scientificamerican--2020-09-30--One in Seven Dire COVID Cases May Result from a Faulty Immune Response

Perhaps the most unnerving aspect of COVID-19 is its startling range of severity : from completely asymptomatic to deadly .
Starting early in the pandemic , researchers identified factors that put people at risk of a serious case of the disease , such as advanced age , having certain chronic diseases and being male .
But these demographic trends do not get at the biological mechanisms that actually cause a life-threatening infection .
Nor do they explain why some young , fit , healthy people become mortally ill from the SARS-CoV-2 virus .
Two related papers published in Science onSeptember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They may also partially account for men ’ s greater vulnerability to the virus and point the way to possible treatments and protective measures .
Both studies highlight the critical role of a class of immune system proteins called interferons , so named because they interfere with the replication of viruses .
The new papers were produced by the COVID Human Genetic Effort , a huge international consortium of researchers hunting for genetic mutations that either make individuals unusually susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 or confer exceptional resistance .
The consortium is co-led by Jean-Laurent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Su of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , who are co-senior authors of both of the studies .
In their first paper , the researchers compared DNA from 659 gravely ill COVID-19 patients from around the world with DNA from a control group of 534 infected people who were only mildly affected by the novel coronavirus or did not have symptoms .
The scientists specifically looked for mutations that would impair the production of type I interferons—a set of proteins made by every cell in the body that comprise a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Casanova and others showed that such mutations left people extremely vulnerable to influenza and other viruses .
As it turned out , some of the same mutations associated with life-threatening flu were also present in 3.5 percent of patients with life-threatening COVID-19 .
No one in the new study ’ s control group had these mutations .
The second paper focuses on another mechanism that disables interferon responses in patients with severe COVID-19 .
In this set of studies , researchers examined blood samples from 987 such individuals and discovered that 13.7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the patients ’ own type I interferons .
In 10.2 percent of the subjects , the auto-antibodies completely blocked the action of these critical virus fighters .
Lab experiments showed that when human cells were exposed to plasma ( the liquid part of blood ) taken from patients with these self-attacking antibodies , the cells could not defend themselves against SARS-CoV-2 .
The antibodies were found in 12.5 percent of the severely ill men but only 2.6 percent of similarly ill women—making them a possible factor in the higher COVID-19 mortality rate among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in patients older than 65 .
Antibodies to the body ’ s own cytokines , cell-signaling proteins of the immune system that include interferons , have been known to exacerbate other types of infections .
The effect is the same as having a mutation that disrupts the production of that cytokine .
“ For example , if you have a mutation in gamma interferon or you have auto-antibodies against gamma interferon , which is a type II interferon , then you are prone to tuberculosis and related mycobacterial diseases , ” Casanova says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find that the auto-antibodies were so prevalent among desperately ill COVID-19 patients , especially because they appear to be vanishingly rare in the general population .
The researchers screened the blood of 1,227 healthy individuals and found only four ( 0.3 percent ) with the auto-antibodies .
The finding that more than 10 percent of COVID-19 patients in the world ’ s intensive care units could have these antibodies “ was beyond my wildest expectation , ” Casanova says .
Taken together , genetic and immunologic disabling of type I interferons could account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The two papers are remarkable on multiple levels , ” says Eleanor Fish , a professor of immunology at the University of Toronto , who studies interferons and was not involved in those new studies .
“ One is that they identified so quickly what is going on in life-threatening cases in the context of interferon response.
” She notes that there was already growing evidence that interferons are important in clearing the virus , but data also indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is particularly adept at blocking the body ’ s interferon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing is that while interferon may be suppressed [ by SARS-CoV-2 ] , it still confers protection against the virus , ” says Elina Zúñiga , a professor of molecular biology at the University of California , San Diego , who was not involved with the studies .
Zúñiga , who investigates immune responses to viruses , finds it especially “ mind-blowing ” that antibodies to interferons were discovered in so many patients .
“ Who would have thought that this would be one reason why patients can have more severe COVID-19 ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dutch scientists , published in July in JAMA , supports the new genetics findings .
The researchers describe two unrelated pairs of previously healthy , young brothers—with an average age of 26—who became desperately ill with COVID-19 and turned out to have a genetic mutation on their X chromosome that impaired interferon response .
If confirmed by further research , the new papers—along with previous work on interferons—have a number of implications for screening patients and treating severe COVID-19 .
The authors suggest that newly infected patients could be screened for the auto-antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they are at risk of a life-threatening case .
Because most of these antibodies appear to be directed at a type of interferon called interferon-alpha , Fish offers that such patients might respond well to treatment with interferon-beta .
The latter protein plays a similar role in battling viral infections but would likely not be targeted by the antibodies .
Screening for these antibodies in the population as a whole might also be possible in countries with the resources to manage it , Zúñiga suggests .
“ For young people who think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they have these auto-antibodies , it might change their behavior , ” she says .
When a vaccine becomes available , Zúñiga adds , “ there ’ s a rational argument to prioritize people who have these auto-antibodies.
” Perhaps the most immediate implication of the new studies concerns the use of convalescent plasma , an experimental treatment made from the blood of people who have recovered from COVID-19 .
In August the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a controversial “ emergency use authorization ” for the blood product .
Zúñiga @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to screen plasma donors for auto-antibodies .
“ If you have severe COVID-19 , would you like to receive antibodies that neutralize an antiviral response ?
” she asks .
“ No thank you.
” Given the growing evidence that interferon plays a crucial role in arresting severe infection , Fish believes that treating COVID-19 patients with interferon , regardless of their antibody or genetic status , could be a winning tactic , particularly early in the infection .
She points to exploratory studies on interferon in Cuba and Wuhan , China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and earlier clearance of the virus .
But determining the timing and other details of such treatment will be vital .
“ Interferon can be a double-edged sword in many infections , ” Zúñiga says .
“ It activates many immune cells , but it can enhance inflammation as well .
And it can have a negative immunoregulatory role , activating factors that suppress the immune response.
” Experts seem to agree that interferons would have to be given early to help shut down the infection .
Once a patient develops an extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storm , ” interferons are unlikely to be of use , Fish says .
Dozens of COVID-19 clinical trials are already underway to test the efficacy of various types of interferon therapies , which can be given as a nasal spray or injection .
One large study , conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , is comparing the antiviral remdesivir alone with a combined therapy of the drug and interferon-beta .
And Fish is involved in a study in Santiago , Chile , that will investigate whether giving interferons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been infected with the coronavirus could prevent them from falling ill .
It remains to be seen whether any of these therapies pan out , but the new findings at least unlock one more piece of the COVID-19 puzzle .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

Perhaps the most unnerving aspect of COVID-19 is its startling range of severity: from completely asymptomatic to deadly. Starting early in the pandemic, researchers identified factors that put people at risk of a serious case of the disease, such as advanced age, having certain chronic diseases and being male. But these demographic trends do not get at the biological mechanisms that actually cause a life-threatening infection. Nor do they explain why some young, fit, healthy people become mortally ill from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Two related papers published in Science on September 24 begin to address these mysteries. They may also partially account for men’s greater vulnerability to the virus and point the way to possible treatments and protective measures. Both studies highlight the critical role of a class of immune system proteins called interferons, so named because they interfere with the replication of viruses.
The new papers were produced by the COVID Human Genetic Effort, a huge international consortium of researchers hunting for genetic mutations that either make individuals unusually susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 or confer exceptional resistance. The consortium is co-led by Jean-Laurent Casanova of the Rockefeller University and Helen Su of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who are co-senior authors of both of the studies.
In their first paper, the researchers compared DNA from 659 gravely ill COVID-19 patients from around the world with DNA from a control group of 534 infected people who were only mildly affected by the novel coronavirus or did not have symptoms. The scientists specifically looked for mutations that would impair the production of type I interferons—a set of proteins made by every cell in the body that comprise a first-line defense against viruses. Previous work by Casanova and others showed that such mutations left people extremely vulnerable to influenza and other viruses. As it turned out, some of the same mutations associated with life-threatening flu were also present in 3.5 percent of patients with life-threatening COVID-19. No one in the new study’s control group had these mutations.
The second paper focuses on another mechanism that disables interferon responses in patients with severe COVID-19. In this set of studies, researchers examined blood samples from 987 such individuals and discovered that 13.7 percent contained antibodies—dubbed “auto-antibodies”—to the patients’ own type I interferons. In 10.2 percent of the subjects, the auto-antibodies completely blocked the action of these critical virus fighters.
Lab experiments showed that when human cells were exposed to plasma (the liquid part of blood) taken from patients with these self-attacking antibodies, the cells could not defend themselves against SARS-CoV-2. The antibodies were found in 12.5 percent of the severely ill men but only 2.6 percent of similarly ill women—making them a possible factor in the higher COVID-19 mortality rate among men. They were also more common in patients older than 65.
Antibodies to the body’s own cytokines, cell-signaling proteins of the immune system that include interferons, have been known to exacerbate other types of infections. The effect is the same as having a mutation that disrupts the production of that cytokine. “For example, if you have a mutation in gamma interferon or you have auto-antibodies against gamma interferon, which is a type II interferon, then you are prone to tuberculosis and related mycobacterial diseases,” Casanova says.
Still, he was stunned to find that the auto-antibodies were so prevalent among desperately ill COVID-19 patients, especially because they appear to be vanishingly rare in the general population. The researchers screened the blood of 1,227 healthy individuals and found only four (0.3 percent) with the auto-antibodies.
The finding that more than 10 percent of COVID-19 patients in the world’s intensive care units could have these antibodies “was beyond my wildest expectation,” Casanova says. Taken together, genetic and immunologic disabling of type I interferons could account for nearly 14 percent of life-threatening cases.
“The two papers are remarkable on multiple levels,” says Eleanor Fish, a professor of immunology at the University of Toronto, who studies interferons and was not involved in those new studies. “One is that they identified so quickly what is going on in life-threatening cases in the context of interferon response.” She notes that there was already growing evidence that interferons are important in clearing the virus, but data also indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is particularly adept at blocking the body’s interferon response.
“What these papers are showing is that while interferon may be suppressed [by SARS-CoV-2], it still confers protection against the virus,” says Elina Zúñiga, a professor of molecular biology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved with the studies. Zúñiga, who investigates immune responses to viruses, finds it especially “mind-blowing” that antibodies to interferons were discovered in so many patients. “Who would have thought that this would be one reason why patients can have more severe COVID-19?” she says.
A study by Dutch scientists, published in July in JAMA, supports the new genetics findings. The researchers describe two unrelated pairs of previously healthy, young brothers—with an average age of 26—who became desperately ill with COVID-19 and turned out to have a genetic mutation on their X chromosome that impaired interferon response.
If confirmed by further research, the new papers—along with previous work on interferons—have a number of implications for screening patients and treating severe COVID-19. The authors suggest that newly infected patients could be screened for the auto-antibodies with an inexpensive blood test to determine if they are at risk of a life-threatening case.
Because most of these antibodies appear to be directed at a type of interferon called interferon-alpha, Fish offers that such patients might respond well to treatment with interferon-beta. The latter protein plays a similar role in battling viral infections but would likely not be targeted by the antibodies.
Screening for these antibodies in the population as a whole might also be possible in countries with the resources to manage it, Zúñiga suggests. “For young people who think they are not much at risk, if they have these auto-antibodies, it might change their behavior,” she says. When a vaccine becomes available, Zúñiga adds, “there’s a rational argument to prioritize people who have these auto-antibodies.”
Perhaps the most immediate implication of the new studies concerns the use of convalescent plasma, an experimental treatment made from the blood of people who have recovered from COVID-19. In August the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a controversial “emergency use authorization” for the blood product. Zúñiga points out that it would be important to screen plasma donors for auto-antibodies. “If you have severe COVID-19, would you like to receive antibodies that neutralize an antiviral response?” she asks. “No thank you.”
Given the growing evidence that interferon plays a crucial role in arresting severe infection, Fish believes that treating COVID-19 patients with interferon, regardless of their antibody or genetic status, could be a winning tactic, particularly early in the infection. She points to exploratory studies on interferon in Cuba and Wuhan, China, that showed promising effects on mortality rates and earlier clearance of the virus.
But determining the timing and other details of such treatment will be vital. “Interferon can be a double-edged sword in many infections,” Zúñiga says. “It activates many immune cells, but it can enhance inflammation as well. And it can have a negative immunoregulatory role, activating factors that suppress the immune response.”
Experts seem to agree that interferons would have to be given early to help shut down the infection. Once a patient develops an extreme immune reaction sometimes called a “cytokine storm,” interferons are unlikely to be of use, Fish says.
Dozens of COVID-19 clinical trials are already underway to test the efficacy of various types of interferon therapies, which can be given as a nasal spray or injection. One large study, conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is comparing the antiviral remdesivir alone with a combined therapy of the drug and interferon-beta. And Fish is involved in a study in Santiago, Chile, that will investigate whether giving interferons to members of a household where someone has been infected with the coronavirus could prevent them from falling ill. It remains to be seen whether any of these therapies pan out, but the new findings at least unlock one more piece of the COVID-19 puzzle.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-09-30--Flu Season Never Came to the Southern Hemisphere

In March , as coronavirus widened its global sweep , one health statistic quickly flattened : influenza cases .
In @ @ @ @ @ season would have been just taking off , but cases were virtually nonexistent .
“ @ @ @ @ @ have we ever seen rates ... so low , ” says Greg Poland , an @ @ @ @ @ Clinic .
Although researchers need to study the reasons further , several told Scientific American @ @ @ @ @ mask wearing and social distancing—are working against flu transmission .
If those measures continue , @ @ @ @ @ see the most dramatic drop in influenza cases in modern human history .
U.S. health @ @ @ @ @ , however , because not everyone in the country is observing measures to contain the @ @ @ @ @ perhaps be more threatening in people who contract flu .

In March, as coronavirus widened its global sweep, one health statistic quickly flattened: influenza cases. In the Southern Hemisphere, flu season would have been just taking off, but cases were virtually nonexistent. “Never in my 40-year career have we ever seen rates ... so low,” says Greg Poland, an influenza expert at the Mayo Clinic. Although researchers need to study the reasons further, several told Scientific American that coronavirus prevention measures—handwashing, mask wearing and social distancing—are working against flu transmission. If those measures continue, Poland says, countries could see the most dramatic drop in influenza cases in modern human history. U.S. health experts still recommend flu shots, however, because not everyone in the country is observing measures to contain the virus and because COVID-19 could perhaps be more threatening in people who contract flu.
Credit: Katie Peek; Source: FluNet/Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, World Health Organization (influenza rates)


scientificamerican--2020-09-30--It's the End of the World ... Somewhere

It's the End of the World ... Somewhere

Apocalypse is a word that we throw around pretty readily these days , and we can choose from a cornucopia of terrifying options—from the fierce ochre skies of western North America to the seemingly endless days of a global pandemic , to the suffering of mass migrants and the trauma from unstable political leaders ( the specifics of which I leave to your imagination ) .
But it ’ s a bit unfair to this overused term .
The more literal , root meaning of apocalypse , from its construction out of ancient Greek , is “ an uncovering.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what lies beneath the usually perceived reality .
What lies beneath day-to-day reality is a fantastically complex web of phenomena .
A web of our individual biological machinery and its place within a four-billion-year story of propagating genetic information and molecular processes , and of the exponentially complicated interplay between competing , cooperating , and merely indifferent systems .
Whether in the form of organisms and their biophysical games with inanimate environments , or the back and forth of feedbacks in the dynamics of a well-heated , chemically rich rocky planet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shove it , and there are ripples that don ’ t always settle quickly .
Planetary climate is one major structural element of the web , and is perfectly happy to ripple and slide over to states that modern humans haven ’ t experienced before .
In that sense the revelation of “ apocalypse ” is indeed appropriate for much of what we ’ re seeing happening to our planet at the moment ; an uncovering of the true cycles and mechanics of the physical and biological world .
But there may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t apply just to the Earth at this particular moment .
There are two principal aspects to these .
The first is that if there are life-harboring planets elsewhere in the universe , the ones experiencing dramatic and rapid shifts in their conditions might also be the ones that are easiest to identify as living worlds as we peer through our telescopes ( a topic I ’ ve written about in the past ) .
The second aspect is that it ’ s possible that sentient , technological species experiencing change and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give away their presence to the rest of the galaxy .
For example , the trigger for that trauma might be when species approaches a particular level of planetary dominance .
With their civilization reaching a tipping point of scale that is far more likely to produce detectable technosignatures for distant astronomers—whether as infrared excesses from waste energy or a flood of peculiar atmospheric compounds from polluting industrial processes .
But it could also be that it is precisely at this point in its existence that a species begins to really look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coincidence that human spaceflight and dreams of putting settlers on Mars are revving up today in a way that they haven ’ t for decades ?
Or a coincidence that there is a resurgence of scientific interest in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ?
Or that there is an ongoing acceleration in machine learning and algorithms and devices that have the potential to grow exponentially and subvert aspects of our cognitive existence ?
I think it ’ s an interesting idea to consider that civilizations ( for want of a more general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their presence known in the universe when things get really busy , and really bad , at home .
Apart from passive technosignatures , like rapid climate change , the launch of interplanetary or interstellar spacecraft could , if beamed-light propulsion is utilized , produce potent signals detectable elsewhere in the cosmos .
Communications with a growing population of exploration vehicles and settlements within a planetary system , or with probes launched to other stars , could also create a noisy beacon for other species to detect .
Even efforts to terraform other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretching the realm of possibilities a little ) , would present a rather shocking event to advanced alien observers steadily tracking the properties of a system .
And perhaps the ultimate in last-ditch attempts to avert a slow-rolling planetary disaster is to send out a distress signal , looking for answers to existential challenges ; because at that point why not ?
There is a catch though , and it relates to the well-worn ideas of the Fermi paradox .
By the time a species is compelled into doing any of these things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pushed to a Klaxon-like tipping point , perhaps it simply fails .
There is no Hail Mary , there isn ’ t even a noticeable last gasp , instead it all just shuts down .
In which case the apparent absence of any evidence for other intelligence in the universe is not just because of our limited searches to date , it is because of a great filter that—like an exhausted parent—just puts an end to any coherent change .
There is no bang , and there isn ’ t even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depressing .
But there is a ray of hope , and it ’ s in the fact that our quest to look for other technological life in the universe is very , very far from complete .
We may yet find ourselves detecting the shrieks of civilizations across our galaxy .
Even if they ’ re experiencing their own apocalypse , we would learn critical things about the properties of a great filter ; that there might be time yet to slither past it , and that at least we still have a @ @ @ @

Apocalypse is a word that we throw around pretty readily these days, and we can choose from a cornucopia of terrifying options—from the fierce ochre skies of western North America to the seemingly endless days of a global pandemic, to the suffering of mass migrants and the trauma from unstable political leaders (the specifics of which I leave to your imagination). But it’s a bit unfair to this overused term. The more literal, root meaning of apocalypse, from its construction out of ancient Greek, is “an uncovering.” It is a revelation of knowledge, of what lies beneath the usually perceived reality.
What lies beneath day-to-day reality is a fantastically complex web of phenomena. A web of our individual biological machinery and its place within a four-billion-year story of propagating genetic information and molecular processes, and of the exponentially complicated interplay between competing, cooperating, and merely indifferent systems. Whether in the form of organisms and their biophysical games with inanimate environments, or the back and forth of feedbacks in the dynamics of a well-heated, chemically rich rocky planet.
Perturb that web, poke it or shove it, and there are ripples that don’t always settle quickly. Planetary climate is one major structural element of the web, and is perfectly happy to ripple and slide over to states that modern humans haven’t experienced before. In that sense the revelation of “apocalypse” is indeed appropriate for much of what we’re seeing happening to our planet at the moment; an uncovering of the true cycles and mechanics of the physical and biological world.
But there may be even deeper revelations at play that don’t apply just to the Earth at this particular moment. There are two principal aspects to these. The first is that if there are life-harboring planets elsewhere in the universe, the ones experiencing dramatic and rapid shifts in their conditions might also be the ones that are easiest to identify as living worlds as we peer through our telescopes (a topic I’ve written about in the past). The second aspect is that it’s possible that sentient, technological species experiencing change and trauma might be the ones most likely to give away their presence to the rest of the galaxy.
For example, the trigger for that trauma might be when species approaches a particular level of planetary dominance. With their civilization reaching a tipping point of scale that is far more likely to produce detectable technosignatures for distant astronomers—whether as infrared excesses from waste energy or a flood of peculiar atmospheric compounds from polluting industrial processes.
But it could also be that it is precisely at this point in its existence that a species begins to really look beyond its planetary confines. Is it a coincidence that human spaceflight and dreams of putting settlers on Mars are revving up today in a way that they haven’t for decades? Or a coincidence that there is a resurgence of scientific interest in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence? Or that there is an ongoing acceleration in machine learning and algorithms and devices that have the potential to grow exponentially and subvert aspects of our cognitive existence?
I think it’s an interesting idea to consider that civilizations (for want of a more general term) may only begin to make their presence known in the universe when things get really busy, and really bad, at home.
Apart from passive technosignatures, like rapid climate change, the launch of interplanetary or interstellar spacecraft could, if beamed-light propulsion is utilized, produce potent signals detectable elsewhere in the cosmos. Communications with a growing population of exploration vehicles and settlements within a planetary system, or with probes launched to other stars, could also create a noisy beacon for other species to detect. Even efforts to terraform other worlds (and of course this is stretching the realm of possibilities a little), would present a rather shocking event to advanced alien observers steadily tracking the properties of a system.
And perhaps the ultimate in last-ditch attempts to avert a slow-rolling planetary disaster is to send out a distress signal, looking for answers to existential challenges; because at that point why not?
There is a catch though, and it relates to the well-worn ideas of the Fermi paradox. By the time a species is compelled into doing any of these things, and even before its planetary environment is pushed to a Klaxon-like tipping point, perhaps it simply fails. There is no Hail Mary, there isn’t even a noticeable last gasp, instead it all just shuts down. In which case the apparent absence of any evidence for other intelligence in the universe is not just because of our limited searches to date, it is because of a great filter that—like an exhausted parent—just puts an end to any coherent change. There is no bang, and there isn’t even a whimper.
That is of course awfully depressing. But there is a ray of hope, and it’s in the fact that our quest to look for other technological life in the universe is very, very far from complete. We may yet find ourselves detecting the shrieks of civilizations across our galaxy. Even if they’re experiencing their own apocalypse, we would learn critical things about the properties of a great filter; that there might be time yet to slither past it, and that at least we still have a way to go.


scientificamerican--2020-09-30--Possibility of Dark Bosons Entices Physicists

Physicists are on the hunt for dark forces .
These forces are not as ominous as they sound : “ dark ” simply refers to the fact that no one has observed them before .
In this case , they would act between neutrons and electrons .
One path to investigating dark forces involves using lasers to make precision measurements of isotopes ( atoms of an element possessing different numbers of neutrons ) .
If there is a dark force working behind the scenes , it could affect an isotope ’ s energy levels—discrete regions around the atom ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two teams have independently performed the most precise measurements of this type .
Their findings , reported this month in Physical Review Letters , are mixed : One group , led by researchers at Aarhus University in Denmark , analyzed calcium isotopes and saw no deviation from predictions .
But the other team , led by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , used ytterbium isotopes and found a deviation in the electron energy levels with “ three sigma ” significance—that is , assuming no dark forces or other factors , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of random chance .
If there is a dark force at work here , physicists believe it would be carried by a force-carrying particle : a boson .
“ ‘ Dark boson ’ is not well-defined , ” says Elina Fuchs , a physicist at the University of Chicago and a member of the Aarhus-led team .
“ It ’ s just a very feebly interacting particle that can be connected to matter.
” These efforts are searches for a dark force , not dark matter—the mysterious stuff that composes 85 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such a dark boson could be an important component of dark matter , or it could simply be part of a larger “ dark sector ” of particles .
The Aarhus-led study ’ s results do not rule out dark forces , but the M.I.T.-led team ’ s findings do not confirm them .
Typically , physicists will not assert a discovery has been made until a result ’ s statistical significance reaches five sigma ( in this case , a one-in-1.7-million chance ) .
The M.I.T.-led researchers are quick to clarify that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dark forces .
Most likely , the deviation is instead because of some as yet uncalculated nuclear force——nothing outside the Standard Model , the theory that governs known particles and forces , minus gravity .
“ We ’ re not claiming to have discovered anything like a new particle , ” says Vladan Vuletić , a physicist at M.I.T .
and a co-author of the paper .
“ Most likely , we are measuring new nuclear physics , but there is the possibility of something else going on.
” The hunt for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search for new physics .
Hints , such as the existence of dark matter , the mystery of why neutrinos have mass and the relative weakness of gravity , suggest that there may be particles and forces beyond what physicists have accounted for in the Standard Model .
Traditionally , these searches have occurred at higher energies using particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva to create new particles in the wreckage of extreme subatomic smashups .
Building these behemoth experiments consumes inordinate amounts of time and money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative ways to probe for new physics .
The novel class of precision measurements instead look for new physics at low energies by making sure everything is in order—checking that dark forces are not hiding in small changes between isotopes , for example .
There is no reason to think that such forces could be hiding in isotope data—but then again , there is no reason not to .
“ We are completely in the dark , ” Vuletić says .
“ It ’ s a completely different way of working .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoping that , somewhere , we discover something.
” In 1963 William King , a physicist then at the University of Oxford , noticed an interesting pattern .
When he compared the energy levels of isotopes against one another , he saw they formed a straight line on a graph .
Such King plots , as they became known , have long been important to nuclear physicists .
But researchers have only recently begun using them to search for new physics .
Two years ago another paper in Physical Review Letters put forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ King plots .
A dark boson that linked electrons and neutrons would shift energy levels from isotope to isotope , the authors suggested .
For example , a calcium isotope with 20 neutrons should have essentially the same energy levels as one with 22 neutrons because electrons are not attracted to neutral neutrons .
But a dark boson could create a small attraction , shifting the electron ’ s energy levels in a discernible fashion .
These quests for dark bosons are different from dark matter searches .
Researchers are not looking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are scanning for the effects of a virtual particle on the isotopes—similar to investigations involving magnetic fields—says Joonseok Hur , a Ph.D. student at M.I.T .
and co-lead author of the new ytterbium study .
The signal of that subtle deviation should strengthen as more isotopes are compared with one another .
“ It ’ s a very efficient way to constrain new physics , ” says Yotam Soreq , a physicist now at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa and a co-author of the 2018 Physical Review Letters paper .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the M.I.T .
group sees at some level of significance , then you need to start to think , very , very carefully , ‘ What is this effect ?
’ ” Not all nonlinear effects arise from new physics , of course .
For example , an isotope ’ s additional neutrons can deform its nucleus or can even be oddly distributed throughout .
These kinds of changes would be difficult to distinguish from a dark boson , in part because it is hard to precisely calculate energy levels for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As elements get bigger , predicting the electron energy levels with classical computers requires exponentially more calculating power .
To look for nonlinearities in King plots in the two new studies , both teams used a similar approach : The researchers placed a single atom in a laser trap to hold it in place .
Then they used additional lasers to probe the isotope , varying the laser ’ s frequency until they found the exact energy levels—a little like tuning a radio frequency through static until you stumble on a channel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an uncannily exact and unwavering King plot .
“ We did the experiment , and we ended up having the straightest line I ever measured in my life , ” says Michael Drewsen , a physicist at Aarhus and co-author of the new calcium study .
The M.I.T.-led team , on the other hand , saw energy levels that were 500 to 1,000 hertz away from predictions , registering as a small curve in the King plot .
( The levels were measured in hertz because the frequency of light is proportional to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s experiment , however , could not distinguish Standard Model nonlinearities from new physics nonlinearities , so the results are inconclusive .
Previous data from astrophysical observations and particle physics experiments have put stronger bounds on the strength of a dark force between electrons and neutrons .
But if the researchers can improve the precision of their energy level measurement by a few orders of magnitude—which both teams say they believe is possible—the search for dark forces via King plots will become truly competitive .
Increased precision would also allow them to corroborate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which suggests the existence of a dark boson that is about 34 times heavier than the mass of an electron .
Potential future improvements could emerge from including more highly charged isotopes , additional elements , short-lived isotopes and even the quantum entanglement of two isotopes within an ion trap .
“ It takes time .
It ’ s not trivial work at all , ” Soreq says .
“ But [ this technique ] can be improved much , much further .
”

Physicists are on the hunt for dark forces. These forces are not as ominous as they sound: “dark” simply refers to the fact that no one has observed them before. In this case, they would act between neutrons and electrons.
One path to investigating dark forces involves using lasers to make precision measurements of isotopes (atoms of an element possessing different numbers of neutrons). If there is a dark force working behind the scenes, it could affect an isotope’s energy levels—discrete regions around the atom’s nucleus where its electrons exist.
Now two teams have independently performed the most precise measurements of this type. Their findings, reported this month in Physical Review Letters, are mixed: One group, led by researchers at Aarhus University in Denmark, analyzed calcium isotopes and saw no deviation from predictions. But the other team, led by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, used ytterbium isotopes and found a deviation in the electron energy levels with “three sigma” significance—that is, assuming no dark forces or other factors, the result would happen once every 370 times because of random chance.
If there is a dark force at work here, physicists believe it would be carried by a force-carrying particle: a boson. “‘Dark boson’ is not well-defined,” says Elina Fuchs, a physicist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago and a member of the Aarhus-led team. “It’s just a very feebly interacting particle that can be connected to matter.” These efforts are searches for a dark force, not dark matter—the mysterious stuff that composes 85 percent of the matter in the universe. Such a dark boson could be an important component of dark matter, or it could simply be part of a larger “dark sector” of particles.
The Aarhus-led study’s results do not rule out dark forces, but the M.I.T.-led team’s findings do not confirm them. Typically, physicists will not assert a discovery has been made until a result’s statistical significance reaches five sigma (in this case, a one-in-1.7-million chance). The M.I.T.-led researchers are quick to clarify that they are skeptical their result is linked to dark forces. Most likely, the deviation is instead because of some as yet uncalculated nuclear force——nothing outside the Standard Model, the theory that governs known particles and forces, minus gravity.
“We’re not claiming to have discovered anything like a new particle,” says Vladan Vuletić, a physicist at M.I.T. and a co-author of the paper. “Most likely, we are measuring new nuclear physics, but there is the possibility of something else going on.”
The hunt for dark forces is part of a broader search for new physics. Hints, such as the existence of dark matter, the mystery of why neutrinos have mass and the relative weakness of gravity, suggest that there may be particles and forces beyond what physicists have accounted for in the Standard Model.
Traditionally, these searches have occurred at higher energies using particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva to create new particles in the wreckage of extreme subatomic smashups. Building these behemoth experiments consumes inordinate amounts of time and money, so researchers have been looking for alternative ways to probe for new physics.
The novel class of precision measurements instead look for new physics at low energies by making sure everything is in order—checking that dark forces are not hiding in small changes between isotopes, for example. There is no reason to think that such forces could be hiding in isotope data—but then again, there is no reason not to.
“We are completely in the dark,” Vuletić says. “It’s a completely different way of working. We’re poking here and there and hoping that, somewhere, we discover something.”
King of Plots
In 1963 William King, a physicist then at the University of Oxford, noticed an interesting pattern. When he compared the energy levels of isotopes against one another, he saw they formed a straight line on a graph. Such King plots, as they became known, have long been important to nuclear physicists. But researchers have only recently begun using them to search for new physics.
Two years ago another paper in Physical Review Letters put forward the possibility of finding dark bosons in King plots. A dark boson that linked electrons and neutrons would shift energy levels from isotope to isotope, the authors suggested. For example, a calcium isotope with 20 neutrons should have essentially the same energy levels as one with 22 neutrons because electrons are not attracted to neutral neutrons. But a dark boson could create a small attraction, shifting the electron’s energy levels in a discernible fashion.
These quests for dark bosons are different from dark matter searches. Researchers are not looking for real, incoming particles. Instead they are scanning for the effects of a virtual particle on the isotopes—similar to investigations involving magnetic fields—says Joonseok Hur, a Ph.D. student at M.I.T. and co-lead author of the new ytterbium study. The signal of that subtle deviation should strengthen as more isotopes are compared with one another.
“It’s a very efficient way to constrain new physics,” says Yotam Soreq, a physicist now at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa and a co-author of the 2018 Physical Review Letters paper. “Once you see deviation from linearity, like the M.I.T. group sees at some level of significance, then you need to start to think, very, very carefully, ‘What is this effect?’”
Not all nonlinear effects arise from new physics, of course. For example, an isotope’s additional neutrons can deform its nucleus or can even be oddly distributed throughout. These kinds of changes would be difficult to distinguish from a dark boson, in part because it is hard to precisely calculate energy levels for the bulky isotopes used in such searches. As elements get bigger, predicting the electron energy levels with classical computers requires exponentially more calculating power.
To look for nonlinearities in King plots in the two new studies, both teams used a similar approach: The researchers placed a single atom in a laser trap to hold it in place. Then they used additional lasers to probe the isotope, varying the laser’s frequency until they found the exact energy levels—a little like tuning a radio frequency through static until you stumble on a channel.
The results appeared straightforward enough, forming an uncannily exact and unwavering King plot. “We did the experiment, and we ended up having the straightest line I ever measured in my life,” says Michael Drewsen, a physicist at Aarhus and co-author of the new calcium study.
The M.I.T.-led team, on the other hand, saw energy levels that were 500 to 1,000 hertz away from predictions, registering as a small curve in the King plot. (The levels were measured in hertz because the frequency of light is proportional to its energy.) The group’s experiment, however, could not distinguish Standard Model nonlinearities from new physics nonlinearities, so the results are inconclusive.
Previous data from astrophysical observations and particle physics experiments have put stronger bounds on the strength of a dark force between electrons and neutrons. But if the researchers can improve the precision of their energy level measurement by a few orders of magnitude—which both teams say they believe is possible—the search for dark forces via King plots will become truly competitive. Increased precision would also allow them to corroborate or challenge the so-called Atomki anomaly, which suggests the existence of a dark boson that is about 34 times heavier than the mass of an electron.
Potential future improvements could emerge from including more highly charged isotopes, additional elements, short-lived isotopes and even the quantum entanglement of two isotopes within an ion trap. “It takes time. It’s not trivial work at all,” Soreq says. “But [this technique] can be improved much, much further.”


scientificamerican--2020-09-30--Can an Algorithm Help Solve Political Paralysis?

Dave Johnson refuses to eat fish farmed near Minneapolis .
The retired construction worker , who lives in a rural area 150 miles north of the Twin Cities , claims “ tourists ’ garbage , salt runoff and fertilizer ” make the metropolitan area ’ s farmed fish inedible .
But for Johnson , the “ divide between city people and rural people ” is about much more than fish : it ’ s about how individuals relate—or don ’ t relate—to the environment .
“ People in cities are busy living in the fast lane , while rural communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going on in nature , ” explains Johnson , who says he voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and links the country ’ s bitter urban-rural divide to bad policy making : “ A lot of the politicians at the state capital pass laws because there ’ s peer pressure , ” he says .
“ But they don ’ t really know what life is like up here—and they don ’ t care about us.
” Shona Snater cites a different kind of divide .
Instead of geography , the 31-year-old soil-health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests [ are ] dictating how politicians think and act , ” especially when it comes to the environment .
“ There ’ s progress at the grassroots level , ” she adds .
“ But when farmers are using half of the fertilizer they used to use , that ’ s terrifying for agribusinesses.
” A registered Democrat , Snater says she believes both of the dominant U.S. political parties can be “ bought out.
” She blames corporations for supporting “ terrible policies ” that favor “ economies of scale ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Small and midsize farmers say , ‘ These politicians aren ’ t representing my best interests , ’ ” Snater says , noting that Minnesota has been losing dairy farms at a rate of nearly one a day .
Such frustrations around the usual mechanics of policy making are rife throughout much of the U.S .
In a 2018 Pew Research Center survey of 10,000-plus Americans , 75 percent said trust in the federal government has been shrinking .
And when the survey asked who Americans trusted to “ act in the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of respondents revealed they had the most confidence in scientists and the military—and the least in elected officials .
Brett Hennig , an advocate for alternative ways of conducting democracy , says he can understand why .
“ If you believe an ideal democracy involves informed deliberation among a representative group of people , the current electoral system fails on both counts , ” says Hennig , who has a Ph.D. in astrophysics .
He believes something called “ citizens ’ assemblies ” offer a better way to elicit policies in line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little help from an algorithm .
Hennig explains citizens ’ assemblies using simple logic : society is made up of people who are young and old , rich and poor , and mostly in between , so decisions governing it should more directly involve a group proportionally representing these kinds of characteristics .
But because many ordinary citizens may lack technical knowledge of the issues at hand , citizens ’ assemblies invite these individuals to make decisions in a “ deliberative environment ” —in which they can consult experts to “ reduce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignorance ” when learning about a problem and assessing possible solutions , Hennig says .
From there , these citizens collaboratively craft recommendations for policy makers to consider .
Philipp Verpoort , a Ph.D. candidate in physics at the University of Cambridge in England , is another scientist who advocates for citizens ’ assemblies .
“ Everyone ’ s talking about the three P ’ s : pessimism , populism and polarization .
And we ’ re at this point where people split up into groups , don ’ t trust their politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says .
“ But when people see a decision being made by people like them , they trust it.
” To turn their theories to practice , Hennig , Verpoort and their colleagues co-direct the Sortition Foundation—a nonprofit organization that offers “ selection and stratification services ” for citizens ’ assemblies and similar deliberative bodies .
The foundation ( which is financed largely by payments received for its services ) has supported about 20 such projects among the roughly 200 that various organizing bodies have hosted around the world , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most famous efforts , which the Sortition Foundation was not involved in , was held in Ireland , where a 99-person assembly prompted the nation in 2018 to repeal a law that had effectively banned abortion .
But much of the buzz today surrounds climate change and the U.K. : after a series of smaller city-based gatherings in 2019 , 110 citizens were selected earlier this year for the country ’ s Climate Assembly UK project .
Through this deliberation , participants were invited to recommend ways the U.K. government could meet its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions by 2050 .
After meeting in person and virtually over six weekends between January and May , the participants recently published their final report of policy recommendations , which range from levying a tax on frequent air travelers to investing in low-carbon public transportation .
Using an Algorithm to Build a Scale Model of a Society With a mathematician ’ s precision , Hennig explains how an algorithm he created generated the 110-person “ mini public ” from the U.K. ’ s population of 67 million .
The process began by sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s postal database .
Hennig says completely random selection would have skewed the responses toward people with higher incomes ( who are more likely to have the time and money to participate ) .
So 20 percent of the sampled individuals were randomly invited from the “ most deprived areas , ” and 80 percent were chosen at random from every region .
To further reduce the effects of income-related selection bias , participants were promised a small stipend and travel reimbursements .
Out of the 30,000 people invited , nearly 2,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven characteristics : their gender identity , age , ethnicity , educational attainment , location , description of their residence as urban or rural , and level of concern about climate change .
Hennig applied his algorithm to those 2,000 respondents to select 110 participants who would proportionally represent the U.K. with respect to those seven categories .
To begin the process , the algorithm went through the survey answers and randomly and repeatedly selected from the “ hardest category to fill , ” Hennig says .
He adds that it was initially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents among those who reported they were “ not very concerned ” or “ not at all concerned ” about climate change .
The algorithm continued by selecting for the “ most in need ” demographic— “ determined by the maximum of the ratio between number of people still required for fill a category quota and the number of people available for selection in that category , ” Verpoort explains—until it drew 110 names .
In the end , though the Climate Assembly UK Web site cautions that the algorithm “ slightly over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group ’ s distribution of the seven categories very closely matched that of the U.K .
But Jonathan Mattingly , a Duke University professor of mathematics who is also using algorithms in an attempt to help fix democracy , takes issue with that framework .
“ Who ’ s determining which categories inform decision-making ?
Maybe it ’ s your family income before you turned 16 , or whether your parents were immigrants , ” Mattingly says , referring to the seven characteristics used by Hennig and Verpoort .
“ How do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empathy and decisiveness ?
” Geoff Bedford , a participant in a “ citizens ’ jury ” ( a smaller kind of citizens ’ assembly ) on climate , in the city of Leeds , England , also expresses concerns about how such assemblies are run .
He points specifically to the expertise process .
“ Most [ participants ] seemed to rely solely on the opinion of so-called climate scientists , ” says Bedford , who doubts that humans cause climate change .
The participants , he adds , “ don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of [ the experts ’ ] reports and , understandably , accept sound bites from the mainstream media.
” Verpoort and Hennig counter that , for practicality ’ s sake , most assembly organizers prioritize experts whose research is peer-reviewed—and the vast majority of such research confirms anthropogenic global warming .
But to make sure people like Bedford were still a part of the conversation , another algorithm was used during Climate Assembly UK .
“ Once you 've got a diverse group of people representing society together in a room , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate skeptics to end up on the same table and talk to nobody else , ” Verpoort says .
To avoid this clustering , he created an algorithm to divide the 110-person sample into tables of eight individuals , among whom the seven categories—age , location , and so on—were proportionally represented .
Can Citizens ’ Assemblies Work in the U.S. ?
Even if citizens ’ assemblies prove effective elsewhere , some doubt they would work as well in the U.S.—and that the country ’ s federal and local governments would take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chissell , vice President of operations and engagement at the nonprofit environmental organization Project Drawdown , says she is “ absolutely ” convinced that ordinary Americans can help craft actionable policies .
She points to Cincinnati , where hundreds of residents participated in developing the Green Cincinnati Plan of 80 evidence-based strategies to reduce the city ’ s carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 .
“ ‘ Ordinary people ’ are very savvy when it comes to seeing the co-benefits of climate solutions , ” Chissell says , explaining that many simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and finances while also addressing climate change .
One of the U.S. ’ s prominent champions of people-powered policy making is James Fishkin , a professor of communication and political science at Stanford University .
He is known for developing Deliberative Polling , a process that—like citizens ’ assemblies—uses stratified random sampling to gather a representative group of citizens , facilitate informed deliberation among them , and highlight “ actionable priorities ” for governments .
In the past , Fishkin ’ s polls have been used to advance policies such as sustainable energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And he says that America in One Room , a recent national gathering of 523 citizens ( a stratified , random sample that was representative of the American electorate in terms of attitudes and demographics ) showed they can also build understanding across political ideologies .
“ When a candidate wants to win an election , they deploy one-sided arguments just to generate outrage , ” Fishkin says .
“ But when you empower people to go beyond tribalism and consider an issue under the best possible conditions—in an evidence-based discussion with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and less gravitation toward extremes.
” Johnson , the retired construction worker , may offer some proof of that theory .
He recently attended the Rural Climate Dialogues , a series of Minnesota-based “ citizens ’ juries ” that were hosted by the nonprofit Jefferson Center , which was one of the earliest adopters of such juries in the U.S. After taking part , he says he now firmly disagrees with Trump ’ s position on climate change and better understands its effects .
“ To hear how climate change is behind polar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forests and the heavy rains that keep my construction buddies from working—I just learned so much , ” Johnson adds .
Snater , the soil-health organizer , also says the Rural Climate Dialogues opened her mind to new perspectives .
Although she says she has spent much of her life researching climate change , Snater believes the jury helped her better understand how the phenomenon relates to the on the ground experiences of her neighbors .
“ This woman [ from the dialogues ] told a story about running out of fuel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of weeks with her kids , ” she says .
“ It was a real moment where I realized , ‘ Not everyone is in the same position I am .
’ ”

Dave Johnson refuses to eat fish farmed near Minneapolis. The retired construction worker, who lives in a rural area 150 miles north of the Twin Cities, claims “tourists’ garbage, salt runoff and fertilizer” make the metropolitan area’s farmed fish inedible. But for Johnson, the “divide between city people and rural people” is about much more than fish: it’s about how individuals relate—or don’t relate—to the environment. “People in cities are busy living in the fast lane, while rural communities are really attuned to what’s going on in nature,” explains Johnson, who says he voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and links the country’s bitter urban-rural divide to bad policy making: “A lot of the politicians at the state capital pass laws because there’s peer pressure,” he says. “But they don’t really know what life is like up here—and they don’t care about us.”
Shona Snater cites a different kind of divide. Instead of geography, the 31-year-old soil-health organizer in southeast Minnesota says “corporate interests [are] dictating how politicians think and act,” especially when it comes to the environment. “There’s progress at the grassroots level,” she adds. “But when farmers are using half of the fertilizer they used to use, that’s terrifying for agribusinesses.” A registered Democrat, Snater says she believes both of the dominant U.S. political parties can be “bought out.” She blames corporations for supporting “terrible policies” that favor “economies of scale” and leave many people behind. “Small and midsize farmers say, ‘These politicians aren’t representing my best interests,’” Snater says, noting that Minnesota has been losing dairy farms at a rate of nearly one a day.
Such frustrations around the usual mechanics of policy making are rife throughout much of the U.S. In a 2018 Pew Research Center survey of 10,000-plus Americans, 75 percent said trust in the federal government has been shrinking. And when the survey asked who Americans trusted to “act in the best interests of the public,” the majority of respondents revealed they had the most confidence in scientists and the military—and the least in elected officials. Brett Hennig, an advocate for alternative ways of conducting democracy, says he can understand why.
“If you believe an ideal democracy involves informed deliberation among a representative group of people, the current electoral system fails on both counts,” says Hennig, who has a Ph.D. in astrophysics. He believes something called “citizens’ assemblies” offer a better way to elicit policies in line with people’s real interests—with a little help from an algorithm.
Hennig explains citizens’ assemblies using simple logic: society is made up of people who are young and old, rich and poor, and mostly in between, so decisions governing it should more directly involve a group proportionally representing these kinds of characteristics. But because many ordinary citizens may lack technical knowledge of the issues at hand, citizens’ assemblies invite these individuals to make decisions in a “deliberative environment”—in which they can consult experts to “reduce the effect of biases, misleading information and ignorance” when learning about a problem and assessing possible solutions, Hennig says. From there, these citizens collaboratively craft recommendations for policy makers to consider.
Philipp Verpoort, a Ph.D. candidate in physics at the University of Cambridge in England, is another scientist who advocates for citizens’ assemblies. “Everyone’s talking about the three P’s: pessimism, populism and polarization. And we’re at this point where people split up into groups, don’t trust their politicians, and nothing gets done,” he says. “But when people see a decision being made by people like them, they trust it.”
To turn their theories to practice, Hennig, Verpoort and their colleagues co-direct the Sortition Foundation—a nonprofit organization that offers “selection and stratification services” for citizens’ assemblies and similar deliberative bodies. The foundation (which is financed largely by payments received for its services) has supported about 20 such projects among the roughly 200 that various organizing bodies have hosted around the world, according to Verpoort and Hennig. One of the most famous efforts, which the Sortition Foundation was not involved in, was held in Ireland, where a 99-person assembly prompted the nation in 2018 to repeal a law that had effectively banned abortion. But much of the buzz today surrounds climate change and the U.K.: after a series of smaller city-based gatherings in 2019, 110 citizens were selected earlier this year for the country’s Climate Assembly UK project. Through this deliberation, participants were invited to recommend ways the U.K. government could meet its legally binding target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
After meeting in person and virtually over six weekends between January and May, the participants recently published their final report of policy recommendations, which range from levying a tax on frequent air travelers to investing in low-carbon public transportation.
Using an Algorithm to Build a Scale Model of a Society
With a mathematician’s precision, Hennig explains how an algorithm he created generated the 110-person “mini public” from the U.K.’s population of 67 million. The process began by sending invitations to 30,000 households from the nation’s postal database. Hennig says completely random selection would have skewed the responses toward people with higher incomes (who are more likely to have the time and money to participate). So 20 percent of the sampled individuals were randomly invited from the “most deprived areas,” and 80 percent were chosen at random from every region. To further reduce the effects of income-related selection bias, participants were promised a small stipend and travel reimbursements.
Out of the 30,000 people invited, nearly 2,000 accepted and completed an online survey indicating seven characteristics: their gender identity, age, ethnicity, educational attainment, location, description of their residence as urban or rural, and level of concern about climate change. Hennig applied his algorithm to those 2,000 respondents to select 110 participants who would proportionally represent the U.K. with respect to those seven categories.
To begin the process, the algorithm went through the survey answers and randomly and repeatedly selected from the “hardest category to fill,” Hennig says. He adds that it was initially (and unsurprisingly) hardest to find respondents among those who reported they were “not very concerned” or “not at all concerned” about climate change. The algorithm continued by selecting for the “most in need” demographic—“determined by the maximum of the ratio between number of people still required for fill a category quota and the number of people available for selection in that category,” Verpoort explains—until it drew 110 names. In the end, though the Climate Assembly UK Web site cautions that the algorithm “slightly over sampled” certain demographics, the selected group’s distribution of the seven categories very closely matched that of the U.K.
But Jonathan Mattingly, a Duke University professor of mathematics who is also using algorithms in an attempt to help fix democracy, takes issue with that framework. “Who’s determining which categories inform decision-making? Maybe it’s your family income before you turned 16, or whether your parents were immigrants,” Mattingly says, referring to the seven characteristics used by Hennig and Verpoort. “How do we know which factors account for clarity, empathy and decisiveness?”
Geoff Bedford, a participant in a “citizens’ jury” (a smaller kind of citizens’ assembly) on climate, in the city of Leeds, England, also expresses concerns about how such assemblies are run. He points specifically to the expertise process. “Most [participants] seemed to rely solely on the opinion of so-called climate scientists,” says Bedford, who doubts that humans cause climate change. The participants, he adds, “don’t have time to read the conclusions of [the experts’] reports and, understandably, accept sound bites from the mainstream media.”
Verpoort and Hennig counter that, for practicality’s sake, most assembly organizers prioritize experts whose research is peer-reviewed—and the vast majority of such research confirms anthropogenic global warming. But to make sure people like Bedford were still a part of the conversation, another algorithm was used during Climate Assembly UK. “Once you've got a diverse group of people representing society together in a room, you don’t want all of the climate skeptics to end up on the same table and talk to nobody else,” Verpoort says. To avoid this clustering, he created an algorithm to divide the 110-person sample into tables of eight individuals, among whom the seven categories—age, location, and so on—were proportionally represented.
Can Citizens’ Assemblies Work in the U.S.?
Even if citizens’ assemblies prove effective elsewhere, some doubt they would work as well in the U.S.—and that the country’s federal and local governments would take the resulting recommendations very seriously. But Crystal Chissell, vice President of operations and engagement at the nonprofit environmental organization Project Drawdown, says she is “absolutely” convinced that ordinary Americans can help craft actionable policies. She points to Cincinnati, where hundreds of residents participated in developing the Green Cincinnati Plan of 80 evidence-based strategies to reduce the city’s carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. “‘Ordinary people’ are very savvy when it comes to seeing the co-benefits of climate solutions,” Chissell says, explaining that many simply want policies benefiting their health, well-being and finances while also addressing climate change.
One of the U.S.’s prominent champions of people-powered policy making is James Fishkin, a professor of communication and political science at Stanford University. He is known for developing Deliberative Polling, a process that—like citizens’ assemblies—uses stratified random sampling to gather a representative group of citizens, facilitate informed deliberation among them, and highlight “actionable priorities” for governments.
In the past, Fishkin’s polls have been used to advance policies such as sustainable energy choices in Texas, Nebraska and Vermont. And he says that America in One Room, a recent national gathering of 523 citizens (a stratified, random sample that was representative of the American electorate in terms of attitudes and demographics) showed they can also build understanding across political ideologies. “When a candidate wants to win an election, they deploy one-sided arguments just to generate outrage,” Fishkin says. “But when you empower people to go beyond tribalism and consider an issue under the best possible conditions—in an evidence-based discussion with multiple perspectives—there’s more policy consensus and less gravitation toward extremes.”
Johnson, the retired construction worker, may offer some proof of that theory. He recently attended the Rural Climate Dialogues, a series of Minnesota-based “citizens’ juries” that were hosted by the nonprofit Jefferson Center, which was one of the earliest adopters of such juries in the U.S. After taking part, he says he now firmly disagrees with Trump’s position on climate change and better understands its effects. “To hear how climate change is behind polar bears losing their homes, our changing forests and the heavy rains that keep my construction buddies from working—I just learned so much,” Johnson adds.
Snater, the soil-health organizer, also says the Rural Climate Dialogues opened her mind to new perspectives. Although she says she has spent much of her life researching climate change, Snater believes the jury helped her better understand how the phenomenon relates to the on the ground experiences of her neighbors. “This woman [from the dialogues] told a story about running out of fuel and living in a cold house for a couple of weeks with her kids,” she says. “It was a real moment where I realized, ‘Not everyone is in the same position I am.’”


scientificamerican--2020-09-30--Climate Change Receives Unexpected Attention at First Presidential Debate

Between cross-talk and insults , climate change got more attention last night than in any other presidential debate in history .
Voters might not have noticed .
The bare-knuckle bar fight of a presidential debate was nearing the end when it turned to fuel economy standards and the Clean Power Plan .
The candidates presented starkly different climate agendas .
But their policies were buried under a night ’ s worth of inflammatory statements—from President Trump denouncing the election ’ s legitimacy and telling white supremacists to “ standby , ” to Democratic nominee Joe Biden snapping , “ Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side emerged from the debate with climate on their lips .
“ Let ’ s try to be serious , ” debate moderator Chris Wallace said at one point as he tried to reassert control , later pausing the event to tell Trump : “ I think the country would be better served if we allow both people to speak with fewer interruptions.
” Yet their answers were still revealing .
Trump said nothing about boosting fossil fuel production , the lodestar of his administration ’ s energy agenda .
Instead , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planting trees , mischaracterizing his record on the former and getting his numbers wrong on the latter .
Trump still denied the impacts of global warming , but he dropped his mockery of climate science , and he aimed his attacks about the Green New Deal at a conventional target : its cost .
Trump also wove climate into his recurring critique of Biden as a career politician who talks about problems but doesn ’ t fix them .
“ So why didn ’ t he do it for 47 years ?
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t you get the world—China sends up real dirt into the air .
Russia does , India does , they all do , ” Trump said , shortly after disparaging the Paris climate agreement between China , India , Russia and more than 190 other countries .
Biden outlined specific aspects of his plan—including his ambitions to retrofit 4 million buildings in his first term and achieve carbon-free electricity by 2035—while trying to smother accusations of radicalism under his moderate reputation .
But he did waver under Trump ’ s familiar and sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s claim that Biden ’ s $ 2 trillion plan would actually cost $ 100 trillion .
That number comes from a conservative group that inflated its estimate by including the costs of universal health care and a jobs guarantee ( Climatewire , April 1 , 2019 ) .
“ That is not my plan .
The Green New Deal is not my plan , ” Biden said , choosing to distance himself from the progressive framework rather than defend it .
He stumbled on it later , though .
“ The Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we move forward .
We ’ re not going to build plants that , in fact , are great polluting plants , ” Biden said .
The moderator interrupted to ask if he did support the Green New Deal , and Biden backtracked .
“ No , I don ’ t support the Green New Deal , ” he responded .
Trump , who has sought to split Biden ’ s moderate and progressive supporters , interjected : “ Oh , you don ’ t ?
Oh , well that ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost the radical left—it ’ s gone !
” “ I support the Biden plan that I put forward .
The Biden plan , which is different than what he calls the ‘ radical Green New Deal , ’ ” Biden said .
The moment recalled Biden ’ s final primary debate in March when , in a heated exchange , he said his plan would ban fracking , only for his campaign to walk back that statement afterward .
Back then , Trump ’ s campaign hammered Biden as hostile to fracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania .
But the president didn ’ t go there last night .
In fact , Trump dropped almost any mention of energy jobs to instead talk about energy consumers .
Although the Clean Power Plan never entered into force , Trump claimed the Obama-era regulations on power plant emissions had spiked electricity costs .
Trump ’ s vehicle emissions rollbacks would make drivers buy more gasoline , but he said less-efficient cars would sell more cheaply .
Trump returned to that same theme for the Green New Deal .
He also floated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They want to rip down buildings and rebuild the building , ” Trump said , as Biden tried to speak over him .
“ It ’ s the dumbest , most ridiculous—where airplanes are out of business , where two-car systems are out , where they want to take out the cows , too .
Oh , that ’ s not true either , right ?
” Biden , a longtime deficit hawk , parried questions about the cost of his plan by saying it ’ s cheaper than recovering from climate-fueled disasters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend billions of dollars now—billions of dollars—on floods , hurricanes , rising seas .
We ’ re in real trouble .
Look what ’ s happening just in the Midwest with these storms that come through and wipe out entire sections in counties of Iowa .
That didn ’ t happen before , [ and it ’ s ] because of global warming , ” he said .
He pointed to his experience overseeing the 2009 stimulus , the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act .
“ [ We were ] able to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheaper than—or as cheap as—coal and gas and oil .
Nobody ’ s going to build another coal-fired plant in America .
Nobody ’ s going to build another oil-fired plant in America .
They ’ re going to move to renewable energy , ” Biden said .
Republicans have portrayed Biden as a Trojan horse for socialism .
As he did for the Green New Deal , Biden dodged right when Trump tried hitting him with proposals to his left , like Medicare for All .
“ My party is me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party , ” Biden said .
“ The platform of the Democratic Party is what I , in fact , approved of.
” That statement promises to reverberate among climate hawks , who were outraged this summer when the Democratic National Committee removed opposition to fossil fuel subsidies from the party platform at the last minute .
At the time , Biden ’ s campaign said he still opposed subsidies .
Biden said the Paris Agreement has been “ falling apart ” since Trump announced he would quit the deal .
He pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an example of what happens without U.S. diplomatic pressure backing climate action .
Trump repeated his claim that poor forest management , not climate change , is to blame for deadly wildfires in the western U.S .
Experts say both are at play .
But many scientists say Trump ’ s plans to increase logging could exacerbate the problem by removing the biggest , most valuable trees that are the most resistant to fires while leaving behind the smaller , economically worthless vegetation that becomes kindling .
“ Every year I get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , California ’ s burning.
’ If that was cleaned , if that were—if you had forest management , good forest management , you wouldn ’ t be getting those calls , ” Trump said , saying the U.S. could learn from Europe ’ s “ forest cities.
” The moderator repeatedly pressed Trump to explain his views on the connection between climate change and human pollution .
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest level in modern history , though the rate of emissions has fallen due to the pandemic ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two .
“ We have now the lowest carbon .
If you look at our numbers right now , we ’ re doing phenomenally , ” Trump said , adding later about people ’ s connection to rising temperatures : “ I think a lot of things do [ contribute ] , but I think to an extent , yes .
To an extent , yes .
But I also think we have to do better management of our forests.
” Biden referenced a report that Trump had asked his advisers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear weapon ( E & E Daily , June 9 ) .
Biden also took aim at Trump ’ s deregulation of methane , a greenhouse gas that in the short term is more than 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide .
Trump ’ s Interior Department and EPA have each moved to roll back methane regulations .
“ You can now emit more methane without it being a problem , ” Biden said .
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ www.eenews.net .

Between cross-talk and insults, climate change got more attention last night than in any other presidential debate in history.
Voters might not have noticed.
The bare-knuckle bar fight of a presidential debate was nearing the end when it turned to fuel economy standards and the Clean Power Plan.
The candidates presented starkly different climate agendas. But their policies were buried under a night’s worth of inflammatory statements—from President Trump denouncing the election’s legitimacy and telling white supremacists to “standby,” to Democratic nominee Joe Biden snapping, “Will you shut up, man.”
Neither side emerged from the debate with climate on their lips.
“Let’s try to be serious,” debate moderator Chris Wallace said at one point as he tried to reassert control, later pausing the event to tell Trump: “I think the country would be better served if we allow both people to speak with fewer interruptions.”
Yet their answers were still revealing. Trump said nothing about boosting fossil fuel production, the lodestar of his administration’s energy agenda.
Instead, he said supportive things about electric vehicles and planting trees, mischaracterizing his record on the former and getting his numbers wrong on the latter.
Trump still denied the impacts of global warming, but he dropped his mockery of climate science, and he aimed his attacks about the Green New Deal at a conventional target: its cost.
Trump also wove climate into his recurring critique of Biden as a career politician who talks about problems but doesn’t fix them.
“So why didn’t he do it for 47 years? You were vice president. Why didn’t you get the world—China sends up real dirt into the air. Russia does, India does, they all do,” Trump said, shortly after disparaging the Paris climate agreement between China, India, Russia and more than 190 other countries.
Biden outlined specific aspects of his plan—including his ambitions to retrofit 4 million buildings in his first term and achieve carbon-free electricity by 2035—while trying to smother accusations of radicalism under his moderate reputation.
But he did waver under Trump’s familiar and sometimes misleading attacks, including the president’s claim that Biden’s $2 trillion plan would actually cost $100 trillion.
That number comes from a conservative group that inflated its estimate by including the costs of universal health care and a jobs guarantee (Climatewire, April 1, 2019).
“That is not my plan. The Green New Deal is not my plan,” Biden said, choosing to distance himself from the progressive framework rather than defend it.
He stumbled on it later, though.
“The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. We’re not going to build plants that, in fact, are great polluting plants,” Biden said.
The moderator interrupted to ask if he did support the Green New Deal, and Biden backtracked.
“No, I don’t support the Green New Deal,” he responded. Trump, who has sought to split Biden’s moderate and progressive supporters, interjected: “Oh, you don’t? Oh, well that’s a big statement. That means you just lost the radical left—it’s gone!”
“I support the Biden plan that I put forward. The Biden plan, which is different than what he calls the ‘radical Green New Deal,’” Biden said.
The moment recalled Biden’s final primary debate in March when, in a heated exchange, he said his plan would ban fracking, only for his campaign to walk back that statement afterward.
Back then, Trump’s campaign hammered Biden as hostile to fracking in hopes of peeling away voters in Pennsylvania.
But the president didn’t go there last night. In fact, Trump dropped almost any mention of energy jobs to instead talk about energy consumers.
Although the Clean Power Plan never entered into force, Trump claimed the Obama-era regulations on power plant emissions had spiked electricity costs. Trump’s vehicle emissions rollbacks would make drivers buy more gasoline, but he said less-efficient cars would sell more cheaply.
Trump returned to that same theme for the Green New Deal. He also floated more outlandish criticisms of it.
“They want to rip down buildings and rebuild the building,” Trump said, as Biden tried to speak over him. “It’s the dumbest, most ridiculous—where airplanes are out of business, where two-car systems are out, where they want to take out the cows, too. Oh, that’s not true either, right?”
Biden, a longtime deficit hawk, parried questions about the cost of his plan by saying it’s cheaper than recovering from climate-fueled disasters like wildfires and hurricanes.
“We spend billions of dollars now—billions of dollars—on floods, hurricanes, rising seas. We’re in real trouble. Look what’s happening just in the Midwest with these storms that come through and wipe out entire sections in counties of Iowa. That didn’t happen before, [and it’s] because of global warming,” he said.
He pointed to his experience overseeing the 2009 stimulus, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
“[We were] able to bring down the cost of renewable energy to cheaper than—or as cheap as—coal and gas and oil. Nobody’s going to build another coal-fired plant in America. Nobody’s going to build another oil-fired plant in America. They’re going to move to renewable energy,” Biden said.
Republicans have portrayed Biden as a Trojan horse for socialism. As he did for the Green New Deal, Biden dodged right when Trump tried hitting him with proposals to his left, like Medicare for All.
“My party is me. Right now, I am the Democratic Party,” Biden said. “The platform of the Democratic Party is what I, in fact, approved of.”
That statement promises to reverberate among climate hawks, who were outraged this summer when the Democratic National Committee removed opposition to fossil fuel subsidies from the party platform at the last minute. At the time, Biden’s campaign said he still opposed subsidies.
Biden said the Paris Agreement has been “falling apart” since Trump announced he would quit the deal. He pointed to Brazil’s rainforest destruction as an example of what happens without U.S. diplomatic pressure backing climate action.
Trump repeated his claim that poor forest management, not climate change, is to blame for deadly wildfires in the western U.S.
Experts say both are at play. But many scientists say Trump’s plans to increase logging could exacerbate the problem by removing the biggest, most valuable trees that are the most resistant to fires while leaving behind the smaller, economically worthless vegetation that becomes kindling.
“Every year I get the call, ‘California’s burning, California’s burning.’ If that was cleaned, if that were—if you had forest management, good forest management, you wouldn’t be getting those calls,” Trump said, saying the U.S. could learn from Europe’s “forest cities.”
The moderator repeatedly pressed Trump to explain his views on the connection between climate change and human pollution.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the highest level in modern history, though the rate of emissions has fallen due to the pandemic’s temporary lockdowns. Trump seemed to conflate the two.
“We have now the lowest carbon. If you look at our numbers right now, we’re doing phenomenally,” Trump said, adding later about people’s connection to rising temperatures: “I think a lot of things do [contribute], but I think to an extent, yes. To an extent, yes. But I also think we have to do better management of our forests.”
Biden referenced a report that Trump had asked his advisers in 2019 about stopping a hurricane with a nuclear weapon (E&E Daily, June 9).
Biden also took aim at Trump’s deregulation of methane, a greenhouse gas that in the short term is more than 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Trump’s Interior Department and EPA have each moved to roll back methane regulations.
“You can now emit more methane without it being a problem,” Biden said.
Trump shook his head: “Not true.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.