Introduction:

Over the years, a growing trend in sports has emerged with schools, professional teams, families, and even city parks switching from real grass to artificial turf. In my life alone, I have seen my friends’ families remove beautiful grass lawns, and my high school get rid of grass fields in favor of more expensive artificial turf. 

History:

First installed in 1966 at Houston’s Astrodome, artificial turf originally consisted of nylon carpet over compacted soil, and the trend of replacing natural grass with so-called AstroTurf continued due to its durability and low maintenance requirements (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). Even back then, many shared concerns about the grass, as, for the first time in human history, people ran on a human-made version of a natural surface. These issues have laid the foundation for modern discourse around playing surfaces, whether we should prioritize convenience or player opinions. 

Current Use:

Now, artificial turf uses synthetic polymers, with the top layer consisting of polymers attached to a textile with latex backing, and the infill made of recycled tires (Cheng et al., 2014). To emulate the shock absorption of real grass, artificial grass makers use sand laid over a shock pad made of materials such as rubber. These moves have increased its energy and water costs; however, they remain lower than those of maintaining a real grass field. 

The new turf only needs water to cool it down at times due to its material’s high heat absorption and the lack of evaporation seen in normal grass (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). The new turf also excels in durability, with strong polymers preventing the grass from tearing and avoiding the dirt spots and rough patches characteristic of a normal grass field.

While the new turf clearly excels in many areas, the areas it does not excel in have become the greatest sources of conversation, with its impervious surface limiting water infiltration and the synthetic grass having lower permeability to water (Cheng et al., 2014). Normal grass serves as a runoff area; as anyone who has played sports remembers, practice gets canceled because of heavy rainstorms. Furthermore, plastic pollution also becomes a major issue with artificial turf as microplastics, which do not biodegrade, linger in the environment and account for 15% of plastic debris in aquatic environments (Cumberbatch et al., 2025). Artificial turf also produces significantly more greenhouse gases than natural grass, and maintaining the grass increases the use of pesticides and cleaning solvents. Suppose you thought that you should just get rid of the synthetic grass and replace it with natural grass; even more issues emerge, as we do not have proper recycling facilities for artificial turf. 

Health Risks:

Health-wise, synthetic grass also raises serious concerns, as high surface temperatures increase the risk of dehydration and heat stroke (Reiad et al., 2025). The high presence of forever chemicals in artificial turf can also cause developmental issues, liver damage, and an increased risk of cancer (Reiad et al., 2025). Furthermore, athletes dislike the grass because of the increased risk of injury. In a study by John Powell, he linked artificial turf surfaces to increased knee injuries in professional football, and just from the top of my head, I can think of 10 bad lower extremity injuries from artificial turf, like Aaron Rodgers tearing his Achilles on his debut with the Jets and Dre Greenlaw doing the same in the Super Bowl. The NFL even conducted a poll in which 92% of athletes said they preferred natural to synthetic grass (The Associated Press, 2024). However, some studies have seen a greater concussion risk associated with natural grass, so you cannot simply say x is better than y in terms of injury risk. 

Hopefully, this article has guided you to my research question: Why would anyone ever use synthetic grass? The NFL has proven, through this year’s World Cup, that it can switch fields quite easily. In Europe, nearly all professional soccer teams use grass, so why would baseball and football team owners use hated synthetic grass fields over nostalgic, beloved grass fields? The answer to your question is likely effort and money. 

Appeal of Turf:

When you walk on a field of grass, you may not realize the effort it took to avoid rolling your ankle on a divot or accidentally stepping on an ant hill, but maintaining a proper grass field requires continuous, multifaceted effort. It requires seasonal reseeding, watering, mowing and cutting, fertilization, and changing costs based on weather conditions. The costs behind these actions tend to add up, leading to high and even unpredictable costs at times, which has led organizations and teams to stray away from grass in favor of turf. To maintain a turf field, all you might need to do is brush the surface of artificial grass to make it stand up straight or remove any debris or stains on the field, but other than that, and maybe a light watering for cooling, the cost associated with cleaning and maintaining turf remains relatively steady. Turf withstands heavy use and weather better than grass, making it ideal for the US’s multipurpose stadium venues. Artificial turf appeals to owners because of its low-cost marketing, consistent playability, and stable costs, which allow them to more easily manage the tight budgets they deal with. Europe, in contrast, has a more holistic approach to sports, where the fans and players come first, prioritizing tradition over costs, making real grass a cultural priority in sports infrastructure.

Conclusion:

The grass vs. turf debate underscores the broader theme of convenience versus quality. While turf saves money and lasts longer, artificial grass can cause adverse health effects, may increase lower-body injuries, and sacrifice the traditional, beloved feeling of grass. In debating grass vs. turf, we are asking what we should prioritize. As technology advances, we must ensure our answer to the question not only makes budgeting easier but also maintains the quality that players love.

References:

Cheng, Hefa, et al. “Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 48, no. 4, 2014, pp. 2114–2129. American Chemical Society, https://doi.org/10.1021/es4044193.

Cumberbatch, Iman S., et al. “Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Case Study of Environmental Effects, Health Risks, Safety, and Cost.” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 14, 2025, article 6292. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146292.

Macy. (2025). Artificial turf vs. natural grass football fields: The complete difference. Mighty Grass. https://www.mightygrass.com/artificial-turf-vs-natural-grass-football-fields/

Reiad, Timothy A et al. “Comparing Sports-Related Orthopedic Injury Trends on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass: A 20-Year Nationwide Analysis of the NEISS Database.” Rhode Island medical journal (2013) vol. 108,7 41-47. 1 Jul. 2025

The Associated Press. (2024, February 8). NFLPA head says 92% of players prefer playing on grass. FOX Sports. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/nflpa-head-says-92-percent-of-players-prefer-playing-on-grass 

Introduction

DIY nail-art kits have skyrocketed in popularity since the Covid-19 pandemic, but what happens when your beloved nails and hobby turn into an allergy? Nail artists and people doing their nails for fun have started noticing their fingers becoming dry, red, and itchy after continuous use of gel-nail polish. Gel-nail polish, especially when left undercured, can lead to contact dermatitis, an allergic reaction causing itchy skin and a rash (Contact Dermatitis – Symptoms and Causes, 2024). Recent studies have shown that the materials used in gel-nail polish, specifically acrylates, have led to an uptick in contact dermatitis.

What is in my nail kit?

Gel nail-polish is a thin polish that is applied to the nail and then cured under UV-light. The main materials in gel-nail polish are acrylates (Baek & Adler, 2024). Acrylates are the salt form of acrylic acid, which is a type of carboxylic acid with a conjugated pi system, meaning there are alternating double bonds within the molecule (Acrylates, n.d.).

Acrylates are known to cause allergic reactions when left uncured, partially uncured, and over multiple uses even if cured (Home of Nail Organization, n.d.). However, cases of contact dermatitis resulting from gel-nail polish use typically involve polishes that include isobornyl acrylate (IBOA) (Baek & Adler, 2024). Despite being present in just 1.5% of gel-nail polish, many polishes don’t list IBOA as an ingredient despite studies proving IBOA is in the polish (Baek & Adler, 2024). As stated previously, acrylates in general are known to cause allergic reactions, but the prevalence of allergic reactions to gel-nail polishes containing IBOA and the lack of proper ingredient reporting may be causing more people to develop contact dermatitis (Baek & Adler, 2024).

What is the solution?

There may be another solution to avoiding this allergy other than giving up on gel-polish. Methacrylates, which is the salt form of methacrylic acid, are similar to acrylates except for the additional methanol group in place of a hydrogen (Acrylates, n.d.). 

Although methacrylate-base gel-polish cures more slowly, it causes less allergic reactions, and is being used in more polishes as an alternative to acrylates (Home of Nail Organization, n.d.). A dermatological study from Sweden has shown that gel-polishes made with methacrylates led to less positive patch tests than gel-polishes made from acrylates (Dahlin et al., 2016). A patch-test is a test for a skin-based allergic reaction. A patch with a small amount of a potential allergen is applied to the skin for a period of time and then removed to see if the patch contained an allergen (Patch Testing for Skin Allergies: Procedure & Results, 2025). 

There were still cases of contact dermatitis occurring from methacrylate-based gel-nail polish. While some of these cases were tied to small methacrylates, many of them were caused by polymerized methacrylates, which is a larger chain of methacrylates, specifically di-hydroxyethylmethacrylates (HEMA). Despite these cases, acrylates may still be the culprit to contact dermatitis in gel-olish as the study did not investigate the purity of these polishes, especially for the containment of acrylates in the polish (Dahlin et al., 2016). 

Conclusion:

Gel-nail polish usage has caused contact dermatitis in nail artists and non-professionals alike. Acrylates and methacrylates can both cause these unwanted allergic reactions, but research has shown a stronger correlation between acrylates and contact dermatitis. Additionally, specific acrylates, ones known to cause higher rates of contact dermatitis, have been left unreported by manufacturers. Manufacturers don’t report the purity of the ingredients used in home-nail kits either, making you wonder what’s really in your nail polish and how you can protect your skin from allergies. 

References:

Acrylates. (n.d.). Safe Cosmetics. Retrieved April 10, 2026, from https://www.safecosmetics.org/chemicals/acrylates/

Baek, P., & Adler, B. L. (2024, July). Allergic contact dermatitis to isobornyl acrylate in a home nail glue. Contact Dermitis, 91(1), 64-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14541

Contact dermatitis – Symptoms and causes. (2024, May 2). Mayo Clinic. Retrieved April 9, 2026, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/contact-dermatitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20352742

Dahlin, J., Berne, B., Duner, K., Hosseiny, S., Matura, M., Nyman, G., Tammela, M., & Isaksson, M. (2016, September). Several cases of undesirable effects caused by methacrylate ultraviolet-curing nail polish for non-professional use. Contact Dermatitis, 75(3), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12608

Home of Nail Organization. (n.d.). The Difference Between Acrylates & Methacrylates in the Nail Formulas. Home of Nail Organization. https://www.homeofnailart.com/blogs/knowledge-hub/understanding-acrylates-and-methacrylates-in-the-nail-industry-more-than-just-a-name?srsltid=AfmBOoq1e_vC7XlGEZpMAGF27cLzBMSHEsosthYFAWRRzrgMu6EICJS0

Patch Testing for Skin Allergies: Procedure & Results. (2025, April 21). Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved April 10, 2026, from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/patch-test

On March 13, 2026, the Georgia Tech Center of Excellence in Computational Cognition (CoCo) held its sesquiannual Computational Cognition Conference (CoCo Con) – an event where researchers from Georgia Tech and other Atlanta area universities working at the intersection of the mind and advanced computing to gain insights into both human cognition and artificial intelligence could come together and collaborate. Attending both as a student who is studying CoCo and someone who was documenting the event for the Institute, the conference itself was very interesting, as over 100 researchers from various disciplines, such as neuroscience, psychology, computing, mathematics, and physics, came together to share surprisingly similar research spanning across all disciplines— from exploration and avoidance in anxiety, what makes music memorable, the theory of mind in humans and machines, dynamic drift diffusion modeling, and the structure of memory for narratives – there was no shortage of interesting and insightful discussion on the inner mechanism of the mind. However, what stood out the most was how the conference ended. Ending with a panel of interdisciplinary researchers trying to define CoCo was arguably the most interesting conversation of the day, especially as a student studying and doing research within this field. This section was particularly interesting because while all of these people claimed that what they do is computational cognition, they all did distinctly different things and, therefore, none of them could similarly define computational cognition, further complicating the panel’s theme of attempting to define a clear CoCo canon.

Typically, especially in the case of STEM disciplines, researchers often don’t take into consideration that their fields arise through a defined canon, or set of literature and ideas that fundamentally define and drive their field (Easterling, Patricia E, 2015). For example, a piece of canon from a STEM field that many should be familiar with, from chemistry, for example, is the relationship between a chemist and the periodic table. Any chemist you talk to should know the periodic table, and to some extent, whether directly or indirectly, and work with it in some capacity pretty much daily. However, In the case of CoCo, a canon is much harder to define, as stated by a panelist at CoCo Con 2026, CoCo is “an interdisciplinary space trying to become a disciplinary space,” and this is what makes it challenging to articulate set boundaries or literature that define what is CoCo and what is in the same sense that the period table serves as an integral component that allows us to articulate what chemistry is.

The easiest place to start in all of this is arguably Google, as even professionals, such as the director of the GT CoCo Center of Excellence, will rely on Google sometimes – for example, to help articulate CoCo Cons’ occurrence; “sesquiannual is the word the AI gave.” As defined by Google, “computational cognition is the scientific study of the mind and its processes—such as learning, reasoning, and perception—using mathematical modeling, computer simulations, and behavioral experiments.” While this definition works, especially in the case of the research I am involved with, which is language cognition and intelligence research in a computational cognition and neuroAI lab, this definition fails to capture the full extent of what everyone at CoCo Con 2026 studies. 

For example, a talk that stood out to me was from a researcher looking at the overall impact of how researchers are preparing for the ethical, social, and practical challenges that studying brain data brings – this includes the common practice of following proper IRB participant confidentiality guidelines, and open-sourcing brain data. While open-sourcing isn’t inherently a negative thing, in the case of brain data, an inherent clause arises in essentially protecting participants’ thoughts, as, while from our current knowledge, there’s no way to read inherent thoughts from neural data, as often neural data is some result of system dynamics rather than direct neural signals, there’s no telling what we could do in the future leading to an interesting predicament that is inarguably a CoCo problem. 

Additionally, a possible literature base for CoCo was discussed; however, following a similar trend as in trying to define what CoCo even is, this also proved challenging due to many interesting caveats. For example, as a neuroscientist, I am familiar with and have even read some literature, such as Donald Hebb’s highly influential and fundamental 1949 book The Organization of Behavior, and while I would argue that this is a fundamental article for what I do, which is arguably CoCo, a physicist who also claims to do CoCo would most likely have little to no reason to read a book that argues the for fundamental concept in another discipline that simply states that “neurons that wire together, fire together.” Ultimately, to a physicist, the dynamics of why would matter more than the concept, so while I may consider this as canon-defining literature in regards to what I do, why should a physicist care? This idea then further brings to light the idea that while CoCo is defined as a discipline, defining what CoCo is depends on perspective and implementation rather than a coherent disciplinary problem.

Overall, while it may be challenging to define a domain such as CoCo, as articulated by a conference attendee, “in recent years, it has become very apparent to us that we have new ways to study the brain.” Whether this be through using mathematical modeling, computer simulation, or behavioral experiments, this disciplinary space is inherently interdisciplinary. Ultimately, I feel that while it would be convenient to define a canon for CoCo from a communications perspective, it might be better not to define a set canon for CoCo and let the field continue to flourish as an interdisciplinary, disciplinary space that brings together specialists from a vast array of domains to study the mind and its processes.

If you would like to read more about the event, read about it here: https://neuro.gatech.edu/computational-cognition-conference-showcases-georgia-techs-advancements-research-related-mind

References 

Easterling, Patricia E, ‘canon’ (30 July 2015), in Lucy Grig (ed.), Oxford Classical Dictionary (New York, NY, online edn, Oxford Academic, 15 July 2015 – ), https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.1342, accessed 3 Apr. 2026.

Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Wiley.