therapies for cancers, blood disorders, infections, and more. In the developmental pipeline is a CRISPR-based therapeutic from Intellia Therapeutics that treats transthyretin amyloidosis, a rare condition affecting the function of the heart tissues and nerves. The drug has performed well in early trials and is now recruiting participants for a Phase III study. Another CRISPR drug from Intellia for hereditary angioedema, a condition that causes severe swelling throughout the body, is slated to enter Phase III later this year. As the CRISPR boom continues, some research groups are slowly improving the diversity of their genetic sources. The All of Us program from the National Institutes of Health, which aims to find the biological, environmental, and lifestyle factors that contribute to health, has analyzed 245,000 genomes to date, over 40 percent of which came from participants who were not of European ancestry. They found new genetic markers for diabetes that have never been identified before. Then there’s the Human Pangenome project, which aims to create a reference genome that captures more global diversity. The first draft of its proposal was released last May. Another project called the PAGE study, funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, is working to include more ancestrally diverse populations in genome-wide association studies. Getty Images/Westend61 New projects are underway to gather genetic data from underrepresented people and improve scientists’ ability to develop effective CRISPR therapies. But at the current pace, experts predict that it will take years to reach parity in our genetic databases. And the scientific community must also build trust with the communities it’s trying to help. The US has a murky history with medical ethics, especially around race. Take the Tuskegee experiment that charted the progression of syphilis in Black American men while hiding the true purpose of the study from the participants and withholding their ability to seek treatment when it became available, or the controversy over Henrietta Lacks’ cervical cells, which were taken and used in research without her consent. Those are just two prominent historical abuses that have eroded trust between minority communities and the country’s medical system, Tishkoff said. That history has made it more difficult to collect samples from marginalized communities and add them to these critical data sets. Where the research is being done, where the clinical trials are being held, as well as who’s doing the research, can all have an impact on which patients participate. The Human Genetics & Genomics Workforce Survey Report published by the American Society of Human Genetics in 2022 found that 67 percent of the genomic workforce identified as white. Add in the financial burden of developing new treatments when using a reference genome, or a pre-made biobank from past efforts to collect and organize a large volume of biological samples, saves time and costs. In the race to bring CRISPR treatments to market, those shortcuts offered valuable efficiency to drug makers. What this means is that the “first-generation” of CRISPR therapeutics might therefore be blunter instruments than they might otherwise be. However, if improvements can be made to make sure the source genomes reflect a wider range of people, Pinello believes that later generations of CRISPR will be more personalized and therefore more effective for more people. Finding the genes and making drugs that work is, of course, momentous — but ultimately, that’s only half the battle. The other worry physicians like Susztak have is whether patients will be able to afford and access these innovative treatments. There is still an overwhelming racial disparity in clinical trial enrollment. Studies have found that people of color are more likely to suffer from chronic illness and underuse medications like insulin compared to their white counterparts. Gene therapies easily rack up price tags in the millions, and insurance companies, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, are still trying to figure out how to pay for them. “Because it’s the pharmaceutical industry, if they don’t turn around profit, if they cannot test the drug, or if people are unwilling to take it, then this inequity is going to be worsened,” said Susztak. “We are essentially going to be creating something that makes things worse even though we are trying to help.”

Periodical cicadas in Takoma Park, Maryland, that emerged in 2021 as part of Brood X. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images The arrival of Brood XIX and Brood XIII will send shockwaves through forest food webs. This spring is a very good time to be a bird. In forests across the Midwest and Southeast, the ground is about to erupt with billions of loud, protein-packed cicadas. They’ll buzz about for a few weeks as they search for mates, providing snacks for pretty much every living creature in the forest, from songbirds and swans to frogs and even fish. This is an especially big year for these red-eyed bugs: Brood XIX and Brood XIII — which pop up every 13 years and 17 years, respectively — are emerging at once. The last time such an event happened was the spring of 1803, when Thomas Jefferson was president. It will be hundreds of years before it happens again. While the insect explosion will be brief, it will shape forests for years to come. The binge-fest that birds enjoy during these periods supersize their families and, in turn, shift the eating and hunting patterns of many other species. These effects send ripples throughout the ecosystem. As one recent study put it, pulses of periodical cicadas can “rewire” entire forest food webs. Call it the butterfly cicada effect. Why billions of cicadas erupt all at once For most of their lives — either 13 or 17 years, depending on the brood — periodical cicadas live several inches underground, slurping up sap from plant roots with their straw-like mouths. Then, when the soil temperature hits about 64 degrees Fahrenheit, they emerge, typically after sunset. Cicadas in more southern states, like Alabama, usually emerge in April or early May, whereas those in colder states like Illinois tend to appear later in the spring. The teenage insects then march up plants, trees, and fences, where they metamorphose into winged adults. That’s when giant groups of males start singing loudly to attract females (you know, lady bugs). During these events, a single acre of land can have more than 1 million cicadas on it. That’s roughly 2,700 pounds of bugs. Sean Rayford/Getty Images A Brood XIX cicada sheds its exoskeleton on a tree in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on May 1. Sean Rayford/Getty Images Here, two adult cicadas from this year’s Brood XIX are preparing to find mates. This mass eruption, scientists believe, is strategic. “They effectively satiate their predators,” Louie Yang, an entomologist at the University of California Davis, told me a few years ago, when the famous Brood X emerged. The cicada defense strategy is to flood the forests so that predators become so full they literally can’t stomach another bite. That leaves plenty of insects left to mate and lay eggs that will become the next generation of cicadas. This approach seems to work for cicadas, and it’s an absolute delight for birds. Birds lose their minds during cicada outbreaks Birds can be fussy about their food. Some prefer plants, like the trumpeter swan, while others specialize in seeds or small insects, like chickadees. Those preferences get tossed out during cicada explosions. The birds stop what they’re doing and go to town on the bug buffet. During the Brood X emergence in 2021, researchers documented more than 80 different avian species feeding on cicadas, including small birds that couldn’t fit them in their mouths. Dan Gruner A grackle eating a cicada. “We saw chickadees — tiny, tiny little birds — grab the cicada and drag it to the ground with their body weight and then peck it apart,” said Zoe Getman-Pickering, an ecologist at University of Massachusetts Amherst, who led the research. She also saw purple martins, which typically catch small insects like winged ants and flies from the air, go after loads of cicadas. “There was one family of purple martins that got 23 cicadas into their nest in three hours or so,” Getman-Pickering said. This feeding frenzy can seriously benefit some birds. Simply put, more food can lead to more babies. “Following emergences, you do tend to get an increase in a lot of the apparent avian predator populations,” Walt Koenig, an ornithologist at Cornell University and research zoologist emeritus at UC Berkeley, told me in 2021. One analysis he co-authored, based on 37 years of data, linked cicada eruptions to a population bump in a number of species including red-headed woodpeckers and common grackles. Remarkably, many of these knock-on effects lasted for years, Koenig said. The number of blue jays, for example, was significantly higher even three years after the cicada eruptions. “These results indicate that, at least in some species, the effects of cicada emergences are detectable years after the event itself,” Koenig and his co-authors wrote. Fat caterpillars, rejoice It’s not just birds that are benefitting. During big emergences, avian predators are eating so many cicadas that they eat much less of everything else — including caterpillars. That means caterpillars get a rare reprieve from the constant threat of attack, at least from birds. Researchers have actually measured this. In the years surrounding Brood X, Getman-Pickering and her collaborators filled forests in Maryland with fake caterpillars made of clay. They then measured how many of them had signs of bird strikes — beak marks indicating that birds tried to eat them. Martha Weiss A caterpillar made of clay with signs of bird strikes. In May, when Brood X was emerging, the portion of caterpillars with strike marks fell dramatically, from about 30 percent in a typical year to below 10 percent during the emergence, according to her study, published in 2023. She also looked at real caterpillars. Remarkably, the number of them roughly doubled in the forests she studied during the emergence, relative to the two following years. “It was pretty staggering how many caterpillars that we saw,” Getman-Pickering said. A lot of them were extra plump, too, like the spiny larvae of the dagger moth. When there are few cicadas, the juiciest caterpillars are often picked off first; they’re much easier for birds to spot. But during cicada eruptions, caterpillars are free to eat and grow at their leisure. “The biggest, most visible caterpillars benefited immensely from the release from predation,” she said. John Lill A plump caterpillar in the genus Acronicta that the research team found in the forest. Trees might prefer life without cicadas A surge in caterpillars, meanwhile, has effects of its own. These animals famously eat leaves. So when birds eat fewer of them, the cicadas chew their way through more of the forest canopy. Getman-Pickering’s recent study measured this too: In the summer of 2021, after Brood X debuted, oak trees experienced “a spike in cumulative leaf damage,” the paper states. A doubling of the number of caterpillars meant a doubling of the damage, she said. It’s not clear what that ultimately means for forest health. Previous studies have shown that cicadas themselves, however, can harm trees. After breeding, females carve slits into branches and lay eggs, which often damages the wood. Research by Koenig, of Cornell, found that oak trees produced fewer acorns in a year with a cicada emergence, and in the following year. Older studies have also shown that emergences can slow the rate of tree growth. The long-term picture is hazier. Unpublished data from Karin Berghardt and Kelsey McGurrin, researchers at the University of Maryland, shows that trees seem to bounce back from the harm caused by egg-laying. There’s also some research suggesting that cicada carcasses could actually fertilize the forest floor. Ultimately, what all of these studies show is that cicadas can transform entire ecosystems in just a few short weeks. Think about that the next time you walk through the woods: The birds, the butterflies, the trees themselves are all shaped, in some way, by one very weird bug.

Paige Vickers/Vox; Getty Images In times of economic uncertainty, small luxuries reign supreme. In 2007, it was hard to go anywhere without hearing someone chanting the lyrics to Lil Mama’s signature bop “Lip Gloss.” In the song, the rapper boasts about her distractingly shiny and luscious pout while name-dropping her go-to brands, MAC and L’Oréal (specifically, “those Watermelon Crushes”). In 2024, however, it feels like this ode to cosmetics is due for a sequel, given the sheer amount of lip glosses, balms, butters, oils, masks, and scrubs that have hit the market recently. On BeautyTok and Instagram, it’s hard to avoid users showing off their favorite lip gloss-balm hybrids, like Rhode’s Peptide Lip Treatments or Summer Fridays’ Lip Butter Balms — if not actual ads. These two products have become particularly sought out by makeup wearers since their respective launches in 2020 and 2021, appearing on several best lip product lists. Other bestsellers on Ulta and Sephora’s websites include Dior’s Addict Lip Glow Oil, Fenty Beauty’s Gloss Bomb Lip Luminizer, NYX’s Fat Lip Oil, Glossier’s recently reformulated Balm Dotcom, and E.L.F.’s Glow Reviver Lip Oil — not to mention some old classics that are making a retro comeback. We all know that beauty trends are cyclical. The popular matte trend of the 2010s has been overtaken by the recent desire for ultra-shiny lips, an obvious resurgence of the makeup looks from the ’90s and early 2000s, when Lancome’s Juicy Tubes and Mac Lipglass were all the rage. For many lip-gloss enthusiasts, purchasing and reapplying these products has become its own sort of obsession, resulting in unnecessary — although, it depends on who you ask — large collections. Last December, 27-year-old beauty influencer Ky Mason (@iamkytoo) posted a whopping five-part “lip product collection tour” on TikTok, featuring hundreds of balms, glosses, and lipsticks from both high-end and low-end brands. “I personally find that some of the drugstore lip oils provide the same amount of shine, hydration, and color options as some of the more expensive options I’ve tried for a fraction of the price,” Mason says. Another influencer, 21-year-old Clara Li, (@ok_clara) describes herself as a “squeezy (tip) lip balm connoisseur. “I have multiple in my bag, one on my nightstand, one in the bathroom, one by the couch, and various spare lip balms stocked around the house, too,” she says. @iamkytoo We’re done with part 5 of my lip product collection tour, and we’ve now made it through my entire makeup collection! I know I have a lot, but I’m definitely gonna focus more on panning in the new year to run through some of the excess❤️ #lipproductcollection #makeupcollection #lipstickcollection #makeuptok #beautytok ♬ original sound - Ky To accommodate lip gloss superfans like Mason and Li, Hailey Bieber is even selling gray Rhode phone cases that customers can attach their glosses to the back of. Given that a common cellphone attachment is typically a cardholder, this innovative gadget implies that lip balm, specifically Rhode’s, is just as crucial to carry around as your driver’s license. By all accounts, it seems like lip products have become more than just cheap, everyday essentials to mindlessly throw into your purse. In the post-pandemic era, where our mouths are unmasked most of the time, they’ve evolved into miniature status symbols for influencers and casual “makeup girlies” alike. Still, our beauty routines and consumption habits tend to communicate something deeper about our physical anxieties and economic realities. So what does our current overconsumption of lip gloss tell us about young people right now? The Kylie Jenner era of lip filler is (kind of) over Michael Tran/AFP via Getty Images Kylie Jenner at the Vanity Fair Oscars Party in Beverly Hills, California, on March 10, 2024. The last time beauty influencers paid this much attention to their mouths was a decade ago, when reality star-turned-beauty mogul Kylie Jenner disclosed that she had gotten lip filler after intense speculation from the public. As a result, the desire for big lips saw a peak in the mid-2010s. In 2015, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reported ​​27,449 lip implant procedures. (That’s one procedure every 19 minutes.) There were also a number of hazardous lip-enhancing hacks that emerged on social media, like the “Kylie Jenner Challenge,” which used suction from a shot glass, and a lip-lifting trick involving glue. Most notably, Jenner was able to capitalize off the publicity surrounding her newly plump lips by launching Kylie Cosmetics in 2015, which kicked off by selling matte lip kits to help customers achieve her look. In the 2020s, people haven’t necessarily become less desperate for large, pillowy lips — although plastic surgeons have noticed more people wanting to dissolve their filler. In the aftermath of the lip surgery boom, beauty vloggers and other social media users began sharing their experiences with filler migration, an unintended side effect where fillers move from the injection site to other areas of the mouth. While this complication is pretty rare, it seems that patients are looking for ways to correct their procedures or enhance the appearance of their lips in minuscule ways. “We’ve definitely seen an uptick in patients who are seeking a more subtle result from lip fillers and other adjunctive procedures,” says Dr. Peter Lee, chief surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in California. In addition to hyaluronic acid filler injections, Lee says other alternatives include longer-lasting fat transfers, silicone or ePTFE (expanded polytetrafluoroethylene) implants, and lip lifts, an hour-long procedure which “subtly elevate the corners of the mouth and creates a more youthful appearance.” Even faster is the “lip flip,” which uses Botox to create the appearance of a larger upper lip and typically takes less than 30 minutes. Despite the association lip filler has with cultural appropriation, Lee has noticed more Black women coming to his office for lip treatments. “We believe Black women are seeking them out for the same reasons women from other ethnic groups are: They understand that aesthetic lip procedures are not just about making the lips fuller,” he says. “They can create greater definition and shaping of the lips.” Of course, “lip care” comes back to an endless pursuit of youth Lee notes another important selling point for lip augmentations: “Fuller lips are not only a feature of beauty; they’re also a sign of youth.” As a main focal point of the face, thin, wrinkled lips can be an immediate sign of aging. Getting older means producing less collagen, elastin molecules, and hyaluronic acid, resulting in thinner lips for some people. Through that lens, it’s safe to assume that beauty consumers are, in part, stocking up on “lip care” products for the same reasons cosmetic patients want a more natural-looking pout. In addition to signifying attractiveness and sensuality, everyone wants to look like they’re in their 20s. Right now, Gen Z seems to be experiencing a collective crisis over looking old, which has resulted in an interest in so-calledanti-aging skincare for many tweens. That said, it’s not a surprise that young people are running to lip products that offer color and a sheen but promise dermatological benefits. “The fusion of skincare benefits with traditional makeup attributes is one of the major driving forces behind the virality of certain lip products,” says Samantha Arnstadt, VP of creative, strategy, and design at the PR company Front Row. (Among other brands, Front Row represents Summer Fridays and Saie, which has a popular lip gloss oil.) Arnstadt says that these viral products are “bridging the gap between skincare and makeup” by promising not only beauty, but hydration and protection too. “Fuller lips are not only a feature of beauty; they’re also a sign of youth” Last year alone, Kylie Jenner’s brand Kylie Skin debuted tubed “lip butters,” strongly resembling Summer Fridays’ products. And the viral skincare brand Topicals’ also released a Slick Salve Mint Lip Balm that quickly became the lip balm du jour on TikTok. Additionally, the Lip Sleeping Mask from Korean skincare brand Laneige has become a cult favorite for its instantly hydrating properties. View this post on Instagram A post shared by LANEIGE U.S. (@laneige_us) Older brands are also noticeably competing for a space in beauty consumers’ “lippie” collections as well. Arnstadt notes that many mass brands have “refreshed their product lines to include lip gloss to align with the current market and appeal to Gen Z.” Other older brands like Vaseline, Nivea, and Aquaphor have released new lip therapy products or repackaged them to match the aesthetic of these newer, buzzier products. In particular, peptides — short chains of amino acids that help build proteins in the skin — have become a buzzworthy ingredient for marketers, according to New York-based dermatologist Dr. Shereene Idriss. In addition to Rhode, brands Ole Henriksen, Paula’s Choice, and Persona are just some companies that include peptides in their newer lip products. “Certain peptides have humectant properties,” says Idriss. “This means they can attract and retain moisture in the skin and also helps support the skin’s natural repair processes for dry lips.” For many fans, these promises have a major appeal. “I think a lot of people want their lip products to be moisturizing while still having lasting power of longer than three sips of soda,” says influencer Ky Mason. In a time of economic decline, lip glosses have become affordable status symbols Aside from the skincare aspect, there seems to be excitement among people on social media who collect these lip products in large numbers. MacKenzi Nelson, art director at beauty PR company Helen + Gertrude, says this current hoarding of lip gloss represents a pre-existing consumer trend. “We’ve heard of the ‘lipstick effect theory’ in culture, where sales in affordable luxuries, like lip products, skyrocket in times of economic distress,” she says. “These small ‘treats,’ if you will, bring a big impact physically and emotionally.” In addition to their affordability, lip products are also accessible to people who may not identify as makeup lovers or want to wear a full face of makeup, including influencer Clara Li at one point. “I actually used to be a makeup minimalist in all makeup categories other than lip products,” she says. Additionally, Nelson says that the “sensory” element of these products has a lot to do with their popularity, as they provide “a moment of ritualistic self-care, comfort, and play.” Li agrees with this sentiment,stating that the lip products are “definitely habit-forming.” That said, it’s hard not to notice the irony of obsessively purchasing and using these products. The amount of times a person feels they need to reapply or restock on lip gloss seems to undermine their exact purpose of keeping your lips moisturized for long periods. Beauty columnist Jessica DeFino explored this paradox in February in response to a reader’s self-described “addiction” to lip balm. “That lip balm requires constant reapplication doesn’t strike consumers as a product flaw, but as an opportunity to fulfill their personal purpose: buying stuff,” she wrote. Dr. Idriss also says there’s such a thing as putting on too much lip balm, preventing the health benefits these products advertise. “When you continuously apply lip balm, your lips may become accustomed to the moisturizing effects and stop producing enough natural oils to keep them hydrated on their own,” she says. “As a result, your lips may feel even drier and more chapped when you’re not using lip balm.” As DeFino put it, the habit of constantly reapplying only seems to enable consumers to stock up on more of these items. On the other hand, these brands, usually offering a variety of shades and flavors, are also successful at aiding this compulsory overconsumption — the more you own, the better. Much of the packaging and marketing for these viral lip balms telegraph a semblance of luxury and self-care. In Rhode’s marketing materials on social media, the peptide lip treatment is often displayed next to fruits or sugary, sumptuous foods, really nailing home Nelson’s description of lip products as “treats.” Other brands, like Topicals, include their lip glosses alongside other items you would find in a wealthy person’s bag, like a Louis Vuitton wallet and a roll of cash, on their Instagram. View this post on Instagram A post shared by TOPICALS (@topicals) Still, these products offer a low-barrier entry point into cosmetics because of their relatively lower price points compared to more expensive cosmetics. For example, Chanel’s foundation can range from $55 to almost $80, while its Rouge Coco Gloss retails at $40. Non-drugstore but not-exactly high-end brands like Rhode and Summer Fridays offer lip balms and oils are under $30. Plus, actual luxury brands, like Dior and Chanel, offering somewhat accessible lip products help consumers, who can’t afford their clothing or accessories, experience this fantasy. On the other hand, these brands, usually offering a variety of shades and flavors, are also successful at aiding this compulsory overconsumption — the more you own, the better. In that way, it seems like lip gloss has become a low-stakes remedy for a particular type of dread facing everyone — but maybe more vocally, young women. 2023 saw women on TikTok begin to reckon with how much they had been influenced, both by celebrities and average people, into buying needless or ineffective (usually) beauty products on the app. Users declared their attempts to resist these urges with the hashtag #deinfluencing. However, the success of this trend immediately seemed unlikely, given the ad-driven infrastructure of social media that isn’t going anywhere. In buying lip gloss, it seems like beauty consumers have found a happy medium between “deinfluencing” and indulging in their compulsive shopping habits. While it may not be the reason every person buys lip products, the ability to hoard them without spending a ton of money can create a false sense of opulence and security. In a moment of economic downturn and general doom about the world, it’s comforting to know that we can impulsively spend money on the latest it-girl item and delight in the same vain activities as Kylie Jenner or Hailey Bieber. For someone like Mason, though, collecting lip gloss is maybe not a sign of some sort of existential crisis but simply one of life’s simple pleasures — even if it includes a price tag. “Do I think it’s possible to finish 300-plus lip products by the time my life is over? Probably not,” she says. “But I’ll have fun counting how many of them I can finish and reviewing them until that time comes.”

Paige Vickers/Vox Plus, lessons worth learning about financial literacy. On the Money is a monthly advice column. If you want advice on spending, saving, or investing — or any of the complicated emotions that may come up as you prepare to make big financial decisions — you can submit your questions on this form. A Vox reader recently wrote in: I am a personal finance teacher in Florida, where the state has recently mandated a semester-long financial literacy course for graduation. My students come from economic backgrounds ranging from daily uncertainty to affluence. The fin lit lessons universally focus on standard rules to follow in moving toward financial freedom, such as six months of income for an emergency fund, 70-20-10, 50-30-20, cutting lattes out of your life, etc. These are one-size-fits-all answers that ring pretty hollow in households where the mere notion of saving and investing seems like a fantasy. When speaking to students on public assistance, in single-parent households, with modest incomes in the face of growing expenses, what pathways can I offer to them that are realistic? It’s an overwhelming challenge for so many Americans to climb the increasingly mythical ladder of success that resides at the core of our national identity. If you want to help your students find realistic paths toward the next rungs on their individual ladders — which may or may not look anything like the so-called “ladder of success” — you need to ask each of them what ladder they’re trying to climb. Many of them won’t know, especially if your students are still in high school. But they’ll probably know something, like “I want more money” or “I want to go to college out of state.” Ask them why — and make them be specific. “I want money to buy skin care products,” for example, is a specific and realistic goal for a high school student. A college student might want money to take a trip or move off-campus or help out a parent who is struggling financially. You can get your students even closer to the next rung on their ladders by asking them the why a second time. “I want money to buy skin care products because I want to make better TikTok videos,” for example, or “I want money to help my mom because I know she’s worried about making rent.” Then, see if you can get your students to put a number on their goal. Would they need $150 per month, or would the number be closer to $500? Once the goal is defined to the second level of specificity and has a number attached, you can start talking tactics. Would it be better to earn an extra $150 every month, for example, or could they save the money they need by looking at their spending habits and figuring out what to cut? Your students are likely to have very different answers to this question, many of which may be dependent on their household income (including whatever allowances they might receive) as well as the amount of free time they have and their level of entrepreneurial spirit. The purpose of this exercise isn’t to promote one answer over another; it’s to give your students realistic experience in evaluating various types of trade-offs. From there, you can discuss how similar tactics might apply in adulthood. If they’re thinking about moving into a better apartment, for example, they’ll want to come up with a good reason for moving (to be closer to a workplace or to give each of their kids their own rooms) as well as a dollar figure that they might need to achieve their goal. At that point, it’s all about trades. Giving up a daily latte could add $30 to their apartment fund every week. Giving up a few hours every night could help them learn a new skill that could get them a job or help them build a side hustle. Which of these choices is easier to make? Which one could be more beneficial over the long term? (If no choices are available or possible, it may mean the goal is not realistic from their current rung of the ladder, and they may need to choose a different goal.) All of this depends, of course, on your being able to teach your students more than the generic personal finance curriculum required by the state of Florida. I don’t know if you have the capacity to ask each student to define a personal goal to the second level of specificity, for example, or to talk to them seriously about tactics and trade-offs. I suppose that if you don’t have that power or that time, you could always send them a link to this column. From another Vox reader: Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. How can we get out of the hole? I could answer this question in two words: See above. That said, I’ll run the exercise with you as an example of how this process works. Why do you want to get out of the paycheck-to-paycheck hole? You don’t have to, after all. Most Americans, according to your own admission, live there, and you can have a reasonably fulfilling life living paycheck to paycheck, carrying balances on credit cards, and keeping your revolving debts within the boundaries required for a good credit score (which means not letting your debts exceed 30 percent of your available credit, just in case you didn’t have that number memorized). Now I’ll be you: “I want to get out of the paycheck-to-paycheck hole because I feel like I ought to be saving more.” Not good enough. “I want to get out of the paycheck-to-paycheck hole because I don’t want to have to worry about losing my job.” A little better. “I want to get out of the paycheck-to-paycheck hole because I want to build the kind of career that I can control, which could be a risky move, and I would be more comfortable taking that risk if I had a financial cushion.” Good! We’re getting somewhere. At this point I might start asking you about the type of career move you’d like to make, why you think the move comes with specific risks, and whether you could take those risks without a financial cushion — it’s possible, people do it all the time — and whether the money you plan to earn from your new career would in fact allow you to move out of the paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle. I’d also ask you how much of a financial cushion you think you need, just so we could get a number attached to your goal. At that point, you’d be ready to start evaluating tactics and trade-offs. See how it works? Now let’s say you chose a slightly different answer: “I want to get out of the paycheck-to-paycheck hole because I’m worried that I’m not saving enough for retirement.” That’s one level of specificity. Can you give me two? “I want to get out of the paycheck-to-paycheck hole because saving more money for retirement would allow me to travel more often and spend more time with my grandchildren.” That sounds like the fantasy version of retirement. Is that what you really want? “Yes. I want to take the grandkids to Walt Disney World and I want us to stay in one of those Animal Kingdom suites where you can see the giraffes outside your window. Whenever we do a family vacation, we’re always stuck in some Airbnb where my daughter and I have to do all the grocery shopping and cook all the food and they make you clean the entire place before you leave, and I want some magic, damnit, and I want it before all of us get too old to enjoy it.” All right, now we can start planning — and so can you, once you start asking yourself the same questions.