vox--2020-12-29--How military superiority made America less safe

There ’ s a myth Americans tell themselves : After World War II , the United States had no choice but to be the world ’ s superpower and preeminent military force .
No other countries were strong enough after years of fighting , and it was solely up to the US , by virtue of its position , to rebuild and reorder the world .
The reason that ’ s not true , says Stephen Wertheim , author of Tomorrow , the World : The Birth of US Global Supremacy , is because the US made a conscious decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ II ended .
Such a strategy , forged in the heat of battle , would help the US thwart totalitarian regimes — namely the Soviet Union in later years — while pursuing its own interests .
Wertheim argues the plan made some sense in the moment .
After all , Nazi Germany was winning in Europe , and the US didn ’ t want to live in a world full of brutal dictatorships .
But the problem is the US hasn ’ t shifted its strategy since — and it ’ s backfired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like climate change and pandemic disease , for example , the US has prioritized building and deploying a robust force that has made a plethora of unnecessary enemies .
And despite some horrific outcomes like the Iraq War , the US refuses to rethink its game plan , even after the Cold War ended and as domestic appetite for adventurism dwindles .
“ Far from contributing to American security , the plan of global military superiority has made America — and Americans — less safe , ” Wertheim , who is the deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington , DC , told me .
To better understand why Wertheim believes the US should focus less on military superiority , not more , I called him and asked him to expand on his argument in an interview .
Our conversation , edited for length and clarity , follows .
Your book makes the case that American leadership wasn ’ t preordained .
It was a choice .
Explain what that choice actually was .
I had a really basic question in mind : When was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States as the dominant military power across the globe ?
It is a consensus , an axiomatic view , that the United States , for its national security interests , needs to be the No .
1 military power in the world , and must have troops in bases in foreign countries to secure its own and global interests .
That ’ s meant to nip any potential aggressors in the bud rather than wait for an attack , or to stop others from gaining dominance in their own regions .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about after World War II when the US was the only real global power left standing .
But that ’ s not true .
This idea of “ primacy ” was forged in the wake of the fall of France to Nazi Germany in 1940 .
Wait — US officials decided the country should strive to be the world ’ s dominant force before World War II ended ?
By October 1940 , just months after imagining that the United States might be confined to an area no larger than a “ quarter-sphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrived at a startling conclusion : The United States had to hold “ unquestioned power ” globally , protecting by force as much of the non-German world as possible .
In his instantly famous essay announcing the arrival of the “ American Century ” in February 1941 — 10 months before Pearl Harbor — the publishing mogul Henry Luce wrote : “ The big , important point to be made here is simply that the complete opportunity of leadership is ours.
” Luce urged his fellow Americans to “ accept wholeheartedly our duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence , for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.
” “ As we see fit.
” The America Firsters were not the only ones who put America first .
Okay , I wanted to make sure I had that clear since that ’ s not usually the story Americans tell themselves .
Provocatively , your book is basically a lament of the idea that the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , underwritten by its strong military .
In your view , why shouldn ’ t the US be the world ’ s preeminent force ?
After all , it ’ s helped us get to this place of unprecedented strength .
Far from contributing to American security , the plan of global military superiority has made America — and Americans — less safe .
I have a great deal of sympathy for the architects of US military dominance .
I think they faced difficult circumstances .
How could I not sympathize with wanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth and make sure nothing like that happened again ?
I have complete sympathy with that goal .
But since the collapse of the Soviet Union , the reason that brought forth US global supremacy has ceased to exist .
There was an original argument for the United States shouldering the immense burdens of global military dominance : Without it , totalitarian powers would conquer much of the Earth .
That would be terrible for the world , the thinking went , and it could be bad for the United States .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of military dominance since then has created a lot of enemies of the US that didn ’ t need to be enemies of the US .
We ’ ve engaged in bad behavior ourselves and stimulated it in others .
I worry that — in a world where the foremost threats to the American people are pandemic disease and climate change — America will continue to define its biggest threats in military terms , even if they aren ’ t .
Part of what undergirds that sentiment these days , though , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a “ unipolar moment ” — the US was the unquestioned power and global leader with no clear rival .
Implicit in what you ’ re saying is that that moment is truly and forever gone .
We ’ re never going to get the unipolar moment back .
It was rightly called a moment at the time in the 1990s .
But since then , the United States caused a lot of destruction and grief for itself and for others .
I really worry about where this goes as the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this interview or your book and conclude that what you ’ re really angry about is high defense budgets .
But if I understand your argument correctly , you ’ re saying that the strategy envisioned before World War II ended may have had some logic then , but it has none now , especially since it ’ s had the unintended effect of weakening US national security .
Precisely .
Look , I am going to make the hardest possible case for my position : World War II .
If there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the best use of American military power , my God , it ’ s exactly what my book is about .
I ’ m actually trying to focus us on what I think is the best argument in favor of American military hegemony .
And what I find in that history is that the roots of our current problems are bound up with the best thing we ’ ve ever done as a nation .
I think that ’ s why we have this problem .
I ’ m trying to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with .
But I think if those postwar planners — had they been around today or even in the 1990s — they would say , “ Wait a minute.
” They would ’ ve realized how fraught it is to take on a world-ordering role by force , akin to what we understood the British Empire had done in the previous century .
After all , they worried to themselves that what they were planning contained a measure of imperialism in it .
But at the time , they felt it was better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You make a case that the focus on military superiority led the US to care less about other elements of power , namely economic well-being .
That ’ s not to say America didn ’ t care about having lots of money and a strong economy — it did — but your point is that America ’ s actions have caused widespread harm at home and abroad .
Since 1991 , I think almost everybody has lost out , aside from the major defense firms and some ruling elites .
America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people throughout the greater Middle East , and of course , the Iraq War resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians .
And I don ’ t think the American people have won out , either .
I think that we have gotten less safe and more fearful as a society as a result of constantly being told by leaders of both parties that the whole world is out to kill us and that that ’ s why we ’ ve got to go to war to kill them first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military power contributed to world order was very real .
The Bretton Woods system played an important role in stabilizing global capitalism .
But since the 1970s , and especially the 1990s , I think it ’ s hard to argue that US military dominance somehow underpins everything else .
It ’ s very difficult to see how applying sanctions on dozens of countries and waging continual warfare in the greater Middle East somehow serves the general interest of capitalism .
Maybe it serves the interests of particular firms , but not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly made some horrible , deadly mistakes .
No one is denying that .
How can you say confidently , though , that the world wouldn ’ t be worse if the US didn ’ t play such an active role ?
It ’ s now been three decades since the Soviet Union collapsed .
Why haven ’ t we been able to do everything we want to effectively ?
It turns out that the enemies are skeptical of working with us to address shared challenges .
Now , it ’ s true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can back up diplomacy and make other endeavors more effective .
But we have so overshot the mark that it ’ s more often the case that military dominance gets in the way of the kinds of constructive engagements in the world that I think many people in Washington want to see .
What I ’ m opposed to , first and foremost , is military dominance as an end in itself .
That ’ s what I think it has become in our own time , and I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t prohibit the US from being a robust power : It ’ s going to be a great power and it ’ s going to have a strong military .
We should absolutely be able to defend ourselves .
I ’ m not even closing the door on things like humanitarian intervention , either .
What we have to ask , though , is if the US has used all this power wisely and judiciously .
It ’ s clear that we haven ’ t , and it ’ s making all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world less safe .
Just think of this : Roughly 80 percent of all US military interventions have occurred after 1991 .
Can we really say the millions at home and abroad have had their lives improved by that ?
I don ’ t think so .
So if there ’ s a President Wertheim in the future , how do you change America ’ s approach to the world ?
I certainly agree with those who would say you don ’ t undo things in a hurry .
You have to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to break the perpetual war logic of the war on terror .
And strangely enough , we ’ re kind of coming as a society to that view already .
I ’ d lead a systematic policy of disentangling the US from regions where its interests are either not vital , as in the Middle East , or not really imperiled , like Europe .
I absolutely believe in the capacity of Europeans to manage their own affairs .
The United States does not need to be the protector of Europe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wise to wind down America ’ s military strength while it rises ?
China is a difficult challenge , but I would try to set priorities and act on them .
Climate change and pandemic disease are the issues where Chinese behavior is terribly important to the US .
They ’ re threats the American people face where they live and work , and so I would really prioritize those issues and improve the relationship around tackling them .
Those issues are not well served by the United States pursuing perpetual military dominance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , I do think we have to be cautious in observing how China continues to rise and how it behaves .
It has not had a record of territorial conquest with anything like the record of past US adversaries , like the Axis powers or the Soviet Union .
That ’ s a good thing , though you wouldn ’ t know it from all the cries about China ’ s desire to dominate the world emanating from Washington , DC .
A President Wertheim — and please let your readers know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I say that — would recognize the US has an opportunity to cautiously retrench its position militarily in certain regions as it ramps up cooperation on the issues that really matter .
I ’ d encourage allies and partners in the region to step up to counterbalance China .
We still have time to allow that process to happen , and that ’ d be a good thing since it takes two great powers to make a great-power war .
Do you really think retrenchment is likely in the near future ?
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now is that it ’ s almost impossible for many people in the foreign policy community to envision circumstances in which the United States could ever pull back from a region .
I worry about the United States putting itself on the front lines of any potential conflict , which could mean a great-power war .
We should avoid being in that situation in the first place if we possibly can .

There’s a myth Americans tell themselves: After World War II, the United States had no choice but to be the world’s superpower and preeminent military force. No other countries were strong enough after years of fighting, and it was solely up to the US, by virtue of its position, to rebuild and reorder the world.
The reason that’s not true, says Stephen Wertheim, author of Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy, is because the US made a conscious decision to seek military dominance before World War II ended. Such a strategy, forged in the heat of battle, would help the US thwart totalitarian regimes — namely the Soviet Union in later years — while pursuing its own interests.
Wertheim argues the plan made some sense in the moment. After all, Nazi Germany was winning in Europe, and the US didn’t want to live in a world full of brutal dictatorships. But the problem is the US hasn’t shifted its strategy since — and it’s backfired greatly.
Instead of focusing on issues like climate change and pandemic disease, for example, the US has prioritized building and deploying a robust force that has made a plethora of unnecessary enemies. And despite some horrific outcomes like the Iraq War, the US refuses to rethink its game plan, even after the Cold War ended and as domestic appetite for adventurism dwindles.
“Far from contributing to American security, the plan of global military superiority has made America — and Americans — less safe,” Wertheim, who is the deputy director of research and policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington, DC, told me.
To better understand why Wertheim believes the US should focus less on military superiority, not more, I called him and asked him to expand on his argument in an interview. Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Alex Ward
Your book makes the case that American leadership wasn’t preordained. It was a choice. Explain what that choice actually was.
Stephen Wertheim
I had a really basic question in mind: When was the choice made to install the United States as the dominant military power across the globe?
It is a consensus, an axiomatic view, that the United States, for its national security interests, needs to be the No. 1 military power in the world, and must have troops in bases in foreign countries to secure its own and global interests. That’s meant to nip any potential aggressors in the bud rather than wait for an attack, or to stop others from gaining dominance in their own regions.
It’s widely believed that this idea came about after World War II when the US was the only real global power left standing. But that’s not true. This idea of “primacy” was forged in the wake of the fall of France to Nazi Germany in 1940.
Alex Ward
Wait — US officials decided the country should strive to be the world’s dominant force before World War II ended?
Stephen Wertheim
That’s right.
By October 1940, just months after imagining that the United States might be confined to an area no larger than a “quarter-sphere” partway down Brazil, postwar planners arrived at a startling conclusion: The United States had to hold “unquestioned power” globally, protecting by force as much of the non-German world as possible.
In his instantly famous essay announcing the arrival of the “American Century” in February 1941 — 10 months before Pearl Harbor — the publishing mogul Henry Luce wrote: “The big, important point to be made here is simply that the complete opportunity of leadership is ours.”
Luce urged his fellow Americans to “accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”
“As we see fit.” The America Firsters were not the only ones who put America first.
Alex Ward
Okay, I wanted to make sure I had that clear since that’s not usually the story Americans tell themselves.
Provocatively, your book is basically a lament of the idea that the US is the world’s foremost power, underwritten by its strong military. In your view, why shouldn’t the US be the world’s preeminent force? After all, it’s helped us get to this place of unprecedented strength.
Stephen Wertheim
Far from contributing to American security, the plan of global military superiority has made America — and Americans — less safe.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the architects of US military dominance. I think they faced difficult circumstances. How could I not sympathize with wanting to rid the Axis powers from the Earth and make sure nothing like that happened again? I have complete sympathy with that goal.
But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reason that brought forth US global supremacy has ceased to exist. There was an original argument for the United States shouldering the immense burdens of global military dominance: Without it, totalitarian powers would conquer much of the Earth. That would be terrible for the world, the thinking went, and it could be bad for the United States.
The problem, though, is the pursuit of military dominance since then has created a lot of enemies of the US that didn’t need to be enemies of the US. We’ve engaged in bad behavior ourselves and stimulated it in others.
I worry that — in a world where the foremost threats to the American people are pandemic disease and climate change — America will continue to define its biggest threats in military terms, even if they aren’t.
Alex Ward
Part of what undergirds that sentiment these days, though, was the notion that the US had arrived at a “unipolar moment” — the US was the unquestioned power and global leader with no clear rival. Implicit in what you’re saying is that that moment is truly and forever gone.
Stephen Wertheim
We’re never going to get the unipolar moment back. It was rightly called a moment at the time in the 1990s. But since then, the United States caused a lot of destruction and grief for itself and for others. I really worry about where this goes as the world gets more challenging.
Alex Ward
Some will read this interview or your book and conclude that what you’re really angry about is high defense budgets. But if I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that the strategy envisioned before World War II ended may have had some logic then, but it has none now, especially since it’s had the unintended effect of weakening US national security.
Stephen Wertheim
Precisely. Look, I am going to make the hardest possible case for my position: World War II. If there was ever a good argument to be made for the best use of American military power, my God, it’s exactly what my book is about. I’m actually trying to focus us on what I think is the best argument in favor of American military hegemony.
And what I find in that history is that the roots of our current problems are bound up with the best thing we’ve ever done as a nation. I think that’s why we have this problem. I’m trying to understand why military dominance looked attractive to begin with.
But I think if those postwar planners — had they been around today or even in the 1990s — they would say, “Wait a minute.” They would’ve realized how fraught it is to take on a world-ordering role by force, akin to what we understood the British Empire had done in the previous century. After all, they worried to themselves that what they were planning contained a measure of imperialism in it. But at the time, they felt it was better than the alternative, and understandably so.
Alex Ward
You make a case that the focus on military superiority led the US to care less about other elements of power, namely economic well-being. That’s not to say America didn’t care about having lots of money and a strong economy — it did — but your point is that America’s actions have caused widespread harm at home and abroad.
Stephen Wertheim
Since 1991, I think almost everybody has lost out, aside from the major defense firms and some ruling elites. America’s strategy has been incredibly destructive for people throughout the greater Middle East, and of course, the Iraq War resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
And I don’t think the American people have won out, either. I think that we have gotten less safe and more fearful as a society as a result of constantly being told by leaders of both parties that the whole world is out to kill us and that that’s why we’ve got to go to war to kill them first.
Look, the argument that US military power contributed to world order was very real. The Bretton Woods system played an important role in stabilizing global capitalism. But since the 1970s, and especially the 1990s, I think it’s hard to argue that US military dominance somehow underpins everything else.
It’s very difficult to see how applying sanctions on dozens of countries and waging continual warfare in the greater Middle East somehow serves the general interest of capitalism. Maybe it serves the interests of particular firms, but not the system of capitalism.
Alex Ward
The US has clearly made some horrible, deadly mistakes. No one is denying that. How can you say confidently, though, that the world wouldn’t be worse if the US didn’t play such an active role?
Stephen Wertheim
It’s now been three decades since the Soviet Union collapsed. Why haven’t we been able to do everything we want to effectively? It turns out that the enemies are skeptical of working with us to address shared challenges.
Now, it’s true sometimes that the use of hard power can back up diplomacy and make other endeavors more effective. But we have so overshot the mark that it’s more often the case that military dominance gets in the way of the kinds of constructive engagements in the world that I think many people in Washington want to see.
What I’m opposed to, first and foremost, is military dominance as an end in itself. That’s what I think it has become in our own time, and I don’t think it began that way. That doesn’t prohibit the US from being a robust power: It’s going to be a great power and it’s going to have a strong military. We should absolutely be able to defend ourselves. I’m not even closing the door on things like humanitarian intervention, either.
What we have to ask, though, is if the US has used all this power wisely and judiciously. It’s clear that we haven’t, and it’s making all of us in America and around the world less safe. Just think of this: Roughly 80 percent of all US military interventions have occurred after 1991. Can we really say the millions at home and abroad have had their lives improved by that? I don’t think so.
Alex Ward
So if there’s a President Wertheim in the future, how do you change America’s approach to the world?
Stephen Wertheim
I certainly agree with those who would say you don’t undo things in a hurry. You have to act responsibly, but boldly. We do have to break the perpetual war logic of the war on terror. And strangely enough, we’re kind of coming as a society to that view already.
I’d lead a systematic policy of disentangling the US from regions where its interests are either not vital, as in the Middle East, or not really imperiled, like Europe. I absolutely believe in the capacity of Europeans to manage their own affairs. The United States does not need to be the protector of Europe.
Alex Ward
What about China? Would it be wise to wind down America’s military strength while it rises?
Stephen Wertheim
China is a difficult challenge, but I would try to set priorities and act on them. Climate change and pandemic disease are the issues where Chinese behavior is terribly important to the US. They’re threats the American people face where they live and work, and so I would really prioritize those issues and improve the relationship around tackling them. Those issues are not well served by the United States pursuing perpetual military dominance in the Indo-Pacific.
At the same time, I do think we have to be cautious in observing how China continues to rise and how it behaves. It has not had a record of territorial conquest with anything like the record of past US adversaries, like the Axis powers or the Soviet Union. That’s a good thing, though you wouldn’t know it from all the cries about China’s desire to dominate the world emanating from Washington, DC.
A President Wertheim — and please let your readers know I’m rolling my eyes as I say that — would recognize the US has an opportunity to cautiously retrench its position militarily in certain regions as it ramps up cooperation on the issues that really matter. I’d encourage allies and partners in the region to step up to counterbalance China. We still have time to allow that process to happen, and that’d be a good thing since it takes two great powers to make a great-power war.
Alex Ward
Do you really think retrenchment is likely in the near future?
Stephen Wertheim
No. What I am fearful of right now is that it’s almost impossible for many people in the foreign policy community to envision circumstances in which the United States could ever pull back from a region. I worry about the United States putting itself on the front lines of any potential conflict, which could mean a great-power war. We should avoid being in that situation in the first place if we possibly can.


vox--2020-12-29--In 2020, scientists documented hundreds of new species. Here are a few.

It ’ s the year 2020 , and scientists are still discovering new species of life on Earth .
No one knows exactly how many types of life are yet undescribed in the scientific literature ; estimates range from around 86 percent to as high as 99.99 percent .
And even though we ’ re living through an age of great biodiversity loss , the scope and breadth of life on planet Earth is still revealing itself to scientists around the world .
This year , researchers at the California Academy of Sciences have described 213 new species in scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crickets , 15 fishes , 11 geckos , 11 sea slugs , 11 flowering plants , eight beetles , eight fossil echinoderms , seven spiders , five snakes , two skinks , two aphids , two eels , one moss , one frog , one fossil amphibian , one seahorse , one fossil scallop , one sea biscuit [ a.k.a .
sand dollar ] , one fossil crinoid ( or sea lily ) , and one coral , ” the academy lists in a press release .
These species weren ’ t necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were officially described in the scientific literature as unique species , some after decades of research .
Terry Gosliner , a curator of invertebrate zoology at the California Academy of Sciences , added one species of sea slug he first saw on a dive in the Philippines 23 years ago .
As a sea slug expert , he knows immediately when he ’ s spotted one he hasn ’ t seen before .
“ It ’ s like if you walk into a room , and you know , almost immediately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there who you haven ’ t met before , ” he says .
But on that first encounter decades ago , Gosliner didn ’ t collect a specimen that would allow for DNA analysis , which is crucial for understanding if a presumed new species is actually new to science .
Plus , this particular sea slug was nocturnal .
“ You just happen to have a chance encounter with it on a night dive , ” he says .
He found a second specimen in 2010 .
By then , “ it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you hadn ’ t seen forever , ” he says .
It ’ s taken even more time to determine that this creature — now named Hoplodoris rosans — is a truly new entry in the scientific books of life .
“ The easiest part is finding them , ” Gosliner says of discovering new species .
The hard part is the scientific work that comes next .
After finding a species , “ it ’ s a very lengthy process after that , ” he says to describe a new species .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the internal anatomy and external anatomy , “ so that you can make comparisons about how that species differs from all the other species that are known.
” Then those discoveries have to be written up and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal .
Gosliner and his colleagues also got to name the new species .
They call it Hoplodoris rosans for a few reasons .
Hoplodoris is the genus of the sea slug .
But its species name , rosans , is named after the rose .
They chose that because , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the underside of the body .
And two : “ It has in its reproductive system this very large spine that holds mates when mating that was shaped like a rose thorn , ” Gosliner says .
Along with Hoplodoris rosans , researchers at the California Academy of Sciences have described this year : A pygmy seahorse about the size of a grape , called Hippocampus nalu .
A gecko residing in the city of Guwahati , India , called Cyrtodactylus urbanus .
The first species of pipefish known to live among red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly described flowering plant in Brazil in the Microlicia genus , Microlicia capitata .
And a new sea biscuit ( sand dollar ) in the Philippines , Clypeaster brigitteae .
Why scientists need to keep documenting life on Earth .
And how you can , too .
It ’ s been a tough year full of sickness and death with the Covid-19 pandemic .
It ’ s hopeful knowing how much there is yet to be discovered about our world .
And it ’ s important work , too .
Between 2010 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extinct ( though they might have actually gone extinct in decades prior ) , according to the global authority on species conservation status , the International Union for Conservation of Nature , or IUCN .
Others have been brought to the brink , and still more are seeing serious declines in their population numbers .
In all , the UN ’ s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services estimates as many as 1 million species are now at risk of extinction if we don ’ t act to save them ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amphibian species , 33 percent of corals , and around 10 percent of insects .
A species can be discovered nearly anywhere : In 2012 , a new species of ant was discovered in New York City , of all places .
If you ’ re interested in species sleuthing , Gosliner recommends using the iNaturalist app to document critters and plants you see out in the world .
There , a community of citizen scientists can help determine if what you ’ ve scouted is truly new .
And you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per se , to contribute to science .
“ Just yesterday , ” he told me on December 18 , “ on iNaturalist there was a species of nudibranch [ sea slug ] that was found in the tide pools just south of San Francisco , that nobody had seen for many , many years .
And so that was a really exciting thing to have documented.
” To protect more species , scientists need to know they exist in the first place .
“ Describing new species is really documenting biodiversity on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There ’ s so many areas that we may lose species before we even know that they existed .
If you never knew it existed , [ and ] then it disappeared — that ’ s kind of a tragedy from my standpoint .
There ’ s the element of the excitement of discovering something new .
But also , there ’ s the urgency that we really need this information to be able to protect biodiversity on the planet .
”

It’s the year 2020, and scientists are still discovering new species of life on Earth. No one knows exactly how many types of life are yet undescribed in the scientific literature; estimates range from around 86 percent to as high as 99.99 percent. And even though we’re living through an age of great biodiversity loss, the scope and breadth of life on planet Earth is still revealing itself to scientists around the world.
This year, researchers at the California Academy of Sciences have described 213 new species in scientific journals: “101 ants, 22 crickets, 15 fishes, 11 geckos, 11 sea slugs, 11 flowering plants, eight beetles, eight fossil echinoderms, seven spiders, five snakes, two skinks, two aphids, two eels, one moss, one frog, one fossil amphibian, one seahorse, one fossil scallop, one sea biscuit [a.k.a. sand dollar], one fossil crinoid (or sea lily), and one coral,” the academy lists in a press release.
These species weren’t necessarily first spotted this year. Instead, they were officially described in the scientific literature as unique species, some after decades of research.
Terry Gosliner, a curator of invertebrate zoology at the California Academy of Sciences, added one species of sea slug he first saw on a dive in the Philippines 23 years ago. As a sea slug expert, he knows immediately when he’s spotted one he hasn’t seen before. “It’s like if you walk into a room, and you know, almost immediately, if there’s a person in there who you haven’t met before,” he says.
But on that first encounter decades ago, Gosliner didn’t collect a specimen that would allow for DNA analysis, which is crucial for understanding if a presumed new species is actually new to science. Plus, this particular sea slug was nocturnal. “You just happen to have a chance encounter with it on a night dive,” he says. He found a second specimen in 2010. By then, “it was like encountering an old friend that you hadn’t seen forever,” he says.
It’s taken even more time to determine that this creature — now named Hoplodoris rosans — is a truly new entry in the scientific books of life. “The easiest part is finding them,” Gosliner says of discovering new species. The hard part is the scientific work that comes next.
After finding a species, “it’s a very lengthy process after that,” he says to describe a new species. Scientists need to study the DNA, the internal anatomy and external anatomy, “so that you can make comparisons about how that species differs from all the other species that are known.” Then those discoveries have to be written up and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
Gosliner and his colleagues also got to name the new species. They call it Hoplodoris rosans for a few reasons. Hoplodoris is the genus of the sea slug. But its species name, rosans, is named after the rose. They chose that because, for one, there are reddish-pink spots on the underside of the body. And two: “It has in its reproductive system this very large spine that holds mates when mating that was shaped like a rose thorn,” Gosliner says.
Along with Hoplodoris rosans, researchers at the California Academy of Sciences have described this year:
A pygmy seahorse about the size of a grape, called Hippocampus nalu.
A gecko residing in the city of Guwahati, India, called Cyrtodactylus urbanus.
The first species of pipefish known to live among red algae, called Stigmatopora harastii.
A newly described flowering plant in Brazil in the Microlicia genus, Microlicia capitata.
And a new sea biscuit (sand dollar) in the Philippines, Clypeaster brigitteae.
Why scientists need to keep documenting life on Earth. And how you can, too.
It’s been a tough year full of sickness and death with the Covid-19 pandemic. It’s hopeful knowing how much there is yet to be discovered about our world. And it’s important work, too.
Between 2010 and 2020, 467 species have been declared extinct (though they might have actually gone extinct in decades prior), according to the global authority on species conservation status, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN. Others have been brought to the brink, and still more are seeing serious declines in their population numbers.
In all, the UN’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services estimates as many as 1 million species are now at risk of extinction if we don’t act to save them; that number includes 40 percent of all amphibian species, 33 percent of corals, and around 10 percent of insects.
A species can be discovered nearly anywhere: In 2012, a new species of ant was discovered in New York City, of all places. If you’re interested in species sleuthing, Gosliner recommends using the iNaturalist app to document critters and plants you see out in the world.
There, a community of citizen scientists can help determine if what you’ve scouted is truly new. And you don’t need to find something new, per se, to contribute to science. “Just yesterday,” he told me on December 18, “on iNaturalist there was a species of nudibranch [sea slug] that was found in the tide pools just south of San Francisco, that nobody had seen for many, many years. And so that was a really exciting thing to have documented.”
To protect more species, scientists need to know they exist in the first place.
“Describing new species is really documenting biodiversity on the planet,” Gosliner says. “There’s so many areas that we may lose species before we even know that they existed. If you never knew it existed, [and] then it disappeared — that’s kind of a tragedy from my standpoint. There’s the element of the excitement of discovering something new. But also, there’s the urgency that we really need this information to be able to protect biodiversity on the planet.”


vox--2020-12-29--The UK coronavirus mutation has been found in the US

A new , seemingly more contagious variety of SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — that has been spreading rapidly in the United Kingdom has now been found in the United States .
On the evening of December 29 , Colorado Gov .
Jared Polis reported that the new strain , known as B.1.1.7 ( we ’ ll call it the UK variant , for simplicity ’ s sake ) , was found in a male patient in his 20s with no history of travel , a sign that the virus is spreading locally .
“ There is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this COVID-19 variant , but scientists in the United Kingdom are warning the world that it is significantly more contagious , ” Polis said in a statement .
The evidence that this new strain spreads more easily between people is not rock solid , but it ’ s concerning enough to have forced dramatic action , like shutting down travel from the United Kingdom earlier this month .
But it wasn ’ t enough : The variant has now been detected in Canada , Spain , Sweden , France , and Italy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it doesn ’ t appear as though the new UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous in individuals .
It doesn ’ t seem to make people sicker , nor is it more likely to kill them .
“ I think the key point is that there is no evidence now … that this virus is more pathogenic — creates more problems , more morbidity and mortality — than the previous virus , ” Moncef Slaoui , the scientific lead for Operation Warp Speed , said during a December 21 press conference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least based on preliminary evidence , is spread more quickly among people .
That alone is a problem : The coronavirus spreads fast enough as it is .
Compounding concerns is that the UK variant echoes a similar story in South Africa , where a strain called 501.V2 has become the dominant version among new cases of the virus .
Scientists are wondering whether that strain is more transmissible , too .
The virus has been continually changing its genetics through the course of the pandemic .
That ’ s what RNA-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most of the time , the mutations mean nothing .
But this time , something is different .
“ I ’ ve spent a lot of time this year reminding people that mutations are normal , ” molecular epidemiologist Emma Hodcroft , who works on a project called Nextstrain , said .
For the entire pandemic , scientists the world over have been feeding Nextstrain sequences of the virus , and Hodcroft and her colleagues have been tracking its genetic changes closely .
In the past , mutations haven ’ t warranted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m now finding myself singing a slightly different tune , ” Hodcroft said .
This time , there does seem to be evidence that the new strain is something worth being vigilant about .
“ We probably should consider taking some precautionary measures while we ’ re trying to find out more , ” she added .
At the same time , Covid-19 is surging around the world , even without these new mutations .
Scientists are still trying to figure out what these new variants of the coronavirus actually mean for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where else the UK variant may have already spread , aside from the countries where it has been detected .
While it was only reported in the US this week , it could have been in the country for much longer .
“ The variant could already be in the United States without having been detected , ” the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on December 22 .
The good news is that we already know how to respond to these new variants : in the same way we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The virus still transmits primarily through viral-laden breaths in the air .
Mask-wearing , social distancing , and good indoor ventilation are as critical as ever .
There ’ s a lot about this story that ’ s potentially very alarming or confusing .
And the story is not yet complete , as scientists need more evidence to understand whether these new variants pose a new threat .
To add some clarity , here ’ s what researchers have learned so far .
Let ’ s start with the basics .
Viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It all sounds like scary science fiction .
But to demystify things , and to understand why scientists are a little concerned about this new variant — and why most variants don ’ t faze them — it ’ s worth understanding how viruses mutate in the first place .
“ Oftentimes , I think the word mutation in general conjures up a lot of things in people ’ s minds , like , you know , Ninja Turtles or X-Men or cancer , like zombie apocalypse-type stuff , ” Angela Rasmussen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for Global Health Science and Security , said .
“ A mutation is just a lot more mundane than that.
” Viruses mutate because they ’ re constantly making copies of themselves in enormous numbers .
To accomplish this , they have to hijack the hardware of a host cell that they infect .
However , this process can be a bit sloppy .
Within a human body , a virus can replicate itself millions or billions of times , Hodcroft explains .
If you were writing a draft of something millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly , you ’ d probably make some typos .
That ’ s what ’ s happening with the viruses .
“ They make a typo ” in their genetic code , she says .
One letter of their ribonucleic acid ( RNA ) chain is replaced with another .
Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material , like SARS-CoV-2 , are particularly vulnerable to mutations since the RNA molecule itself is more unstable than DNA .
The process of copying RNA is also more prone to error .
These typos can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen at a regular rate , and are passed down through generations of the virus as it spreads through a community .
Often , scientists can use these subtle changes to trace certain strains ’ lineage and their spread through a population .
The majority of these typos are inconsequential when it comes to human health .
“ One typo , or even a few typos , doesn ’ t usually change how the virus works , ” Hodcroft says .
Some even harm the virus .
“ You ’ re much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it better ” when it comes to mutations , she says .
But in rare instances , some mutations can give a virus an advantage , like allowing it to infect cells more readily or spread among people faster .
Those mutant strains can then become dominant within a population .
That might be what we ’ re looking at here with the UK variant ; this new strain may have accumulated typos that could make it more easily transmitted between people .
Four lines of evidence converging on this new mutation being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this variant is more transmissible ?
They don ’ t have this nailed down yet for sure , but four converging streams of evidence are all pointing in the same direction .
“ That ’ s making people feel like maybe there is something here to be worried about , ” Hodcroft says .
“ Each one of these things on their own , I would say is not necessarily convincing.
” But all together , they paint a concerning picture .
One is that in the areas of the UK where this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounting for a larger proportion of new cases .
“ What this implies is that this new variant is spreading better than other variants that are circulating in the same region , ” she says .
A second is that the increase didn ’ t co-occur with any overly obvious change in human behavior .
“ We don ’ t really have strong evidence that everyone in the southeast [ UK where this variant is spreading ] has just ripped their masks off and is , you know , totally violating restrictions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could be a coincidence .
It could be just that people who happen to have contracted this variant have it are spreading it more often via their behavior .
After all , “ this new variant has emerged at a time of the year when there has traditionally been increased family and social mixing , ” according to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control , which estimated that the transmissibility of the new variant has increased by 70 percent compared to prior versions of the virus .
Both Rasmussen and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure is most likely an overestimate .
A recent , not yet peer-reviewed study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine used a mathematical model to estimate that the new strain may be 56 percent more infectious .
Third , there ’ s some early data about how this variant acts in Covid-19 patients .
“ There may be slightly higher viral loads in patients with the variants , ” Hodcroft says , suggesting the virus has an easier time replicating in the body .
( Viral load refers to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rasmussen also cautions that viral load data is really sensitive to timing and when the patient was sampled in the course of the illness , so there needs to be more data to confirm this . )
Finally , the genetic changes in the UK variant mirror changes in the South African variant , which has also been associated with rising case numbers .
That makes a plausible link : that this particular genetic change may be behind the increased transmissibility in both variants .
However , this is still short of definitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmissible .
According to Slaoui , figuring this out for certain would require laboratory animal testing to see how easily the virus can spread from one organism to another .
But this testing can take several weeks .
In the face of that uncertainty , many urge caution .
Again , there ’ s still no evidence this new variant causes more severe disease .
The evidence only points to increased transmissibility .
But a more transmissible virus is still a concern .
“ In general , the more people get infected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accordingly as a proportion of that number , ” Hodcroft says .
“ So more cases is also bad news.
” What does the mutation ... do ?
The UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 actually contains 23 mutations in the genome of the virus .
“ We don ’ t really know what they do , ” Rasmussen says .
Individually , many of these mutations have already been seen in other strains of the virus around the world .
But the combination of these changes in a single virus could be making the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , scientists do think that some mutations may be more important than others , and there are several mechanisms by which mutations could make the virus more infectious .
Those include : 1 .
The virus could end up with changes to its spike protein that allow it to enter cells more easily .
2 .
The virus could develop a mechanism to replicate more quickly inside a body , which would lead “ to people becoming infectious faster , or contagious faster than they would with another variant , ” Rasmussen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theoretically have evolved an ability to counteract the cell ’ s innate immune defenses , making it easier to infect that cell .
One of the pathways scientists suspect may be at work stems from the N501Y mutation , where the amino acid asparagine is replaced by the amino acid tyrosine in the 501st position of the viral protein sequence .
It ’ s one of several mutations in the virus ’ s spike protein in the UK variant , but N501Y is in the part of the spike that actually comes into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same mutation has been found in the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2 that ’ s also quickly spreading .
Since the virus attaching to a host cell is critical to the virus ’ s reproduction , the virus ’ s spike protein is especially important — and delicate .
“ If you were just making random changes in the lab , almost any change you make in that area would result in just a dead virus that can no longer get into the cell , ” said Benjamin Neuman , a virologist at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That fact that this thing is able to spread at all tells you that it ’ s at least as good as the original version .
The fact that it ’ s spreading faster may indicate that it ’ s a little bit better at grabbing on to host cells , which is the first step of the entry process.
” But this particular N501Y mutation has already been detected in strains that have risen and fallen in other parts of the world over the course of the pandemic .
So it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with N501Y are having some sort of compounding effect .
And scientists still need to do more work to determine if this is actually what ’ s causing the rise of the new SARS-CoV-2 variant in the UK .
Finding out the answer could help researchers come up with ways to counter this variety of the coronavirus .
How did these coronavirus mutations happen ?
Scientists don ’ t know exactly how the UK variant came to be .
But there may be a clue .
Hodcroft is struck by the sheer number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 23 in all — which makes her suspect it ’ s possible this variant arose in an immunocompromised person .
“ It ’ s an above-average number of mutations , ” she says .
In most people , she explains , the immune system mounts a full-on assault on the virus , eliminating it in a matter of a couple of weeks .
“ In people that have compromised immune systems , though , there ’ s a very different dynamic , ” she says .
“ So , for one thing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months instead of weeks.
” That gives the virus more time to evolve , to accumulate mutations that might make it easier to thwart the immune system .
“ It ’ s one scenario , ” she says .
“ We may never know exactly what happened here.
” The basic truth : The more this virus spreads , the more chances there are for dangerous new variants to emerge .
In any person — or animal , for that matter — the chance for a dangerous new variant to arise is rare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are so many cases : more than 80 million confirmed cases worldwide .
Since viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are mutating and since Covid-19 has spread in so many people , it ’ s theoretically only a matter of time before a certain set of mutations align in a way to give the virus a boost .
What can we do about Covid-19 mutants ?
To stop mutations , quite simply , we need to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in general .
For one , that helps us deal with the pandemic overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conveniently how we get fewer emerging variants , ” Rasmussen says .
“ If the virus isn ’ t replicating , it can ’ t mutate .
And if it can ’ t mutate , the new variants can ’ t emerge.
” We fight the new variant as we would any variant of SARS-CoV-2 : with masks , with social distancing , with good hand hygiene .
“ I don ’ t think people should be panicking , ” Hodcroft says .
“ Lower case numbers , no matter what the variant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more tool , though : genetic tracking .
At Nextstrain , Hodcroft and her colleagues receive viral genetic sequences from all over the world to try to paint a real-time picture of transmission chains and keep tabs on how the virus is changing .
But not every place in the world is providing the same amount of data .
The UK does a lot of viral sequencing , for instance .
It was able to pick up on the new viral strain quickly because of that .
In other locations around the globe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast .
“ In the US , it ’ s a really spotty picture , ” Hodcroft says when it comes to sequencing .
“ Some states have really invested in sequencing ; some states haven ’ t .
So for some states , we probably have a fair idea of what ’ s going on .
In other states , we really don ’ t have many sequences.
” Overall , the CDC reports that the US has only sequenced 51,000 of the more than 17 million cases reported in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In comparison , the UK aims to sequence 10,000 virus samples per week , and plans to increase that capacity further .
( In addition : The UK sequences the genomes faster than the US , according to infectious disease researcher Trevor Bedford . )
That lack of viral genetic testing creates a big blind spot in the US .
The UK variant could have already arrived here undetected “ given the small fraction of US infections that have been sequenced , ” the CDC states .
More sequencing , overall , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strains and faster means to contain them if they were deemed problematic .
With new mutations , there is a concern that a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could arise that would be different enough from previous versions such that prior exposures — whether through a vaccine or an infection — won ’ t offer protection .
So , yes , it ’ s possible that the coronavirus could someday mutate in a way that would elude a vaccine or previous immunity .
Right now , though , scientists think this UK variant would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection as earlier strains .
If someone received a Covid-19 vaccine for an older generation of the virus , they would likely have protection against this one .
To explain why , it helps to understand how the immune system deals with viruses .
When the human body detects a hostile foreign entity like a virus , it starts to produce antibodies ( proteins that attach to the virus or to infected cells ) .
Antibodies can then interfere with how the virus works .
They can also flag the virus or virus-infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The specific places where the antibodies attach to the virus are called epitopes , and most Covid-19 vaccines target epitopes on the virus ’ s spike protein ( which is what the virus uses to attach to human cells and enter them ) .
“ The good thing with the vaccine is that it induces an immune response against several epitopes that have been mapped around the spike protein , ” Slaoui said .
“ The chances that one set of mutations would alter all those epitopes , I think , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientifically , is that these kinds of variations are unlikely to escape fully the protective response by the vaccine.
” More good news : Scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch have announced ( via a tweet ) preliminary evidence that antibodies that neutralize the more common strain of the virus also neutralize a strain with the N501Y mutation ( the one that impacts the part of the virus that comes into direct contact with human cells , as mentioned above ) .
That suggests that an immune system primed — by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight the old variant can also fight one with this specific mutation .
Texas A & M ’ s Neuman noted that there ’ s also evidence right now showing how well vaccines can protect against mutated forms of the virus in clinical trials .
Many of the vaccines being administered were engineered to counter the earliest generations of SARS-CoV-2 but are still showing themselves to be highly effective against Covid-19 caused by more recent versions of the virus .
“ All the tests are being done , all the papers being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strains , which have several mutations relative to [ the first iterations of the virus ] , and it does still seem to be working , ” Neuman said .
Covid-19 vaccine developers say they are keeping a close eye on these changes and testing to make sure their vaccines are still effective .
“ In terms of the new variant , Pfizer and BioNTech are monitoring SARS-CoV-2 sequence changes and the companies are working to generate data on how well serum from people immunized with [ the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine ] may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said a Pfizer spokesperson via email .
And the new Covid-19 vaccines are well equipped to adapt .
The two that have received emergency use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration — the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine — both use mRNA as their platform .
These vaccines deliver the instructions for making the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 to human cells .
Those human cells then manufacture the component themselves , allowing the immune system to use it to prepare for an infection .
One huge advantage of this approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altered quickly ; the first such vaccines for Covid-19 were developed within days after the genetic sequence of the virus was posted online .
Could manufacturers like Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech then retool their vaccines to target the new variants without going through the whole tedious clinical trial process again ?
Possibly , according to Jesse Goodman , a former chief scientist at the FDA and a professor of medicine at Georgetown University .
He told Vox that vaccines for new variants of the influenza virus are approved every year without large-scale trials .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accommodate mutations similarly might not need another round of study in tens of thousands of people , but may require some testing to figure out dosing and immune response .
With such a new virus and brand new vaccines , the regulations for these situations have not yet been laid out .
Should we expect more mutations in the future ?
The UK and South African variants are unlikely to be the last to make headlines .
Coronavirus is constantly evolving .
We should expect it to keep changing slightly .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Rasmussen says .
The thing is , with each new significant strain , scientists will have to do careful work to determine whether it ’ s more dangerous .
And there are some mutations we can perhaps even expect — if not in the coming weeks , over the next several years .
Recently , virology researchers at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center published a preprint ( i.e.
, not yet peer-reviewed ) study , looking at how a coronavirus that causes the common cold evolved from the 1980s onward .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ blood samples , which included antibodies that cling to this particular virus .
They also reconstructed pieces of the cold virus from other eras .
Basically , they wanted to see if older blood could still neutralize newer virus .
If it couldn ’ t , that would indicate the virus has evolved over time to evade the immune system .
Here ’ s what the researchers found : “ This other human coronavirus does indeed evolve over the course of multiple years to gradually escape human immunity , ” Jesse Bloom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ So we think this suggests that there ’ s the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to do the same thing.
” But Bloom stresses that this process takes years .
It ’ s enough time to prepare , to monitor , and to potentially tweak vaccine formulations to keep up with the virus ’ s evolution .
It ’ s not like the virus can evolve into an entirely different beast .
“ It can mutate to maybe escape antibodies , ” Rachel Eguia , the study ’ s lead author , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change so much that it alters its ability to enter cells .
Scientists are also keeping their eyes out for a rapid , major mutation event known as recombination .
That ’ s where an individual is infected with two different strains of the virus at the same time , allowing the virus strains to swap parts .
These new viruses could then evade the antibodies that targeted their predecessors .
Some researchers think that recombination might be how SARS-CoV-2 originated in the first place .
“ This is all hypothetical in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other viruses all the time , ” Neuman said .
Faced with these looming challenges , reducing the transmission of the coronavirus in general is still the best way to protect the fragile progress made in the Covid-19 pandemic so far .
Reducing transmissions is also one of the best ways to make sure powerful tools like vaccines remain potent for as long as possible .
The fact that multiple Covid-19 vaccines are coming out is not a cause for complacency , and these new variants of SARS-CoV-2 highlight how important it is @ @ @ @

A new, seemingly more contagious variety of SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — that has been spreading rapidly in the United Kingdom has now been found in the United States in at least two locations.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced December 30 that the new strain, known as B.1.1.7 (we’ll call it the UK variant, for simplicity’s sake), was detected in the southern part of the state. It’s the second report of the UK variant in the US in as many days, following news that the variant was found in a male Colorado National Guard member in his 20s with no history of travel, a sign that the virus is spreading locally.
“There is a lot we don’t know about this COVID-19 variant, but scientists in the United Kingdom are warning the world that it is significantly more contagious,” said Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, in a statement.
The evidence that this new strain spreads more easily between people is not rock solid, but it’s concerning enough to have forced dramatic action, like shutting down travel from the United Kingdom earlier this month. But it wasn’t enough: The variant has now been detected in Canada, Spain, Sweden, France, and Italy, among others.
At the moment, it doesn’t appear as though the new UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous in individuals. It doesn’t seem to make people sicker, nor is it more likely to kill them. “I think the key point is that there is no evidence now … that this virus is more pathogenic — creates more problems, more morbidity and mortality — than the previous virus,” Moncef Slaoui, the scientific lead for Operation Warp Speed, said during a December 21 press conference.
What it does appear to do, at least based on preliminary evidence, is spread more quickly among people. That alone is a problem: The coronavirus spreads fast enough as it is. Compounding concerns is that the UK variant echoes a similar story in South Africa, where a strain called 501.V2 has become the dominant version among new cases of the virus. Scientists are wondering whether that strain is more transmissible, too.
The virus has been continually changing its genetics through the course of the pandemic. That’s what RNA-based viruses like SARS-CoV-2 do — they mutate. Most of the time, the mutations mean nothing. But this time, something is different.
“I’ve spent a lot of time this year reminding people that mutations are normal,” molecular epidemiologist Emma Hodcroft, who works on a project called Nextstrain, said. For the entire pandemic, scientists around the world have been collecting genetic information about SARS-CoV-2 in a public database called GISAID. Hodcroft and her colleagues at Nextstrain draw on this database to closely track genetic changes in the virus.
In the past, mutations haven’t warranted big newspaper headlines. “I’m now finding myself singing a slightly different tune,” Hodcroft said. This time, there does seem to be evidence that the new strain is something worth being vigilant about. “We probably should consider taking some precautionary measures while we’re trying to find out more,” she added.
At the same time, Covid-19 is surging around the world, even without these new mutations. Scientists are still trying to figure out what these new variants of the coronavirus actually mean for the pandemic. It’s also unclear where else the UK variant may have already spread, aside from the countries where it has been detected. While it was reported in the US only this week, it could have been in the country for much longer. “The variant could already be in the United States without having been detected,” the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported December 22.
The good news is that we already know how to respond to these new variants: in the same way we’ve been responding to the pandemic overall. The virus still transmits primarily through viral-laden breaths in the air. Mask-wearing, social distancing, and good indoor ventilation are as critical as ever.
There’s a lot about this story that’s potentially very alarming or confusing. And the story is not yet complete, as scientists need more evidence to understand whether these new variants pose a new threat.
To add some clarity, here’s what researchers have learned so far. Let’s start with the basics.
Viral mutations, explained
Viral mutations. New strains. Increased transmission. It all sounds like scary science fiction. But to demystify things, and to understand why scientists are a little concerned about this new variant — and why most variants don’t faze them — it’s worth understanding how viruses mutate in the first place.
“Oftentimes, I think the word mutation in general conjures up a lot of things in people’s minds, like, you know, Ninja Turtles or X-Men or cancer, like zombie apocalypse-type stuff,” Angela Rasmussen, a virologist with Georgetown’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, said. “A mutation is just a lot more mundane than that.”
Viruses mutate because they’re constantly making copies of themselves in enormous numbers. To accomplish this, they have to hijack the hardware of a host cell that they infect. However, this process can be a bit sloppy.
Within a human body, a virus can replicate itself millions or billions of times, Hodcroft explains. If you were writing a draft of something millions of times on a computer, extremely quickly, you’d probably make some typos. That’s what’s happening with the viruses. “They make a typo” in their genetic code, she says. One letter of their ribonucleic acid (RNA) chain is replaced with another.
Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material, like SARS-CoV-2, are particularly vulnerable to mutations since the RNA molecule itself is more unstable than DNA. The process of copying RNA is also more prone to error.
These typos can be very useful for scientists because they happen at a regular rate, and are passed down through generations of the virus as it spreads through a community. Often, scientists can use these subtle changes to trace certain strains’ lineage and their spread through a population.
The majority of these typos are inconsequential when it comes to human health. “One typo, or even a few typos, doesn’t usually change how the virus works,” Hodcroft says. Some even harm the virus. “You’re much more likely to break it than to make it better” when it comes to mutations, she says.
But in rare instances, some mutations can give a virus an advantage, like allowing it to infect cells more readily or spread among people faster. Those mutant strains can then become dominant within a population.
That might be what we’re looking at here with the UK variant; this new strain may have accumulated typos that could make it more easily transmitted between people.
Four lines of evidence converging on this new mutation being more transmissible
So why do scientists think this variant is more transmissible?
They don’t have this nailed down yet for sure, but four converging streams of evidence are all pointing in the same direction. “That’s making people feel like maybe there is something here to be worried about,” Hodcroft says. “Each one of these things on their own, I would say is not necessarily convincing.” But all together, they paint a concerning picture.
One is that in the areas of the UK where this new variant is spreading, it is accounting for a larger proportion of new cases. “What this implies is that this new variant is spreading better than other variants that are circulating in the same region,” she says.
National testing data shows increased prevalence of the variant in positive cases over time. This is detected incidentally by the commonly used 3-gene PCR test because 69-70del leads to a negative signal. But this does not effect the results of the test. 7/
h/t @The_Soup_Dragon pic.twitter.com/aPpAjjb35W — Muge Cevik (@mugecevik) December 21, 2020
A second is that the increase didn’t co-occur with any overly obvious change in human behavior. “We don’t really have strong evidence that everyone in the southeast [UK where this variant is spreading] has just ripped their masks off and is, you know, totally violating restrictions,” she says. That said, it could be a coincidence. It could be just that people who happen to have contracted this variant have it are spreading it more often via their behavior.
After all, “this new variant has emerged at a time of the year when there has traditionally been increased family and social mixing,” according to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, which estimated that the transmissibility of the new variant has increased by 70 percent compared to prior versions of the virus. Both Rasmussen and Hodcroft say the 70 percent more transmissible figure is most likely an overestimate. A recent, not yet peer-reviewed study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine used a mathematical model to estimate that the new strain may be 56 percent more infectious.
Third, there’s some early data about how this variant acts in Covid-19 patients. “There may be slightly higher viral loads in patients with the variants,” Hodcroft says, suggesting the virus has an easier time replicating in the body. (Viral load refers to the amount of virus in the patient. Rasmussen also cautions that viral load data is really sensitive to timing and when the patient was sampled in the course of the illness, so there needs to be more data to confirm this.)
Finally, the genetic changes in the UK variant mirror changes in the South African variant, which has also been associated with rising case numbers. That makes a plausible link: that this particular genetic change may be behind the increased transmissibility in both variants.
However, this is still short of definitive confirmation that the new variant is more transmissible.
According to Slaoui, figuring this out for certain would require laboratory animal testing to see how easily the virus can spread from one organism to another. But this testing can take several weeks.
In the face of that uncertainty, many urge caution.
Again, there’s still no evidence this new variant causes more severe disease. The evidence points only to increased transmissibility. But a more transmissible virus is still a concern. “In general, the more people get infected, the number of hospitalizations and deaths rise accordingly as a proportion of that number,” Hodcroft says. “So more cases is also bad news.”
What does the mutation ... do?
The UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 actually contains 23 mutations in the genome of the virus. “We don’t really know what they do,” Rasmussen says. Individually, many of these mutations have already been seen in other strains of the virus around the world. But the combination of these changes in a single virus could be making the new variant more likely to spread.
However, scientists do think that some mutations may be more important than others, and there are several mechanisms by which mutations could make the virus more infectious. Those include:
1. The virus could end up with changes to its spike protein that allow it to enter cells more easily.
2. The virus could develop a mechanism to replicate more quickly inside a body, which would lead “to people becoming infectious faster, or contagious faster than they would with another variant,” Rasmussen explains.
3. The virus could theoretically have evolved an ability to counteract the cell’s innate immune defenses, making it easier to infect that cell.
One of the pathways scientists suspect may be at work stems from the N501Y mutation, where the amino acid asparagine is replaced by the amino acid tyrosine in the 501st position of the viral protein sequence. It’s one of several mutations in the virus’s spike protein in the UK variant, but N501Y is in the part of the spike that actually comes into direct contact with human cells. The same mutation has been found in the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2 that’s also quickly spreading.
Since the virus attaching to a host cell is critical to the virus’s reproduction, the virus’s spike protein is especially important — and delicate.
“If you were just making random changes in the lab, almost any change you make in that area would result in just a dead virus that can no longer get into the cell,” said Benjamin Neuman, a virologist at Texas A&M University Texarkana. “That fact that this thing is able to spread at all tells you that it’s at least as good as the original version. The fact that it’s spreading faster may indicate that it’s a little bit better at grabbing on to host cells, which is the first step of the entry process.”
But this particular N501Y mutation has already been detected in strains that have risen and fallen in other parts of the world over the course of the pandemic. So it may be that the other mutations coupled with N501Y are having some sort of compounding effect. And scientists still need to do more work to determine if this is actually what’s causing the rise of the new SARS-CoV-2 variant in the UK. Finding out the answer could help researchers come up with ways to counter this variety of the coronavirus.
How did these coronavirus mutations happen?
Scientists don’t know exactly how the UK variant came to be. But there may be a clue. Hodcroft is struck by the sheer number of mutations in the UK variant — 23 in all — which makes her suspect it’s possible this variant arose in an immunocompromised person. “It’s an above-average number of mutations,” she says.
In most people, she explains, the immune system mounts a full-on assault on the virus, eliminating it in a matter of a couple of weeks. “In people that have compromised immune systems, though, there’s a very different dynamic,” she says. “So, for one thing, the virus could be in them for months instead of weeks.” That gives the virus more time to evolve, to accumulate mutations that might make it easier to thwart the immune system.
“It’s one scenario,” she says. “We may never know exactly what happened here.”
The basic truth: The more this virus spreads, the more chances there are for dangerous new variants to emerge. In any person — or animal, for that matter — the chance for a dangerous new variant to arise is rare. But rare things can happen when there are so many cases: more than 80 million confirmed cases worldwide.
Since viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are mutating and since Covid-19 has spread in so many people, it’s theoretically only a matter of time before a certain set of mutations align in a way to give the virus a boost.
What can we do about Covid-19 mutants?
To stop mutations, quite simply, we need to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in general. For one, that helps us deal with the pandemic overall. But “that’s also conveniently how we get fewer emerging variants,” Rasmussen says. “If the virus isn’t replicating, it can’t mutate. And if it can’t mutate, the new variants can’t emerge.”
We fight the new variant as we would any variant of SARS-CoV-2: with masks, with social distancing, with good hand hygiene. “I don’t think people should be panicking,” Hodcroft says. “Lower case numbers, no matter what the variant, are better.”
It’s already been said but if we actually follow protocol and have policies that support those protocols a new variant that is more transmissible would be combatted just as an older variant. So like worry less about mutants and more about masking and distancing and vaccination. — K. Taylor, Ph.D., M.S. (@KYT_ThatsME) December 21, 2020
Scientists have one more tool, though: genetic tracking. At Nextstrain, Hodcroft and her colleagues receive viral genetic sequences from all over the world to try to paint a real-time picture of transmission chains and keep tabs on how the virus is changing. But not every place in the world is providing the same amount of data.
The UK does a lot of viral sequencing, for instance. It was able to pick up on the new viral strain quickly because of that. In other locations around the globe, that might not have happened so fast.
“In the US, it’s a really spotty picture,” Hodcroft says when it comes to sequencing. “Some states have really invested in sequencing; some states haven’t. So for some states, we probably have a fair idea of what’s going on. In other states, we really don’t have many sequences.”
Overall, the CDC reports that the US has sequenced only 51,000 of the more than 17 million cases reported in the country. That’s 0.07 percent. In comparison, the UK aims to sequence 10,000 virus samples per week, and plans to increase that capacity further. (In addition: The UK sequences the genomes faster than the US, according to infectious disease researcher Trevor Bedford.) That lack of viral genetic testing creates a big blind spot in the US. The UK variant could have already arrived here undetected “given the small fraction of US infections that have been sequenced,” the CDC states.
More sequencing, overall, would lead to the faster detection of new strains and faster means to contain them if they were deemed problematic.
Do mutations mean a Covid-19 vaccine won’t work anymore?
With new mutations, there is a concern that a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could arise that would be different enough from previous versions such that prior exposures — whether through a vaccine or an infection — won’t offer protection. So, yes, it’s possible that the coronavirus could someday mutate in a way that would elude a vaccine or previous immunity.
Right now, though, scientists think this UK variant would still fall under the same umbrella of protection as earlier strains. If someone received a Covid-19 vaccine for an older generation of the virus, they would likely have protection against this one.
To explain why, it helps to understand how the immune system deals with viruses. When the human body detects a hostile foreign entity like a virus, it starts to produce antibodies (proteins that attach to the virus or to infected cells). Antibodies can then interfere with how the virus works. They can also flag the virus or virus-infected cells for destruction by other immune cells.
The specific places where the antibodies attach to the virus are called epitopes, and most Covid-19 vaccines target epitopes on the virus’s spike protein (which is what the virus uses to attach to human cells and enter them).
“The good thing with the vaccine is that it induces an immune response against several epitopes that have been mapped around the spike protein,” Slaoui said. “The chances that one set of mutations would alter all those epitopes, I think, are extremely very low. The expectation, scientifically, is that these kinds of variations are unlikely to escape fully the protective response by the vaccine.”
More good news: Scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch have announced (via a tweet) preliminary evidence that antibodies that neutralize the more common strain of the virus also neutralize a strain with the N501Y mutation (the one that impacts the part of the virus that comes into direct contact with human cells, as mentioned above). That suggests that an immune system primed — by a natural infection, at least — to fight the old variant can also fight one with this specific mutation.
Some good news (and incredibly fast work) on one of the mutations scientists are worried about: N501Y.
In these lab experiments serum from recovered #covid19 patients was just as good at neutralizing virus with the mutation as without it. https://t.co/SIxfo2x3qp — Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) December 22, 2020
Texas A&M’s Neuman noted that there’s also evidence right now showing how well vaccines can protect against mutated forms of the virus in clinical trials. Many of the vaccines being administered were engineered to counter the earliest generations of SARS-CoV-2 but are still showing themselves to be highly effective against Covid-19 caused by more recent versions of the virus.
“All the tests are being done, all the papers being published, are being done with current strains, which have several mutations relative to [the first iterations of the virus], and it does still seem to be working,” Neuman said.
Covid-19 vaccine developers say they are keeping a close eye on these changes and testing to make sure their vaccines are still effective. “In terms of the new variant, Pfizer and BioNTech are monitoring SARS-CoV-2 sequence changes and the companies are working to generate data on how well serum from people immunized with [the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine] may be able to neutralize the new strain,” said a Pfizer spokesperson via email.
And the new Covid-19 vaccines are well equipped to adapt. The two that have received emergency use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration — the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine — both use mRNA as their platform. These vaccines deliver the instructions for making the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 to human cells. Those human cells then manufacture the component themselves, allowing the immune system to use it to prepare for an infection. One huge advantage of this approach is that the mRNA sequence can be altered quickly; the first such vaccines for Covid-19 were developed within days after the genetic sequence of the virus was posted online.
Could manufacturers like Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech then retool their vaccines to target the new variants without going through the whole tedious clinical trial process again?
Possibly, according to Jesse Goodman, a former chief scientist at the FDA and a professor of medicine at Georgetown University. He told Vox that vaccines for new variants of the influenza virus are approved every year without large-scale trials. New versions of a Covid-19 vaccine to accommodate mutations similarly might not need another round of study in tens of thousands of people, but may require some testing to figure out dosing and immune response. With such a new virus and brand new vaccines, the regulations for these situations have not yet been laid out.
Should we expect more mutations in the future?
Short answer: yes.
The UK and South African variants are unlikely to be the last to make headlines. Coronavirus is constantly evolving. We should expect it to keep changing slightly.
“There will be new variants that emerge,” Rasmussen says. The thing is, with each new significant strain, scientists will have to do careful work to determine whether it’s more dangerous.
And there are some mutations we can perhaps even expect — if not in the coming weeks, over the next several years.
Recently, virology researchers at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center published a preprint (i.e., not yet peer-reviewed) study, looking at how a coronavirus that causes the common cold evolved from the 1980s onward. To accomplish that, they got old blood samples, which included antibodies that cling to this particular virus. They also reconstructed pieces of the cold virus from other eras. Basically, they wanted to see if older blood could still neutralize newer virus. If it couldn’t, that would indicate the virus has evolved over time to evade the immune system.
Here’s what the researchers found: “This other human coronavirus does indeed evolve over the course of multiple years to gradually escape human immunity,” Jesse Bloom, a virologist who co-authored the study, says. “So we think this suggests that there’s the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to do the same thing.” But Bloom stresses that this process takes years. It’s enough time to prepare, to monitor, and to potentially tweak vaccine formulations to keep up with the virus’s evolution.
It’s not like the virus can evolve into an entirely different beast. “It can mutate to maybe escape antibodies,” Rachel Eguia, the study’s lead author, says. But it can’t change so much that it alters its ability to enter cells.
Scientists are also keeping their eyes out for a rapid, major mutation event known as recombination. That’s where an individual is infected with two different strains of the virus at the same time, allowing the virus strains to swap parts. These new viruses could then evade the antibodies that targeted their predecessors. Some researchers think that recombination might be how SARS-CoV-2 originated in the first place.
“This is all hypothetical in this particular virus, but it happens in other viruses all the time,” Neuman said.
Faced with these looming challenges, reducing the transmission of the coronavirus in general is still the best way to protect the fragile progress made in the Covid-19 pandemic so far. Reducing transmissions is also one of the best ways to make sure powerful tools like vaccines remain potent for as long as possible. The fact that multiple Covid-19 vaccines are coming out is not a cause for complacency, and these new variants of SARS-CoV-2 highlight how important it is to remain vigilant.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated how Nextstrain gathers data.


vox--2020-12-29--Biden pledges new Covid-19 relief package and to invoke Defense Production Act

Striking a grim tone in Wilmington , Delaware , President-elect Joe Biden warned that defeating Covid-19 through widespread vaccination will be the “ greatest operational challenge we ’ ve ever faced as a nation.
” Biden says he expects “ incredible opportunities for our nation in the years ahead , ” declaring that the economy is “ poised to come back.
” However , to get there , Biden newly pledged to invoke the Defense Production Act ( DPA ) to accelerate private industry manufacturing of protective equipment and vaccines .
The president-elect also promised Congress that he would propose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Vox ’ s Alex Ward has explained , the DPA , which President Donald Trump has used to provide some medical equipment , would allow the federal government to require that companies fulfill its orders before they complete any other commercial orders .
In early December , Biden announced a goal of 100 million vaccine shots in his first 100 days , but vaccine distribution woes imperil this benchmark .
Biden himself threw cold water on this goal in his remarks when he pointed out that the Trump administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year ’ s end is extremely unlikely seeing as the United States has only vaccinated “ a few million ” people so far .
Earlier on Tuesday , Vice President-elect Kamala Harris received her first shot of the Moderna vaccine in Washington , DC , on live TV .
Biden received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on December 21 , also on live TV as part of his bid to increase confidence in the safety of the inoculation .
And Vice President Mike Pence received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine a few days earlier .
Along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden also recently pledged two other priorities : universal mask-wearing and reopening the majority of schools within his first 100 days .
He reiterated the importance of both of these objectives in this speech , noting that Congress needed to allocate funds to schools so that they can reopen .
“ It ’ s not small what we ’ re asking of you , but we ’ re in this together , ” Biden said , acknowledging the difficulty of asking people to continue social distancing and mask-wearing for several more months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on charting a clear course to defeating the virus , in his self-described best-case scenario — where a million Americans a day are receiving the vaccine — the country could be well into 2021 before coming close to herd immunity .
Biden ’ s remarks come as Covid-19 cases have surged to their highest levels over the holiday season .
On December 28 , the day before Biden ’ s address , the United States recorded over 189,000 new cases and almost 1,900 deaths .
Vox ’ s German Lopez analyzes weekly where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection rates , and test positivity rates based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau .
As of his most recent pre-holiday update on December 16 , not a single state had “ fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people.
” Lopez writes that daily case rates are the “ most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak.
” While experts have not definitively traced a surge due to Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings , expectations are that cases and deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Striking a grim tone in Wilmington, Delaware, President-elect Joe Biden warned that defeating Covid-19 through widespread vaccination will be the “greatest operational challenge we’ve ever faced as a nation.”
Biden says he expects “incredible opportunities for our nation in the years ahead,” declaring that the economy is “poised to come back.” However, to get there, Biden newly pledged to invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) to accelerate private industry manufacturing of protective equipment and vaccines. The president-elect also promised Congress that he would propose another Covid-19 relief package early next year.
As Vox’s Alex Ward has explained, the DPA, which President Donald Trump has used to provide some medical equipment, would allow the federal government to require that companies fulfill its orders before they complete any other commercial orders.
In early December, Biden announced a goal of 100 million vaccine shots in his first 100 days, but vaccine distribution woes imperil this benchmark. Biden himself threw cold water on this goal in his remarks when he pointed out that the Trump administration’s goal of vaccinating 20 million Americans by the year’s end is extremely unlikely seeing as the United States has only vaccinated “a few million” people so far.
Earlier on Tuesday, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris received her first shot of the Moderna vaccine in Washington, DC, on live TV. Biden received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on December 21, also on live TV as part of his bid to increase confidence in the safety of the inoculation. And Vice President Mike Pence received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine a few days earlier.
Along with his goal of mass vaccinations, Biden also recently pledged two other priorities: universal mask-wearing and reopening the majority of schools within his first 100 days. He reiterated the importance of both of these objectives in this speech, noting that Congress needed to allocate funds to schools so that they can reopen.
Today, I'm announcing key COVID-19 priorities for the first 100 days of my administration:
- Everyone wears a mask
- 100 million vaccinations
- Reopen the majority of schools
With these steps, we can change the course of the disease and change life in America for the better. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 8, 2020
“It’s not small what we’re asking of you, but we’re in this together,” Biden said, acknowledging the difficulty of asking people to continue social distancing and mask-wearing for several more months. Though Biden’s speech was focused on charting a clear course to defeating the virus, in his self-described best-case scenario — where a million Americans a day are receiving the vaccine — the country could be well into 2021 before coming close to herd immunity.
It’s a long, cold Covid-19 winter
Biden’s remarks come as Covid-19 cases have surged to their highest levels over the holiday season. On December 28, the day before Biden’s address, the United States recorded over 189,000 new cases and almost 1,900 deaths.
Vox’s German Lopez analyzes weekly where each state is on Covid-19 cases, infection rates, and test positivity rates based on data from the New York Times and the Census Bureau. As of his most recent pre-holiday update on December 16, not a single state had “fewer than four daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people.” Lopez writes that daily case rates are the “most straightforward way to measure whether any place is experiencing a big coronavirus outbreak.”
While experts have not definitively traced a surge due to Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings, expectations are that cases and deaths will spike in the coming weeks.