Rahul Rao is a freelance science writer, graduate of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, and “Doctor Who” fan.

Rahul Rao
From this contributor
Web app tracks pupil size in people, mice
The app relies on artificial intelligence and could help researchers standardize studies of pupil differences in autistic people and in mouse models of autism.
New library catalogs the human gut microbiome
Researchers put hundreds of gut bacteria strains through their paces to chart the compounds each creates — and to help others explore the flora's potential contribution to autism.
New unified toolbox traces, analyzes neurons
‘SNT’ helps researchers sift through microscope images to reconstruct and analyze neurons and their connections.
Explore more from The Transmitter
Machine learning spots neural progenitors in adult human brains
But the finding has not settled the long-standing debate over the existence and extent of neurogenesis during adulthood, says Yale University neuroscientist Juan Arellano.

Machine learning spots neural progenitors in adult human brains
But the finding has not settled the long-standing debate over the existence and extent of neurogenesis during adulthood, says Yale University neuroscientist Juan Arellano.
Xiao-Jing Wang outlines the future of theoretical neuroscience
Wang discusses why he decided the time was right for a new theoretical neuroscience textbook and how bifurcation is a key missing concept in neuroscience explanations.
Xiao-Jing Wang outlines the future of theoretical neuroscience
Wang discusses why he decided the time was right for a new theoretical neuroscience textbook and how bifurcation is a key missing concept in neuroscience explanations.
Memory study sparks debate over statistical methods
Critics of a 2024 Nature paper suggest the authors failed to address the risk of false-positive findings. The authors argue more rigorous methods can result in missed leads.

Memory study sparks debate over statistical methods
Critics of a 2024 Nature paper suggest the authors failed to address the risk of false-positive findings. The authors argue more rigorous methods can result in missed leads.