Migraine warning signs and treatment options

US researchers have claimed to have developed new viruses with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) that did not previously exist in nature. The development is being described as an important breakthrough in the scientific community. According to a study published in the scientific journal Science, researchers from Stanford University and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard used a naturally occurring phage as a basis and employed AI to generate thousands of genetic designs. A phage is a type of virus that infects bacteria. The researchers chemically synthesized around 300 of these genetic designs and tested them in a laboratory. Of these, 16 viruses proved to be viable. According to the study, a combination of the AI-designed viruses was more effective than naturally occurring viruses at eliminating E. coli bacteria. The researchers said the approach expands the scope of synthetic genomics and could pave the way for more effective phage therapies against rapidly evolving pathogens. However, experts have expressed concerns about potential biological security risks alongside the possible medical benefits of the development. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto and Toronto General Hospital said AI-designed viruses could have certain benefits such as creating specialized bacteriophages that could help tackle antibiotic-resistant infections. He warned that the same ability to design complete and functional viruses could pose a serious biological security threat if used to create harmful pathogens. Therefore, strong safety regulations, screening and monitoring are necessary alongside the technology. Professor Fatima Wafai of the University of New South Wales in Sydney said the current research does not pose a direct threat to humans because phages infect only bacteria. However, she noted that the methods used in the research could potentially be misused for harmful purposes. Tom Ellis, an expert in synthetic genome engineering at Imperial College London described the research as impressive but said it also demonstrates that AI is still far from being able to design complex genomes, cells and large viruses. He explained that the phage genome used in the study is very small and relatively simple while the genome of the virus that causes COVID-19 is approximately six times larger. The complexity of designing larger genomes increases rapidly. According to Ellis, the research does have implications for biological security. However, modifying naturally occurring viruses remains a more serious and immediate threat than creating new pathogens with AI. Hsu Li Yang, director of the Asia Centre for Health Security in Singapore also said that it may be possible to use AI to make viruses more dangerous. However, he cautioned against exaggerating the implications of the research. He clarified that the study does not mean that anyone with basic scientific or laboratory knowledge can now create life-saving or dangerous viruses at home. Considerable technical expertise is still required to physically produce a virus in a laboratory after it has been designed. Experts say the research is both medically promising and concerning from a biological security perspective as it demonstrates a technology that could potentially be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes.

By Asma Qayyum Digital depression refers to the negative impact of excessive screen time, information overload, and unhealthy social media use on mental health. In today’s digital age, smartphones, social media platforms, and the internet have become an essential part of everyday life. While these technologies help people communicate, learn, and work more efficiently, their excessive use can have serious consequences for mental well-being. Digital depression is a condition in which prolonged use of digital devices and online platforms contributes to feelings of sadness, anxiety, loneliness, emotional exhaustion, and low self-esteem. It is becoming increasingly common, particularly among teenagers and young adults, who spend a significant portion of their day online. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), depression affects approximately 280 million people worldwide, making it one of the leading causes of disability. Although digital technology is not the sole cause of depression, research shows that excessive screen time and unhealthy social media habits can significantly increase the risk of mental health problems. A 2023 advisory by the U.S. Surgeon General reported that adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media are at a greater risk of developing anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. Similarly, DataReportal’s 2024 Global Digital Report found that the average internet user spends approximately 6 hours and 38 minutes online each day, highlighting how deeply digital technology has become integrated into modern life. Several factors contribute to digital depression, including excessive use of social media, constantly comparing one’s life with idealized online images, cyberbullying, online harassment, poor sleep caused by late-night screen use, smartphone and internet addiction, and reduced face-to-face interaction with family and friends. The effects of digital depression can be both psychological and physical. People may experience persistent sadness, anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem, difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbances, headaches, eye strain, fatigue, and reduced productivity. If left unaddressed, these problems can negatively affect academic performance, professional life, and personal relationships. Fortunately, digital depression can be prevented by adopting healthy digital habits. People should limit their daily screen time, avoid using electronic devices before bedtime, take regular breaks from social media, engage in physical exercise, spend more quality time with family and friends, and seek professional help if symptoms persist. Schools and parents should also educate young people about responsible technology use and the importance of maintaining a healthy balance between online and offline life. In conclusion, digital technology has transformed modern life by creating countless opportunities for education, communication, business, and innovation. However, when used excessively or without balance, it can seriously affect mental health. By promoting digital awareness, developing healthier online habits, and supporting those experiencing emotional difficulties, society can reduce the impact of digital depression and encourage a healthier relationship with technology.

By Raheel Waqar I attended a workshop under the project titled “Digital Trust and Free Expression in the AI Era” at the Department of Media and Development Communication, University of the Punjab, supported by the U.S. Mission to Pakistan in partnership with the Pakistan-U.S. Alumni Network (PUAN) last week. During the discussions on digital trust, I remembered that a few months ago, I received a call from a friend who is a small business owner and runs a modest page selling handcrafted candles. She told me that her posts had suddenly stopped getting reaching people. No warning. No explanation. Her engagement dropped overnight, and when she contacted the platform, she received a flat, nonanswer. She wasn’t banned. She wasn’t warned. She was just… quieter. That is essentially the shadow-ban dilemma, and I believe it is one of the least discussed problems of trust in the age of AI. There is a reason for algorithmic moderation exists. The volume of content shared on a platform daily is far too large to be managed by humans alone. AI systems can now detect hate speech, misinformation, spam, and harassment faster than an entire team of human moderators. Theoretically, this creates a safer and more livable Internet. But where I differ from current structure is that moderation operates as black box, and the worst offender is shadow banning, silently restricting a user without informing them. If a platform explicitly rejects you, you can appeal, argue, or move on. Shadow-banning removes even the most basic dignity. You face punishment without knowing the charges; you are not shown the evidence and are rarely given any avenues for reclamation. I genuinely believe that trust is the digital currency. We bring our voices, our business, and our relationships to these platforms, expecting something close to a level playing field, even if imperfect. Shadow-banning violates that implied contract. It assumes the rules are clear while relying opaque algorithms, and doubt becomes corrosive. Users begin to question each drop in engagement. Was it the algorithm? Was it just a bad week? Did I say something wrong? This uncertainty leads to confusion and self-censorship, which is not healthy foundation for a digital public square. Moreover, the phenomenon of shadow-banning disproportionately effects those without influence, legal support, or the media visibility. A major creator, with millions of followers, may get a quick, individualized explanation when something goes wrong. My friend, the candle-seller, heard nothing. This imbalance is significant if free expression online is to be practiced, not not merely discussed — by everyone. I don’t believe that the solution is to eliminate moderation entirely. The combination of harassment, spam, and bad-faith users who overwhelm others makes a total freeforall unusable within minutes. As anyone who has used an unmoderated platform knows how quickly it becomes impossible to navigate when spam and abuse take over. When people are constantly shouted down, free expression is not free. However, there is a difference between moderation and invisible moderation. Platforms can reduce the reach of harmful content without disrespecting or degrading the users by withholding explanations. The technology to notify users already exists. What is missing is the will. In my own re-design of this system, three principles would guide it: A user should be notified, not in a lucky screenshot of a “test” a month later, but in a clear, timely notice to explain the general reason that their content or reach is being limited. It is not theatre; it is meaningful appeal. Many platforms claim to offer appeals, but these are often routed to another algorithm or a human who skims for a few seconds. Real appeal is a true second look with actual power to correct an error. Not all infractions are equal and deserve the same silence and indefinite containment. It is not the same as coordinated harassment campaigns; it is not borderline, or an honest mistake, or satire. There is nothing impossible for this. It is a matter of priorities. Transparency costs platforms something; it exposes them to scrutiny and disagreement. I am not opposed to algorithmic moderation. Used responsibly, it can make the internet more habitable space for all, particularly for those who are disproportionately targeted by harassment and abuse. However, moderation that is not transparent is not safety; it is control disguised as safety. In a world where artificial intelligence systems increasingly decide who is heard and who is quietly muted, we must hold these systems accountable for their explanations. Platforms that merely claim that they know how to handle moderation, do not build trust. Trust is constructed by showing their work. Shadow-banning is not just a technical issue; it is a question of what kind of digital public square we want to inhabit and whether we will insist on honest, accountable moderation. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Mission to Pakistan or USEFP/PUAN. Raheel Waqar is a student of Media and Development Communication at University of the Punjab, Lahore and can be reached at raheelwaqar540@gmail.com.