Nikon stripped an author of the award for a microscope video: details discovered after the win prompted a review of the results

The colorful micro-video was meant to show what cannot be seen with the naked eye: the movement of tiny cilia in the respiratory tract of a child with a rare genetic disease. The work won first place in the international Nikon competition — but a few weeks later the winner was stripped of the award.

The reason was artificial intelligence (AI). After re-examination, Nikon concluded that Ning Xu's video did not comply with the rules of the Small World in Motion competition regarding the use of generative AI.

Now first place went to another participant — Nguyen Nam Nhat from Vietnam. His micro-video shows an encounter between a tiny roundworm and a single-celled organism Dileptus.

What the winning video showed in the first place

Small World in Motion is a Nikon competition for videos and time-lapses shot through a light microscope. It has existed since 2011 and is the video version of the well-known Nikon Small World competition.

Initially, first place in 2026 went to Ning Xu's work dedicated to primary ciliary dyskinesia — a rare hereditary disease in which microscopic cilia in the respiratory tract move abnormally.

Normally, these cilia help move mucus and particles out of the respiratory tract. If their movement is impaired, a person may experience recurrent respiratory infections.

That is why the video looked not only spectacular but also scientifically significant: the viewer literally saw the movement of cellular structures associated with the disease.

But specialists began noticing unusual things

After the winners were announced, microscopists and researchers began scrutinizing the clip.

Some specialists noticed structures that seemed to appear and disappear between frames, as well as details whose sizes and movement did not match expected biology according to them.

The question also arose as to how much the image had been altered by AI processing.

The author explained that AI was used in post-processing of reconstructed black-and-white data to differentiate and visualize similar structures.

He denied that AI created the actual experimental video, the cilia, or their movement.

Nikon first launched a re-examination

After public questions from the scientific community, the organizers did not immediately cancel the result.

Nikon announced that it was re-examining the source information and additional materials provided by the author.

The company also consulted with members of the jury.

After this review, the decision changed.

Nikon stated that the original winning entry did not comply with the competition rules regarding generative AI and adjusted the participants' ranking.

The company separately emphasized that the disqualification concerns exclusively the compliance of the specific video with the competition rules and should not be perceived as an assessment of the professional reputation, scientific work, or intentions of the author.

Why the line is so thin here

AI has long been used for image processing: it can reduce noise, restore details, add color to data, or help differentiate structures that are difficult for humans to see.

But in scientific visualization a fundamental question arises: at what point does image enhancement begin to show not what actually existed in the source data, but what the model "filled in" on its own?

For an ordinary photograph, this line may be a matter of artistic choice. For a scientific image, it is far more important because the viewer assumes they are seeing real experimental data.

This is what sets Nikon's story apart from many debates around AI art: here it was about a video depicting a real biological process and a rare disease.

The competition rules explicitly restrict generative AI

The rules of Small World in Motion state that videos created by artificial intelligence are not allowed, and organizers have the right to request original materials for verification.

However, the current story showed that drawing a clear line between acceptable digital processing and generative alteration of an image is becoming increasingly difficult.

Nikon itself acknowledged that the development of visualization technologies and AI creates new challenges for competitions and said that it plans to revise the rules and assessment procedures for future entries.

Who won first place now

After the disqualification of the previous winner, all top positions changed.

First place went to Nguyen Nam Nhat of Vietnam, who was originally second.

His work looks almost like a scene from a science fiction film, although it entirely takes place in the microscopic world: a tiny roundworm ends up next to a single-celled predatory organism Dileptus.

Second place went to Benedikt Pleyer for his video of jellyfish larvae in water droplets. Other competitors in the top ranks also moved up one spot.

The grand prize of the competition is $3,000.

Why this story matters beyond a single contest

A few years ago, the main question around a digital image was simple: how much did the photographer edit it?

Now the question is different: what part of what we see actually existed in front of the lens?

With the development of generative AI, determining this is becoming harder not only for viewers but also for professional juries.

Nikon's story clearly illustrates a new problem: AI can not only make an image more beautiful but can alter it so convincingly that the line between observation and creation has to be clarified after the award is handed out.

And in the case of scientific images, the cost of such a mistake is much higher than a typical photography dispute — because the viewer is asked to trust not artistic fantasy but what is shown as the actual microscopic world.

Sources: The Verge, Nikon Small World, Nature, Ars Technica, ABC News.