A recent study suggests that people who donate blood regularly may have genetic changes in their blood that could in fact reduce the risk of developing cancer. It is conducted by the researchers at the Francis Crick Institute, and the study has now provided new insights into how and why blood cancers develop. The study is published in the journal Blood and was conducted by the scientists from Heidelberg and the German Red Cross blood donation center. There is yet a need for further research to confirm these findings.

What Did The Study Find?

The researchers examined the blood of two groups of healthy male donors in their 60s:

• One group had donated blood three times a year for 40 years.
• The other group had donated only about five times in total.

The goal was to analyze genetic mutations in their blood and assess whether frequent donation had any impact on their genetic makeup.

How Can Blood Donation Affect Stem Cells?

As and when people age, their blood and other cells naturally develop mutations and some of them can also increase the risk of cancer. When anyone donates blood, his or her body compensates by producing new blood cells, which can influence the genetic diversity of stem cells in the bone marrow. The study also found that both groups had a similar number of mutations. For instance the frequent donors had 217 mutations, while the irregular donors had 212 mutations.

However, the nature of these mutations differed. In the frequent donors, 50% of the mutations were of a type not associated with a high risk of blood cancers, compared to only 30% in the irregular donors.

Further laboratory analysis showed that these specific mutations behaved differently from those linked to leukemia, a type of blood cancer. When human blood stem cells with these mutations were injected into mice, they were found to be highly effective at producing red blood cells, which is considered a positive outcome.

Dr. Hector Huerga Encabo, one of the study authors, emphasized that these mutations do not indicate an increased risk of leukemia. The findings suggest that regular blood donation may influence how stem cells evolve, but whether this translates into a lower cancer risk remains uncertain.

Read More: Who Can Donate Blood To Whom?

Limitations

One notable disadvantage is the "healthy-donor effect"—because blood donors are often healthier than the general population, their lower cancer risk could be unrelated to blood donation.

Dominique Bonnet, senior researcher and head of a stem-cell laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute, stressed the need for larger studies with female volunteers to confirm the findings.

Despite ongoing research into potential health benefits for donors, the primary goal of blood donation remains saving lives. NHS Blood and Transplant emphasized that while the study is interesting, further research is required to draw firm conclusions. The organization also noted that blood supplies are currently critically low and encouraged eligible individuals to donate.

Also Read: How Long After a Tattoo or Piercing Can I Donate Blood?

At the age of 28, Courtney Paton realized she could never have children. She was medically infertile. This was after years of repeated surgeries, a total of seven, for 'suspected' endometriosis, due to which Dr Simon Gordon, Melbourne-based gynecologist removed both her ovaries and eventually her uterus.

Her story came to light through an investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Company or ABC's Four Corners, an investigation that looked at the treatment she received from Dr Gordon.

Courtney says she trusted the doctor completely. Now she says that trust has been shattered. “I feel completely betrayed by not only Simon Gordon, but by Epworth, by the healthcare system,” she told the program.

A Wrong Diagnosis That Led to Repeated Surgeries

Courtney first had laparoscopic surgery in 2018 with another surgeon, which confirmed she had endometriosis. The condition affects about one in seven Australian women and can cause severe pelvic pain and fertility problems.

Still struggling with pain, she began seeing Gordon in 2019 when she was 21.

Over the next several years she underwent seven surgeries with him. Gordon told her the procedures were necessary to treat severe endometriosis. Courtney and her family paid more than 32,000 Australian dollars for these surgeries alone.

But when investigators asked her to obtain her pathology reports, the results told a very different story. The tissue tests from most of her surgeries showed no evidence of endometriosis.

Despite this, operation reports written by Gordon continued to describe findings consistent with the disease.

Read: A Woman Lost Her Ovary To Endometriosis Surgery After Receiving An Ultimatum From Gynecologist

Removal of Both Ovaries

In 2021 Gordon removed one of Courtney’s ovaries, saying it was stuck to the pelvic wall. Later he removed the second ovary as well.

Independent specialists who reviewed the pathology for the investigation said the ovary appeared normal and there was no clear justification for removing it. One expert described the treatment as “unbelievable” after reviewing the medical records.

Medical guidelines generally advise caution when removing ovaries from young women who may want children in the future.

Read: This Is Endometriosis, A Short Film On Debilitating Health Condition Wins BAFTA Award 2026, Know More

A Hysterectomy At 25

Despite losing both ovaries, Courtney continued to experience pelvic pain. Gordon later advised that she should undergo a hysterectomy.

Concerned, she sought a second opinion from another gynecologist who said the procedure was unnecessary and suggested non surgical treatments.

But after years of pain and repeated surgeries, Courtney says she felt desperate for relief and trusted the doctor who had treated her for so long. Her uterus was removed in 2023 when she was just 25.

Again, pathology results found no evidence of endometriosis.

Investigation and Legal Action

Courtney is now pursuing legal action through a medical negligence claim. The case has also drawn attention from regulators, with investigations underway into Gordon’s conduct.

Australia’s federal health minister Mark Butler described the allegations as “physically sickening”.

For Courtney, the emotional impact remains overwhelming.

“No woman should ever have to endure what I’ve endured,” she said. “I’ve had the opportunity to have a family taken away from me.”

Your DNA, or more specifically your genes, have fascinating interactions with your diet. These interactions are often bidirectional and form the basis of personalized nutrition through genomic biohacks.

This has impressive applications in solving some of the most stubborn health related challenges, including undesirable weight gain and obesity.

Also Read: Icotyde: US FDA Approves Johnson & Johnson's Pill For Psoriasis

Here are the five ways by which your DNA could positively shape your diet:

Nutrigenomics

Nutrigenomics is the mechanism by which your diet affects your genes, and not the other way round. The process has massive implications for your health, and especially over how you can use specific dietary components to protect yourself against serious killer diseases like cancers and issues like faster aging.

Deficiency in key nutrients like Vitamin B9 or folate, Vitamin B12, choline & methionine can cause genomic instability and increased cancer risk.

In contrast, specific foods like curcumin, resveratrol, green tea, broccoli, Brussels sprouts etc can help with genomic stability and help fight inflammation, oxidative stress and cancers.

Nutrigenetics

These are the processes by which your genes affect your diet or consumed food and hence central to our theme here. At times, nutrigenetics is referred to by the wider umbrella term nutrigenomics.

Your gene variants determine how you process specific nutrients, which explains why the same diet works differently for different people. Genetic tests like Eplimo can easily find this out.

Also Read: E. Coli Outbreak Linked To Cheddar Cheese, 7 People In 3 States Affected

For instance, presence of certain variants of the SGK1 gene make those individuals more prone to high blood pressure from salt intake.

Similarly, variants in the FTO gene are strongly linked to obesity risk. Other very common examples are variants in the CYP1A2 gene that determine how fast you metabolize caffeine and mutations in the LCT gene that determines whether you are at risk of lactose intolerance.

Hunger & Satiety Hormones

Ghrelin, the hunger hormone, is produced mainly in the stomach and stimulates appetite, increases food intake as well as promotes fat storage.

The production of ghrelin hormone is governed by the GHRL gene, and a common variant in this gene called RS696217 is associated with unnecessary hunger and higher obesity risk.

Similarly, leptin is a hormone produced by the body’s fat tissues and regulates satiety or the feeling of fullness with regard to food.

Production of leptin is governed by the LEP gene, while its utilization is controlled by the LEPR (leptin receptor) gene. Variants in either, especially LEP, can cause severe, early-onset obesity.

Metabolic Pace

Genes play a significant role in determining your metabolic pace. Studies show that genes account for up to 60 percent of the variations seen in the Resting Metabolic Rate between individuals.

RMR is basically a measure of how much calories are burnt while you are sitting or doing light activities.

It is different from Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) that requires fasting and bed rest. Hundreds of genetic variants work together to set your RMR.

These include variants in the UCP1 gene governing thermogenesis or heat production, the MC4R gene that influences how the body burns nutrients for energy, and genes governing mitochondrial efficiency.

Building more muscles is a proven way to counter the negative impact of such variants and boost RMR.

Gut Microbiome

Does your gut microbiome impact your genes more, or does your genes impact your gut microbes more? Definitely, it is the former, which is also a better known mechanism due to that greater impact.

But that doesn’t mean that the reverse impact, from your DNA to your microbiome which accounts for around 10 percent of its composition, is insignificant in any way.

For instance, your specific gene variants determine which bacteria thrive by influencing immune responses, metabolism, and food preferences.

Specific genes, such as the LCT gene, directly correlate with the abundance of beneficial bacteria like Bifidobacterium. Genetics also influence how you digest food and your dietary preferences, which in turn feeds specific bacterial species.

Other genetic factors too have been identified as having strong links to microbial diversity, which is a great marker for not only gut health, but overall health, performance and longevity.

The impact of social media on adolescents’ well-being is significant, said the World Happiness Report 2026 today, warning that the scale of harm is significant enough to affect entire populations.

The annual report, published by the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford, points to overwhelming evidence of both direct and indirect harm.

Direct harms include exposing them to videos of graphic pornography and real-life violence, facilitating cyberbullying and deepfakes, promoting dangerous “challenges”, connecting them with sexual predators, and facilitating the purchase of illegal drugs.

The indirect harms involve rising levels of depression, anxiety, and reduced life satisfaction.

“The harms and risks to individual users are so diverse and vast in scope that they justify the view that social media is causing harm at a population level,” the report said.

The harmful "experiences are so common that they should also count as ordinary use,” it added.

Notably, the report called the major social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and X, "dangerous consumer products that harm adolescents at a massive scale”.

“The evidence of harm – both direct and indirect – is so strong and comes from so many sources in so many countries that we believe policymakers around the world now have enough evidence to justify action to protect children and adolescents,” the report said.

In line with this, countries such as Australia and Indonesia recently introduced legislative restrictions on social media use among young people. In India, states including Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have announced bans, while Bihar is considering similar measures.

The report pointed out that social media is causing direct harms to millions of people globally. This includes:

• Addiction and problematic use
• Sleep deprivation
• Sextortion
• Sexual harassment

Impact on Youth Well-being

Research cited in the report shows a clear link between heavy social media use and lower life satisfaction among adolescents. Youth and teens who spent more time on social platforms reported poorer mental well-being compared to those who used less.

Overall, internet use was linked with negative effects, particularly among girls and in countries such as the UK and Ireland. Yet, among those who used the internet for communication, learning, news consumption, and content creation, higher life satisfaction was reported.

The report noted that negative emotions are becoming more common across all regions. Worry increased among young people, while the frequency of anger declined across both younger and older populations.

Despite these trends, positive emotions still occur about twice as often as negative ones globally.

Global Happiness Rankings

Finland has been ranked the world’s happiest country for the ninth consecutive year, followed by Iceland, Denmark, and Costa Rica. Other countries in the top 10 include Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Israel, Luxembourg, and Switzerland.

In contrast, when measuring changes in happiness among people under 25, countries in the NANZ region -- the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand -- rank much lower, placing between 122 and 133 out of 136 countries.