There has been excitement among researchers in recent years that playing certain video and computer games may strengthen core components of cognition, helping us to make quicker decisions, think more fluidly, and avoid harmful distractions.

Two women recently had their research paper rejected by a science journal based on an incredibly sexist review of their work – an event that has caused outrage on social media.

While the journal, PLOS ONE, has apologized and given the authors a second chance, not everyone is as lucky.

The case provides an opportunity for journals to adopt an open peer-review system – a process in which scientists evaluate the quality of other scientists' work – so that reviewers cannot hide behind anonymity. But it also shows it is time to get tough on the widespread biases in universities.

We all know how irritating it is to have an inbox flooded with junk mail.

Fortunately email providers these days contain filters to keep the junk mail at bay.

As a result the junk mail folder tends to pile up with never-to-be-read emails.

But, occasionally, an important email is snagged by the filter and is unduly ignored.

We can think of the human genome as a server sending out a constant bombardment of emails. These messages are on average 2,000 letters long, and these “letters” are made up of different types of bases, some of which are packaged in the form of RNA.

Even before Jacqueline Ho enrolled in her first environmental studies course at college, her thinking about climate change had been shaped during her years growing up in Singapore reading books by the environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben.

At college, ideas first planted by McKibben were reinforced in courses where she read classics by Aldo Leopold and Garrett Hardin, along with recent books by Van Jones and Elizabeth Kolbert.

With these authors anchoring her understanding, it was easy for Ho to believe about climate change “that fossil fuel corporations were to blame, that we had a suite of low-carbon technologies we could deploy immediately, and that grassroots solutions held promise,” she recalls.

The latest article exploring sexism in academia suggests that it no longer exists. Some have already grumbled about flaws in the study’s design. But more than that, I simply don’t believe the finding because there is clear evidence that sexism still exists.

Infertility is becoming a public health issue in Europe. Declining birth rates over the past 50 years mean that Europe is only producing 1.6 children per woman – hardly satisfactory to compete on the global stage against increasing populations of fit and able youth from the emerging economies of India and China. And the problem is getting worse: couples reporting infertility in centers across Europe is increasing by 8-9% annually.