It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Monday, June 15, 2026
Elsevier launches Ebola Information Center with free clinical and research resources to support response to outbreak
Following the World Health Organization’s declaration of an Ebola outbreak caused by Bundibugyo virus in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), Elsevier, a global leader in scientific information and analytics, has launched its Ebola Information Center to provide healthcare professionals, researchers, policy makers and the public with free access to critical clinical and research information to support the global response to this outbreak.
Elsevier’s Ebola Information Center brings together a wide range of freely available resources, with a focus on the emerging Bundibugyo virus variant. The center combines evidence-based clinical guidance, peer-reviewed research, early-stage research findings, datasets and AI-assisted research tools to support rapid evidence discovery and response coordination during this critical public health emergency.
Key Resources Available:
Ebola Healthcare Hub: A dedicated clinical resource offering evidence-based clinical overviews, patient education materials and drug monographs to support healthcare professionals responding to the outbreak
ScienceDirect Research Content: Ebola-related articles and book chapters published by Elsevier journals are freely available on ScienceDirect, the world’s leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature. New content will continue to be made available throughout the duration of the crisis
LeapSpace: Researchers working on the outbreak response can access LeapSpace, the research-grade AI workspace to rapidly map existing evidence on Bundibugyo virus pathology, treatment approaches and outbreak response, identify relevant collaborators and funding opportunities, and analyse their own research data alongside published literature
The Lancet Ebola Collection: Ebola-related research, reviews and commentaries are being made freely available as they are published across The Lancet Group’s journals.
Cell Press Ebola Collection: Ebola research is being made freely available across Cell Press journals
SSRN Ebola Hub: Early-stage research on Bundibugyo virus is being made immediately available through SSRN, Elsevier’s platform for rapid worldwide dissemination of preprints. The curated Ebola Hub helps researchers, public health authorities, clinicians and the public access emerging findings. Please note that these papers have not yet benefited from peer review
Mendeley Data: Ebola-related datasets indexed across multiple repositories including figshare, Zenodo and Dryad have been curated to help researchers rapidly identify potentially relevant data for their work.
Esra Erkal, Executive Vice President of Global Communications for Elsevier, said: “The Ebola Information Center represents our commitment to supporting the global health emergency response by making critical scientific knowledge and clinical resources immediately and freely accessible to those on the frontlines of this outbreak. We will continuously expand the resources available as new evidence emerges.”
Elsevier has also made all the content from the Ebola Information Center available on publicly funded repositories, with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are provided free of charge for as long as the Ebola Information Center remains active.
Additional resources will be continuously added to the Ebola Information Center throughout the duration of the public health emergency. The company’s response to Ebola follows Elsevier’s previous support for global health emergencies including SARS, MERS, Zika, Coronavirus and Mpox, demonstrating a sustained commitment to supporting the scientific community and public health response during critical health crises.
About Elsevier
Elsevier is a global leader in advanced information and decision support. For over a century, we have been helping advance science and healthcare to advance human progress. We support academic and corporate research communities, doctors, nurses, future healthcare professionals and educators across 170 countries in their vital work.
We help impact makers achieve better outcomes with research and clinical-grade solutions built on the world’s leading scientific and medical knowledge base of evidence-based content, precision AI, and expert human assessment to ensure accountability at every step.
We champion inclusion and sustainability, working with the communities that we serve. The Elsevier Foundation supports research and health partnerships around the world.
Elsevier is part of RELX, a global provider of information-based analytics and decision tools for professional and business customers. For more information, visit www.elsevier.com and follow us on social media @elsevierconnect.
Social inequality is linked to faster biological aging
Large meta-analysis finds consistent evidence across epigenetic measures worldwide
The study, conducted by the Biosocial team at Max Planck Institute for Human Development in collaboration with Columbia University in New York, demonstrates that social inequality, such as poverty and racism, are related to biological aging measured in the epigenome, also known as “epigenetic clocks”. Epigenetic clocks analyze patterns of chemical marks on DNA to estimate a person’s biological age or the rate at which their body is aging. These tools are increasingly used by scientists to study how environmental exposures, lifestyle, and social conditions affect health across the life course.
Previous individual studies have shown that epigenetic clocks are sensitive to socioeconomic and racial or ethnic disparities. However, because multiple types of epigenetic clocks exist, it has remained unclear which measures best capture the effects of social determinants of health, at which stages of life socioeconomic exposures most affect epigenetic aging, and whether associations differ by sex or by technical factors such as the tissue in which epigenetic data are collected. This study integrates findings across many independent studies offering a comprehensive test of whether these associations are consistent and robust.
Newer biological aging measures are most sensitive to social conditions The study reveals a robust pattern: people experiencing social disadvantage tend to show faster biological aging, and this association was strongest when using the newest generation of epigenetic clocks. First-generation clocks—designed primarily to estimate chronological age—are weakly associated with socioeconomic conditions. In contrast, second-generation clocks, which reflect health and mortality risk, and third-generation clocks, which measure the pace of aging, show substantially stronger associations with socioeconomic conditions.
Evidence across the lifespan The study also indicates that social inequality influences biological aging from early in life: children growing up in lower socioeconomic circumstances already show signs of faster biological aging when measured using newer epigenetic clocks. The study further finds that adults who grew up in disadvantaged families tend to age faster biologically later in life, even decades after childhood exposures.
Social disparities reflected in biological aging The researchers also examined racial and ethnic disparities in biological aging. In U.S.-based studies included in the analysis, Black participants show faster biological aging than white participants when measured with second- and third-generation clocks. Differences between Latinx and white participants are also observed, though somewhat smaller.
Implications for health research and interventions The results help clarify which epigenetic clocks are most useful for studying how social and environmental conditions influence biological aging. The team notes that these tools may also help scientists evaluate whether interventions—such as poverty reduction programs, education policies, or health interventions—can slow biological aging and improve long-term health in the future.
About the study The study synthesizes findings from 1,065 effect sizes across 140 studies involving 65,919 participants aged from birth to 86 years old. By summarizing results across many studies, the researchers were able to produce the most comprehensive assessment to date of how social conditions relate to epigenetic measures of biological aging.
At a glance
Social disadvantage accelerates biological aging: synthesizing results across 140 studies and nearly 66,000 individuals, lower socioeconomic status and marginalized racial or ethnic identities are consistently linked to faster biological aging as measured in the epigenome.
Not all epigenetic clocks are equal: Newer epigenetic measures—which capture how fast the body is aging—are more sensitive to social inequality than older clocks designed to estimate chronological age.
The effects start early in life: Evidence of accelerated biological aging associated with social disadvantage is already visible in children, indicating that social inequality can shape biology from a young age.
Adolescents who spend at least two hours a day on social media are more likely to experience depressive symptoms and poorer wellbeing, with the strongest effects in early adolescence, according to new research.
The decade-long study, led by Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), found that higher levels of social media use between the ages of 12-18 years were associated with small but noticeable increases in mental health problems one year later, underscoring the need for policies that reduce excessive screentime.
MCRI and Deakin University Dr Nandi Vijayakumar said the findings added much needed insight into the potential impacts of social media on young people’s mental health, particularly during the early teenage years.
The longitudinal study followed almost 1,200 children in Melbourne from age nine to 19 who participated in the Child to Adult Transition Study (CATS). The study collected annual data, prior to Australia’s age-restrictions, on social media use and mental health outcomes including depression, anxiety, wellbeing and self-harm.
Published in the Medical Journal of Australia, it found adolescents who used social media for at least two hours a day were at increased risk of experiencing high depressive symptoms and poor wellbeing at the following annual assessment, compared with those who used these platforms for less than one hour a day. The strongest impact on mental health was seen in girls 12–13 years old.
Dr Vijayakumar said the results supported a focus on early adolescence as a critical window for intervention.
“Early adolescence stands out as a time when higher levels of social media use are linked to a greater risk of mental health problems one year on,” she said.
“While the increases in risk were modest in our study, even small effects can have important public health implications when large numbers of young people are exposed. This is why early adolescence may be the key time to intervene.”
MCRI Professor Susan Sawyer said the findings supported the need for a balanced approach to social media policies and practices.
“Concerns about the impact of social media on adolescent mental health have fuelled community and policy debates globally and driven Australia’s world-first social media legislation,” she said. “Despite all this, robust evidence of population-level impacts has remained limited, making our findings particularly significant.”
Many adolescents report positive experiences with social media around social belonging and self-expression. But high levels of mental health problems, cyberbullying and exposure to harmful online content have sparked widespread alarm.
“Our results don’t suggest that social media is universally harmful but it’s not without some harms,” Professor Sawyer said. “It reinforces the need for age-appropriate limits, better education and literacy programs and clearer parental guidance.”
The Connected Minds Study involves 13- to 16-year-olds who use social media apps such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, and their parents. They are sharing their experiences before and after the changes came into effect on 10 December 2025.
Researchers from The Royal Children's Hospital, the University of Melbourne, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health in London, Imperial College London, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, University of Bristol, University of Oxford and Curtin University also contributed to the study.
Publication: Nandita Vijayakumar, S Ghazaleh Dashti, Louise Canterford, Susan Ellul, Anthony Parissi, Anne-Lise Goddings, Russell M Viner, Paul Moran, Rohan Borschman, Lisa K Mundy, Ellie M Robson and Susan M Sawyer. ‘The effects of social media on adolescent mental health: findings from a population-based cohort study in Australia,’ Medical Journal of Australia. DOI: 10.5694/mja25.01399
*The content of this communication is the sole responsibility of MCRI and does not reflect the views of the NHMRC.
Available for interview:
Dr Nandi Vijayakumar, MCRI Senior Research Officer, Adolescent Health
Professor Susan Sawyer, MCRI Group Leader, Adolescent Health
As the debate over the value of adding fluoride to public drinking water percolates in communities across the nation, a new nationally representative survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania finds Americans sharply divided over the use of fluoride in public drinking water.
The new findings come amid renewed attention to fluoridation following critical remarks by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., legal and regulatory developments, and renewed scientific debate over the health effects of different levels of fluoride exposure.
Fluoride, a mineral that naturally occurs in water and food, is commonly added to dental products such as toothpaste and mouthwash. Most major U.S. cities fluoridate their drinking water. But concerns have arisen that for some pregnant women and children, “the combined total intake of fluoride may exceed safe amounts.”
For decades, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has promoted community water fluoridation as a safe, cost-effective way to reduce tooth decay, calling it a major contributor to declining cavity rates in the 20th century. The agency has said that fluoridated water saves billions annually in avoided dental treatment costs.
However, on April 6, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will be reviewing “new science on fluoride in drinking water.” That day, RFK Jr. announced that he planned to “tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop recommending fluoridation in communities nationwide” and “said he’s assembling a task force of health experts to study the issue and make new recommendations.” In a news story, the Associated Press noted that “Kennedy cannot order communities to stop fluoridation, but he can direct the CDC to stop recommending it and work with the EPA to change the allowed amount.”
Highlights
APPC’s Annenberg Science and Public Health Survey (ASAPH) survey, conducted April 14-28, 2026, among 1,639 U.S. adults, finds that:
43% of U.S. adults favor the use of fluoride in public drinking water while 26% oppose it and 30% neither favor nor oppose it.
When asked whether they’d favor or oppose fluoridation of the drinking water in their community, if the community was deciding whether to do so, 43% would favor fluoridation and 23% would oppose it, with 34% saying neither favor nor oppose.
Self-identified supporters of the MAHA movement are more likely to oppose than favor (41% vs. 26%) adding fluoride to their community’s drinking water. Among those who do not support MAHA, most would favor rather than oppose fluoridation (63% vs. 11%).
Americans are much more confident that the American Dental Association, or ADA, is providing trustworthy information about the health effects of fluoride in drinking water than HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (74% to 34%). Among MAHA supporters, there is greater confidence in Kennedy (74%) but also confidence in the ADA (68%).
About a quarter (26%) of respondents in our nationally representative survey sample consider themselves supporters of the MAHA movement, or Make America Healthy Again, the political slogan and health initiative first associated with RFK Jr.’s 2024 presidential campaign. Another 40% do not consider themselves MAHA supporters and 33% are not sure. For this analysis we look at responses from the total population, self-identified MAHA supporters, and self-identified non-supporters of MAHA. (Download the topline.)
“Americans are divided on fluoridation, but what stands out is that supporters of the Make America Healthy Again movement are notably more skeptical,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, which oversees this survey. “Even so, there is widespread trust in the American Dental Association, which reports that 80 years of research shows community water fluoridation to be safe and ‘the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.’”
Familiarity with use of fluoride in U.S. water supplies
Though fluoride has been part of water supplies across the United States for decades, many Americans say they are not familiar with this. Nearly half of U.S. adults (46%) say they are not familiar with the use of fluoride in U.S. water supplies, while 54% say they are somewhat (45%) or very familiar (9%) with it. Four in 10 (41%) people are not sure whether their community’s public water supply is fluoridated, while about half (48%) say their community’s is.
Perceived effects of water fluoridation on public health
By more than a 2-1 margin, Americans say the use of fluoride in public water supplies has an overall positive (42%) rather than a negative (17%) effect on public health, while 6% say it has no effect. Yet over a third (35%) are not sure, which could reflect a lack of familiarity with the use of fluoride in water supplies.
MAHA supporters are four times more likely than non-supporters to say fluoride in the water supplies has a negative effect on public health (30% vs. 7%). Non-MAHA supporters are twice as likely as MAHA supporters to say water fluoridation has a positive effect on public health (61% vs 30%).
“Although MAHA supporters favor public water fluoridation less than other groups, MAHA supporters are surprisingly equally likely to say fluoride has a positive effect on public health as a negative effect – 30% in both cases – reflecting their uncertainty about its effects,” said Laura A. Gibson, an APPC research analyst.
Views on fluoridating public water supplies
Asked to choose which among a variety of views on fluoridating public water supplies is closest to their own, in the overall population more people support community fluoridation (43%) than oppose it (22%), while a third (34%) don’t have an opinion:
Among supporters of fluoridation, there is a close divide between those who support fluoridation as a community decision (23%) and those who think communities should be required to fluoridate public water (20%).
Among opponents of fluoridation, there is an even split between those who think all communities should be banned from fluoridating (11%) and those who oppose fluoridation but think the decision should be left up to each community (11%).
MAHA supporters are more likely to oppose fluoridation, while non-supporters are more clearly in favor of fluoridation:
Among MAHA supporters, 21% oppose fluoridation and think communities should be banned from doing so, and 18% oppose it but agree the decision should be left up to the community.
Among non-supporters of MAHA, 33% express support for mandated fluoridation and 28% say they are supportive of fluoridation but think the decision to do so should be left up to each community.
Policy positions on ending the use of fluoride in public water supplies
A plurality of respondents oppose a policy to end the use of fluoride in public drinking water (40% vs. 28% favoring). A third (32%) indicate they neither favor nor oppose. MAHA supporters are over three times as likely to say they favor ending the use of fluoride in drinking water than non-supporters of MAHA (50% vs. 15%).
Who is more trustworthy on fluoridating water: RFK Jr. or the ADA?
Overall, the American public is much more confident that the American Dental Association (ADA) is providing the public with trustworthy information about the health effects of fluoride in drinking water than HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The survey finds that two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) are not confident Kennedy is providing trustworthy information on fluoride in drinking water, with 42% who are “not at all confident” and 23% who are “not too confident.” Only a third of adults (34%) are confident in Kennedy, with 8% who are “very confident” and 27% “somewhat confident.”
By contrast, three-quarters of U.S. adults (74%) say they are confident in the ADA, with 28% who are very confident and 45% who are somewhat confident. A quarter of those surveyed (26%) are not confident in the ADA, with 9% who are not at all confident and 17% who are not too confident.
Among the subgroup of MAHA supporters, confidence in Kennedy is much higher. Three in four (74%) MAHA supporters are very (23%) or somewhat (51%) confident in him as a trustworthy source of information about fluoride’s health effects, while only 9% of non-MAHA supporters say they are confident in the health secretary.
The general public and non-supporters of MAHA show greater levels of confidence in the ADA than Kennedy to provide trustworthy information about the health effects of fluoride in drinking water. While most MAHA supporters also express confidence in the ADA (68%), more voice confidence in Kennedy (74%) – and people who are not MAHA supporters have even greater confidence in the ADA (83%).
“When it comes to fluoride, Americans place considerably more trust in the American Dental Association than in Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” said Ken Winneg, APPC’s managing director of survey research. “These overall numbers obscure the finding that many MAHA supporters express confidence in both sources, reflecting how differently Americans evaluate health information depending on their broader views.”
APPC’s ASAPH survey
The findings come from Wave 29 of the Annenberg Science and Public Health survey (ASAPH), conducted April 14-28, 2026, among 1,639 U.S. adults. It was conducted for the policy center by SSRS, an independent research company. The nationally representative probability-based panel, first empaneled in April 2021, has a margin of sampling error of ± 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey and separate national samples since April 2021. The ASAPH survey is conducted under the auspices of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute (AHRCI) by a team that includes Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research; research analysts Laura A. Gibson and Shawn Patterson Jr.; and Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute.
Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) Survey Apr. 2026, N=1639, MOE=+/-3.5%
Credit
Annenberg Public Policy Center
See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:
The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels. Connect with us on Facebook, X, Instagram, and Bluesky.
