scientificamerican--2020-09-25--How to Distribute a COVID Vaccine Ethically

As COVID-19 continues to take the world by storm , and vaccine developers race toward safe and effective candidates to stem the tide of the pandemic , health officials and policy makers are grappling with a significant philosophical and ethical challenge : how to best allocate limited vaccines doses to the world ’ s population .
This challenge presents a range of questions : Which countries should get a vaccine first ?
To what degree should helping essential workers , the poor , minorities and the young ( or old ) affect vaccine distribution between countries ?
Is it better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a vaccine or rather the quantity of life years saved ?
There are lots of proposals on the table for ethical vaccine distribution between countries , but how do we know which one , if any , policy makers should employ ?
To help answer that question , let ’ s begin with an overview of some of the existing proposals .
The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access ( COVAX ) facility is co-led by the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation and Gavi , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a broad portfolio of vaccine candidates , and requires distribution in line with need .
The facility has proposed to give countries vaccine quantities in proportion to their populations until each country can help 20 percent of its population .
But it only guarantees enough to non-contributing—mostly poor—countries to cover essential workers before donors vaccinate 20 percent of their populations .
In a controversial decision , the Trump administration announced the United States will not join this facility .
Another WHO proposal aims to prioritize health care workers , elderly and the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 deaths and protect health systems by giving countries vaccines based on the number of essential health care workers , the proportion of people over 65 and those who are otherwise likely to suffer seriously if they get COVID-19 .
Another approach , the “ fair priority model , ” tries to limit economic and health consequences .
A collaboration of ethicists , spearheaded by Zeke Immanuel , former director of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health , argues that at least after countries have their pandemics under control , fair allocation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries where it is possible to save the greatest number of life years , then considering also disability that can be prevented by the vaccine as well as the amount of poverty and aggregate economic damage the vaccine can prevent , and finally distributing the vaccine to reduce transmission rates as far as possible .
A proposal by Vanderbilt University considers contribution and capacity .
Researchers at Vanderbilt propose scoring countries based on ( 1 ) their capacities to provide care , ( 2 ) their ability to distribute vaccines and ( 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop new interventions .
Those with lower capacity to provide care without a vaccine , greater capacity to distribute the vaccine , and who have helped test and develop new interventions would have higher scores and thus priority access .
Moreover , for a good proposal to ensure that we reduce premature death and address economic deprivation , protect health systems or achieve any other objective equitably requires a lot of missing empirical data about what would be most effective .
And it is important to give a good ethical defense of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles should policy makers employ ?
Should they distribute vaccines to countries to minimize premature death , save the most lives , combat poverty , forestall economic devastation , or something else ?
Though some philosophers have tried to defend the idea that we should try to minimize premature death , and give some independent arguments for helping the worst off , these arguments are weak .
The main argument is just that we should prioritize the young because they have yet to have their “ fair innings ” .
That might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health system that would serve everyone and everyone would live about the same amount of time .
But , right now , saving the most life years discriminates against the elderly and , once we take into account disability , disabled people who are likely to die young or fare poorly for reasons entirely unrelated to COVID .
Take two 20 year olds with COVID .
Suppose the first has MS a degenerative disease that will probably kill them by age 75 while the other can expect to live to 80 - the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we save the former then we would gain 55 ( 75-20 ) years .
If we save the later we gain 60 ( 80-20 ) .
So if we just care about saving the most life years , it is better to save those who are not already disabled .
This adds burden to injury .
Saying we should also distribute vaccines to countries in the way that will most help the least well off may not improve the distribution .
It depends how we define the least well off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ help those with a shorter life expectancy , or the marginalized and oppressed .
Similar problems arise in trying to use vaccines to combat and forestall economic deprivation .
Many people are losing their livelihoods but trying to increase total income might just benefit the rich .
Even if we focus on poverty , how should we measure poverty and combine that with health ?
To measure poverty , some propose taking the total shortfall between each poor person and the poverty line and dividing by the level of the poverty line .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this measure matter compared to a life ?
Are we really willing to sacrifice lives to help the poor ?
Perhaps .
But this requires some argument .
And how many lives should we be willing to sacrifice exactly ?
There are also deeper philosophical questions one might raise about these existing proposals : Should we care about protecting societies even at some cost to individuals ?
Why focus on health at all rather than welfare ?
And , even if it is OK to just focus on health , should we help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health problems or those with the worst health more generally ?
Insofar as we do focus on minimizing the health effects of COVID with a vaccine , I think it is best to treat every individual equally and try to save the most lives possible ( whether we can best do this by distributing in ways that reduce poverty , target the elderly and help provide essential health care in all countries , or constrain the spread of the virus ) .
Every individual ’ s life is equally important to each individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rich by letting them constrain their pandemics first , try to increase income growth the most , or distribute vaccines in ways that fail to account for existing inequalities .
And even more important than distributing scarce vaccines equitably , we should try to make them less scarce .
We should require pharmaceutical companies to distribute vaccines at cost , allow generic competition , and endorse the WHO ’ s Solidarity Call to Action for equitable global access to COVID-19 health technologies .

As COVID-19 continues to take the world by storm, and vaccine developers race toward safe and effective candidates to stem the tide of the pandemic, health officials and policy makers are grappling with a significant philosophical and ethical challenge: how to best allocate limited vaccines doses to the world’s population.
This challenge presents a range of questions: Which countries should get a vaccine first? To what degree should helping essential workers, the poor, minorities and the young (or old) affect vaccine distribution between countries? Is it better to prioritize the quantity of lives saved by a vaccine or rather the quantity of life years saved?
There are lots of proposals on the table for ethical vaccine distribution between countries, but how do we know which one, if any, policy makers should employ? To help answer that question, let’s begin with an overview of some of the existing proposals.
The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) facility is co-led by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation and Gavi, the vaccine alliance. It lets countries support a broad portfolio of vaccine candidates, and requires distribution in line with need. The facility has proposed to give countries vaccine quantities in proportion to their populations until each country can help 20 percent of its population. But it only guarantees enough to non-contributing—mostly poor—countries to cover essential workers before donors vaccinate 20 percent of their populations. In a controversial decision, the Trump administration announced the United States will not join this facility.
Another WHO proposal aims to prioritize health care workers, elderly and the most vulnerable. It would seek to reduce COVID-19 deaths and protect health systems by giving countries vaccines based on the number of essential health care workers, the proportion of people over 65 and those who are otherwise likely to suffer seriously if they get COVID-19.
Another approach, the “fair priority model,” tries to limit economic and health consequences. A collaboration of ethicists, spearheaded by Zeke Emanuel, former director of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, argues that at least after countries have their pandemics under control, fair allocation requires distributing the vaccine first to those countries where it is possible to save the greatest number of life years, then considering also disability that can be prevented by the vaccine as well as the amount of poverty and aggregate economic damage the vaccine can prevent, and finally distributing the vaccine to reduce transmission rates as far as possible.*
A proposal by Vanderbilt University considers contribution and capacity. Researchers at Vanderbilt propose scoring countries based on (1) their capacities to provide care, (2) their ability to distribute vaccines and (3) whether they have helped test and develop new interventions. Those with lower capacity to provide care without a vaccine, greater capacity to distribute the vaccine, and who have helped test and develop new interventions would have higher scores and thus priority access.
Moreover, for a good proposal to ensure that we reduce premature death and address economic deprivation, protect health systems or achieve any other objective equitably requires a lot of missing empirical data about what would be most effective.
And it is important to give a good ethical defense of any proposed allocation.
So, what ethical principles should policy makers employ? Should they distribute vaccines to countries to minimize premature death, save the most lives, combat poverty, forestall economic devastation, or something else?
Though some philosophers have tried to defend the idea that we should try to minimize premature death, and give some independent arguments for helping the worst off, these arguments are weak.
The main argument is just that we should prioritize the young because they have yet to have their “fair innings”. That might be OK if we were setting up a health system that would serve everyone and everyone would live about the same amount of time.
But, right now, saving the most life years discriminates against the elderly and, once we take into account disability, disabled people who are likely to die young or fare poorly for reasons entirely unrelated to COVID.
Take two 20 year olds with COVID. Suppose the first has MS a degenerative disease that will probably kill them by age 75 while the other can expect to live to 80 - the average age of death in their country. If we save the former then we would gain 55 (75-20) years. If we save the later we gain 60 (80-20). So if we just care about saving the most life years, it is better to save those who are not already disabled. This adds burden to injury.
Saying we should also distribute vaccines to countries in the way that will most help the least well off may not improve the distribution. It depends how we define the least well off. We might try to reduce poverty, help those with a shorter life expectancy, or the marginalized and oppressed.
Similar problems arise in trying to use vaccines to combat and forestall economic deprivation. Many people are losing their livelihoods but trying to increase total income might just benefit the rich.
Even if we focus on poverty, how should we measure poverty and combine that with health? To measure poverty, some propose taking the total shortfall between each poor person and the poverty line and dividing by the level of the poverty line. How much does preventing some poverty on this measure matter compared to a life? Are we really willing to sacrifice lives to help the poor? Perhaps. But this requires some argument. And how many lives should we be willing to sacrifice exactly?
There are also deeper philosophical questions one might raise about these existing proposals: Should we care about protecting societies even at some cost to individuals? Why focus on health at all rather than welfare? And, even if it is OK to just focus on health, should we help those most at risk of COVID related health problems or those with the worst health more generally?
Insofar as we do focus on minimizing the health effects of COVID with a vaccine, I think it is best to treat every individual equally and try to save the most lives possible (whether we can best do this by distributing in ways that reduce poverty, target the elderly and help provide essential health care in all countries, or constrain the spread of the virus). Every individual’s life is equally important to each individual.
Policy makers should not primarily benefit the rich by letting them constrain their pandemics first, try to increase income growth the most, or distribute vaccines in ways that fail to account for existing inequalities.
And even more important than distributing scarce vaccines equitably, we should try to make them less scarce. We should require pharmaceutical companies to distribute vaccines at cost, allow generic competition, and endorse the WHO’s Solidarity Call to Action for equitable global access to COVID-19 health technologies.
*Editor’s Note (9/28/20): This sentence has been edited after posting to correct the spelling of Zeke Emanuel’s name.


scientificamerican--2020-09-25--Fruit Flies Plug into the Matrix

Fruit Flies Plug into the Matrix

Bugs and fish don ’ t play video games or attend teleconferences , but they can still explore virtual reality—complete with visual effects , tastes and smells .
A new system called PiVR—named after the low-cost Raspberry Pi computer that runs its software—creates working artificial environments for small animals such as zebra fish larvae and fruit flies .
Developers say the system ’ s affordability could help expand research into animal behavior .
PiVR ’ s purpose is not to get these creatures plugged into the Matrix .
Rather it lets scientists measure an animal ’ s behavior in real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment .
The technology both provides the environment and tracks the animal within it using cameras and other sensors .
This approach is useful in experiments aiming to learn more about how an external stimulus spurs the brain to perform an action .
“ What the tracker allows us to do is know what the animal is currently doing and then adapt the type of stimulation , ” says Matthieu Louis , a biologist at the University of California , Santa Barbara , and a co-author of the study .
As a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to make choices .
Its actions lead to outcomes , ” explains Alexandra Moore , a graduate student in neurobiology at Harvard Medical School , who was not involved in the new research .
“ And that kind of experimental situation is ... essential for starting to understand how brains accomplish more sophisticated kinds of cognition.
” With PiVR , the stimulus takes the form of light , which brightens or dims depending on where the animal goes—as if it were moving toward or away from a virtual light source or in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers want to see how a zebra fish larva behaves in the presence of a round spotlight that is brightest at its center .
They can place the subject in PiVR ’ s chamber , which automatically turns up the brightness as the animal moves toward the area designated as the center of the “ spotlight ” and dims as it moves away .
As the larva reacts to these changes , the chamber tracks its every move with cameras and other sensors .
Doing so lets the researchers study how animals use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was described in an open-access paper published in PLOS Biology this past summer .
Light alone can only create simple environments .
But by combining PiVR with a field called optogenetics , the researchers produced a much more complex virtual world .
Scientists can use optogenetics to hack an animal ’ s brain to make it interpret light as a different type of sensory input .
To do so , they manipulate the creature ’ s genes to put light-sensitive proteins in its neurons so that those cells will fire when exposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neurons control a fruit fly ’ s sense of smell or taste , for instance , switching on the right kind of light can trick the insect into thinking it is sensing something bitter or sweet .
In the example of a VR system that creates an imaginary spotlight , this technique would be like putting the animal in the presence of a smell that grows more intense as it moves toward the brightest part of the circle .
“ You can create virtual realities for the olfactory system or for the gustatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains David Tadres , a Ph.D. student in Louis ’ s lab and first author of the PiVR paper .
“ So you can then study ‘ How do animals navigate in an olfactory or a gustatory environment ?
’ ” The U.C .
Santa Barbara team is not the only group to develop virtual reality for small animals .
Researchers—such as Iain Couzin , director of the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior ’ s Department of Collective Behavior at the University of Konstanz in Germany—have set up experiments that , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chase virtual prey .
Couzin , who was not involved in the PiVR study , explains that “ other virtual-reality approaches , which are highly complementary to the methodology here , have been used—including in my research group—to embed organisms , including flies , into fully immersive and photorealistic virtual environments where they can move and interact with 3-D environments.
” Creating such complex virtual environments can get expensive .
Louis ’ s team previously developed a system that would cost about $ 50,000 to replicate .
But the parts for a PiVR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for less than $ 500 .
“ The achievement with PiVR is to make it such that it would be affordable—that we would not use cameras and lenses and a setup that would be very expensive , ” Louis says .
In addition to the cheap parts , “ we wanted [ the software ] to fit on a mini computer that would be relatively cheap , ” he says .
“ And that ’ s what the Raspberry Pi allowed us to do.
” The low cost could make it easier for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running multiple PiVR systems .
“ You just want to run a lot of experiments at the same time , ” Tadres says , “ because that 's how you get much more data.
” The affordable equipment ( and the fact that PiVR is described in an open-access paper ) also helps make the tool accessible to more researchers .
Tadres suggests undergraduate and high school students could use it as well .
Other researchers agree .
“ The most exciting part for me is that I think [ PiVR ] has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concepts that are really , truly at the very forefront of neuroscience research today into classrooms , ” Moore says .
“ Just the flexibility and the affordability of the system—it ’ s open source , it ’ s written in a very easy programming language—can help students understand these advanced concepts like ‘ How does spatial navigation work ?
’ ‘ How do sensory signals that we receive guide our actions ?
’ ‘ How do we make decisions ?
’ ” “ It is incredibly important to provide cost-effective , powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
He sees low-price systems such as PiVR as a complement to his own lab ’ s work .
“ In this way , we can much better [ democratize ] the scientific process by making cutting-edge science available to a much broader community , ” Couzin says .

Bugs and fish don’t play video games or attend teleconferences, but they can still explore virtual reality—complete with visual effects, tastes and smells. A new system called PiVR—named after the low-cost Raspberry Pi computer that runs its software—creates working artificial environments for small animals such as zebra fish larvae and fruit flies. Developers say the system’s affordability could help expand research into animal behavior.
PiVR’s purpose is not to get these creatures plugged into the Matrix. Rather it lets scientists measure an animal’s behavior in real time while it responds to a controlled environment. The technology both provides the environment and tracks the animal within it using cameras and other sensors. This approach is useful in experiments aiming to learn more about how an external stimulus spurs the brain to perform an action. “What the tracker allows us to do is know what the animal is currently doing and then adapt the type of stimulation,” says Matthieu Louis, a biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a co-author of the study. As a result, “the subject now has the ability to make choices. Its actions lead to outcomes,” explains Alexandra Moore, a graduate student in neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in the new research. “And that kind of experimental situation is ... essential for starting to understand how brains accomplish more sophisticated kinds of cognition.”
With PiVR, the stimulus takes the form of light, which brightens or dims depending on where the animal goes—as if it were moving toward or away from a virtual light source or in and out of virtual shadows. Say researchers want to see how a zebra fish larva behaves in the presence of a round spotlight that is brightest at its center. They can place the subject in PiVR’s chamber, which automatically turns up the brightness as the animal moves toward the area designated as the center of the “spotlight” and dims as it moves away. As the larva reacts to these changes, the chamber tracks its every move with cameras and other sensors. Doing so lets the researchers study how animals use visual stimuli to navigate. The system was described in an open-access paper published in PLOS Biology this past summer.
Light alone can only create simple environments. But by combining PiVR with a field called optogenetics, the researchers produced a much more complex virtual world. Scientists can use optogenetics to hack an animal’s brain to make it interpret light as a different type of sensory input. To do so, they manipulate the creature’s genes to put light-sensitive proteins in its neurons so that those cells will fire when exposed to a certain wavelength. If these modified neurons control a fruit fly’s sense of smell or taste, for instance, switching on the right kind of light can trick the insect into thinking it is sensing something bitter or sweet. In the example of a VR system that creates an imaginary spotlight, this technique would be like putting the animal in the presence of a smell that grows more intense as it moves toward the brightest part of the circle. “You can create virtual realities for the olfactory system or for the gustatory system in adult fruit flies,” explains David Tadres, a Ph.D. student in Louis’s lab and first author of the PiVR paper. “So you can then study ‘How do animals navigate in an olfactory or a gustatory environment?’”
The U.C. Santa Barbara team is not the only group to develop virtual reality for small animals. Researchers—such as Iain Couzin, director of the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior’s Department of Collective Behavior at the University of Konstanz in Germany—have set up experiments that, for example, enable real predatory fish to chase virtual prey. Couzin, who was not involved in the PiVR study, explains that “other virtual-reality approaches, which are highly complementary to the methodology here, have been used—including in my research group—to embed organisms, including flies, into fully immersive and photorealistic virtual environments where they can move and interact with 3-D environments.”
Creating such complex virtual environments can get expensive. Louis’s team previously developed a system that would cost about $50,000 to replicate. But the parts for a PiVR device can be purchased and 3-D printed for less than $500. “The achievement with PiVR is to make it such that it would be affordable—that we would not use cameras and lenses and a setup that would be very expensive,” Louis says. In addition to the cheap parts, “we wanted [the software] to fit on a mini computer that would be relatively cheap,” he says. “And that’s what the Raspberry Pi allowed us to do.”
The low cost could make it easier for a single lab to afford building and running multiple PiVR systems. “You just want to run a lot of experiments at the same time,” Tadres says, “because that's how you get much more data.” The affordable equipment (and the fact that PiVR is described in an open-access paper) also helps make the tool accessible to more researchers. Tadres suggests undergraduate and high school students could use it as well.
Other researchers agree. “The most exciting part for me is that I think [PiVR] has the ability to bring these kinds of concepts that are really, truly at the very forefront of neuroscience research today into classrooms,” Moore says. “Just the flexibility and the affordability of the system—it’s open source, it’s written in a very easy programming language—can help students understand these advanced concepts like ‘How does spatial navigation work?’ ‘How do sensory signals that we receive guide our actions?’ ‘How do we make decisions?’”
“It is incredibly important to provide cost-effective, powerful tools for scientific inquiry,” Couzin says. He sees low-price systems such as PiVR as a complement to his own lab’s work. “In this way, we can much better [democratize] the scientific process by making cutting-edge science available to a much broader community,” Couzin says.


scientificamerican--2020-09-25--Fluttering Feathers Could Spawn New Species

Charles Darwin is most famous for his finches , from whose beaks he gleaned the idea that a single species might radiate into many .
But he studied other attributes of birds , too—like the rhythmic sounds some species made during courtship , by fluttering , shaking or rattling their feathers together .
< < sfx > > '' Since Darwin there 's been this fact that birds produce sounds with wings and tails or flight feathers .
So there 's species of manakins that do this sound , there 's hummingbirds that do this sound . ''
Valentina Gómez-Bahamón @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Field Museum in Chicago .
She and her team have now observed that non-vocal sound production phenomenon in another type of bird : the fork-tailed flycatcher .
The researchers studied two groups of the birds in South America—and recorded the birds making these fluttering sounds with their wings during morning courtship rituals < < sfx > > and in combat between males < < sfx > > .
One of the two flycatcher subspecies is migratory .
The other stays put .
And , by carefully measuring the birds ' feathers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birds had longer , thinner feathers—presumably for some aerodynamic advantage .
But that altered feather shape also meant the birds ' fluttering produced a different frequency .
Compare the migratory birds ' flutter < < sfx > > to the stationary birds ' .
< < sfx.
> > '' So basically what we think is that because of loss of migration , pressures for flight may influence the shape of the individual feathers , to the point where the sound quality changes . ''
The details are in the journal Integrative and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al , Sonations in Migratory and Non-migratory Fork-tailed Flycatchers ( Tyrannus savana ) ] Gómez-Bahamón says they 're still not certain what role the sounds play in day-to-day flycatcher life—if the birds do indeed even pay attention to them .
But she suspects the sounds may have some cultural importance to the birds .
In which case , she says , the communication differences between the migratory and non-migratory birds could further divide the two types of birds .
Or in other words : give rise to the origin of species .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this podcast . ]

Full Transcript
Charles Darwin is most famous for his finches, from whose beaks he gleaned the idea that a single species might radiate into many.
But he studied other attributes of birds, too—like the rhythmic sounds some species made during courtship by fluttering, shaking or rattling their feathers together.
[CLIP]
“Since Darwin, there’s been this fact that birds produce sounds with wings and tails or flight feathers. So there’s species of manakins that do this sound; there’s hummingbirds that do this sound.”
Valentina Gómez-Bahamón is an evolutionary biologist and ornithologist at the Field Museum in Chicago.
She and her team have now observed that nonvocal-sound-production phenomenon in another type of bird: the fork-tailed flycatcher. The researchers studied two groups of the birds in South America—and recorded the birds making these fluttering sounds with their wings during morning courtship rituals ...
[CLIP]
... and in combat between males.
[CLIP]
One of the two flycatcher subspecies is migratory. The other stays put. And by carefully measuring the birds’ feathers, the research team found that the migratory birds had longer, thinner feathers—presumably for some aerodynamic advantage. But that altered feather shape also meant the birds’ fluttering produced a different frequency.
Compare the migratory birds’ flutter ...
[CLIP]
... to the stationary birds’.
[CLIP]
“So basically what we think is that because of loss of migration, pressures for flight may influence the shape of the individual feathers to the point where the sound quality changes.”
The details are in the journal Integrative & Comparative Biology. [Valentina Gómez-Bahamón et al., Sonations in Migratory and Non-migratory Fork-Tailed Flycatchers (Tyrannus savana)]
Gómez-Bahamón says they’re still not certain what role the sounds play in day-to-day flycatcher life—if the birds do indeed even pay attention to them. But she suspects the sounds may have some cultural importance to the birds.
In which case, she says, the communication differences between the migratory and nonmigratory birds could further divide the two types of birds—or in other words, give rise to the origin of species.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-09-25--Coronavirus News Roundup, September 19-September 25

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter , “ Smart , useful , science stuff about COVID-19.
” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox , sign up here .
Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter .
For some SARS-CoV-2 vaccine makers , a vaccine `` could meet the companies ' benchmarks for success if it lowered the risk of mild COVID-19 , but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe '' COVID-19 , nor the risk of hospitalization , intensive care admission or death , according to an essay published 9/22/20 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pertains to vaccines being developed by Moderna , by Pfizer , and by AstraZeneca , the essay states .
The benchmarks should be higher , the authors contend .
Evidence should instead show that a vaccine reduces the risk of moderate or severe cases , write Dr. Peter Doshi of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and Dr. Eric Topol at Scripps Research .
The essay states that reducing the risk of mild COVID-19 does not guarantee a similar reduction for moderate or severe cases .
In both the Moderna vaccine experiments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people report feeling “ side effects that are similar to the symptoms of mild COVID-19 , ” the essay states .
London could be the site of the first experiments in which quarantined volunteers would be deliberately exposed to SARS-CoV-2 after being inoculated with a candidate vaccine to protect against the new coronavirus , according to various reports .
Such experiments are called human challenge trials .
The London experiments are expected to start in January , Reuters reported 9/23/20 , picking up an initial report by The Financial Times ( paywalled ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have volunteered with the group 1Day Sooner for coronavirus challenge trials , the Reuters story states .
Tanya Lewis at Scientific American has reported a feature story on some of the more than 100 U.S. universities and colleges that have contracted rapid , frequent SARS-CoV-2 testing for their campus to a program offered by the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University ( 9/23/20 ) .
Institutions ’ reports on the program so far are positive , and such an approach to testing “ could be a model for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lewis writes .
The program enables testing once or twice a week throughout the semester for students , faculty and staff , the story states .
The story includes comments from users of the Broad program , including representatives from Tufts University , Bowdoin College , and University of Massachusetts Amherst , where the basketball arena reportedly has been converted into a SARS-CoV-2 testing center .
Plans for early access to highly anticipated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are “ taking shape , ” reports Nidhi Subbaraman at Nature ( 9/17/20 ) .
Organizations that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include an advisory group at the World Health Organization and a panel convened by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences , Engineering , and Medicine ( NASEM ) , the story states .
The NASEM panel gives top priority for vaccination to health-care workers and first responders , and then to “ medically vulnerable groups , ” such as people with preexisting conditions such as heart disease or diabetes as well as “ older people living in crowded conditions , ” Subbaraman reports .
The NASEM panel 's third priority group includes high-risk-of-exposure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public transit and schools , as well as people living in homeless shelters and prisons , the story states .
Fourth priority goes to young adults , children and essential workers “ at increased risk of exposure , ” and the fifth priority is everyone remaining .
NASEM is set to release a final plan in October , the story states .
In a feature story for The Scientist , Katarina Zimmer explores the latest theories for why some people develop severe COVID-19 and others do not ( 9/16/20 ) .
More details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune system “ goes haywire ” in some people infected with the virus .
One study she mentions found that the blood of patients with severe COVID-19 showed an initial diminished response of interferons , which she defines as `` cytokines [ small signaling compounds/proteins ] that , in general , act to curtail viral replication.
” And that can lead to damage that leads to inflammation , the story states .
“ The higher the damage , the more the immune system is trying to get rid of the damage , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute at Mount Sinai .
“ So it gets activated and at some point…it goes completely crazy.
” That leads to the phenomenon called a cytokine storm — the immune system over-reaction .
The piece also details new insights into function problems and creation problems in various immune cells ( e.g .
myeloid cells , T cells , and antibodies ) .
Near the end of the piece , the same researcher is attributed as saying that the myeloid defects could be at the root of the runaway cytokine responses .
But an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s hard to tease apart the chicken and the egg .
Parts of the U.S. “ may be witnessing the first days of an autumn surge , ” according a daily coronavirus data page updated 9/24/20 at National Geographic .
Lower on the page , graphs indicate that SARS-CoV-2 case-counts have increased in the past week in Utah , Wisconsin , South Dakota , Montana , and Texas ; and decreases appear to have taken place in the same period in Delaware , Louisiana , Indiana , Georgia , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears so far not to be spreading inside U.S. schools , report Laura Meckler and Valerie Strauss at The Washington Post ( 9/23/20 ) .
Thousands of teachers and students have been reported as infected , the story suggests , but these “ rates of infection are far below what is found in the surrounding communities , ” the reporters write .
The evidence hints that re-opening schools “ may not be as risky as many have feared , ” the story states .
The story notes that testing and reporting for SARS-CoV-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. , so it ’ s hard to say if this is an accurate picture of in-school transmission .
The story also quotes epidemiologist Michael Osterholm of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota as saying : “ Everyone had a fear there would be explosive outbreaks of transmission in the schools .
In colleges , there have been .
We have to say that , to date , we have not seen those in the younger kids.
” Several indoor-air quality researchers and other scientists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ FAQs on protecting yourself from COVID-19 aerosol transmission , ” designed to inform the general public ( 9/15/20 ) .
The information represents “ our best understanding at this time and should always be similar or more stringent than information provided by [ the U.S. Centers for Disease Control ] , [ World Health Organization ] , and most regional & local health authorities.
” The document ’ s authors include Linsey Marr of Virginia Tech ; Shelly Miller and Jose-Luis Jimenez both of University of Colorado , Boulder ; Kimberly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diego ; Charles Haas at Drexel University ; and Richard Corsi of Portland State University .
I haven ’ t read the whole document , but a primary point regarding reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission is that “ you should pay at least as much attention to the air you breathe as you do to sanitizing surfaces and your hands.
” This 9/22/20 Bloomberg piece by opinion columnists Max Nisen and Elaine He features an easy-to-read graphic that illustrates the risks to long-term health posed by infection with SARS-CoV-2 .
The data came from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who reported to an Indiana University Medical School researcher nearly 100 different long-term health problems .
“ Researchers have yet to ascertain what share of people infected with COVID-19 suffer from long-term symptoms .
But the potential for harm is vast , ” based on the number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 , the story states .
There ’ s also a powerful graphic lower on the page showing a data scientist 's estimate of the actual number of U.S. infections through November compared with the confirmed figures .
You might enjoy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dining begins , ” by Jeremy Hooper for McSweeney ’ s ( 9/23/20 ) .

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter, “Smart, useful, science stuff about COVID-19.” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox, sign up here. Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter.
For some SARS-CoV-2 vaccine makers, a vaccine "could meet the companies' benchmarks for success if it lowered the risk of mild COVID-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe" COVID-19, nor the risk of hospitalization, intensive care admission or death, according to an essay published 9/22/20 in The New York Times. This statement pertains to vaccines being developed by Moderna, by Pfizer, and by AstraZeneca, the essay states. The benchmarks should be higher, the authors contend. Evidence should instead show that a vaccine reduces the risk of moderate or severe cases, write Dr. Peter Doshi of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and Dr. Eric Topol at Scripps Research. The essay states that reducing the risk of mild COVID-19 does not guarantee a similar reduction for moderate or severe cases. In both the Moderna vaccine experiments and the Pfizer vaccine experiments, some people report feeling “side effects that are similar to the symptoms of mild COVID-19,” the essay states.
London could be the site of the first experiments in which quarantined volunteers would be deliberately exposed to SARS-CoV-2 after being inoculated with a candidate vaccine to protect against the new coronavirus, according to various reports. Such experiments are called human challenge trials. The London experiments are expected to start in January, Reuters reported 9/23/20, picking up an initial report by The Financial Times (paywalled). So far, about 2,000 participants have volunteered with the group 1Day Sooner for coronavirus challenge trials, the Reuters story states.
Tanya Lewis at Scientific American has reported a feature story on some of the more than 100 U.S. universities and colleges that have contracted rapid, frequent SARS-CoV-2 testing for their campus to a program offered by the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University (9/23/20). Institutions’ reports on the program so far are positive, and such an approach to testing “could be a model for reopening colleges and institutions nationwide,” Lewis writes. The program enables testing once or twice a week throughout the semester for students, faculty and staff, the story states. The story includes comments from users of the Broad program, including representatives from Tufts University, Bowdoin College, and University of Massachusetts Amherst, where the basketball arena reportedly has been converted into a SARS-CoV-2 testing center.
Plans for early access to highly anticipated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are “taking shape,” reports Nidhi Subbaraman at Nature (9/17/20). Organizations that have issued preliminary plans or guidance so far include an advisory group at the World Health Organization and a panel convened by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), the story states. The NASEM panel gives top priority for vaccination to health-care workers and first responders, and then to “medically vulnerable groups,” such as people with preexisting conditions such as heart disease or diabetes as well as “older people living in crowded conditions,” Subbaraman reports. The NASEM panel's third priority group includes high-risk-of-exposure essential workers such as those working in public transit and schools, as well as people living in homeless shelters and prisons, the story states. Fourth priority goes to young adults, children and essential workers “at increased risk of exposure,” and the fifth priority is everyone remaining. NASEM is set to release a final plan in October, the story states.
In a feature story for The Scientist, Katarina Zimmer explores the latest theories for why some people develop severe COVID-19 and others do not (9/16/20). More details are coming into focus on why the immune system “goes haywire” in some people infected with the virus. One study she mentions found that the blood of patients with severe COVID-19 showed an initial diminished response of interferons, which she defines as "cytokines [small signaling compounds/proteins] that, in general, act to curtail viral replication.” And that can lead to damage that leads to inflammation, the story states. “The higher the damage, the more the immune system is trying to get rid of the damage,” says the director of the Precision Medicine Institute at Mount Sinai. “So it gets activated and at some point…it goes completely crazy.” That leads to the phenomenon called a cytokine storm — the immune system over-reaction. The piece also details new insights into function problems and creation problems in various immune cells (e.g. myeloid cells, T cells, and antibodies). Near the end of the piece, the same researcher is attributed as saying that the myeloid defects could be at the root of the runaway cytokine responses. But an immunologist at Emory University is quoted saying that it’s hard to tease apart the chicken and the egg.
Parts of the U.S. “may be witnessing the first days of an autumn surge,” according a daily coronavirus data page updated 9/24/20 at National Geographic. Lower on the page, graphs indicate that SARS-CoV-2 case-counts have increased in the past week in Utah, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Montana, and Texas; and decreases appear to have taken place in the same period in Delaware, Louisiana, Indiana, Georgia, and Kentucky.
Early evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 appears so far not to be spreading inside U.S. schools, report Laura Meckler and Valerie Strauss at The Washington Post (9/23/20). Thousands of teachers and students have been reported as infected, the story suggests, but these “rates of infection are far below what is found in the surrounding communities,” the reporters write. The evidence hints that re-opening schools “may not be as risky as many have feared,” the story states. The story notes that testing and reporting for SARS-CoV-2 is weak in many parts of the U.S., so it’s hard to say if this is an accurate picture of in-school transmission. The story also quotes epidemiologist Michael Osterholm of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota as saying: “Everyone had a fear there would be explosive outbreaks of transmission in the schools. In colleges, there have been. We have to say that, to date, we have not seen those in the younger kids.”
Several indoor-air quality researchers and other scientists have collaborated on a highly accessible 53-page google-document, “FAQs on protecting yourself from COVID-19 aerosol transmission,” designed to inform the general public (9/15/20). The information represents “our best understanding at this time and should always be similar or more stringent than information provided by [the U.S. Centers for Disease Control], [World Health Organization], and most regional & local health authorities.” The document’s authors include Linsey Marr of Virginia Tech; Shelly Miller and Jose-Luis Jimenez both of University of Colorado, Boulder; Kimberly Prather at University of California, San Diego; Charles Haas at Drexel University; and Richard Corsi of Portland State University. I haven’t read the whole document, but a primary point regarding reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission is that “you should pay at least as much attention to the air you breathe as you do to sanitizing surfaces and your hands.”
This 9/22/20 Bloomberg piece by opinion columnists Max Nisen and Elaine He features an easy-to-read graphic that illustrates the risks to long-term health posed by infection with SARS-CoV-2. The data came from a survey of more than 1,500 COVID-19 survivors who reported to an Indiana University Medical School researcher nearly 100 different long-term health problems. “Researchers have yet to ascertain what share of people infected with COVID-19 suffer from long-term symptoms. But the potential for harm is vast,” based on the number of people infected with SARS-CoV-2, the story states. There’s also a powerful graphic lower on the page showing a data scientist's estimate of the actual number of U.S. infections through November compared with the confirmed figures.
You might enjoy, “Where the sidewalk ends, outdoor dining begins,” by Jeremy Hooper for McSweeney’s (9/23/20).


scientificamerican--2020-09-25--COVID Collides with Weather Disasters to Affect Millions Worldwide

A total of 54 million people worldwide faced weather-related disasters this year while dealing with effects of the coronavirus pandemic , according to a report released yesterday by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies .
The report by one of the world ’ s largest relief organizations highlights the “ double threat ” of climate change and the pandemic , particularly on impoverished nations such as Bangladesh and India .
“ Our analysis points to the strong overlaps between various risks the world is facing , ” the federation wrote in its 21-page report .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its economic impacts in isolation from the climate crisis and wider development objectives such as poverty reduction.
” In addition to people being hit by flooding , drought , storms and wildfires , another 432 million people around the world were exposed to extreme heat during the pandemic , according to the federation , which has for years urged action on climate change .
“ Millions of people are suffering from the two crises colliding , ” federation President Francesco Rocca said yesterday , urging world leaders to use economic recovery funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a rare opportunity to make a real difference to the climate crisis , ” Rocca said , referring to spending aimed at rebuilding from the pandemic .
“ Make sure these investments are green and resilient.
” The federation report analyzed the 132 weather-related disasters in 2020—most of them floods—and found that 92 overlapped with the pandemic .
That happened when a disaster occurred after March 11 , when the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic , or if it occurred prior to that date in a country or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic .
The biggest dual impact has been in Bangladesh and India , where nearly 40 million people were affected this year by the pandemic and flooding or storms such as Cyclone Amphan , which killed 129 people in May .
In East Africa , some countries faced a “ triple threat ” of COVID-19 , locusts and flooding , which has left thousands of people homeless and many in shelters “ where it ’ s not possible to observe distancing , ” Rocca said .
In the United States , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disasters is tied to the Western wildfires that have burned roughly 7 million acres and forced mass evacuations .
The federation said the wildfires affected 2.3 million people in the United States .
“ Decisions on the economic recovery will determine whether we can be optimistic about our future , ” Rocca said .
“ Bold and urgent climate action can not wait.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news atwww.eenews.net .

A total of 54 million people worldwide faced weather-related disasters this year while dealing with effects of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a report released yesterday by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
The report by one of the world’s largest relief organizations highlights the “double threat” of climate change and the pandemic, particularly on impoverished nations such as Bangladesh and India.
“Our analysis points to the strong overlaps between various risks the world is facing,” the federation wrote in its 21-page report. “We cannot deal with the pandemic and its economic impacts in isolation from the climate crisis and wider development objectives such as poverty reduction.”
In addition to people being hit by flooding, drought, storms and wildfires, another 432 million people around the world were exposed to extreme heat during the pandemic, according to the federation, which has for years urged action on climate change.
“Millions of people are suffering from the two crises colliding,” federation President Francesco Rocca said yesterday, urging world leaders to use economic recovery funds to address climate change.
“We have a rare opportunity to make a real difference to the climate crisis,” Rocca said, referring to spending aimed at rebuilding from the pandemic. “Make sure these investments are green and resilient.”
The federation report analyzed the 132 weather-related disasters in 2020—most of them floods—and found that 92 overlapped with the pandemic. That happened when a disaster occurred after March 11, when the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, or if it occurred prior to that date in a country or U.S. state that had been hit by the pandemic.
The biggest dual impact has been in Bangladesh and India, where nearly 40 million people were affected this year by the pandemic and flooding or storms such as Cyclone Amphan, which killed 129 people in May.
In East Africa, some countries faced a “triple threat” of COVID-19, locusts and flooding, which has left thousands of people homeless and many in shelters “where it’s not possible to observe distancing,” Rocca said.
In the United States, the biggest overlap between the pandemic and weather-related disasters is tied to the Western wildfires that have burned roughly 7 million acres and forced mass evacuations. The federation said the wildfires affected 2.3 million people in the United States.
“Decisions on the economic recovery will determine whether we can be optimistic about our future,” Rocca said. “Bold and urgent climate action cannot wait.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news atwww.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-09-25--How to Distribute a COVID-19 Vaccine Ethically


scientificamerican--2020-09-26--September 2020: The Art and Science of Efficient Manufacturing

“ A four-week Pacific cruise this spring by the U.S. Navy research vessel DeSteiguer has produced further evidence that the earth 's crust consists of discrete drifting plates .
The voyage provides an example of theory successfully predicting fact : if three oceanic plates should drift apart , a wedge-shaped area would appear on the seafloor with its apex at the triple juncture .
The McKenzie-Morgan hypothesis was published jointly in 1968 ; it led one of W. Jason Morgan 's Princeton colleagues , Kenneth S. Deffeyes , to calculate the size and shape of the triple-juncture wedge to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then led the DeSteiguer expedition and collected the data that proved the correctness of the hypothesis.
” “ Among the unusual control methods adopted in the prevention of the hatching of mosquito larvae is the spraying of streams with kerosene or a heavy black oil , classified by dealers as a grade immediately below fuel oil .
The application is made with knapsack pump sprayers or by means of automatic drip cans .
Of course , the expensiveness of the oil is a factor to reckon with , but one small Southern lumbering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a per capita cost of $ 1.23 .
Moreover , the visits of the physicians for the purpose of treating malaria were reduced 70 percent compared with the previous year.
” “ In the Waltham Watch Factory , simple hand machines , with which a few of the parts of the watch had been produced , were here brought together , and hundreds of new ones , at many hundreds of thousands of dollars ' cost , were created , and all interwoven , as it were , into one vast mechanical organism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power by means of driving shafts through a whole colony of similar working rooms , and the result is the production of watches at the rate of one every three minutes , and with a uniformity and perfection which have at once and forever antiquated all previous methods of their production.
” “ In our practice as patent solicitors we have frequently been called upon to prepare applications for female inventors ; and we can say to those who are unbelievers in regard to the power of women to achieve , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a piece of embroidery , that the inventions made by women , and for which they solicit patents through our agency , are generally found to be in their practical character , and in their adaptation and selection of means to effect a definite purpose , fully equal to the inventions made by men.
” Humans , for a long time , have been planning for future needs by making things .
The industrial revolution , starting in about 1760 , replaced traditional energy sources with the power of steam .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for the next century , the efforts of physics and chemistry—with help from the new management sciences—created more and better machines and energy sources , increased the amount of goods made and the appetite for raw materials .
Electronic computers appeared in the 1940s and by the 1980s were coming into widespread use for guiding machines .
Perhaps someday we will harness the power of nature and use chemical bonds and biological materials to do our labor for us .
—D.S .

1970
1970 Pacific Junction
“A four-week Pacific cruise this spring by the U.S. Navy research vessel DeSteiguer has produced further evidence that the earth's crust consists of discrete drifting plates. The voyage provides an example of theory successfully predicting fact: if three oceanic plates should drift apart, a wedge-shaped area would appear on the seafloor with its apex at the triple juncture. The McKenzie-Morgan hypothesis was published jointly in 1968; it led one of W. Jason Morgan's Princeton colleagues, Kenneth S. Deffeyes, to calculate the size and shape of the triple-juncture wedge to be expected in the Galápagos area. Deffeyes then led the DeSteiguer expedition and collected the data that proved the correctness of the hypothesis.”
1920
Malaria Control
“Among the unusual control methods adopted in the prevention of the hatching of mosquito larvae is the spraying of streams with kerosene or a heavy black oil, classified by dealers as a grade immediately below fuel oil. The application is made with knapsack pump sprayers or by means of automatic drip cans. Of course, the expensiveness of the oil is a factor to reckon with, but one small Southern lumbering town made effective its control operations at a per capita cost of $1.23. Moreover, the visits of the physicians for the purpose of treating malaria were reduced 70 percent compared with the previous year.”
1870
Modern Timepieces
“In the Waltham Watch Factory, simple hand machines, with which a few of the parts of the watch had been produced, were here brought together, and hundreds of new ones, at many hundreds of thousands of dollars' cost, were created, and all interwoven, as it were, into one vast mechanical organism. A single steam engine distributes its power by means of driving shafts through a whole colony of similar working rooms, and the result is the production of watches at the rate of one every three minutes, and with a uniformity and perfection which have at once and forever antiquated all previous methods of their production.”
Inventive Talent
“In our practice as patent solicitors we have frequently been called upon to prepare applications for female inventors; and we can say to those who are unbelievers in regard to the power of women to achieve, as a class, anything higher than a pound-cake or a piece of embroidery, that the inventions made by women, and for which they solicit patents through our agency, are generally found to be in their practical character, and in their adaptation and selection of means to effect a definite purpose, fully equal to the inventions made by men.”
How We Make Things
1982: By the time this September issue was published, computers, which emerged in the 1940s, were common in most workplaces.
Humans, for a long time, have been planning for future needs by making things. The industrial revolution, starting in about 1760, replaced traditional energy sources with the power of steam. From the founding of this magazine in 1845 and for the next century, the efforts of physics and chemistry—with help from the new management sciences—created more and better machines and energy sources, increased the amount of goods made and the appetite for raw materials. Electronic computers appeared in the 1940s and by the 1980s were coming into widespread use for guiding machines. Perhaps someday we will harness the power of nature and use chemical bonds and biological materials to do our labor for us. —D.S.


scientificamerican--2020-09-26--How COVID-19 is Changing the English Language

In April , the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary did something unusual .
For the previous 20 years , they had issued quarterly updates to announce new words and meanings selected for inclusion .
These updates have typically been made available in March , June , September and December .
In the late spring , however , and again in July , the dictionary ’ s editors released special updates , citing a need to document the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the English language .
Although the editors have documented many coronavirus-related linguistic shifts , some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , that the pandemic has produced only one truly new word : the acronym COVID-19 .
Most of the coronavirus-related changes that the editors have noted have to do with older , more obscure words and phrases being catapulted into common usage , such as reproduction number and social distancing .
They ’ ve also documented the creation of new word blends based on previously existing vocabulary .
The Oxford English Dictionary aspires to be the most extensive and complete record of the language and its history .
In 1884 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released .
It wasn ’ t completed until 1928 .
Over the ensuing years , additional volumes of new words were published to supplement the first edition , and these were integrated into a second edition that appeared in 1989 .
This is the version you ’ ll find in most libraries .
A digital release , on CD-ROM , followed in 1992 .
In March 2000 , the dictionary launched an online version .
For this new edition , the editors have been revising definitions dating from the first edition that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century old .
Due to its size , this third edition will not appear in printed form , and these revisions may not be completed until 2034 .
At the same time , the editors continue to document the language as it grows , changes and evolves .
The quarterly updates provide a list of new words and revisions .
The September update , for example , includes “ craftivist ” and “ Cookie Monster.
” Something old , something new The special , coronavirus-related updates give us a glimpse into how language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented social and economic disruption .
For example , one of the effects of the pandemic is that it ’ s brought previously obscure medical terms to the forefront of everyday speech .
Traditionally , dictionary editors include scientific and technical terms only if they achieve some degree of currency outside of their disciplines .
This is the case for the names of drugs , since there are many thousands of these .
For example , you ’ ll see Ritalin and Oxycontin in the dictionary , but you won ’ t see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen at least two drug names jump into public discourse .
Hydroxychloroquine , a malaria treatment touted by some as a magic bullet against the virus , was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in July , although the drug ’ s name had appeared in print as early as 1951 .
Another newly famous drug is dexamethasone , a corticosteroid that has reduced the COVID-19 death rate .
It appeared in print as early as 1958 and was included in the dictionary ’ s second edition .
In the July update , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug ’ s current use to combat the coronavirus .
The updates also include new citations for such terms as community transmission , which dates to 1959 , and community spread , which was first documented in print in 1903 .
Terms related to social isolation existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic , but they ’ ve become much more common in 2020 .
Self-isolate , self-isolated and shelter in place all received new citations to illustrate their current usage .
Some terms have seen a shift in meaning .
Originally , sheltering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a circumscribed event , like a tornado or an active shooter attack .
It ’ s now being used to refer to a prolonged period of social isolation .
Similarly , elbow bump has evolved from a gesture akin to a high-five , as documented in 1981 , to its present form : a safe way to greet another person .
Some regional differences are also emerging in COVID-19 language .
Self-isolate has been the preferred term in British English , whereas self-quarantine is more commonly employed in the U.S. “ Rona ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for coronavirus has been observed in the U.S. and Australia , but the dictionary editors haven ’ t documented wide enough usage to warrant its inclusion .
A perennial issue for lexicographers is deciding whether or not a term has enough staying power to be enshrined in the dictionary .
The COVID-19 pandemic has produced its fair share of new terms that are blends of other words , and many of these are on the editors ’ watch list .
They include “ maskne , ” an acne outbreak caused by facial coverings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when strangers intrude on video conferences ; and “ quarantini , ” a cocktail consumed in isolation .
Other new blends include “ covidiot , ” for someone who ignores public safety recommendations ; “ doomscrolling , ” which happens when you skim anxiety-inducing pandemic-related stories on your smartphone ; and the German term “ hamsterkauf , ” or panic buying .
Whether such terms will be in common usage after the pandemic is anyone ’ s guess .
And what of COVID-19 itself ?
According to the dictionary ’ s editors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Health Organization situation report as shorthand for “ coronavirus disease 2019.
” But should it be written as COVID-19 or as Covid-19 ?
The dictionary ’ s editors report regional differences for this term as well .
“ COVID ” is dominant in the U.S. , Canada and Australia , while “ Covid ” is more common in the U.K. , Ireland , New Zealand and South Africa .
Because the Oxford English Dictionary is edited and published in England , British forms take precedence : in the online dictionary , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health crises also spawned new acronyms and terminology .
Nearly 40 years ago , the terms AIDS and HIV entered the language .
However , they didn ’ t appear in the dictionary until the second edition was published at the end of the 1980s .
By releasing updates online , the editors can track language changes as they occur in near real time , and the arbiters of the English language no longer have to play catch-up .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read @ @ @ @

In April, the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary did something unusual. For the previous 20 years, they had issued quarterly updates to announce new words and meanings selected for inclusion. These updates have typically been made available in March, June, September and December.
In the late spring, however, and again in July, the dictionary’s editors released special updates, citing a need to document the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the English language.
Although the editors have documented many coronavirus-related linguistic shifts, some of their observations are surprising. They claim, for example, that the pandemic has produced only one truly new word: the acronym COVID-19.
Most of the coronavirus-related changes that the editors have noted have to do with older, more obscure words and phrases being catapulted into common usage, such as reproduction number and social distancing. They’ve also documented the creation of new word blends based on previously existing vocabulary.
The dictionary of record
The Oxford English Dictionary aspires to be the most extensive and complete record of the language and its history.
In 1884, parts of the first edition were released. It wasn’t completed until 1928. Over the ensuing years, additional volumes of new words were published to supplement the first edition, and these were integrated into a second edition that appeared in 1989. This is the version you’ll find in most libraries. A digital release, on CD-ROM, followed in 1992.
In March 2000, the dictionary launched an online version. For this new edition, the editors have been revising definitions dating from the first edition that are, in many cases, over a century old. Due to its size, this third edition will not appear in printed form, and these revisions may not be completed until 2034.
At the same time, the editors continue to document the language as it grows, changes and evolves. The quarterly updates provide a list of new words and revisions. The September update, for example, includes “craftivist” and “Cookie Monster.”
Something old, something new
The special, coronavirus-related updates give us a glimpse into how language can quickly change in the face of unprecedented social and economic disruption. For example, one of the effects of the pandemic is that it’s brought previously obscure medical terms to the forefront of everyday speech.
Traditionally, dictionary editors include scientific and technical terms only if they achieve some degree of currency outside of their disciplines. This is the case for the names of drugs, since there are many thousands of these. For example, you’ll see Ritalin and Oxycontin in the dictionary, but you won’t see Aripiprazole.
However, the pandemic has seen at least two drug names jump into public discourse.
Hydroxychloroquine, a malaria treatment touted by some as a magic bullet against the virus, was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in July, although the drug’s name had appeared in print as early as 1951.
Another newly famous drug is dexamethasone, a corticosteroid that has reduced the COVID-19 death rate. It appeared in print as early as 1958 and was included in the dictionary’s second edition. In the July update, the editors provided a quotation illustrating the drug’s current use to combat the coronavirus.
The updates also include new citations for such terms as community transmission, which dates to 1959, and community spread, which was first documented in print in 1903.
The language of quarantining
Terms related to social isolation existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic, but they’ve become much more common in 2020.
Self-isolate, self-isolated and shelter in place all received new citations to illustrate their current usage.
Some terms have seen a shift in meaning. Originally, sheltering in place referred to seeking safety during a circumscribed event, like a tornado or an active shooter attack. It’s now being used to refer to a prolonged period of social isolation.
Similarly, elbow bump has evolved from a gesture akin to a high-five, as documented in 1981, to its present form: a safe way to greet another person.
Some regional differences are also emerging in COVID-19 language. Self-isolate has been the preferred term in British English, whereas self-quarantine is more commonly employed in the U.S. “Rona” or “the rona” as slang for coronavirus has been observed in the U.S. and Australia, but the dictionary editors haven’t documented wide enough usage to warrant its inclusion.
On the watch list
A perennial issue for lexicographers is deciding whether or not a term has enough staying power to be enshrined in the dictionary. The COVID-19 pandemic has produced its fair share of new terms that are blends of other words, and many of these are on the editors’ watch list. They include “maskne,” an acne outbreak caused by facial coverings; “zoombombing,” which is when strangers intrude on video conferences; and “quarantini,” a cocktail consumed in isolation.
Other new blends include “covidiot,” for someone who ignores public safety recommendations; “doomscrolling,” which happens when you skim anxiety-inducing pandemic-related stories on your smartphone; and the German term “hamsterkauf,” or panic buying. Whether such terms will be in common usage after the pandemic is anyone’s guess.
‘COVID’ or ‘Covid’?
And what of COVID-19 itself?
According to the dictionary’s editors, it first appeared in a Feb. 11 World Health Organization situation report as shorthand for “coronavirus disease 2019.”
But should it be written as COVID-19 or as Covid-19? The dictionary’s editors report regional differences for this term as well.
“COVID” is dominant in the U.S., Canada and Australia, while “Covid” is more common in the U.K., Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa.
Because the Oxford English Dictionary is edited and published in England, British forms take precedence: in the online dictionary, it appears under the headword Covid-19.
Earlier health crises also spawned new acronyms and terminology. Nearly 40 years ago, the terms AIDS and HIV entered the language. However, they didn’t appear in the dictionary until the second edition was published at the end of the 1980s.
By releasing updates online, the editors can track language changes as they occur in near real time, and the arbiters of the English language no longer have to play catch-up.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


scientificamerican--2020-09-26--Is there Really Life on Venus? There's Only One Way Know for Sure

Most people tend to think of Venus as completely uninhabitable , given that its surface temperature hovers around 900 degrees Fahrenheit ( 480 degrees Celsius ) , which doesn ’ t seem very inviting .
But I have long championed the idea that life could exist in the thick cloud decks that shroud the planet .
In my 1997 book Venus Revealed , I pointed out that our then-new view of Venus from the Magellan radar orbiter showed that our next-door solar system neighbor had a geologically active surface that must be interacting chemically with the cool clouds above , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encourage and nourish high-altitude organisms .
It has not been a popular view .
In the 1960s , atmospheric chemist James Lovelock was consulting for NASA in designing life detection instruments for Mars .
He concluded that the best way to search was to simply study its atmosphere with spectrometers and look for the disequilibrium gases that life must produce .
NASA ignored him and sent the billion-dollar Viking Lander , which in 1976 succeeded in landing on Mars and sending back revelatory photographs of the surface , crucial atmospheric measurements , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s hard to search for life without assuming very specific and somewhat Earth-centric definitions of life ’ s qualities and needs .
But the exoplanet revolution has revived a focus on remote detection of biosignatures—the telltale indicators of life .
This assumes nothing about alien metabolisms other than that they would exchange gases with their environments and alter their entropy state—in other words that they would be alive as best we can define it .
A coming generation of space telescopes should allow us to determine the composition of many exoplanet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studying which gases are likely to be most characteristic of life—the obvious candidates are oxygen and methane—and also the possible false positives that might fool us .
Wisps of methane on Mars can be seen as a possible biosignature , although geologic sources have also been proposed .
Another gas at the top of the list is phosphine , a phosphorous atom bound to three hydrogens .
On Earth it ’ s almost exclusively a product of biology .
It ’ s also expected , and seen , on hydrogen-rich planets like Jupiter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for rocky planets like ours , it ’ s frequently seen as a sure sign of life .
Now Greaves , et al.
, have reported the detection of phosphine on the closest planet in the universe to ours .
No matter what , the report of finding this stinky , toxic , perhaps biogenic gas on our neighbor Venus will advance the science of atmospheric biosignature detection .
If it ’ s not really phosphine , we will learn something about the difficulty of this kind of observation and the need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does exist on Venus in the quantity reported ( concentrations up to 20 parts per billion ) , we stand to learn something more profound .
Clever chemists will now be trying to come up with alternative , nonbiological sources that produce phosphine in sufficient amounts .
If they succeed , we learn something new , perhaps something important , about Venus and other planets .
And we learn about the limitations of using atmospheric biosignatures to infer life .
If they fail , it doesn ’ t give proof of life but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Venus and study it ’ s atmosphere in situ with 21st-century instruments ( the last entry probe the U.S. launched was in 1978 ) .
Maybe there really are creatures inhabiting the clouds .
Confirming this would surely be one of the most profoundly transformative discoveries ever made .
What else would instantly reveal as much about the nature of life , the universe and everything ?
These are early days of our living with this announcement , and the possibilities are wide open .
It could be a false alarm—but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to search for company , either on the planet next door or on planets out among the stars , the question of atmospheric biosignatures is not going away .
And with Venus , unlike with exoplanets that are tens or hundreds or thousands of light-years away , we can seek context .
We can go and have a look with a journey lasting months instead of centuries .
As the poet e e cummings wrote : `` listen : there 's a hell of a good universe next door ; let 's go @ @

Most people tend to think of Venus as completely uninhabitable, given that its surface temperature hovers around 900 degrees Fahrenheit (480 degrees Celsius), which doesn’t seem very inviting.
But I have long championed the idea that life could exist in the thick cloud decks that shroud the planet. In my 1997 book Venus Revealed, I pointed out that our then-new view of Venus from the Magellan radar orbiter showed that our next-door solar system neighbor had a geologically active surface that must be interacting chemically with the cool clouds above, and possibly even biogeochemical flows that could encourage and nourish high-altitude organisms.
It has not been a popular view.
In the 1960s, atmospheric chemist James Lovelock was consulting for NASA in designing life detection instruments for Mars. He concluded that the best way to search was to simply study its atmosphere with spectrometers and look for the disequilibrium gases that life must produce. NASA ignored him and sent the billion-dollar Viking Lander, which in 1976 succeeded in landing on Mars and sending back revelatory photographs of the surface, crucial atmospheric measurements, and confusing and ambiguous biology results demonstrating that it’s hard to search for life without assuming very specific and somewhat Earth-centric definitions of life’s qualities and needs.
But the exoplanet revolution has revived a focus on remote detection of biosignatures—the telltale indicators of life. This assumes nothing about alien metabolisms other than that they would exchange gases with their environments and alter their entropy state—in other words that they would be alive as best we can define it. A coming generation of space telescopes should allow us to determine the composition of many exoplanet atmospheres.
Much work has gone into studying which gases are likely to be most characteristic of life—the obvious candidates are oxygen and methane—and also the possible false positives that might fool us. Wisps of methane on Mars can be seen as a possible biosignature, although geologic sources have also been proposed. Another gas at the top of the list is phosphine, a phosphorous atom bound to three hydrogens. On Earth it’s almost exclusively a product of biology. It’s also expected, and seen, on hydrogen-rich planets like Jupiter as the result of inorganic chemical processes—but for rocky planets like ours, it’s frequently seen as a sure sign of life.
Now Greaves, et al., have reported the detection of phosphine on the closest planet in the universe to ours. No matter what, the report of finding this stinky, toxic, perhaps biogenic gas on our neighbor Venus will advance the science of atmospheric biosignature detection. If it’s not really phosphine, we will learn something about the difficulty of this kind of observation and the need to proceed with caution. If phosphine really does exist on Venus in the quantity reported (concentrations up to 20 parts per billion), we stand to learn something more profound. Clever chemists will now be trying to come up with alternative, nonbiological sources that produce phosphine in sufficient amounts. If they succeed, we learn something new, perhaps something important, about Venus and other planets. And we learn about the limitations of using atmospheric biosignatures to infer life.
If they fail, it doesn’t give proof of life but increases our already high motivation to go to Venus and study it’s atmosphere in situ with 21st-century instruments (the last entry probe the U.S. launched was in 1978).
Maybe there really are creatures inhabiting the clouds. Confirming this would surely be one of the most profoundly transformative discoveries ever made. What else would instantly reveal as much about the nature of life, the universe and everything?
These are early days of our living with this announcement, and the possibilities are wide open. It could be a false alarm—but it is an alarm. As humanity continues to search for company, either on the planet next door or on planets out among the stars, the question of atmospheric biosignatures is not going away. And with Venus, unlike with exoplanets that are tens or hundreds or thousands of light-years away, we can seek context. We can go and have a look with a journey lasting months instead of centuries.
As the poet e e cummings wrote: "listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go."


scientificamerican--2020-09-27--Color-Changing Ink Turns Clothes into Giant Chemical Sensors

A new color-changing ink could aid in health and environment monitoring—for example , allowing clothing that switches hues when exposed to sweat or a tapestry that shifts colors if a dangerous gas enters the room .
The formulation could be printed on anything from a T-shirt to a tent .
Wearable sensing devices such as smart watches and patches use electronics to monitor heart rate , blood glucose , and more .
Now researchers at Tufts University 's Silklab say their new silk-based inks can respond to , and quantify , the presence of chemicals on or around the body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a protective ‘ cocoon ’ for biological materials ” means the necessary sensing and color-changing compounds can be added to the ink without losing their function , says Fiorenzo Omenetto , a biomedical engineer at Silklab and senior author of a new paper on the technology published in July in Advanced Materials .
The researchers improved on an earlier iteration that worked with inkjet printers , thickening the ink with the chemical sodium alginate to make it viable for screen printing , and then added various reactive substances .
With the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ print a large number of reactive elements onto large surfaces , ” Omenetto says .
The team made the ink by breaking down raw silk fibers into constituent proteins , which the researchers suspended in water .
Next they mixed in various reactive molecules and analyzed how the resulting products changed color when exposed to alterations in their environment .
When printed on fabric and worn , pH indicators , for example , could convey information about skin health or dehydration ; lactate oxidase could measure a wearer 's fatigue levels .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the researchers also used a camera-imaging analysis to continuously monitor the color variations and create a database of values .
“ In the case of a T-shirt , the wearer ‘ paints ’ the shirt [ through ] exercise—with colors correlating to the acidity distribution of their sweat , ” Omenetto says .
The ink could also be adapted to track environmental changes in a room , he says , or to respond to bacteria and follow disease progression .
Mechanical engineer Tyler Ray of the University of Hawaii at Mānoa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study , notes that most of today 's wearable monitors are rigid and fairly bulky .
The new ink technology has “ the potential to transform consumer wearables from recreational novelty devices into body-worn , clinical-grade physiological measurement tools that yield physician-actionable information , ” he says .
But “ one of the challenges with any colorimetric approach is the effect various environmental conditions have on accuracy , such as lighting ... or the camera used.
” Future work needs to address these issues .

A new color-changing ink could aid in health and environment monitoring—for example, allowing clothing that switches hues when exposed to sweat or a tapestry that shifts colors if a dangerous gas enters the room. The formulation could be printed on anything from a T-shirt to a tent.
Wearable sensing devices such as smart watches and patches use electronics to monitor heart rate, blood glucose, and more. Now researchers at Tufts University's Silklab say their new silk-based inks can respond to, and quantify, the presence of chemicals on or around the body. Silk's ability to “act like a protective ‘cocoon’ for biological materials” means the necessary sensing and color-changing compounds can be added to the ink without losing their function, says Fiorenzo Omenetto, a biomedical engineer at Silklab and senior author of a new paper on the technology published in July in Advanced Materials.
The researchers improved on an earlier iteration that worked with inkjet printers, thickening the ink with the chemical sodium alginate to make it viable for screen printing, and then added various reactive substances. With the new ink, they can now “easily print a large number of reactive elements onto large surfaces,” Omenetto says.
The team made the ink by breaking down raw silk fibers into constituent proteins, which the researchers suspended in water. Next they mixed in various reactive molecules and analyzed how the resulting products changed color when exposed to alterations in their environment. When printed on fabric and worn, pH indicators, for example, could convey information about skin health or dehydration; lactate oxidase could measure a wearer's fatigue levels. The changes are visible to the naked eye, but the researchers also used a camera-imaging analysis to continuously monitor the color variations and create a database of values.
“In the case of a T-shirt, the wearer ‘paints’ the shirt [through] exercise—with colors correlating to the acidity distribution of their sweat,” Omenetto says. The ink could also be adapted to track environmental changes in a room, he says, or to respond to bacteria and follow disease progression.
Mechanical engineer Tyler Ray of the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, who was not involved with the study, notes that most of today's wearable monitors are rigid and fairly bulky. The new ink technology has “the potential to transform consumer wearables from recreational novelty devices into body-worn, clinical-grade physiological measurement tools that yield physician-actionable information,” he says. But “one of the challenges with any colorimetric approach is the effect various environmental conditions have on accuracy, such as lighting ... or the camera used.” Future work needs to address these issues.


scientificamerican--2020-09-27--How Decoding Dyslexia Can Help Decode the Mind

During this school year , thousands of children will begin reading .
Despite their best efforts , however , up to a tenth of them will struggle .
If we were aware of the early warning signs , we could help these children by using research-based remediation .
But dyslexia is poorly understood by the public .
Unveiling these misconceptions can help millions of children .
It could also help decode the human mind .
To shed light on the public view of dyslexia , let us take a moment to play clinician .
Consider John and Jack , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letters , like b and d , while Jack struggles to link letters with sounds ; he doesn ’ t recognize that kat sounds like the name of a familiar animal .
Which one has a reading disorder ?
If you are like most laypeople , you would probably think John ’ s letter reversals are the telltale sign of dyslexia .
But reading science suggests otherwise .
Dyslexia , to be clear , is heterogeneous , and its many symptoms include visual difficulties .
But letter reversals are common in all preliterate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s difficulties , however , are quite typical of dyslexia .
Skilled readers routinely link letters to speech sounds , or phonemes ( e.g.
, c→k ) , so they readily recognize kat and cat as homophones ; they sound alike .
This process ( phonological decoding ) is unconscious and automatic , yet it ’ s an integral part of reading .
But in dyslexia , this process is disrupted .
The roots of the problem arise much earlier .
Before a child learns to read , she needs to recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( e.g.
, cat begins with a k sound ) , or else , the function of letters is mysterious .
But for children with dyslexia , phonemic awareness is difficult .
Speech perception is likewise atypical .
Infants who are at risk for dyslexia ( because dyslexia runs in their families ) show atypical brain response to speech well before they ever read their first word .
And since the reading brain network “ recycles ” the speech and language network , an atypical speech system begets atypical reading .
So reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature and nurture .
Reading is a learned skill ; no one is born reading .
But learning to read relies on inborn human capacities for language and speech .
And dyslexia is a genetic condition that compromises these brain networks .
Yet laypeople are convinced that dyslexia results from “ troubles with vision .
And these errors matter .
A parent who holds these views might fail to recognize her child ’ s difficulties with rhymes and pig Latin ( both require phonemic awareness ) as warning signs .
So why are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do we mistake dyslexia for “ word blindness ” ?
At first blush , these misconceptions seem rather innocent ; laypeople , by definition , aren ’ t reading experts , so perhaps they just don ’ t know better .
But aspiring teachers , with ample educational training , make similar mistakes .
Moreover , the pattern of mistakes suggests a deeper problem .
Remember our “ play clinician ” exercise ?
When my lab presented these questions to laypeople , participants not only failed to recognize phonological decoding difficulties as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to view them as biological .
This error is telling .
If people believe that cognition , such as phonological decoding , is ephemeral and disembodied ( it ’ s just “ in your head , ” not in your brain/body ) , but they correctly believe that dyslexia is biologically heritable , then it ’ s no wonder they conclude that phonological symptoms can not possibly arise from an inborn source .
Vision , on the other hand , seems patently anchored in our body ( eyes ) , so a priori @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biological genetic etiology .
Consequently , laypeople struggle to link dyslexia to its true cognitive origins , and instead , presume a sensory visual cause .
So if we grant people the irrational belief that phonological decoding is “ ephemeral , ” then we can now understand why they struggle to link dyslexia to phonological decoding .
But why would this irrational premise arise in the first place ?
Why do people believe that the cognitive process of phonological decoding is ephemeral ?
In a new book , I show that this presumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readily assume that our sensations and emotions are inborn .
But they deny the innateness of abstract cognitive concepts such as number ( e.g.
, “ two objects ” ) .
And they are wrong ; newborns demonstrably possess such notions .
Critically , the denial of innate cognition is linked to its perceived “ disembodiment ” ; the more “ ephemeral ” a capacity seems , the less likely it is to be considered inborn .
I thus believe that these errors—whether they concern typical cognitive capacities of newborns or the atypical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : from people ’ s tacit beliefs about how the mind works .
Paradoxically , these beliefs are guided by the very principles that make our mind tick .
One principle , known as essentialism , suggests to us that the inborn essence of living things resides in their bodies .
Children , for instance , believe that a dog is brown because it inherited some tiny piece of matter from its biological parents .
Another principle—dualism—suggests to us that the mind is ephemeral , distinct from the material body .
So if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be embodied , whereas if ( per dualism ) the mind is distinct from the body , then it follows that disembodied capacities can not be innate .
And since cognition appears ephemeral , we conclude it can not be innate , and this applies to both number and phonological decoding .
While these biases are unconscious , they demonstrably veer off reasoning in numerous areas , from our irrational fascination with the brain to our fear of artificial intelligence ; our troubles with dyslexia , then , are but one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ errors , information alone won ’ t suffice—a real change requires that we take a hard look within .
Reading , then , rests on decoding in more ways than one .
For children to successfully decode printed words , we must all improve our decoding of the human mind .

During this school year, thousands of children will begin reading. Despite their best efforts, however, up to a tenth of them will struggle. If we were aware of the early warning signs, we could help these children by using research-based remediation. But dyslexia is poorly understood by the public. Unveiling these misconceptions can help millions of children. It could also help decode the human mind.
To shed light on the public view of dyslexia, let us take a moment to play clinician. Consider John and Jack, who suffer from reading difficulties. John confuses letters, like b and d, while Jack struggles to link letters with sounds; he doesn’t recognize that kat sounds like the name of a familiar animal. Which one has a reading disorder?
If you are like most laypeople, you would probably think John’s letter reversals are the telltale sign of dyslexia. But reading science suggests otherwise. Dyslexia, to be clear, is heterogeneous, and its many symptoms include visual difficulties. But letter reversals are common in all preliterate children, not in dyslexia specifically
Jack’s difficulties, however, are quite typical of dyslexia. Skilled readers routinely link letters to speech sounds, or phonemes (e.g., c→k), so they readily recognize kat and cat as homophones; they sound alike. This process (phonological decoding) is unconscious and automatic, yet it’s an integral part of reading. But in dyslexia, this process is disrupted.
The roots of the problem arise much earlier. Before a child learns to read, she needs to recognize that spoken words are composed of sounds (e.g., cat begins with a k sound), or else, the function of letters is mysterious. But for children with dyslexia, phonemic awareness is difficult. Speech perception is likewise atypical. Infants who are at risk for dyslexia (because dyslexia runs in their families) show atypical brain response to speech well before they ever read their first word. And since the reading brain network “recycles” the speech and language network, an atypical speech system begets atypical reading.
So reading and dyslexia illustrate the rich tension between nature and nurture. Reading is a learned skill; no one is born reading. But learning to read relies on inborn human capacities for language and speech. And dyslexia is a genetic condition that compromises these brain networks.
Yet laypeople are convinced that dyslexia results from “troubles with vision. And these errors matter. A parent who holds these views might fail to recognize her child’s difficulties with rhymes and pig Latin (both require phonemic awareness) as warning signs. So why are we so wrong about dyslexia? Why do we mistake dyslexia for “word blindness”?
At first blush, these misconceptions seem rather innocent; laypeople, by definition, aren’t reading experts, so perhaps they just don’t know better. But aspiring teachers, with ample educational training, make similar mistakes. Moreover, the pattern of mistakes suggests a deeper problem.
Remember our “play clinician” exercise? When my lab presented these questions to laypeople, participants not only failed to recognize phonological decoding difficulties as a symptom of dyslexia; they also failed to view them as biological.
This error is telling. If people believe that cognition, such as phonological decoding, is ephemeral and disembodied (it’s just “in your head,” not in your brain/body), but they correctly believe that dyslexia is biologically heritable, then it’s no wonder they conclude that phonological symptoms cannot possibly arise from an inborn source. Vision, on the other hand, seems patently anchored in our body (eyes), so a priori, “vision troubles” suggest a biological genetic etiology. Consequently, laypeople struggle to link dyslexia to its true cognitive origins, and instead, presume a sensory visual cause.
So if we grant people the irrational belief that phonological decoding is “ephemeral,” then we can now understand why they struggle to link dyslexia to phonological decoding. But why would this irrational premise arise in the first place? Why do people believe that the cognitive process of phonological decoding is ephemeral?
In a new book, I show that this presumption applies to cognition quite generally. People readily assume that our sensations and emotions are inborn. But they deny the innateness of abstract cognitive concepts such as number (e.g., “two objects”). And they are wrong; newborns demonstrably possess such notions. Critically, the denial of innate cognition is linked to its perceived “disembodiment”; the more “ephemeral” a capacity seems, the less likely it is to be considered inborn.
I thus believe that these errors—whether they concern typical cognitive capacities of newborns or the atypical cognition in dyslexia—arise from a single cause: from people’s tacit beliefs about how the mind works. Paradoxically, these beliefs are guided by the very principles that make our mind tick.
One principle, known as essentialism, suggests to us that the inborn essence of living things resides in their bodies. Children, for instance, believe that a dog is brown because it inherited some tiny piece of matter from its biological parents. Another principle—dualism—suggests to us that the mind is ephemeral, distinct from the material body. So if (per essentialism), inborn capacities must be embodied, whereas if (per dualism) the mind is distinct from the body, then it follows that disembodied capacities cannot be innate. And since cognition appears ephemeral, we conclude it cannot be innate, and this applies to both number and phonological decoding.
While these biases are unconscious, they demonstrably veer off reasoning in numerous areas, from our irrational fascination with the brain to our fear of artificial intelligence; our troubles with dyslexia, then, are but one of its many victims. To counter these errors, information alone won’t suffice—a real change requires that we take a hard look within.
Reading, then, rests on decoding in more ways than one. For children to successfully decode printed words, we must all improve our decoding of the human mind.