Science

While competitors sold mattresses at ₹10,000, we launched at ₹29,900. Amazon and Flipkart said it wouldn't work, because our price was 3X what sells on their platforms. Today, The Sleep Company is the fastest-growing mattress brand in India. People ask how we convinced customers to pay a premium for a mattress. The answer isn't about pricing. It's about understanding value. Indian customers are willing to pay ₹1 lakh for an iPhone, and ₹2 lakh for a Royal Enfield. It’s not because they're "affordable”, but because the value is clear. So, the real question isn't "Can they afford it?" It's "Do they believe it's worth it?" Most brands price like this:  Cost + Margin = Price But, we flipped it to Value-Based Pricing:  What's the transformation worth to the customer? = Price Our product wasn't just 3x the price, it also delivered 5x the outcome. And every touchpoint communicated that. But most of the brands end up making these mistakes: 📍Underpricing to "get traction"  📍Overpricing without differentiation  📍Changing prices too often Here’s what worked for us instead: 📌 The sweet spot wasn't the lowest. 📌 Focused on value perception - packaging, unboxing, communication reinforced "premium." 📌 Invested in experience - website, stores, after-sales. Premium pricing demands premium delivery. As a result: 📍₹60,000 became our best-selling price point 📍Customers didn't ask "Why is it so expensive?" They asked, "When's the next collection?" Premium isn't about charging more. It's about being worth more. And if you deliver on that, the market will pay.

Today, I’m thrilled to share what I believe is the biggest breakthrough in microbiome science for a decade. Nature Magazine, the world's most influential scientific journal, has just published a scientific paper by ZOE's scientists, establishing the first reliable, repeatable, global way to measure the health of an individual’s gut microbiome. It represents the culmination of eight years of work at ZOE. Scientists have been trying to solve this puzzle for more than 20 years, right back to when they first discovered how important our gut microbes are for our health. It’s been achieved only because more than 34,000 ZOE members took part in this research. We’ve known for a long time that the microbiome is linked to cholesterol, inflammation, blood sugar control and even how we store fat. But we’ve never had a clear, evidence-based way to measure how healthy a microbiome actually is. This analysis finally delivers it, revealing a global ranking of microbes that works across populations, diets and environments. The insights are remarkable. Among the top 50 “good microbes” linked with better health, 22 were completely unknown to science until today, and most of the others have never been successfully grown in a lab. We also discovered clear links between these good microbes and health outcomes: healthy individuals carry around 3.6 more of these beneficial species, and people at a healthy weight carry about 5.2 more than those living with obesity. We also found a strong connection to diet. People eating healthier diets consistently have microbiomes that score better on this ranking. What we eat shapes our gut health, and now we can measure this relationship with unprecedented clarity. ZOE was created to enable microbiome research at a scale that traditional science has been unable to fund, and use this research to create actionable advice that can transform our gut health. This is a major milestone in that journey. I’m delighted to say that as a result, this breakthrough science is immediately available for the public to investigate their own microbiome through ZOE’s new Gut Health Test in the UK, and this is coming soon in the US. You can now receive not only a reliable measurement of how healthy your microbiome is as you change their diet, but also discover the health of clusters of gut microbes in your gut affecting metabolism, inflammation and more. To all our amazing ZOE members who have participated in our science: you made this possible. You are transforming our understanding of the microbiome. Thank you so much. I hope you feel as proud and excited as I do. I should note that your research is now published in Nature, which is the ultimate scientific accolade, and you can definitely brag about that with your friends! If you think this science could help others understand their health, I’d love for you to share it. You’ll find links to more details from our findings and access to the paper in the comments.

Agrivoltaics – combining land for solar and agriculture – is a genuine win-win. It allows a single piece of land to produce both food and clean energy at the same time. Around the world, farmers are finding that solar infrastructure creates microhabitats that boost resilience, improve yields and reduce water stress. For the agriculture: ✅ Shade from the panels lower ground temperatures and reduces evaporation. In arid areas, this has doubled or even tripled crop yields while cutting irrigation needs by half. ✅ Shade-tolerant crops like lettuce, kale, berries and broccoli thrive under reduced heat stress, especially during extreme weather. ✅ Higher soil moisture also promotes healthier pasture, leading to more nutritious forage for grazing animals. For solar operators: ✅ Sheep naturally keep vegetation under control, reducing mowing and maintenance costs and lowering fire risk. They also prevent plants from shading the panels. ✅ Crops underneath the panels help to cool the modules, improving performance on hot days. And the animals benefit too. A 3-year study of 1,700 sheep at the Wellington Solar Farm in NSW found the sheep produced higher quality wool and more of it. The arrays offer shade in summer, shelter during storms and cooler microclimates throughout the day. Economically it's a strong proposition: - Landowners gain a stable income stream while keeping land productive. - Developers access more viable sites with fewer permitting hurdles. - Communities retain agricultural land and benefit from local investment and tax revenue. And in the US, a significant "solar grazing" industry is emerging, where farmers become vegetation managers. They rent out flocks of sheep to solar farm owners and the sheep trim the vegetation. Agrivoltaics is showing that solar and agriculture don’t have to compete for land. They can thrive together – and create more value in the process. Image credit: Enel Green Power #energy #renewables #energytransition

MIT just cleared 50% of Alzheimer's plaques using 40 Hz sound waves. No drugs. No surgery. Just precisely engineered frequencies making immune cells devour toxic proteins. Frequency is becoming medicine's most powerful tool. Think about that. While we've spent decades failing with Alzheimer's drugs, MIT researchers discovered something extraordinary: exposing brains to 40 Hz gamma frequencies activates microglia—the brain's cleanup crew—to clear amyloid plaques naturally. Mice regained memory. Human trials are showing promise. This isn't alternative medicine. It's FDA-approved precision. Traditional Brain Treatment: ↳ Invasive surgery with months of recovery ↳ Drugs that barely slow decline ↳ Blood-brain barrier blocking 98% of medications ↳ Essential tremor requiring skull opening The Frequency Revolution: ↳ 60% tremor reduction in one ultrasound session ↳ Same-day discharge, no incisions ↳ Drug delivery increased 5-fold to brain tumors ↳ 90+ clinical trials transforming neurology But here's what stopped me cold: Focused ultrasound doesn't destroy tissue—it tunes it. Opening the blood-brain barrier for exactly 4 hours to deliver chemotherapy. Synchronizing neurons at 40 Hz to trigger natural healing. Making Parkinson's tremors vanish while patients stay awake, go home that afternoon. We're not attacking disease anymore. We're conducting it away. What changes everything: ↳ Brain surgery without cutting ↳ Alzheimer's clearing without drugs ↳ Tumors targeted without systemic poison ↳ Healing through harmony, not harm The Multiplication Effect: 1 frequency device = surgery avoided 10 hospitals equipped = tremor wards emptying 100 conditions targeted = non-invasive becomes standard At scale = medicine's violent era ends Stanford uses ultrasound for depression. Johns Hopkins for addiction. Mayo Clinic for brain tumors. Each discovering that precisely tuned frequencies can reprogram biology better than any drug. We spent centuries cutting and poisoning disease. Now we're tuning it out of existence. Because when 40 Hz can clear plaques that billion-dollar drugs couldn't touch, and ultrasound can perform brain surgery without a scalpel, we're not just advancing medicine. We're using medical precision. Follow me, Dr. Martha Boeckenfeld for breakthroughs where physics becomes pharmacy. ♻️ Share if you want other to learn about new possibilities to fight Alzheimer. Resources: Gamma frequency entrainment attenuates amyloid load and modifies microglia" Authors: Li-Huei Tsai et al. NatureDecember 2016 DOI: 10.1038/nature20587. Gamma frequency sensory stimulation in mild probable Alzheimer’s dementia: Phase 2A pilot study" PLOS Biology, November 30, 2022 Evidence that 40Hz gamma stimulation promotes brain health,” Li-Huei Tsai, PLOS Biology, 2025.

Big breakthrough: A few months my lab at MIT introduced SPARKS, our autonomous scientific discovery model. Since then we have demonstrated applicability to broad problem spaces across domains from proteins, bio-inspired materials to inorganic materials. SPARKS learns by doing, thinks by critiquing itself & creates knowledge through recursive interaction; not just with data, but with the physical & logical consequences of its own ideas. It closes the entire scientific loop - hypothesis generation, data retrieval, coding, simulation, critique, refinement, & detailed manuscript drafting - without prompts, manual tuning, or human oversight. SPARKS is fundamentally different from frontier models. While models like o3-pro and o3 deep research can produce summaries, they stop short of full discovery. SPARKS conducts the entire scientific process autonomously, generating & validating falsifiable hypotheses, interpreting results & refining its approach until a reproducible, fully validated evidence-based discovery emerges. This is the first time we've seen AI discover new science. SPARKS is orders of magnitude more capable than frontier models & even when comparing just the writing, SPARKS still outperforms: in our benchmark evaluation, it scored 1.6× higher than o3-pro and over 2.5× higher than o3 deep research - not because it writes more, but because it writes with purpose, grounded in original, validated compositional reasoning from start to finish. We benchmarked SPARKS on several case studies, where it uncovered two previously unknown protein design rules: 1⃣ Length-dependent mechanical crossover β-sheet-rich peptides outperform α-helices—but only once chains exceed ~80 amino acids. Below that, helices dominate. No prior systematic study had exposed this crossover, leaving protein designers without a quantitative rule for sizing sheet-rich materials. This discovery resolves a long-standing ambiguity in molecular design and provides a principle to guide the structural tuning of biomaterials and protein-based nanodevices based on mechanical strength. 2⃣ A stability “frustration zone” At intermediate lengths (~50- 70 residues) with balanced α/β content, peptide stability becomes highly variable. Sparks mapped this volatile region and explained its cause: competing folding nuclei and exposed edge strands that destabilize structure. This insight pinpoints a failure regime in protein design where instability arises not from randomness, but from well-defined physical constraints, giving designers new levers to avoid brittle configurations or engineer around them. This gives engineers and biologists a roadmap for avoiding stability traps in de novo design - especially when exploring hybrid motifs. Stay tuned for more updates & examples, papers and more details.

Most companies take days to make product decisions. We do it in 10 minutes. At Duolingo, Product Review (PR) is the heartbeat of our product development – and probably our most important meeting (of course, I’m biased!). When I joined Duolingo almost ten years ago, product decisions happened casually, often in informal chats at our desks. It worked for a while, but as we grew, it became a mess – key stakeholders were left out, and sometimes it wasn't clear if decisions were final or just thoughts. Over the years, we’ve transformed Product Review into a structured, efficient process that helps us move fast while also maintaining the bar for quality in our product. Here's how our Product Review works: -Each proposal gets exactly 10 minutes (down from 20, initially). The rationale for this length is because we want people to have clear, concise, and strong convictions. This saves time, but it also ensures what they are presenting is something they believe in. Luis von Ahn, our CEO, attends every single meeting. -We have three review formats based on the development stage: one-pager reviews for initial ideas, 1.5-pager reviews for concepts with rough designs, and spec reviews for fully fleshed-out features. -Reviewers are clearly marked and give feedback in a specific order, creating structure. (We also periodically switch up who the key reviewers are.) The meetings are open to anyone in the company. Beyond transparency, this serves as a training ground for developing product sense. -After each two-hour block of reviews, we hold a 15-minute debrief to evaluate decisions and continuously improve the process itself. The result? Fast decisions – but also enough structure to maintain our standard of quality across the app. Here’s a 1.5-pager from Emilia Cabrera, a product manager on our team, about an improvement for our streak session end screen. #productmanagement

We’re planting trees — but losing biodiversity. Global efforts to restore forests are gathering pace, driven by promises of combating climate change, conserving biodiversity, and improving livelihoods. Yet a recent paper published in Nature Reviews Biodiversity warns that the biodiversity gains from these initiatives are often overstated — and sometimes absent altogether. Forest restoration is at the heart of Target 2 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which aims to place 30% of degraded ecosystems under effective restoration by 2030. But the gap between ambition and outcome is wide. "Biodiversity will remain a vague buzzword rather than an actual outcome" unless projects explicitly prioritize it, the authors caution. Restoration has typically prioritized utilitarian goals such as timber production, carbon sequestration, or erosion control. This bias is reflected in the widespread use of monoculture plantations or low-diversity agroforests. Nearly half of the Bonn Challenge’s forest commitments consist of commercial plantations of exotic species — a trend that risks undermining biodiversity rather than enhancing it. Scientific evidence shows that restoring biodiversity requires more than planting trees. Methods like natural regeneration — allowing forests to recover on their own — can often yield superior biodiversity outcomes, though they face social and economic barriers. By contrast, planting a few fast-growing species may sequester carbon quickly but offers little for threatened plants and animals. Biodiversity recovery is influenced by many factors: the intensity of prior land use, the surrounding landscape, and the species chosen for restoration. Recovery is slow — often measured in decades — and tends to lag for rare and specialist species. Alarmingly, most projects stop monitoring after just a few years, long before ecosystems stabilize. However, the authors say there are reasons for optimism. Biodiversity markets, including emerging biodiversity credit schemes and carbon credits with biodiversity safeguards, could mobilize new financing. Meanwhile, technologies like environmental DNA sampling, bioacoustics, and remote sensing promise to improve monitoring at scale. To turn good intentions into reality, the paper argues, projects must define explicit biodiversity goals, select suitable methods, and commit to long-term monitoring. Social equity must also be central. "Improving biodiversity outcomes of forest restoration… could contribute to mitigating power asymmetries and inequalities," the authors write, citing examples from Madagascar and Brazil. If designed well, forest restoration could help address the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. But without a deliberate shift, billions of dollars risk being spent on projects that plant trees — and little else. 🔬 Brancalion et al (2025): https://lnkd.in/gG6X36WP

If your paper is getting rejected, it isn’t necessarily the science that’s the problem (it’s likely the journal fit that’s off!). Here’s how you can be be strategic about journal selection. How do I choose the right scientific journal? ↳ Analyze your citation list and target relevant publications. Can impact factor really determine journal quality? ↳ Look beyond numbers, focus on specialized audience fit. How to avoid predatory journal publication traps? ↳ Verify journal reputation before submitting your research. Will editors help improve my manuscript? ↳ Follow author guidelines meticulously. Navigating the academic publication landscape can feel like traversing a complex maze. As a professor, I've learned that selecting the right journal is both an art and a science. Here's a game-changing approach I've developed: 1. Conduct a citation audit: Count journals you've referenced most frequently. These are likely your ideal publication targets. 2. Beyond Impact Factor: Don't get fixated on numbers. A lower-ranked journal with a specialized audience might be more valuable than a high-impact generic publication. 3. Beware of predatory journals: If an unsolicited email promises quick publication for a fee, run! Legitimate open-access journals conduct rigorous peer review. 4. Craft a strategic cover letter: Suggest credible reviewers, highlight your paper's novelty, and demonstrate professionalism. 5. Patience is key: Most journals reject approximately 50% of submissions. Don't be discouraged - each submission is a learning opportunity. Pro tip: Always read and follow the journal's specific author guidelines. This shows you're a detail-oriented, professional researcher. Have you ever struggled with selecting the right scientific journal for your research? What challenges have you encountered? #science #scientist #ScientificCommunication #publishing #phd #professor #research #postgraduate

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time.