scientificamerican--2020-10-16--Coronavirus Drug Remdesivir Shortens Recovery but Is Not a Magic Bullet

Editor ’ s Note ( 10/16/20 ) : This story is being republished in light of the interim results of a large international clinical trial of remdesivir by the World Health Organization .
The trial found that the drug , which is widely used to treat COVID patients , failed to prevent deaths .
An experimental drug—and one of the world ’ s best hopes against COVID-19—could shorten the time to recovery from coronavirus infection , according to the largest and most rigorous clinical trial of the compound .
The experimental drug , called remdesivir , interferes with replication of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for the current pandemic .
On 29 April , Anthony Fauci , director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease ( NIAID ) , announced that a clinical trial of more than a thousand people showed that people taking remdesivir recovered in 11 days on average , compared to 15 days for those on a placebo .
“ Although a 31 % improvement doesn ’ t seem like a knockout 100 % , it is a very important proof of concept , ” Fauci said .
“ What it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block this virus.
” Deaths were also lower in trial participants who received the drug , he said , but that trend was not statistically significant .
The shortened recovery time , however , was significant , and was enough of a benefit that investigators decided to stop the trial early for ethical reasons , he said , to ensure that those participants who were receiving placebo could now access the drug .
Fauci added that remdesivir would become a standard treatment for COVID-19 .
The news comes after weeks of data leaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from clinical trials of the drug .
In a trial run by the drug ’ s maker , Gilead Sciences of Foster City , California , more than half of 400 participants with severe COVID-19 recovered from their illness within two weeks of receiving treatment .
But the study lacked a placebo controlled arm , making the results difficult to interpret .
Another smaller trial run in China found no benefits from remdesivir when compared with a placebo .
But the trial was stopped early due to the difficulty in enroling participants as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , onlookers are hopeful that the large NIAID trial provides the first glimmer of hope in a race to find a drug that works against the coronavirus , which has infected more than 3 million people worldwide .
“ There is a lot of focus on remdesivir because it ’ s potentially the best shot we have , ” says virologist Stephen Griffin at the University of Leeds in the UK .
The fast-flowing , conflicting information on remdesivir has left people reeling over the past weeks .
In the rush to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical trials without control groups have been common .
“ I ’ m just very annoyed by all of these non-controlled studies , ” says Geoffrey Porges , an analyst for the investment bank SVB Leerink in New York City .
“ It ’ s reassuring that 50–60 % of patients are discharged from the hospital , but this is a disease that mostly gets better anyway.
” With so much uncertainty , the remdesivir-watchers were waiting anxiously for final results from the NIAID trial , which were not expected until the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine , which could still be more than a year away , effective therapies are critical to reducing deaths and limiting economic damage from the pandemic .
Yet , despite the flood of small clinical trials , no therapy has been convincingly shown to boost survival in people with COVID-19 .
The NIAID results put a new sheen on remdesivir .
“ It may not be the wonder drug that everyone ’ s looking for , but if you can stop some patients from becoming critically ill , that ’ s good enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the finding reminded him of the discovery in the 1980s that the drug AZT helped to combat HIV infection .
The first randomized , controlled clinical only showed a modest improvement , he said , but researchers continued to build on that success , eventually developing highly effective therapies .
For now , he said , remdesivir would become a standard treatment for COVID-19 .
Remdesivir works by gumming up an enzyme that some viruses , including SARS-CoV-2 , use to replicate .
In February , researchers showed that the drug reduces viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laboratory .
Gilead began to ramp up production of remdesivir well before the NIAID results .
By the end of March , the company had produced enough to treat 30,000 patients .
By streamlining its manufacturing process and finding new sources of raw materials , Gilead announced that it hoped to produce enough remdesivir to treat more than a million people by the end of the year .
That calculation was based on the assumption that people would take the drug for 10 days , but the results announced from Gilead ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of treatment could work just as well .
If so , that would effectively double the number of people who could be treated , says Porges .
In the long term , clinicians will likely want a bevy of anti-viral drugs—with different ways of disabling the virus—in their arsenal , says Timothy Sheahan , a virologist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill , who has teamed up with Gilead researchers to study remdesivir .
“ There is always the potential for antiviral resistance , ” he says .
“ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s good to have not only a first-line , but also a second- , third- , fourth- , fifth-line antiviral.
” Researchers are furiously testing a wide range of therapies , but early results , while not yet definitive , have not been encouraging .
The malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine , both of which also have anti-inflammatory effects , drew so much attention from physicians and the public that some countries have depleted their supplies of the drugs .
Yet studies in humans have failed to show a consistent benefit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by side effects of the drugs on the heart .
Early interest in a mix of two HIV drugs called lopinavir and ritonavir flagged when a clinical trial in nearly 200 people did not find any benefit of the mix for those with severe COVID-19 .
Another promising therapeutic hypothesis—that inhibiting the action of an immune system regulator called IL-6 could reduce the severe inflammation seen in some people with severe COVID-19—has met with mixed results thus far .
Still , a host of other therapies are being tested in people , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the bench .
Sheahan and his colleagues have found a compound that is active against SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses , including a remdesivir-resistant variant of a coronavirus , when tested in laboratory-grown human cells .
But much more testing would need to be done before the compound could be tried in people .
“ What we ’ re doing now will hopefully have an impact on the current pandemic , ” he says .
“ But maybe more importantly , it could position us to better respond more quickly in the future.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was first published on April 29 2020 .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak here .

Editor’s Note (10/22/20): The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir today for adults and children 12 years and older who weigh at least 40 kilograms. It is the first approved treatment for COVID-19 in the U.S.
An experimental drug—and one of the world’s best hopes against COVID-19—could shorten the time to recovery from coronavirus infection, according to the largest and most rigorous clinical trial of the compound.
The experimental drug, called remdesivir, interferes with replication of some viruses, including the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the current pandemic. On 29 April, Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), announced that a clinical trial of more than a thousand people showed that people taking remdesivir recovered in 11 days on average, compared to 15 days for those on a placebo.
“Although a 31% improvement doesn’t seem like a knockout 100%, it is a very important proof of concept,” Fauci said. “What it has proven is that a drug can block this virus.”
Deaths were also lower in trial participants who received the drug, he said, but that trend was not statistically significant. The shortened recovery time, however, was significant, and was enough of a benefit that investigators decided to stop the trial early for ethical reasons, he said, to ensure that those participants who were receiving placebo could now access the drug. Fauci added that remdesivir would become a standard treatment for COVID-19.
The news comes after weeks of data leaks and on a day of mixed results from clinical trials of the drug. In a trial run by the drug’s maker, Gilead Sciences of Foster City, California, more than half of 400 participants with severe COVID-19 recovered from their illness within two weeks of receiving treatment. But the study lacked a placebo controlled arm, making the results difficult to interpret. Another smaller trial run in China found no benefits from remdesivir when compared with a placebo. But the trial was stopped early due to the difficulty in enroling participants as the outbreak subsided in China. Nevertheless, onlookers are hopeful that the large NIAID trial provides the first glimmer of hope in a race to find a drug that works against the coronavirus, which has infected more than 3 million people worldwide.
“There is a lot of focus on remdesivir because it’s potentially the best shot we have,” says virologist Stephen Griffin at the University of Leeds in the UK.
Small trials
The fast-flowing, conflicting information on remdesivir has left people reeling over the past weeks. In the rush to find therapies to combat COVID-19, small, clinical trials without control groups have been common. “I’m just very annoyed by all of these non-controlled studies,” says Geoffrey Porges, an analyst for the investment bank SVB Leerink in New York City. “It’s reassuring that 50–60% of patients are discharged from the hospital, but this is a disease that mostly gets better anyway.”
With so much uncertainty, the remdesivir-watchers were waiting anxiously for final results from the NIAID trial, which were not expected until the end of May. In lieu of a vaccine, which could still be more than a year away, effective therapies are critical to reducing deaths and limiting economic damage from the pandemic. Yet, despite the flood of small clinical trials, no therapy has been convincingly shown to boost survival in people with COVID-19.
The NIAID results put a new sheen on remdesivir. “It may not be the wonder drug that everyone’s looking for, but if you can stop some patients from becoming critically ill, that’s good enough,” says Griffin.
Fauci said the finding reminded him of the discovery in the 1980s that the drug AZT helped to combat HIV infection. The first randomized, controlled clinical only showed a modest improvement, he said, but researchers continued to build on that success, eventually developing highly effective therapies. For now, he said, remdesivir would become a standard treatment for COVID-19.
Remdesivir works by gumming up an enzyme that some viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, use to replicate. In February, researchers showed that the drug reduces viral infection in human cells grown in a laboratory.
Gilead began to ramp up production of remdesivir well before the NIAID results. By the end of March, the company had produced enough to treat 30,000 patients. By streamlining its manufacturing process and finding new sources of raw materials, Gilead announced that it hoped to produce enough remdesivir to treat more than a million people by the end of the year.
That calculation was based on the assumption that people would take the drug for 10 days, but the results announced from Gilead’s trial today suggest that a 5-day course of treatment could work just as well. If so, that would effectively double the number of people who could be treated, says Porges.
Many drugs needed
In the long term, clinicians will likely want a bevy of anti-viral drugs—with different ways of disabling the virus—in their arsenal, says Timothy Sheahan, a virologist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, who has teamed up with Gilead researchers to study remdesivir. “There is always the potential for antiviral resistance,” he says. “And to hedge against that potential, it’s good to have not only a first-line, but also a second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-line antiviral.”
Researchers are furiously testing a wide range of therapies, but early results, while not yet definitive, have not been encouraging. The malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, both of which also have anti-inflammatory effects, drew so much attention from physicians and the public that some countries have depleted their supplies of the drugs. Yet studies in humans have failed to show a consistent benefit, and some have highlighted the risks posed by side effects of the drugs on the heart.
Early interest in a mix of two HIV drugs called lopinavir and ritonavir flagged when a clinical trial in nearly 200 people did not find any benefit of the mix for those with severe COVID-19. Another promising therapeutic hypothesis—that inhibiting the action of an immune system regulator called IL-6 could reduce the severe inflammation seen in some people with severe COVID-19—has met with mixed results thus far.
Still, a host of other therapies are being tested in people, and many researchers are hunting for new drugs at the bench. Sheahan and his colleagues have found a compound that is active against SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses, including a remdesivir-resistant variant of a coronavirus, when tested in laboratory-grown human cells.
But much more testing would need to be done before the compound could be tried in people. “What we’re doing now will hopefully have an impact on the current pandemic,” he says. “But maybe more importantly, it could position us to better respond more quickly in the future.”
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on April 29 2020.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak here.


scientificamerican--2020-10-16--Don't Expect a COVID Vaccine before the Election

During a press conference in early September , President Donald Trump was asked when he thought a vaccine for COVID-19 might become available .
His prediction was upbeat : “ We ’ re going to have a vaccine very soon , ” Trump said .
“ Maybe even before a very special day—you know what day I ’ m talking about.
” Trump was referring , of course , to the presidential election on November 3 .
But the odds of a vaccine materializing for public use before then appear slim .
New drugs and vaccines ordinarily go through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Vaccines for COVID-19 , however , are widely expected to be released under emergency use authorization ( EUA ) protocols , which allow for the sale of unapproved medical products during national health crises .
On October 6 the White House agreed to new EUA guidelines that call on COVID-19 vaccine developers to monitor their phase III clinical trial subjects for at least two months for side effects and severe disease .
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration , which administers EUAs , will host a widely anticipated meeting on October 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines .
But the FDA ’ s recommended two-month observation period puts a preelection vaccine approval out of reach .
EUAs could , however , make the first successful COVID-19 vaccines available to frontline workers by the start of 2021 , although distribution in the general U.S. population will take longer , starting with elderly and other high-risk groups and then younger , healthier people who may not have access to them until late in the year , according to Paul Offit , a pediatrician and director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hospital of Philadelphia .
The FDA has already granted hundreds of COVID-related EUAs for products such as diagnostic tests , medical devices and therapies—including for convalescent plasma and hydroxychloroquine ( the latter was later revoked ) .
“ All the COVID-19 vaccine developers are going for an EUA first , ” says Eric Topol , a cardiologist and head of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla , Calif. , who has directed numerous multinational clinical trials ( although none for vaccines ) .
“ It makes no sense to wait for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how independent reviewers judge a vaccine ’ s performance during periodic readouts of phase III clinical trial data .
The trials are each enrolling tens of thousands of people and are also double-blinded—meaning that neither the subjects nor the experimenters know which participants got a vaccine versus a placebo .
They were designed to continue until the number of symptomatic infections reaches 150 in the vaccinated and control groups combined .
If a vaccine halves the risk of symptomatic infections among the vaccinated group , it will meet the FDA ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interim data readouts will be looking for better protection than that .
Pfizer , which began a phase III trial for its vaccine on July 27 , plans to conduct its first readout when the number of symptomatic cases reaches 32 .
The company expects that could happen this month , making it first in line for a potential EUA .
Statistical thresholds are set such that if COVID case numbers in the vaccinated group are , at that point , at least five times lower than they are among vaccinated subjects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In that event , the company will “ consult with regulatory authorities about next steps , ” which could include an EUA , says a Pfizer spokesperson .
In an October 16 open letter , Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla wrote that if the efficacy data are positive , the company will apply for an EUA in the U.S. “ soon after the safety milestone is achieved in the third week of November.
” The company ’ s study protocol also includes data readouts at 62 , 92 and 120 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection the vaccine has to achieve at each step declines progressively until it reaches the FDA ’ s minimum target of 50 percent .
Other companies racing to develop COVID-19 vaccines are taking a less aggressive approach : Cambridge , Mass.–based Moderna , for instance , plans for a first data readout when it reaches 53 cases among its study subjects and another at 106 cases .
The company anticipates filing for an EUA in late November .
Meanwhile Johnson & Johnson recently paused its clinical trials after a participant got sick .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ AstraZeneca , which has since resumed its trials outside of the U.S. A significant issue is how vaccine developers will continue to assess safety and efficacy after an EUA .
The FDA has said they should include strategies for monitoring a vaccine ’ s long-term performance in their EUA applications and generate the data needed to support future licensing .
The agency has also stressed that companies should continue collecting placebo-controlled trial data for as long as feasible .
Yet Pfizer representatives said in an e-mail that if an interim readout shows overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unblind the data , vaccinate placebo recipients and then follow all the subjects in an unblinded fashion—meaning experimenters and participants would know who got the vaccine .
( A Pfizer spokesperson later said the company would only unblind the study with regulatory approval . )
The problem with unblinding the data is that a compromised control group “ makes it harder to ascertain a vaccine ’ s risks and benefits and , in particular , how well it protects against severe disease—which isn ’ t as common as milder infections , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle , who helped design clinical trials for the leading U.S. candidates .
Topol argues that with a few more weeks , developers could amass the 150 cases that might allow them to more fully assess protection from severe disease , especially in elderly and other vulnerable populations .
“ There shouldn ’ t be any shortcuts , ” he says .
“ We ’ re talking about giving these vaccines to billions of people .
You can ’ t risk compromising public trust.
” Echoing those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease specialist at Rutgers University ’ s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School , worries that doctors who mainly treat African-Americans and other people of color might be reluctant to recommend vaccines that they believe have not been adequately tested in these populations .
Black Americans are hospitalized with COVID-19 at nearly three times the rate white Americans are , so with vaccination , “ we need time to look at potential harms in all ethnic , age and gender groups , ” she says .
Still , if a vaccine ’ s interim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent or greater—there will be “ appropriate pressure to offer it to control groups immediately , ” Gilbert says .
These sorts of scenarios are under discussion now , he says , and what is unknown is how many control subjects will opt to be vaccinated if given the opportunity .
Gilbert adds that more safety and efficacy data will come from so-called phase IV studies , which monitor immunized people after a vaccine has reached the market .
One way to conduct these studies is for researchers to scour health data for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ histories among them .
Vaccine developers are already gearing up for what is expected to be the largest immunization program in history .
Larry St. Onge , president of life sciences and health care at the global shipping company DHL , says the “ mRNA vaccines ” developed by Pfizer and Moderna , which need to be stored at temperatures below –70 degrees Celsius , will face the greatest distribution challenges , especially in parts of the developing world where climates are harsh .
Even as vaccine manufacturing ramps up to meet global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the capacity for vaccine delivery that “ we don ’ t currently have in some countries , ” St. Onge says .
“ This takes a lot of planning and forethought .
But the world fully understands how important it is to get these vaccines out here so we can achieve some level of normalcy.
” Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

During a press conference in early September, President Donald Trump was asked when he thought a vaccine for COVID-19 might become available. His prediction was upbeat: “We’re going to have a vaccine very soon,” Trump said. “Maybe even before a very special day—you know what day I’m talking about.”
Trump was referring, of course, to the presidential election on November 3. But the odds of a vaccine materializing for public use before then appear slim. New drugs and vaccines ordinarily go through a lengthy review process prior to regulatory approval. Vaccines for COVID-19, however, are widely expected to be released under emergency use authorization (EUA) protocols, which allow for the sale of unapproved medical products during national health crises. On October 6 the White House agreed to new EUA guidelines that call on COVID-19 vaccine developers to monitor their phase III clinical trial subjects for at least two months for side effects and severe disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which administers EUAs, will host a widely anticipated meeting on October 22 to address standards for efficacy, safety and manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines. But the FDA’s recommended two-month observation period puts a preelection vaccine approval out of reach.
EUAs could, however, make the first successful COVID-19 vaccines available to frontline workers by the start of 2021, although distribution in the general U.S. population will take longer, starting with elderly and other high-risk groups and then younger, healthier people who may not have access to them until late in the year, according to Paul Offit, a pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The FDA has already granted hundreds of COVID-related EUAs for products such as diagnostic tests, medical devices and therapies—including for convalescent plasma and hydroxychloroquine (the latter was later revoked).
“All the COVID-19 vaccine developers are going for an EUA first,” says Eric Topol, a cardiologist and head of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., who has directed numerous multinational clinical trials (although none for vaccines). “It makes no sense to wait for formal licensure.”
Defining Success
Obtaining an EUA hinges on how independent reviewers judge a vaccine’s performance during periodic readouts of phase III clinical trial data. The trials are each enrolling tens of thousands of people and are also double-blinded—meaning that neither the subjects nor the experimenters know which participants got a vaccine versus a placebo. They were designed to continue until the number of symptomatic infections reaches 150 in the vaccinated and control groups combined. If a vaccine halves the risk of symptomatic infections among the vaccinated group, it will meet the FDA’s minimum bar for approval.
Reviewers examining the interim data readouts will be looking for better protection than that. Pfizer, which began a phase III trial for its vaccine on July 27, plans to conduct its first readout when the number of symptomatic cases reaches 32. The company expects that could happen this month, making it first in line for a potential EUA. Statistical thresholds are set such that if COVID case numbers in the vaccinated group are, at that point, at least five times lower than they are among unvaccinated subjects, then reviewers can declare overwhelming efficacy. In that event, the company will “consult with regulatory authorities about next steps,” which could include an EUA, says a Pfizer spokesperson. In an October 16 open letter, Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla wrote that if the efficacy data are positive, the company will apply for an EUA in the U.S. “soon after the safety milestone is achieved in the third week of November.” The company’s study protocol also includes data readouts at 62, 92 and 120 cases, respectively, although the amount of protection the vaccine has to achieve at each step declines progressively until it reaches the FDA’s minimum target of 50 percent.
Other companies racing to develop COVID-19 vaccines are taking a less aggressive approach: Cambridge, Mass.–based Moderna, for instance, plans for a first data readout when it reaches 53 cases among its study subjects and another at 106 cases. The company anticipates filing for an EUA in late November. Meanwhile Johnson & Johnson recently paused its clinical trials after a participant got sick. This delay follows a similar pause by AstraZeneca, which has since resumed its trials outside of the U.S.
What Happens Postapproval
A significant issue is how vaccine developers will continue to assess safety and efficacy after an EUA. The FDA has said they should include strategies for monitoring a vaccine’s long-term performance in their EUA applications and generate the data needed to support future licensing. The agency has also stressed that companies should continue collecting placebo-controlled trial data for as long as feasible. Yet Pfizer representatives said in an e-mail that if an interim readout shows overwhelming efficacy, they have the option to unblind the data, vaccinate placebo recipients and then follow all the subjects in an unblinded fashion—meaning experimenters and participants would know who got the vaccine. (A Pfizer spokesperson later said the company would only unblind the study with regulatory approval.)
The problem with unblinding the data is that a compromised control group “makes it harder to ascertain a vaccine’s risks and benefits and, in particular, how well it protects against severe disease—which isn’t as common as milder infections,” says Peter Gilbert, a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who helped design clinical trials for the leading U.S. candidates.
Topol argues that with a few more weeks, developers could amass the 150 cases that might allow them to more fully assess protection from severe disease, especially in elderly and other vulnerable populations. “There shouldn’t be any shortcuts,” he says. “We’re talking about giving these vaccines to billions of people. You can’t risk compromising public trust.”
Echoing those concerns, Patricia Whitley-Williams, an infectious disease specialist at Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, worries that doctors who mainly treat African-Americans and other people of color might be reluctant to recommend vaccines that they believe have not been adequately tested in these populations. Black Americans are hospitalized with COVID-19 at nearly three times the rate white Americans are, so with vaccination, “we need time to look at potential harms in all ethnic, age and gender groups,” she says.
Still, if a vaccine’s interim review shows very high efficacy—say, 90 percent or greater—there will be “appropriate pressure to offer it to control groups immediately,” Gilbert says. These sorts of scenarios are under discussion now, he says, and what is unknown is how many control subjects will opt to be vaccinated if given the opportunity. Gilbert adds that more safety and efficacy data will come from so-called phase IV studies, which monitor immunized people after a vaccine has reached the market. One way to conduct these studies is for researchers to scour health data for cases of severe COVID-19 and assess vaccination histories among them.
Vaccine developers are already gearing up for what is expected to be the largest immunization program in history. Larry St. Onge, president of life sciences and health care at the global shipping company DHL, says the “mRNA vaccines” developed by Pfizer and Moderna, which need to be stored at temperatures below –70 degrees Celsius, will face the greatest distribution challenges, especially in parts of the developing world where climates are harsh. Even as vaccine manufacturing ramps up to meet global demand, the logistics industry is building the capacity for vaccine delivery that “we don’t currently have in some countries,” St. Onge says. “This takes a lot of planning and forethought. But the world fully understands how important it is to get these vaccines out here so we can achieve some level of normalcy.”
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-10-16--Melting Candy Gives Mathematicians Insight into How Some Landscapes Form

In this time-lapse video , mathematicians at New York University immersed a block of blue candy in water and filmed it as it dissolved .
The candy surface sunk unevenly as some areas melted faster than others , creating ever sharper and longer shards .
Eventually the forest of candy spikes toppled as each “ tree ” fell .
The researchers were aiming to mimic the natural processes that form stone forests—stunning rocky pinnacles of limestone—such as the famous Stone Forestin Kunming , China .
The formation processes behind these “ tall , slender , and sharply tipped ” rock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists wrote in a paper published on September 22 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA .
Though the geologic mechanisms are complex , the study showed that the relatively simple process of melting a solid in a liquid produced strikingly similar spikes .
The scientists hope that by clarifying how stone forests might form , they can aid conservation efforts .
Science in Images is a new category of articles featuring photographs and videos from all the disciplines of science .
Click on the button below to see the @ @ @

In this time-lapse video, mathematicians at New York University immersed a block of blue candy in water and filmed its dissolution. The candy surface sunk unevenly as some areas dissolved faster than others, creating ever sharper and longer shards. Eventually the forest of candy spikes toppled as each “tree” fell.
The researchers were aiming to mimic the natural processes that form stone forests—stunning rocky pinnacles of limestone—such as the famous Stone Forestin Kunming, China. The formation processes behind these “tall, slender, and sharply tipped” rock spires “remain unclear,” the scientists wrote in a paper published on September 22 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. Though the geologic mechanisms are complex, the study showed that the relatively simple process of dissolving a solid in a liquid produced strikingly similar spikes. The scientists hope that by clarifying how stone forests might form, they can aid conservation efforts.
Science in Images is a new category of articles featuring photographs and videos from all the disciplines of science. Click on the button below to see the full collection.
Science in Images
Editor’s Note (10/22/20): This article has been edited after posting. It originally included incorrect references to the candy “melting.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-16--Humans Make Wild Animals Less Wary

Humans Make Wild Animals Less Wary

Wild animals are equipped with a variety of techniques to avoid becoming lunch for a bigger , toothier animal .
The most well-known methods include the classic “ fight ” and “ flight , ” as well as “ freeze.
” A team of researchers wondered how proximity to people might impact those survival strategies .
“ We often see that animals are more tolerant around us in urban areas , but we do n't really know why.
” “ Is it a filtering process where only the tolerant animals are there ?
Is it individual plasticity , meaning individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that leads to tolerance ?
Or can there be an evolutionary dynamic occurring ?
” To find out , Blumstein and colleagues combined information from 173 studies of more than 100 species , including mammals , birds , reptiles , fish and even mollusks .
Turns out that regardless of evolutionary lineage , the animals react in a similar way to life among humans : they lose their antipredator traits .
That pattern is especially pronounced for herbivores and for social species .
This behavioral change is perhaps unsurprising when it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a controlled breeding paradigm .
But it turns out that urbanization alone results in a similar change , though much more slowly—around three times more slowly .
The results are in the journal PLOS Biology .
[ Benjamin Geffroy et al.
, Evolutionary dynamics in the Anthropocene : Life history and intensity of human contact shape antipredator responses ] “ The main point is : we ’ re essentially domesticating animals by urbanization .
We ’ re selecting for the same sorts of traits that we would if we were actually trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helps animals better coexist with people , it could be to their benefit .
But if it makes them more vulnerable to their nonhuman predators , it could be a real problem .
Either way , these results mean that city living exerts enough of an influence on wild animals that evolutionary processes kick in .
Those reductions in antipredator traits become encoded in their genes .
“ We ’ re changing the population genetics and changing genetic variation .
We are reducing , we are eliminating variation .
And if variation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conservation , then that ’ s something to be concerned with.
” What the researchers now wonder is whether the mere presence of tourists in less urbanized areas can instigate similar changes in wild animals .
If so , serious questions exist for the notion of ethical , welfare-oriented ecotourism .
If we wish to help animals retain their antipredator defenses , the researchers say , we might have to intentionally expose animals to predators—or at least to predator-related cues .
“ It ’ s just yet one other way that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” [ The above text is a transcript of this podcast . ]

Full Transcript
Groundhog (bottom left) near Borg Cube, Bronx, NY Photo by Steve Mirsky
Wild animals are equipped with a variety of techniques to avoid becoming lunch for a bigger, toothier animal. The most well-known methods include the classic “fight” and “flight,” as well as “freeze.” A team of researchers wondered how proximity to people might impact those survival strategies.
“We often see that animals are more tolerant around us in urban areas, but we don't really know why.”
U.C.L.A. evolutionary biologist Dan Blumstein.
“Is it a filtering process where only the tolerant animals are there? Is it individual plasticity, meaning individuals change their fear of us, and that leads to tolerance? Or can there be an evolutionary dynamic occurring?”
To find out, Blumstein and colleagues combined information from 173 studies of more than 100 species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and even mollusks. Turns out that regardless of evolutionary lineage, the animals react in a similar way to life among humans: they lose their antipredator traits. That pattern is especially pronounced for herbivores and for social species.
This behavioral change is perhaps unsurprising when it’s intentional, the result of domestication and a controlled breeding paradigm. But it turns out that urbanization alone results in a similar change, though much more slowly—around three times more slowly. The results are in the journal PLOS Biology. [Benjamin Geffroy et al., Evolutionary dynamics in the Anthropocene: Life history and intensity of human contact shape antipredator responses]
“The main point is: we’re essentially domesticating animals by urbanization. We’re selecting for the same sorts of traits that we would if we were actually trying to domesticate them.”
If the urbanization process helps animals better coexist with people, it could be to their benefit. But if it makes them more vulnerable to their nonhuman predators, it could be a real problem.
Either way, these results mean that city living exerts enough of an influence on wild animals that evolutionary processes kick in. Those reductions in antipredator traits become encoded in their genes.
“We’re changing the population genetics and changing genetic variation. We are reducing, we are eliminating variation. And if variation is a good thing and is a target of conservation, then that’s something to be concerned with.”
What the researchers now wonder is whether the mere presence of tourists in less urbanized areas can instigate similar changes in wild animals. If so, serious questions exist for the notion of ethical, welfare-oriented ecotourism. If we wish to help animals retain their antipredator defenses, the researchers say, we might have to intentionally expose animals to predators—or at least to predator-related cues.
“It’s just yet one other way that we’re changing the world around us.”
—Jason G. Goldman
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-10-16--Supreme Court Nominee Barrett Resisted Climate Science, but Other Judges Have Embraced It

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett raised a remarkable question among legal experts when she declined to affirm the presence of rising temperatures and their human-driven causes .
Would acknowledging climate change jeopardize her ability to appear impartial when overseeing cases involving global warming ?
The facts of climate change are well-established , and some experts note that judges have a responsibility to acknowledge them unequivocally in order to rule on questions related to the powers of federal agencies .
“ Casting doubt on the validity and importance of [ climate change ] itself , as Barrett does , raises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lawyer with the Defenders of Wildlife , said in an email .
“ If you can not admit climate change is real and that humans are the cause , how can you fairly assess the validity of laws and regulations enacted to address it ?
” Other judges haven ’ t had a problem affirming the science of climate change , including Justice Brett Kavanaugh , who was appointed to the high court by President Trump in 2018 .
“ The Earth is warming , and humans are contributing , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; I understand that very well , ” Kavanaugh said in 2016 when serving on federal appellate court .
His comments came during arguments over the Obama-era Clean Power Plan .
He continued later : “ There ’ s a huge policy imperative here ; there ’ s a moral imperative.
” He even mentioned that Pope Francis was pressing for climate action .
That contrasts sharply with Barrett ’ s refusals during her Senate confirmation hearing this week to give a clear answer on whether climate change is happening .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to opine on what causes global warming or not , ” Barrett said on Tuesday .
She added later , “ I don ’ t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge ” ( Climatewire , Oct. 15 ) .
Some experts , like Jeff Holmstead , a partner with Bracewell LLP , suggest that Barrett ’ s personal views on climate science won ’ t affect how she actually applies the law , especially since climate cases mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not whether it ’ s a problem at all .
“ I think what [ advocates ] would say is , ‘ We need justices who understand just how serious this is , because if they understand that this is a crisis , they will be more likely to let EPA take aggressive action , ’ ” Holmstead said .
“ But I just don ’ t think that ’ s the way even democratically appointed justices ... view their role.
” But there shouldn ’ t be any dispute within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the Supreme Court ’ s ruling in the landmark climate case Massachusetts v. EPA , said Vicki Arroyo , executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center .
The ruling led to EPA ’ s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases and granted the agency its authority to regulate them .
She and others raised concerns about how the global warming questions were asked by lawmakers , as though one can “ believe ” in climate change as opposed to accepting it as undisputed .
“ It ’ s a scientific fact , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus being contagious , or smoking causing cancer is , ” Arroyo said , “ and so the fact that you even have to ask that and get a non-answer for three days is alarming to me.
” Judges often attempt to understand science as part of their decisionmaking .
Hana Vizcarra , a staff attorney with Harvard Law School , noted that judicial questions regarding climate change are no different .
“ At a time when many judges are recognizing the need to educate themselves on the basic facts and science around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is interesting that [ Barrett ] feels the topic is not relevant to the job , ” she said in an email .
In 2018 , Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered lawyers involved in a climate liability case to present lengthy presentations on climate science .
Alsup called it a tutorial .
He ended up scrapping the case , but said in his ruling that the “ order accepts the science behind global warming ” ( Climatewire , June 26 , 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is known to happen .
In a rare leaked email exchange between judges last year , District Judge Emmet Sullivan suggested that his colleagues attend a judicial climate information session held by the Environmental Law Institute ( Climatewire , Aug. 19 , 2019 ) .
Not everyone was receptive to the idea .
Senior Judge Raymond Randolph of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lambasted Sullivan for flagging the session , telling him that “ the jurisdiction assigned to you does not include saving the planet.
” Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with basic science is essential to deciding cases , especially as climate change lawsuits proliferate .
“ Climate change is impacting our lives , businesses and communities and , as it does , the law , ” said Vizcarra of Harvard .
“ It will increasingly become part of the fact patterns [ Barrett ] will be charged with evaluating should she be confirmed.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett raised a remarkable question among legal experts when she declined to affirm the presence of rising temperatures and their human-driven causes.
Would acknowledging climate change jeopardize her ability to appear impartial when overseeing cases involving global warming?
The facts of climate change are well-established, and some experts note that judges have a responsibility to acknowledge them unequivocally in order to rule on questions related to the powers of federal agencies.
“Casting doubt on the validity and importance of [climate change] itself, as Barrett does, raises serious concerns,” Jason Rylander, a lawyer with the Defenders of Wildlife, said in an email. “If you cannot admit climate change is real and that humans are the cause, how can you fairly assess the validity of laws and regulations enacted to address it?”
Other judges haven’t had a problem affirming the science of climate change, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed to the high court by President Trump in 2018.
“The Earth is warming, and humans are contributing, and I understand the international collective action problem here; I understand that very well,” Kavanaugh said in 2016 when serving on federal appellate court.
His comments came during arguments over the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.
He continued later: “There’s a huge policy imperative here; there’s a moral imperative.” He even mentioned that Pope Francis was pressing for climate action.
That contrasts sharply with Barrett’s refusals during her Senate confirmation hearing this week to give a clear answer on whether climate change is happening.
“I don’t think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not,” Barrett said on Tuesday. She added later, “I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge” (Climatewire, Oct. 15).
Some experts, like Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell LLP, suggest that Barrett’s personal views on climate science won’t affect how she actually applies the law, especially since climate cases mostly focus on how to address the problem — not whether it’s a problem at all.
“I think what [advocates] would say is, ‘We need justices who understand just how serious this is, because if they understand that this is a crisis, they will be more likely to let EPA take aggressive action,’” Holmstead said.
“But I just don’t think that’s the way even democratically appointed justices ... view their role.”
But there shouldn’t be any dispute within the judiciary on the question of human-caused warming after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark climate case Massachusetts v. EPA, said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. The ruling led to EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases and granted the agency its authority to regulate them.
She and others raised concerns about how the global warming questions were asked by lawmakers, as though one can “believe” in climate change as opposed to accepting it as undisputed.
“It’s a scientific fact, the same way that gravity or the coronavirus virus being contagious, or smoking causing cancer is,” Arroyo said, “and so the fact that you even have to ask that and get a non-answer for three days is alarming to me.”
Accepting the science
Judges often attempt to understand science as part of their decisionmaking.
Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney with Harvard Law School, noted that judicial questions regarding climate change are no different.
“At a time when many judges are recognizing the need to educate themselves on the basic facts and science around the current state of climate change, it is interesting that [Barrett] feels the topic is not relevant to the job,” she said in an email.
In 2018, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered lawyers involved in a climate liability case to present lengthy presentations on climate science. Alsup called it a tutorial.
He ended up scrapping the case, but said in his ruling that the “order accepts the science behind global warming” (Climatewire, June 26, 2018).
Even specialized training for judges is known to happen.
In a rare leaked email exchange between judges last year, District Judge Emmet Sullivan suggested that his colleagues attend a judicial climate information session held by the Environmental Law Institute (Climatewire, Aug. 19, 2019).
Not everyone was receptive to the idea. Senior Judge Raymond Randolph of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lambasted Sullivan for flagging the session, telling him that “the jurisdiction assigned to you does not include saving the planet.”
Still, environmental law experts insist that grappling with basic science is essential to deciding cases, especially as climate change lawsuits proliferate.
“Climate change is impacting our lives, businesses and communities and, as it does, the law,” said Vizcarra of Harvard. “It will increasingly become part of the fact patterns [Barrett] will be charged with evaluating should she be confirmed.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-10-15--Why Social Media Makes Us More Polarized and How to Fix It

Every time I log onto Facebook , I brace myself .
My newsfeed—like everyone else ’ s I know—is filled with friends , relatives and acquaintances arguing about COVID-19 , masks and Trump .
Facebook has become a battleground among partisan “ echo chambers.
” But what is it about social media that makes people so polarized ?
To find out , my colleagues and I ran a social media experiment in which we divided Democrats and Republicans into “ echo chambers , ” or small groups whose members affiliate with just one political party .
Next , we picked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of : immigration , gun control and unemployment .
We asked each participant what they thought of those issues , then let people talk to each other and revise their opinions .
After several rounds of discussion and revision , we evaluated each group ’ s viewpoint .
To our surprise , the echo chambers did not make people more polarized , but less .
After interacting in social networks with likeminded peers , each echo chamber—Republican and Democrat—had adopted a more moderate opinion .
All groups independently moved toward opinions that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite ” side of the political spectrum .
As a scientist who studies networks , I ’ m used to being surprised by the results of my experiments .
Technology has allowed us to access more information and data about people ’ s social networks , debunking many of our assumptions about human behavior .
But even my team at the Network Dynamics Group was surprised : Why did our social media experiment find the opposite of what happens all the time in the real world of social media ?
The answer lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ influencers.
” By now , most of us have a fairly specific understanding of what an “ influencer ” is .
The word conjures up a young , wealthy person whose lifestyle is sponsored by brands like Instagram , TikTok or YouTube .
But the word has a very specific network science meaning .
In social media , networks tend to be centralized : a small number of people , or perhaps just one person , at the “ center ” of the network is connected to lots of other people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the periphery of the social network have only a modest number of connections , while the few—the so-called “ influencers ” —at the center of the network are connected to nearly everyone .
This puts these people into the powerful position of being able to exert a disproportionate level of “ influence ” over the group .
By contrast , the networks used in our study were “ egalitarian ” —the opposite of centralized .
In an egalitarian network , everyone has an equal number of contacts , and therefore influence , throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an egalitarian network is that new ideas and opinions can emerge from anywhere in the community and spread to everyone .
But in centralized networks—like many social media sites—ideas are filtered through , or sometimes even blocked , by a powerful social influencer .
As I show in my upcoming book Change : The Power in the Periphery to Make Big Things Happen , centralized and egalitarian networks have very different effects on partisan bias and the acceptance of new ideas .
In a centralized echo chamber , if the influencer at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan bias , it can become amplified throughout the entire group .
But in egalitarian networks , ideas spread based on their quality , and not the person touting them .
There is a lot of wisdom in network peripheries , in regular people with good ideas .
When the social network enables those people to talk with each other , new thinking that challenge a group ’ s biases can take hold and spread .
To see how egalitarian networks might affect other kinds of contentious issues , we conducted another experiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cigarette smoking .
The effects were the same as with the partisan study .
Both groups moved toward a more accurate understanding of smoking risks .
Moreover , when participants were interviewed after the study , they reported having developed higher opinions of the other .
Both smokers and nonsmokers had come to view the other group as more reasonable and trustworthy about the risks of smoking .
But the exchange of ideas and eradication of bias only works when networks are egalitarian .
The problem of partisan bias is exacerbated on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organized around a few key influencers .
This feature of social media is one of the main reasons why misinformation and fake news has become so pervasive .
In centralized networks , biased influencers have a disproportionate impact on their community—enabling small rumors and suppositions to become amplified into widespread misconceptions and false beliefs .
Our country has been struggling with bias and polarization a long time .
But the issue is about to get much more urgent .
As the debate over COVID-19 vaccination heats up , biased viewpoints will undoubtedly become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their center .
If we want to eradicate , or at least lessen the impacts of the coronavirus , we should rethink how our online communities operate .
The solution to the problem of vaccine hesitancy is not to eliminate echo chambers .
Rather , it is to be intentional about the social networks in those echo chambers .
The more equity in people ’ s social networks , the less biased and more informed groups will become—even when those groups start off with highly partisan opinions .

Every time I log onto Facebook, I brace myself. My newsfeed—like everyone else’s I know—is filled with friends, relatives and acquaintances arguing about COVID-19, masks and Trump. Facebook has become a battleground among partisan “echo chambers.” But what is it about social media that makes people so polarized?
To find out, my colleagues and I ran a social media experiment in which we divided Democrats and Republicans into “echo chambers,” or small groups whose members affiliate with just one political party. Next, we picked the most polarizing issues we could think of: immigration, gun control and unemployment. We asked each participant what they thought of those issues, then let people talk to each other and revise their opinions. After several rounds of discussion and revision, we evaluated each group’s viewpoint.
To our surprise, the echo chambers did not make people more polarized, but less. After interacting in social networks with likeminded peers, each echo chamber—Republican and Democrat—had adopted a more moderate opinion. All groups independently moved toward opinions that were closer to the opinions on the “opposite” side of the political spectrum.
As a scientist who studies networks, I’m used to being surprised by the results of my experiments. Technology has allowed us to access more information and data about people’s social networks, debunking many of our assumptions about human behavior. But even my team at the Network Dynamics Group was surprised: Why did our social media experiment find the opposite of what happens all the time in the real world of social media?
The answer lies in something social media has amplified: “influencers.”
By now, most of us have a fairly specific understanding of what an “influencer” is. The word conjures up a young, wealthy person whose lifestyle is sponsored by brands like Instagram, TikTok or YouTube. But the word has a very specific network science meaning. In social media, networks tend to be centralized: a small number of people, or perhaps just one person, at the “center” of the network is connected to lots of other people in the “periphery.” The multitudes in the periphery of the social network have only a modest number of connections, while the few—the so-called “influencers”—at the center of the network are connected to nearly everyone. This puts these people into the powerful position of being able to exert a disproportionate level of “influence” over the group.
By contrast, the networks used in our study were “egalitarian”—the opposite of centralized. In an egalitarian network, everyone has an equal number of contacts, and therefore influence, throughout the network.
The key feature of an egalitarian network is that new ideas and opinions can emerge from anywhere in the community and spread to everyone. But in centralized networks—like many social media sites—ideas are filtered through, or sometimes even blocked, by a powerful social influencer. As I show in my upcoming book Change: The Power in the Periphery to Make Big Things Happen, centralized and egalitarian networks have very different effects on partisan bias and the acceptance of new ideas.
In a centralized echo chamber, if the influencer at the middle shows even a small amount of partisan bias, it can become amplified throughout the entire group. But in egalitarian networks, ideas spread based on their quality, and not the person touting them. There is a lot of wisdom in network peripheries, in regular people with good ideas. When the social network enables those people to talk with each other, new thinking that challenge a group’s biases can take hold and spread.
To see how egalitarian networks might affect other kinds of contentious issues, we conducted another experiment with smokers and nonsmokers discussing the risks of cigarette smoking. The effects were the same as with the partisan study. Both groups moved toward a more accurate understanding of smoking risks. Moreover, when participants were interviewed after the study, they reported having developed higher opinions of the other. Both smokers and nonsmokers had come to view the other group as more reasonable and trustworthy about the risks of smoking. But the exchange of ideas and eradication of bias only works when networks are egalitarian.
The problem of partisan bias is exacerbated on social media because online networks are often organized around a few key influencers. This feature of social media is one of the main reasons why misinformation and fake news has become so pervasive. In centralized networks, biased influencers have a disproportionate impact on their community—enabling small rumors and suppositions to become amplified into widespread misconceptions and false beliefs.
Our country has been struggling with bias and polarization a long time. But the issue is about to get much more urgent. As the debate over COVID-19 vaccination heats up, biased viewpoints will undoubtedly become entrenched in communities with powerful influencers at their center. If we want to eradicate, or at least lessen the impacts of the coronavirus, we should rethink how our online communities operate. The solution to the problem of vaccine hesitancy is not to eliminate echo chambers. Rather, it is to be intentional about the social networks in those echo chambers. The more equity in people’s social networks, the less biased and more informed groups will become—even when those groups start off with highly partisan opinions.


scientificamerican--2020-10-17--50, 100 & 150 Years Ago: October 2020

50, 100 & 150 Years Ago: October 2020

“ Massive movement from central cities to their suburbs , a population boom in the West and Southwest , and a lower rate of population growth in the 1960 's than in the 1950 's are the findings that stand out in the preliminary results of the 1970 Census as issued by the U.S. Bureau of the Census .
The movement to the suburbs was pervasive .
Its extent is indicated by the fact that 13 of the 25 largest cities lost population , whereas 24 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas gained .
Washington , D.C. , was characteristic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little between 1960 and 1970 , but the metropolitan area grew by 800,000 , or more than 38 percent.
” “ The proposed machine , known as the ‘ Pelican Four-Ton Lorry , ' is a colossal cantilever monoplane designed for two 460-horse-power Napier engines .
Its cruising speed is 72 miles per hour .
Its total weight is to be 24,100 pounds .
The useful load is four tons , with sufficient fuel for the London-Paris journey .
Most interesting of all , however , is the novel system of quick loading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This permits handling of shipments with the utmost speed , and is based on a similar practice in the motor truck field .
Idle airplanes mean a large idle capital , hence the designers plan to keep the airplane in the air for the greater part of the time.
” Do n't Try This Anywhere “ Dr .
Charles Baskerville points out that while the data thus far obtained on chlorine and influenza do not warrant drawing conclusions , such facts as have been established would indicate to the medical man the advisability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prophylactic in such epidemics as so-called influenza .
Dr. Baskerville determined to what extent workers in plants where small amounts of chlorine were to be found in the atmosphere were affected seriously by influenza .
Many of those from whom information was requested expressed the opinion that chlorine workers are noticeably free from colds and other pneumatic diseases.
” “ The rapid progress of the telegraph during the last twenty-five years has changed the whole social and commercial systems of the world .
Its advantages and capabilities were so evident that immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its true character , the most active efforts were made to secure them for every community which desired to keep pace with the advances of modern times .
The Morse or signal system seemed for a time to be the perfection of achievement , until Professor Royal E. House astonished the world with his letter printing telegraph .
Now , almost every considerable expanse of water is traversed , or soon will be , by the slender cords which bind continents and islands together and practically bring the human race into one great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freight ships can be loaded and unloaded one item at a time , but it is more efficient to handle cargo packed into “ intermodal shipping containers ” that are a standardized size and shape .
Our October 1968 issue noted that a “ break-bulk ” freighter took three days to unload , a container ship less than one ( including loading new cargo ) .
Air transport became a link in this complex system , but the concept in the 1920 illustration shown is a little ahead of its time .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes abundant use of “ unit load devices , ” cargo bins shaped to fit the fuselage of specific aircraft models .

1970
Sweet Suburbia
“Massive movement from central cities to their suburbs, a population boom in the West and Southwest, and a lower rate of population growth in the 1960's than in the 1950's are the findings that stand out in the preliminary results of the 1970 Census as issued by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The movement to the suburbs was pervasive. Its extent is indicated by the fact that 13 of the 25 largest cities lost population, whereas 24 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas gained. Washington, D.C., was characteristic: the population of the city changed little between 1960 and 1970, but the metropolitan area grew by 800,000, or more than 38 percent.”
1920
Air Cargo
“The proposed machine, known as the ‘Pelican Four-Ton Lorry,' is a colossal cantilever monoplane designed for two 460-horse-power Napier engines. Its cruising speed is 72 miles per hour. Its total weight is to be 24,100 pounds. The useful load is four tons, with sufficient fuel for the London-Paris journey. Most interesting of all, however, is the novel system of quick loading and unloading which has been planned. This permits handling of shipments with the utmost speed, and is based on a similar practice in the motor truck field. Idle airplanes mean a large idle capital, hence the designers plan to keep the airplane in the air for the greater part of the time.”
Don't Try This Anywhere
“Dr. Charles Baskerville points out that while the data thus far obtained on chlorine and influenza do not warrant drawing conclusions, such facts as have been established would indicate to the medical man the advisability of trying experimentally dilute chlorinated air as a prophylactic in such epidemics as so-called influenza. Dr. Baskerville determined to what extent workers in plants where small amounts of chlorine were to be found in the atmosphere were affected seriously by influenza. Many of those from whom information was requested expressed the opinion that chlorine workers are noticeably free from colds and other pneumatic diseases.”
1870
The Rise of Telegraphy
“The rapid progress of the telegraph during the last twenty-five years has changed the whole social and commercial systems of the world. Its advantages and capabilities were so evident that immediately on its introduction, and demonstration of its true character, the most active efforts were made to secure them for every community which desired to keep pace with the advances of modern times. The Morse or signal system seemed for a time to be the perfection of achievement, until Professor Royal E. House astonished the world with his letter printing telegraph. Now, almost every considerable expanse of water is traversed, or soon will be, by the slender cords which bind continents and islands together and practically bring the human race into one great family.”
The Transport of Goods
1887: Cargo ship launched as Golconda had room for 6,000 tons of cargo, loaded and unloaded by crane and cargo nets, and 108 passengers. Credit: Scientific American Supplement, Vol. XXIII, No. 574; January 1, 1887
Oxcarts, railroad cars and freight ships can be loaded and unloaded one item at a time, but it is more efficient to handle cargo packed into “intermodal shipping containers” that are a standardized size and shape. Our October 1968 issue noted that a “break-bulk” freighter took three days to unload, a container ship less than one (including loading new cargo). Air transport became a link in this complex system, but the concept in the 1920 illustration shown is a little ahead of its time. These days air cargo (and luggage) makes abundant use of “unit load devices,” cargo bins shaped to fit the fuselage of specific aircraft models.