College student discovers psychedelic fungus that eluded LSD inventor
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
A university student has discovered an elusive fungus that produces chemicals with similar effects to the psychedelic drug LSD.
Corinne Hazel, an environmental microbiology major at West Virginia University in Morgantown, spotted the fungus growing on morning glories. These flowering plants belong to a large family with many species, and Hazel specifically found the fungus in a variety of Mexican morning glory called "Heavenly Blue." The fungus also grows on varieties called "Pearly Gates" and "Flying Saucers," according to a recent study published April 22 in the journal Mycologia.
Morning glories were already known to contain a class of chemicals called ergot alkaloids. These chemicals, made exclusively by fungi, are the same class that the Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann used to create LSD in the 1930s. Hofmann worked with the fungus Claviceps purpurea, commonly found on rye, to synthesize LSD; he came to suspect that Mexican morning glories must have a similar chemical-producing fungus after learning that the plants were used for their hallucinogenic properties. However, that fungus has remained elusive — until now.
Hazel made the discovery while searching for the long-hypothesized fungus with Daniel Panaccione, a plant and soil sciences professor at West Virginia University. She is now investigating the best ways to grow the fungus, which the team thinks may have medicinal value.
"I'm lucky to have stumbled into this opportunity," Hazel said in a statement. "People have been looking for this fungus for years, and one day, I look in the right place, and there it is."
Related: Scientists show how LSD blows open the doors of perception
Indigenous Mesoamerican cultures were the first to recognize that Ipomoea tricolor — commonly called Mexican morning glory or just morning glory — has psychoactive properties. Knowing of I. tricolor's cultural significance, Hofmann identified the chemicals responsible. The chemicals he found were previously only known to come from fungi, but his attempts to observe a fungus on the plant were unsuccessful, according to the study authors.
Researchers have since identified two separate fungi that make ergot alkaloids on two other morning glory species, and they've found additional, molecular evidence for the presence of ergot alkaloid-producing fungi on I. tricolor. However, the identity of the fungus itself remained a mystery.
Now, with the new study, the elusive I. tricolor-associated fungus has finally been identified. Hazel spotted evidence of the fungus on the plant's seeds.
"We had a ton of plants lying around and they had these tiny little seed coats," Hazel said. "We noticed a little bit of fuzz in the seed coat. That was our fungus."
Hazel and Panaccione collected a DNA sample from the fungus and sent it away for sequencing. The sequencing revealed that the fungus was related to the fungi previously found on the two other morning glories. Hazel and Panaccione named the new species Periglandula clandestina, with the species name referencing the hidden, or clandestine, nature of the fungus.
P. clandestina is very efficient at producing large amounts of ergot alkaloids, the researchers found. The toxic nature of these chemicals likely helps protect the plant from being eaten, so it's thought to be a symbiotic relationship.
However, ergot alkaloids are a problem in agriculture, as they contaminate food humans eat and grasses used to nourish livestock, therefore posing a threat to humans and the animals people eat. C. purpurea, the fungi used to invent LSD, would contaminate grain and poison those who consumed it, triggering an illness called "ergotism" that involved gangrene, convulsions, double vision, and of course, hallucinations.
RELATED STORIES
—LSD alters consciousness by breaking down barriers in the brain
—Microdosing with 'shrooms or LSD no better than placebo, study finds
—Weed may be bad for your heart, whether you smoke or consume edibles
That said, ergot alkaloids can also be used in medicines to treat conditions like migraines. The newly discovered fungus could therefore have a role in medicine and agriculture, the study authors propose.
"Many things are toxic," Panaccione said. "But if you administer them in the right dosage or modify them, they can be useful pharmaceuticals. By studying them, we may be able to figure out ways to bypass the side effects. These are big issues for medicine and agriculture."
Hofmann was pursuing the medicinal properties of fungus when he first synthesized LSD. He only discovered LSD's powerful psychoactive effects when he accidentally got a drop of it on his skin — and then deliberately ingested more a few days later.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Satellites keep breaking up in space. Insurance won't cover them.
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Airplane passengers crossing the Indian Ocean who peered out their windows on Oct. 19, 2024, might have seen what looked like a fast-moving star suddenly flash and fade. Above their heads, a $500 million satellite was exploding. Operators confirmed the destruction of the Intelsat-33e satellite two days later. There was a bright flash as the satellite's fuel ignited, followed by the flickering of the debris cloud as it fragmented into at least 20 pieces. Those satellite parts are now zooming around Earth, along with around 14,000 tonnes of space debris. The satellite wasn't insured. As space junk increases, more operators are choosing to launch without any insurance at all. To compensate, companies are cutting back on the cost of satellites and launching more of them at faster rates, thus creating a feedback loop as the cheaper satellites break up more easily and add to the problem. "I don't think it's sustainable," said Massimiliano Vasile, an aerospace engineer and professor at the University of Strathclyde Glasgow. Behind the predicament are two vectors moving in opposite directions: The cost of launching satellites is falling, while the cost of insuring them continues to soar. Even as record-low-cost launches are improving internet coverage and cell service, they're worsening the space junk problem. Low Earth orbit, where most communications satellites are circling, is becoming increasingly crowded. Satellite insurance, meanwhile, has never been more expensive. 2023 was likely the worst ever for the market, with reports suggesting satellite insurers faced loss claims of more than $500 million. 2024 may have been even worse, according to Insurance Insider. Satellite operators are responding predictably, by foregoing coverage. There are 12,787 satellites above the Earth as of the time of publication, according to the website Orbiting Now, which tracks active satellites, but only about 300 are actually insured for in-orbit accidents, David Wade, an underwriter at Atrium Space Insurance Consortium, told Data Center Dynamics. European and UK operators are legally required to insure their satellites, which puts them at a cost disadvantage compared with India, China, Russia and the U.S. American companies such as SpaceX have also been able to reduce launch costs because of reusable rocket parts. Europe's upcoming Ariane 6 rocket program, for example, is expected to cost between $80-120 million per launch, compared with SpaceX's Starship program which is anticipated to cost between $2-10 million per launch because of its reusable rockets. In the U.S., launchers are required by law to procure liability insurance for launch, but once the satellite is in orbit, insurance is no longer needed. SpaceX, for example, is self-insured, meaning it seeks third-party insurance for almost none of its Starlink satellites. "Typically, the launch cover is literally just for that [launch] stage, and once a satellite gets into orbit, you are off risk," said Steve Evans, owner of insurance data provider Artemis (which is unaffiliated with NASA's lunar program of the same name). The satellite "either makes it, or it doesn't," he told The space insurance market began in 1965, when Lloyds Bank insured Intelsat I, which broadcast the Apollo 11 moon landing. The first known satellite failures occurred in 1984, though some later recovered, including the $87 million Intelsat 5 ($2.82 billion in today's money). The industry has generally hovered around a 5% failure rate since 2000, with Data Center Dynamics reporting that there have been only 165 claims for more than $10 million across the history of the industry. The 2019 failure of a military observation satellite for the United Arab Emirates, called the Vega rocket, led to $411 million in claims — the largest such loss in history, Reuters reported. That year, total satellite insurance losses became greater than insurance premiums for the first time, according to Bloomberg. Insurers were hoping to claw that money back in following years, but Reuters reported in 2021 that Assure Space and AmTrust Financial were both stopping insurance due to collisions. Insurers were looking for a payout in 2023, but instead, that year saw close to $1 billion in claims and some $500 million in losses. For many long-standing insurers, it was the last straw; Brit, AGCS, AIG, Swiss Re, Allianz and Aspen Re all exited the space insurance market. Canopius, a specialist space insurance provider acquired by Lloyds in 2019, told via email that it was no longer underwriting space business. Of the satellites in Earth orbit, around 42% are inactive, according to Seradata. The number of active satellites increased by 68% from 2020 to 2021 and by more than 200% from 2016 to 2021. Much of space insurance is modeled off the aviation industry, but space premiums are 10 to 20 times aviation premiums, Reuters reported in 2021. A satellite in low Earth orbit typically needs $500,000 to $1 million of coverage, whereas a satellite in geostationary orbit requires $200 million to $300 million, according to the same report. Behind the rush to exit the satellite insurance industry is a fundamental problem with satellite insurance: There's usually no way to determine who was at fault. When a house burns down or a car crashes, insurers often send investigators to verify a claim before approving a payout. But in the dark reaches of space, they can't operate that way. "In the event of a loss and a claim by the insured, it is almost impossible, if not entirely impossible, for insurers to investigate the cause of the loss, whether total or partial, and thus determine the amount to compensate the insured," José Luis Torres Chacón, a professor in the department of economic theory and history at the University of Málaga in Spain, told "I think this is where the root of the problem lies." Liability insurance is problematic for satellites, too, since it's extremely difficult to tell whether a satellite broke up because of an internal explosion or because of a collision with someone else's space junk. And if the latter, it's very hard to identify where the debris came from. "At the moment, it's not possible to say it was actually a fragment from that original explosion or collision that damaged the satellite," Vasile said. "So, in terms of insurance, it's a bit of a nightmare.' Vasile believes the market is moving toward legal liability for any operator responsible for creating space debris at all. "I think the government needs to set the rules, precisely as the government sets the rules for road traffic or shipping," he said. But a switch to stricter liability could create big problems for an increasing number of launch companies that are moving to cubesats — cheaper, short-duration satellites that are eventually abandoned by their operators as gravity slowly pulls them into Earth's atmosphere. Some climate satellites are in danger of colliding with space junk. Analysis of data from NASA's Land Data operation Products Evaluation, which tracks research satellite maneuvers, reveals at least seven occasions where NASA's Terra and Aqua climate satellites lost data while having to avoid space debris. Spacecraft in low-earth orbit are already under continuous threat. On Nov. 19, 2024, the International Space Station shifted its orbit to avoid another piece of space debris — this time, from a destroyed meteorological satellite. "Even a speck of paint is enough to destroy a satellite," Jakub Drmola, who studies the politics of satellite and missile defense systems at Masaryk University in the Czech Republic, told The worst-case scenario is Kessler syndrome, a chain reaction in which the breakup of a few satellites cascades into a wipeout of everything in orbit. Some researchers think Kessler syndrome is already happening, only very slowly, and that we've already reached the stage where the cost of cleaning up space far outstrips the benefits. "The world has now begun to depend on space in ways that we never thought were going to be possible," said Gen. C. Robert Kehler, former head of Air Force Strategic Command, speaking to reporters at the 2024 Outrider Nuclear Reporting Summit in Washington DC. He favors introducing a regulatory system similar to air traffic control. "We need rules of the road," he said. RELATED STORIES — Related: 3 big hunks of space junk crash to Earth every day — and it's only going to get worse — Space debris from a SpaceX Dragon capsule crashed in the North Carolina mountains. I had to go see it (video) —NASA satellite's 'shocking' space junk near-miss was even closer than thought The problem isn't staying above our heads. On March 8, 2024, a discarded piece of hardware from the International Space Station fell through the Florida home of Alejandro Otero, shaking the whole house. His 19-year-old son was inside. NASA had jettisoned the spare battery carrier, assuming it would either burn up or land in the Gulf of Mexico. But the agency's calculations were wrong. If the debris had landed just a few feet away, someone likely would have been seriously hurt or killed, according to Mica Nguyen Worthy, an attorney who is now litigating the first-ever case of property damage from space debris against NASA. Nguyen Worthy described space debris litigation as the 'next frontier' of outer space law. Without a clear set of rules, she said, future satellites launches and space travel itself could become impossible. 'I think it's important for the space community, and why they do take it so seriously, because they don't want there to be a situation where we have trapped ourselves on Earth, [and] we can't get out."
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
International Paper to exit molded fiber market, sell select Mexico sites
This story was originally published on Packaging Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Packaging Dive newsletter. International Paper on Thursday announced a slew of changes to its North American operations, including exiting the molded fiber market entirely and closing or selling multiple facilities. This is all part of IP's 'ongoing transformation' to sharpen its focus, according to the announcement. IP is making changes at the following U.S. sites, collectively impacting some 110 hourly and 24 salaried workers: Closing a packaging facility in Marion, Ohio, come Sept. 1, which an IP spokesperson said will affect 107 employees. IP's website lists its Marion site as a container plant. This capacity will be absorbed elsewhere in IP's network. Closing its recycling facility in Wichita, Kansas, come July 31, affecting 16 employees. This capacity will be eliminated. Converting a Reno, Nevada, facility that had been supporting its molded fiber business to instead support its packaging business. This change, happening on or before July 31, will affect 11 employees. This was IP's sole production site for its 'relatively small product line' in molded fiber, which included wine packaging systems, according to Amy Simpson, head of corporate communications and corporate marketing. 'Given the small market for this product, the decision was made to streamline our operations and focus investments on products and facilities that best meet our customers' needs,' she said in an email. The company is also immediately selling some assets in Mexico to Mexican packaging and materials company Acabados de Papeles Satinados y Absorbentes, or APSA. This includes one containerboard mill and one recycling plant in Xalapa, east of Mexico City near the shore, along with another recycling plant in Apodaca, near Monterrey, closer to Texas. RBC Capital Markets highlighted in a note to investors that International Paper acquired the Xalapa mill from forest products company Weyerhaeuser in 2008, estimating its capacity as 'relatively small,' between 25,000 and 30,000 metric tons per year. IP reported that APSA intends to retain current on-site staff. Following these sales, International Paper will still have numerous other facilities in Mexico. With all of these changes, IP said that it's 'committed to minimizing the impact through job placement in existing vacancies, retirements and other internal opportunities,' and that affected employees will receive severance and outplacement support where possible. 'While difficult, these decisions will help enable IP to prioritize the right geographies, customers and products and make investments in resources to support our growth in sustainable packaging,' said Tom Hamic, president of North American packaging solutions, in a statement. In a note to investors, Michael Roxland, Truist Securities senior paper and packaging analyst, called these decisions 'consistent with IP's 80/20 strategy to streamline its North American operations and optimize its box plant and mill footprint.' The 80/20 strategy, championed by CEO Andy Silvernail, embraces the idea that 80% of results come from 20% of efforts, inspiring a more focused approach. The company is aligning investments and resources to prioritize key customers and reduce complexity and cost. Other recent changes that IP has announced include restructuring its footprint along the U.S.-Mexico border, namely closing a box plant and sheet plant in Edinburg, Texas, and shifting some operations to Reynosa, Mexico. Earlier this year, the company also announced facility closures in Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri and Pennsylvania. Recommended Reading International Paper to restructure footprint along US-Mexico border Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
What's Holding Back Sustainable Business? The Challenges That Matter Most
The race to a sustainable future is on In the next five years, an entire generation of 2030 sustainability goals will finally come due. ESG reports and shareholder letters alike are soon going to face their biggest reckoning yet: will all the lofty promises translate into real progress? Early signs suggest the answer will be sobering. While ambition has soared, actual outcomes have continued to lag stubbornly behind. The reality is not that business leaders lack the will, rather, it's that the pathways to sustainability are far murkier, slower, and more difficult than anyone knew, or perhaps wanted to admit. For many organizations, the past few years have revealed a brutal truth: good intentions alone are not enough. Across industries, leaders are confronting the growing reality that sustainable business challenges run deeper than public promises and ESG reports might suggest. Without the right goals, infrastructure, and incentives, sustainability efforts either stall or end up serving more as marketing than meaning. The subtle forces working against sustainability are often invisible at first: misaligned incentives, fragile infrastructure, and underpriced risk. It's time we look at them more clearly if we want to build companies that can genuinely claim to have moved the world forward. The Importance of Aligning Goals With Real-World Sustainability Execution At the heart of any real change is leadership that understands both the limits of today and the possibilities of tomorrow. Kenn Ricci, founder of Flexjet, is an executive who strives to embody both while also running a business in one of the more challenging industries to be sustainable in, aviation. As he explains it, Ricci's sustainability philosophy doesn't fall into the trap of setting goals that look good but collapse under operational scrutiny. Instead, he focuses on what could become possible with enough pressure and patience, and then works to build the conditions to achieve it, whether it is to further sustainability across his fleet of jets or simply managing the day-to-day operations at the back office. 'When you lead people, you can't just say, 'This is where we're going,'' Ricci explains. 'You have to build a path under their feet, step by step, that makes it believable and doable. Otherwise, it's just a dream. Worse yet, it might be just your dream, and never become theirs.' At Flexjet, Ricci has consistently pursued operational improvements that align with larger sustainability aims, but without forcing the business to lurch into goals it cannot yet support. He argues that trust, not slogans, is what sustains long-term change. 'Sustainability isn't a checkbox even if some still treat it as such,' Ricci continues. 'It's an ongoing negotiation between ambition and reality. The leaders who win are the ones who never let go of either side.' His pragmatic optimism stands in stark contrast to much of the corporate world, where sustainability targets are often designed by communications departments rather than operational leaders. And herein lies the first reason why we haven't seen as much progress on ESG goals as we would have wanted. For far too many companies, sustainability has not been a metric that they have actively led with themselves. Ricci puts it bluntly: 'Sustainability has to be a steering wheel, not a rearview mirror. If you're just reporting it, you're already too late. And the leaders have to be the ones with both hands on it, not just the sustainability or comms team.' He's also keenly aware that true leadership requires putting real capital behind sustainable change, not just political or reputational capital, but operational resources that can withstand market cycles. 'Anyone can make promises when the sun is shining,' Ricci says. 'The question is what you stick to when the headwinds come. That's where real commitment shows.' Why Sustainability Depends on Infrastructure: Lessons From Aviation and Energy If setting the right goals is the first battle, building the right infrastructure is the war. Kennedy Ricci, CEO of 4AIR and son of Kenn Ricci, has spent his career focusing precisely on this frontier. His company offers a certification program for aviation's environmental impact, not by promising zero emissions tomorrow, but by helping aviation stakeholders take verifiable, incremental steps today. 'A lot of people get paralyzed because they think the only good goal is net-zero tomorrow,' Kennedy Ricci explains. 'But if you can measure, track, and improve a little bit every day, that's how you actually get there.' 4AIR's approach doesn't pretend aviation can become clean overnight. Instead, it recognizes that building credibility today through offset programs, sustainable aviation fuels, and transparent reporting lays the groundwork for deeper decarbonization later. The company's rise is testament to the power of pragmatic ambition anchored by real-world execution. Kenn Ricci reflects on his son's growing success: 'Building an empire is one thing. Building a legacy that adapts to the future is something else entirely. I'm proud that Kennedy's taking on the harder challenge.' He continues, "We've always believed that real leadership isn't about announcing goals, it's about laying bricks, patiently, and getting others to walk the road with you. 4AIR is doing just that." Meanwhile, infrastructure challenges aren't limited to aviation. The broader energy ecosystem faces its own existential bottlenecks that a handful of companies are doing their best to break open for the rest of us. Deóis Ua Cearnaigh, CTO at Aeon Blue, a company specializing in energy transition technologies and sustainable fuel, emphasizes that sustainability isn't about simply adding more renewables into the grid. It's about fundamentally rethinking how the grid operates. 'It's wonderful that we have more wind and solar now,' says Cearnaigh. 'But you still need a spinning reserve for when the wind dies and the sun sets. If that reserve is fossil-powered, your emissions story isn't as clean as it looks.' Their bigger point is this: you can't just add renewables on top of a fragile or misaligned system and expect magic. Without reengineering grid storage, reserve capacity, and distribution models, the true sustainability gains remain elusive. Cearnaigh believes that while renewables will dominate the next twenty years, nuclear energy will inevitably rise as the long-term backbone for sustainable baseload power. 'The zeitgeist today is wind, solar, and geothermal,' he reflects. 'But it does also seem that nuclear is one inevitable destination as well.' Without grappling with these infrastructural realities, sustainability risks becoming a story we tell ourselves, not a future we actually live. This mindset mirrors the thinking of Brett Bouchy, CEO of Freedom Forever, a company deadset on revolutionizing residential solar. 'The solar revolution doesn't happen because people feel good about the environment,' Bouchy points out. 'It happens when saving money on your electricity bill is cheaper and easier than sticking to the grid.' Bouchy's laser focus on efficiency is another reminder that for sustainability to scale, it must compete not just morally, but economically. As Bouchy frames it, "We don't succeed by selling dreams. We succeed by selling better economics. And better economics drive real environmental change." He's blunt about the reality check the green economy still needs: "Nobody switches to solar because you guilt them into it. They switch because it's cheaper, easier, and works better. That's how you win hearts, wallets, and the future. And for that, you need the infrastructure to be in place, management to know what goals to drive towards, and an audience that is ready to trust what you are selling." Bouchy also sees a deeper, long-term opportunity that transcends energy bills: "Every home we upgrade is a client win, sure. But it's another node in a smarter, decentralized energy system. Sustainability isn't a utopian idea. It's the byproduct of millions of small, self-interested decisions that add up to a revolution." If only revolutions were easy, which is exactly why stories like the above are worthy of retelling. Companies that rise up to the challenge of sustainability cannot be taken for granted, simply because of how rare they still remain. That is particularly true for investments, which is the third missing pillar that is making 2030 feel further away than it should. Why Long-Term Investment Is the Missing Piece in Sustainability Strategy If setting the right goals is the first battle, and building the right infrastructure is the war, then making the right investments is the long campaign, often fought without fanfare, headlines, or even immediate returns. And it's here where sustainable business faces one of its most persistent barriers: the cruel mismatch between moral urgency and financial immediacy. Capital, by its nature, seeks returns. It rewards speed, liquidity, and demonstrable gains. But sustainability often demands patience, long arcs of investment, and a willingness to fund seeds that may only bear fruit decades from now. It asks us to invest in forests we may never personally walk through. Doing good, it turns out, is relatively easy. But doing good money, investments that compete at par with traditional, short-horizon opportunities, remains the real Everest to climb. This doesn't mean that the private sector is full of villains twirling their overgrown mustaches. It's simply important to recognize the system we've built and how it operates. Until the returns of sustainability become structurally competitive, whether through market shifts, regulatory frameworks, or pure innovation, capital will continue to flow where it always has: toward the short, the sure, the profitable and the now. The uncomfortable truth is that economics, not ethics, will be the final arbiter of the transition's speed, even if ethics gets to set the goal. And yet, there are signs of things shifting. Signs that smart leaders know: a world where customers demand sustainable products is fast approaching. A world where supply chains simply cannot function without green tech is not far behind. Companies who wait until the economics are easy will find that the customers, the talent, and the licenses to operate have already gone elsewhere. Which brings us to the handful of players quietly laying the groundwork. ENEOS, Japan's largest energy group, offers one instructive case. They are investing heavily in hydrogen transportation, synthetic fuels, battery recycling, and carbon capture, not because it makes perfect financial sense today, but because they know what survival will require tomorrow. 'There's no question the world needs cleaner energy,' an ENEOS representative explained in an interview. 'But if you exit fossil fuels too quickly, you leave markets in chaos, and ironically, you can make the transition slower, not faster.' The trick, as they frame it, is not to burn the bridges while crossing the river. Real transition demands continuity, not collapse. "You can't dismantle today's infrastructure before tomorrow's infrastructure is ready," added another ENEOS representative noted. 'The world is too interconnected for idealism alone. You need to build pathways people can actually walk.' This recognition, that reality, not rhetoric, is the substrate upon which change must be built, permeates the thinking of those who are keen to see sustainability truly take root today. Brett Bouchy, CEO of Freedom Forever, who is busy scaling residential solar across America, frames it in plain terms: 'You don't win by selling dreams. You win by selling better economics. If going solar isn't easier and cheaper than sticking with the grid, the revolution doesn't happen. Period.' It's a bracing, necessary reminder that narratives alone don't move markets. Incentives do. And this brings us full circle to the real challenge ahead: building an economy where sustainability isn't a premium add-on for the wealthy or the virtuous, it's the baseline expectation for everyone. In that future, "green" won't be a differentiator. Instead, it will simply be the cost of doing business. Those who invest today with that reality in mind, patient, practical, sometimes lonely, will be the ones best positioned when the forest finally blooms. And those who don't may find themselves, too late, standing outside the gates of a new economy that has no room left for yesterday's math.
