I understand the cynicism. Academic reporting is a hard & thankless gig. The non-cynical version: Half of a researcher's job is disseminating results -- to ot

I understand the cynicism. Academic reporting is a hard & thankless gig. The non-cynical version: Half of a researcher's job is disseminating results -- to other researchers & the populace at large. I'd much rather have excited university announcements (even over-reaching ones) than the rage-porn news that dominates the airwaves & "mainstream news" homepages. Besides: Any serious researcher will just revert to the actual peer-reviewed source material. It was linked in the article. Here it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-023-01680-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-023-01680-4 And here's the PDF: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.24.477527v2.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.24.477527v2.... As someone who has peripheral knowledge in this space (piezeoelectric & magnetostrictive devices and neural stimulation & recording): I've never seen a magnetostrictive material capable of developing a DC bias. Further, driving the device in a non-resonant mode for neural stimulation is even more new to me -- that's quite fascinating, and I'd say that article lives up to the hype from my 1000-ft vantage. I.e. This was effective reporting.