Thanks to improvements in the speed and cost of DNA analysis, traditional methods of tracking diseases are increasingly being paired with genomic technology.
Providing women with a range of reproductive health options – from abortions to IUDs – is not only essential for their financial security but good for the economy as well.
While we’ve known about the acute toxicity of arsenic for a long time, the health effects of low levels of arsenic in food and water are less well understood.
The absence of comprehensive dental care exacts a toll on millions of Americans in terms of poor health, pain and the social stigma associated with bad teeth.
Does making healthy food accessible actually affect what people purchase and what they eat? The answer is a little more complicated than you might think.
While antibiotics can kill the bacteria associated with acne, it’s their anti-inflammatory effects, not their antimicrobial effects, that yield the biggest skin-clearing benefits.
We are witnessing widespread abuse of legal, prescribed drugs that, while structurally similar to illicit opioids such as heroin, are used for sound medical practices. So how did we get here?
Better access to birth control and safe, legal abortions in Latin America could save lives. But carving out Zika-related exceptions in existing restrictions might not go far enough to achieve this.
The days of teachers telling fidgety children to “sit still, sit up and pay attention” may be relegated to the history books. Squirming, wiggling and standing could help boost attention and focus.
We have known for decades that folic acid can prevent most common neural tube defects, but most countries don’t fortify staple foods with the nutrient.
Democratic candidates support access to contraception, while candidates from the Republican Party favor policies that could severely restrict access to contraception.
Warren Sanderson, Stony Brook University (The State University of New York) and Sergei Scherbov, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Turning 65 in 2016 doesn’t mean the same thing as hitting 65 in 1916. So why are we still using a population aging measure that was developed a century ago?