Resuscitated human retinas respond to light 10 hours after death ⁠19%

By #author.fullName}⁠0% Helen Thomson⁠0%

7/9/2026, 3:00:55 PM

Keywords: Vision

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 15.5% saturation with 136 hits. Analysis detected 1,236 faulty-reasoning hits from 879 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠19% (17,858 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.60% of the article peer group.

Keeping the retina working while out of the body is a step towards effective transplants 
Human eyes have been kept active outside the body for up to 10 hours after death, double the length of time that had previously been achieved. 
Supplying donor eyes with blood and oxygen meant they continued to respond to light, while also preserving their structure and overall health for 24 hours. 
“This work undoubtedly represents an important step towards the possibility of whole-eye transplantation,” says Thomas Johnson at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the research. 
“Maintaining light responses outside of the body is a tremendous feat.” 
New colour seen for the first time by tricking the eyes 
More than a million people in the UK are blind or partially sighted because of an irreversible eye condition, such as age-related macular degeneration, which affects the retina, the light-sensing tissue at the back of the eye. 
Some advances have been made. 
For instance, corneal transplants , which replace the clear “window” in front of the eye with donor tissue, can improve vision in people with damaged corneas. 
But treating the retina is more challenging as it is connected to the central nervous system. 
Although a partial face and whole-eye transplant was performed in 2023, it didn’t restore the recipient’s sight. 
This is a major challenge, in part because the retina is extremely sensitive to degeneration induced by oxygen loss, known as ischemia. 
“Even a brief period of ischemic time is likely to cause irreversible degeneration of light-sensitive neurons and circuits,” says Johnson. 
Eimear Byrne at the Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology in Spain and her colleagues wondered whether they could reduce this damage by maintaining a donor eye under the same conditions as those experienced inside the body. 
To do so, they created a system that involved inserting a flexible tube into the ophthalmic artery, which supplies blood to the eye and surrounding structures. 
They then perfused the donated eye with an oxygenated solution using a custom-built device they call the Eye-in-Care-Box, which uses sensors to automatically regulate pressure and flow. 
To test the technique, the researchers took both eyes from six donors, perfusing one and not the other each time. 
The perfusion system preserved the structure of the retina and maintained the health of surrounding cells for up to 24 hours, while the non-perfused eyes degraded quickly after removal. 
They then perfused another 36 donor eyeballs and found that 15 of their retinas produced electrical responses to light, similar to those measured in living people. 
The responses lasted for up to 10 hours after death, double the 5-hour period other scientists achieved in 2022 . 
However, it isn’t clear why the remaining 21 eyeballs Byrne’s team perfused didn’t have this response. 
Another major challenge remains before doctors can restore vision via a transplanted eye: regenerating fibres in the severed optic nerve so it can connect to visual centres in the brain. 
“Without this, a donor eye will have no way of communicating visual sensation to the recipient’s brain,” says Johnson. 
Eye implant and high-tech glasses restore vision lost to age 
Age-related macular degeneration is a common cause of vision loss, with existing treatments only able to slow its progression. 
But now an implant in the back of the eye and a pair of high-tech glasses have enabled people with the condition to read again 
The new work doesn’t solve this, but, by keeping the eye metabolically healthy after death, it may make future vision-restoration strategies more feasible, ensuring donated eyes are less damaged by ischemia. 
Several groups are exploring how we might encourage optic-nerve regrowth . 
“It seems to me that now is the time to begin putting these promising interventions together in the whole-eye-transplantation context,” says Johnson. 
The Eye-in-Care-Box could also be valuable for testing vision-related therapies in human eyes, rather than in other animals, according to Byrne’s team. 
“I certainly think there is potential for this technology to be used to develop new in-vitro models and experimental paradigms for testing drugs and other therapies, as well as understanding biology and pathology,” says Johnson. 
“This would have the benefit of the results being more directly applicable to human disease and biology.” 
bioRxiv DOI: 10.64898/2026.06.25.733416 
More from New Scientist 
Explore the latest news, articles and features 
Vision loss and high cholesterol recognised as dementia risk factors 
VR headset can give you 360-degree vision like an owl 
Rats fooled by optical illusion may shed light on evolution of the eye 
What happens to a photon after it hits the retina of my eye? 
The 4 best science-fiction shows of 2026 so far 
The strange metals forcing us to rethink how electricity really works 
How healthy is your brain? 
We now know how to find out 
This book is essential reading before watching the new Odyssey film 
Salt batteries are about to shake up EVs and grid storage 
Why Schrödinger's 1944 classic What Is Life? 
still feels prescient 
Occam’s razor has lost its edge. 
Can we sharpen our search for truth? 
A worm that lived half a billion years ago preferred turning right 
Mathematics of thermodynamics is being rewritten after 200 years 
Orangutan mothers seem to plan playdates for their offspring 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.1%#author.fullName}: 1.7%New Scientist: 1.8%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 5.2%#author.fullName}: 1.8%New Scientist: 1.0%Anchoring Bias5.2%This article: 8.0%#author.fullName}: 2.1%New Scientist: 2.1%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 6.1%#author.fullName}: 0.4%New Scientist: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.2%New Scientist: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%#author.fullName}: 2.9%New Scientist: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias10.9%This article: 4.7%#author.fullName}: 4.3%New Scientist: 5.8%Framing Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.2%New Scientist: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.6%#author.fullName}: 0.2%New Scientist: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.4%#author.fullName}: 7.2%New Scientist: 6.6%Optimism Bias15.4%This article: 5.7%#author.fullName}: 1.6%New Scientist: 0.6%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 7.3%#author.fullName}: 3.9%New Scientist: 1.9%Negativity Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.2%New Scientist: 0.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.4%New Scientist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.3%New Scientist: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%#author.fullName}: 1.0%New Scientist: 7.3%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%#author.fullName}: 0.9%New Scientist: 0.4%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 0.3%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.3%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.3%New Scientist: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.5%#author.fullName}: 8.4%New Scientist: 13.9%Appeal to Authority15.5%This article: 2.2%#author.fullName}: 0.8%New Scientist: 0.9%False Dilemma2.2%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 1.6%New Scientist: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.2%New Scientist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.0%#author.fullName}: 2.8%New Scientist: 3.2%Hasty Generalization11.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.2%New Scientist: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.5%#author.fullName}: 2.6%New Scientist: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion5.5%This article: 4.4%#author.fullName}: 0.7%New Scientist: 0.9%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 12.9%#author.fullName}: 2.3%New Scientist: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.9%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.8%#author.fullName}: 0.2%New Scientist: 0.1%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.0%#author.fullName}: 0.8%New Scientist: 0.8%Anecdotal1.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%#author.fullName}: 1.0%New Scientist: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%#author.fullName}: 0.1%New Scientist: 0.0%Middle Ground1.3%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.1%New Scientist: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.2%New Scientist: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%#author.fullName}: 1.2%New Scientist: 0.6%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.5%New Scientist: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.3%#author.fullName}: 2.1%New Scientist: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice2.3%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.6%New Scientist: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%#author.fullName}: 0.0%New Scientist: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%#author.fullName}: 1.8%New Scientist: 20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.0%

879 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers22%attributed speech689writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Johnson • 29 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Johnson • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Johnson • 20 words • 0.0% coverageEimear Byrne • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Johnson • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Johnson • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Johnson • 35 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Johnson • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Thomas Johnson

100%flagged-word coverage
153 attributed words81% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote+7.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Thomas Johnson: 7.2%7.2%Biased Writer Voice+5.9 ptsWriter: 1.3%Thomas Johnson: 7.2%7.2%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Thomas Johnson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.