A large-scale analysis of wildfires in the Western United States shows that U.S. Forest Service fuel-reduction treatments not only curb fire spread and intensity, but also, for each dollar invested, generate more than three times the value in avoided damages. Wildfire activity has intensified dramatically over the last several decades, imposing widespread economic, environmental, and public health damages that amount to hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the United States alone. These risks are expected to grow as climate change and development in fire-prone areas continue. A central driver of worsening wildfire severity is the buildup of combustible vegetation, or “fuel loads,” which were kept in check historically by frequent, low-intensity fires, including those deliberately set through Indigenous land stewardship practices. Fuel-reduction strategies such as prescribed burns and forest thinning aim to restore more resilient conditions and mitigate wildfire-related damages. However, these measures remain underutilized, in part because their economic benefits are delayed and difficult to quantify, and because limited data and complex fire dynamics make it challenging to evaluate their overall effectiveness.

Focusing on the Western United States, where wildfire risk and data are abundant, Frederik Strabo and colleagues compiled a high-resolution dataset encompassing 285 wildfires that intersected with United States Forest Service (USFS) fuel treatment activities across 11 states between 2017 and 2023. By comparing observed fires with modeled scenarios in which no treatments occurred, Strabo et al. estimated the damage avoided due to fuel treatments and assigned the avoided damage an economic value. This allowed the authors to evaluate not only whether fuel treatments work, but also when and where they are most cost-effective. According to the findings, fuel treatments substantially reduced both the spread and intensity of wildfires, likely by reducing flame intensity and making conditions more manageable for suppression crews. In total, treatments reduced total burned area by 36% over the study period compared to scenarios in which no fuel treatments were applied. The authors’ estimates suggest that these interventions prevented roughly $2.7 to $2.8 billion in damages, including reduced property loss, carbon dioxide emissions, and harmful air pollution. Moreover, on average, each dollar invested in fuel reduction yields more than three dollars in avoided damages, with many projects performing even better, suggesting that targeted fuel treatment strategies could further amplify these returns. “But realizing [these strategies’] full potential will require more than scientific consensus – it will demand bold policy reform,” write Strabo et al.

New findings in a Policy Article by Haochuan Cui and colleagues complicate the common belief that experience alone drives breakthrough innovation. Drawing on a large-scale dataset of more than 12 million scientists, they report that early-career scientists may be more inclined toward transformative breakthroughs, whereas seasoned researchers excel at synthesizing and extending existing knowledge. These dynamics carry significant implications for policies governing funding, tenure, collaboration, and the cultivation of scientific talent. Scientific careers today have become increasingly stratified: a small number of senior researchers remain active and influential, while many others pass through research as temporary or early-career roles. Structural shifts in the scientific workforce, such as extended training periods, the removal of mandatory retirement, and funding systems that privilege experience, have concentrated resources and power among older scientists. This raises a fundamental question about how this aging pool of influential scientists shapes scientific innovation and creativity.

Here, Cui et al. evaluate an extensive dataset of more than 12.5 million scientists who published between 1960 and 2020 and discovered that with advancing academic age (years since first publication), scientists become more adept at generating novelty – that is, forging new connections between previously unrelated ideas. At the same time, their capacity for disruption, or overturning established paradigms with fundamentally new ones, tends to diminish. The findings indicate that while experience deepens knowledge and supports inventive recombination of ideas, it may also foster intellectual attachment to existing frameworks, making radical departures often seen among younger scientists less likely. In light of their findings, Cui et al. argue that research systems should support both continuity and renewal, rather than privileging experience alone. Moreover, policies like the 1994 end of mandatory retirement in the U.S. can shift knowledge production by increasing reliance on older work, underscoring how institutional structures shape innovation. This suggests that institutional policies governing tenure, retirement, and funding – by shaping the age composition of research communities – influence the evolution of ideas themselves. The findings also have implications for international scientific competition; Cui et al. note that countries with younger scientific populations, such as China and India, tend to generate more disruptive research, while older scientific systems, like those in the United States and the United Kingdom, excel at integrating and extending existing knowledge. Encouraging early-career leadership and valuing disruptive contributions can help maintain a healthier balance between tradition and innovation.

Being around trees is proven to enhance health, from lowering stress to increasing longevity. However, a new national study led by Michigan State University researcher Amber Pearson reveals a surprise: The biological benefits of nature are not experienced equally across all populations.