Tiny image sparks big backlash in Nikon photo contest

A well-known science photography contest is under pressure after other scientists said the winning video may have been made with artificial intelligence. The contest is called Nikon's Small World In Motion, and it has been held every year for 15 years. It accepts photos and videos taken through powerful microscopes. The winning entry came from Dr. Ning Xu, a researcher in China, and it showed tiny hair-like structures called cilia moving inside the airways of a sick child.

Dr. Xu's video showed cilia, which are tiny structures that look like hairs and help move air through our breathing passages. The video was brightly colored, which is common in microscope photography and is allowed under the contest rules. Coloring like this is usually done by hand using special dyes on the sample itself. Dr. Xu said he did not use AI to create the video or the cilia, but he did admit that AI was used to help highlight and show features in the images.

Other scientists quickly raised concerns after the video was announced as the winner. One professor from the University of Florida noticed that some structures in the video seemed to appear and disappear without explanation. A graduate student from UT Southwestern Medical Centre said the video appeared to have a hidden mark, called a watermark, which suggested it was made by an AI tool. Two former judges of the competition also said they were worried the video might not be real.

Dr. Xu responded to some of the criticism online and said he followed the rules of the contest. He posted his response on LinkedIn after Nikon shared news about the competition. Nikon said Dr. Xu has been cooperating with their investigation and has handed over extra technical documents to help explain his work. The company said it does not believe any rules were broken, but it has promised to share an update soon.

Dr. Patrick Hickey, who came in fifth place in the same contest, talked about what winning an award like this means to scientists. He said the $3,000 prize is not the most important part — what really matters is being able to share their work with the public. He pointed out that the contest clearly states that generative AI cannot be used to create content, and that videos must actually be taken through a microscope. If the rules were broken, other scientists who worked hard and played fair could have been cheated out of the top prize.