scientificamerican--2020-12-10--FDA Commissioner Says Vaccine Approval Process Will Be Transparent and Guided by Data

All eyes are on a meeting today to determine whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will grant an emergency use authorization ( EUA ) for a COVID vaccine .
Several promising candidates have been developed at a breakneck pace .
The FDA published guidance in June and October laying out the criteria a vaccine must meet for an EUA .
The pharmaceutical company Pfizer ( in partnership with the German firm BioNTech ) applied for one for its vaccine on November 20 .
Moderna submitted an application for its vaccine on November 30 .
The U.K. granted emergency approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 .
At the FDA ’ s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research ’ s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee ’ s public meeting , committee members will discuss the Pfizer data and vote on whether to recommend an EUA in the U.S. , which could be granted as early as Friday .
It will discuss Moderna ’ s data next week .
Vaccines typically take years to develop , but a number of them against COVID have now been created and tested in tens of thousands of individuals in less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparked concerns—exacerbated by outgoing president Donald Trump ’ s apparent attempts to pressure the FDA to quickly approve a vaccine—about whether the process has been too rushed .
Meanwhile others have accused the agency of moving too slowly .
Although the FDA expedited its normal review process from months to weeks , its commissioner Stephen Hahn insists that “ we ’ re not going to cut any corners in our assessment of the vaccine.
” Scientific American spoke with Hahn about what the procedures for evaluating COVID vaccine data are , which groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EUA , and why the American public should trust that any authorized vaccine will be safe and effective .
[ An edited transcript of the interview follows . ]
What can we expect from the meeting on Pfizer ’ s vaccine this week ?
We [ have posted online ] public documents that [ we prepared ] for the vaccine advisory committee .
And those documents summarize our data analysis , which , over the past two weeks , we have been working on nonstop .
As you know , we received the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been analyzing the data and doing the number crunching to draw our own conclusions .
We [ created ] a series of documents that are public that will go to the vaccine advisory committee , and it will review those documents , and then we ’ ll have a public discussion about them .
The way this works is that we typically create a series of questions for the vaccine advisory committee regarding the conclusions on the data , and then [ the committee members ] will discuss that and vote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case around safety and efficacy .
That will be public .
And then soon thereafter , we will make a decision incorporating the comments of the vaccine advisory committee .
What is the soonest we might hear about the FDA potentially granting an EUA ?
It really depends on the comments that come out of the advisory committee and the advice that we get .
What I can tell you , without prejudging that time frame , is that we will work around the clock , and we will act expeditiously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was able to authorize the Pfizer vaccine a week ahead of when the FDA will be looking at it ?
I ca n't speak to U.K. processes and why they made the decision they made , which has engendered , certainly , a lot of discussion in the press and among regulators—that ’ s for sure .
What I can tell you is that we are one of the few regulatory agencies in the world that do an analysis of the data on our own , drawing our own conclusions .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know from the FDA .
It ’ s why we ’ re respected around the world as the gold standard for safety and efficacy of medical products .
If an EUA is granted , which groups of people will it apply to ?
Might they include the elderly , children or pregnant women ?
We will be asked questions such as ‘ What are the data for children ?
What are the data for racial and ethnic minorities ?
Are there differences in safety ?
Are there differences in efficacy among different populations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that need to be made regarding distribution and prioritization .
Questions abound , for example , about whether there is substantial immunity after one injection because these vaccines were given in two injections as part of the clinical trial .
These are very important questions that will guide a lot of what we ’ re going to say with respect to our emergency use authorization—if , in fact , we authorize these vaccines .
And it ’ s very important because it provides the appropriate guidance on the safety and effectiveness of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriously .
The bottom line for me is : If , in fact , we and our scientists here authorize a vaccine , I have complete and absolute confidence that that will be the right decision .
We ’ ll have done that right for the American people—and I will certainly , when it ’ s appropriate , get in line to get that vaccine .
And we ’ ll want to look at immunosuppressed people : people who have kidney failure , people who have what ’ s called autoimmune diseases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those as well , because we will , of course , be asked the question ‘ Should certain populations receive the vaccine ?
’ What we can do in the EUA , depending on the data , is actually address those specific questions .
If there are populations that we feel require that the data show specific instructions regarding the administration of vaccine , we will obviously put that in the EUA .
Have you been in touch with President-elect Joe Biden ’ s transition team about a vaccine rollout or any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smooth transition ?
I have not .
Those interactions with the transition team come through HHS [ the Department of Health and Human Services ] .
When or if I ’ m asked to do that , I will do so right away to make sure that there is an appropriate exchange of information .
I do know that the transition team , at the request of HHS , has spoken to folks within the FDA .
Did the immense urgency of this pandemic affect how you approached the normal vaccine approval process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromises in terms of safety or efficacy ?
This is a really important point you ’ re bringing up .
First of all , this is one of the reasons we ’ ve been so transparent in our June 30 guidance regarding vaccine development for COVID-19 and the October 6 guidance on emergency use authorization .
We ’ ve been very clear from the beginning on what data we would need to see : clear and compelling evidence of safety and efficacy from at least one randomized clinical trial .
That is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a biologics license application , or BLA , which is the normal approval process .
And we also wanted to see quality manufacturing and adherence to manufacturing standards , because we want to make sure that every vaccine produced is of high quality and similar to the ones that were used in the clinical trial .
We also worked ahead of any application to make sure that we were on top of the manufacturing issues that might or might not arise with any vaccine .
This was an expedited process , compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me just give you an example : for a clinical trial that has 44,000 participants such as the Pfizer trial , that application , if it were part of the biologics license application that came before it , would normally be reviewed in a four- to six-month time period .
We received that application on November 20 , so you can see that in a matter of weeks , we ’ re doing the work that ’ s very similar to what we would do for an application that would take us months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , of the urgency of the situation .
What steps will you be taking to reassure the public that any vaccine that is authorized is indeed safe and effective ?
We ’ re not going to cut any corners in our assessment of the vaccine .
We need to make sure that we ’ re comfortable that we can make recommendations to the American people about safety and efficacy .
Confidence in the vaccine is of utmost importance to us .
There has been quite a lot of discussion about vaccine hesitancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure that there was confidence in the FDA ’ s review procedures and that we were following them .
Thus , the need for an outside group of experts , the [ vaccine advisory ] committee , that was part of our normal process .
And we felt strongly that that would indeed bolster confidence .
These scientific eyes on the data are really important for America to see .
I think that transparency—and the transparency that we will have with respect to explaining any decision we make—is really important .
President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slowed the approval of vaccines and therapeutics until after the election .
Have you ever felt pressured by the president or his administration to move more quickly on a vaccine ?
And if so , has that pressure interfered with your ability to do your job ?
Of course there ’ s pressure—the pressure of the moment is substantial .
There are people who would argue we ’ re moving too fast , and there are people who would argue we ’ re moving too slow .
The reason we were very transparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process we needed to put in place to make the best decision for the American people was precisely for this reason : to demonstrate that we were not just following that process but making the absolute best decision .
So yes , there ’ s pressure because this is a major medical event .
It ’ s a serious and life-threatening pandemic .
And we have to move quickly .
We ’ re aware of the human toll that this has taken socioeconomically , medically .
But at the same time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to put this pandemic behind us , we need people to take the vaccine , we need to achieve herd immunity .
And in order to do that , folks have to have confidence that they can and should take the vaccine .
Part of that is our making sure that we do a very thorough scientific review .
I have to tell you that , personally and also [ speaking for ] the agency that I represent , we are always going to do the right thing .
The FDA did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were available from a clinical trial .
That ’ s in the domain of the companies that sponsor these applications .
We have spent a lot of time talking to them .
We ’ re aware of their decision-making , and we stand ready and have stood ready to look at data when they ’ re available .
No other factors went into our decision-making other than a knowledge and a review of science and data .
And that ’ s going to continue .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our international network of magazines here .

All eyes are on a meeting today to determine whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will grant an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a COVID vaccine.
Several promising candidates have been developed at a breakneck pace. The FDA published guidance in June and October laying out the criteria a vaccine must meet for an EUA. The pharmaceutical company Pfizer (in partnership with the German firm BioNTech) applied for one for its vaccine on November 20. Moderna submitted an application for its vaccine on November 30. The U.K. granted emergency approval to Pfizer’s vaccine on December 2. At the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee’s public meeting, committee members will discuss the Pfizer data and vote on whether to recommend an EUA in the U.S., which could be granted as early as Friday. It will discuss Moderna’s data next week.
Vaccines typically take years to develop, but a number of them against COVID have now been created and tested in tens of thousands of individuals in less than one year. This speed has sparked concerns—exacerbated by outgoing president Donald Trump’s apparent attempts to pressure the FDA to quickly approve a vaccine—about whether the process has been too rushed. Meanwhile others have accused the agency of moving too slowly. Although the FDA expedited its normal review process from months to weeks, its commissioner Stephen Hahn insists that “we’re not going to cut any corners in our assessment of the vaccine.”
Scientific American spoke with Hahn about what the procedures for evaluating COVID vaccine data are, which groups of people might be covered under an EUA, and why the American public should trust that any authorized vaccine will be safe and effective.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
What can we expect from the meeting on Pfizer’s vaccine this week?
We [have posted online] public documents that [we prepared] for the vaccine advisory committee. And those documents summarize our data analysis, which, over the past two weeks, we have been working on nonstop. As you know, we received the application on November 20. And we have been analyzing the data and doing the number crunching to draw our own conclusions. We [created] a series of documents that are public that will go to the vaccine advisory committee, and it will review those documents, and then we’ll have a public discussion about them. The way this works is that we typically create a series of questions for the vaccine advisory committee regarding the conclusions on the data, and then [the committee members] will discuss that and vote on their thoughts regarding those questions, particularly in this case around safety and efficacy. That will be public. And then soon thereafter, we will make a decision incorporating the comments of the vaccine advisory committee.
What is the soonest we might hear about the FDA potentially granting an EUA?
It really depends on the comments that come out of the advisory committee and the advice that we get. What I can tell you, without prejudging that time frame, is that we will work around the clock, and we will act expeditiously.
Can you explain why the U.K. was able to authorize the Pfizer vaccine a week ahead of when the FDA will be looking at it?
I can't speak to U.K. processes and why they made the decision they made, which has engendered, certainly, a lot of discussion in the press and among regulators—that’s for sure. What I can tell you is that we are one of the few regulatory agencies in the world that do an analysis of the data on our own, drawing our own conclusions. This is what the American people have come to know from the FDA. It’s why we’re respected around the world as the gold standard for safety and efficacy of medical products.
If an EUA is granted, which groups of people will it apply to? Might they include the elderly, children or pregnant women?
We will be asked questions such as ‘What are the data for children? What are the data for racial and ethnic minorities? Are there differences in safety? Are there differences in efficacy among different populations?’—because that will inform decisions that need to be made regarding distribution and prioritization. Questions abound, for example, about whether there is substantial immunity after one injection because these vaccines were given in two injections as part of the clinical trial. These are very important questions that will guide a lot of what we’re going to say with respect to our emergency use authorization—if, in fact, we authorize these vaccines. And it’s very important because it provides the appropriate guidance on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. We take that responsibility very seriously. The bottom line for me is: If, in fact, we and our scientists here authorize a vaccine, I have complete and absolute confidence that that will be the right decision. We’ll have done that right for the American people—and I will certainly, when it’s appropriate, get in line to get that vaccine.
And we’ll want to look at immunosuppressed people: people who have kidney failure, people who have what’s called autoimmune diseases. We've looked extensively at the data for those as well, because we will, of course, be asked the question ‘Should certain populations receive the vaccine?’ What we can do in the EUA, depending on the data, is actually address those specific questions. If there are populations that we feel require that the data show specific instructions regarding the administration of vaccine, we will obviously put that in the EUA.
Have you been in touch with President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team about a vaccine rollout or any other matters that are relevant to a smooth transition?
I have not. Those interactions with the transition team come through HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services]. When or if I’m asked to do that, I will do so right away to make sure that there is an appropriate exchange of information. I do know that the transition team, at the request of HHS, has spoken to folks within the FDA.
Did the immense urgency of this pandemic affect how you approached the normal vaccine approval process? Did you have to make any compromises in terms of safety or efficacy?
This is a really important point you’re bringing up. First of all, this is one of the reasons we’ve been so transparent in our June 30 guidance regarding vaccine development for COVID-19 and the October 6 guidance on emergency use authorization. We’ve been very clear from the beginning on what data we would need to see: clear and compelling evidence of safety and efficacy from at least one randomized clinical trial. That is very similar to what we would normally see in a biologics license application, or BLA, which is the normal approval process. And we also wanted to see quality manufacturing and adherence to manufacturing standards, because we want to make sure that every vaccine produced is of high quality and similar to the ones that were used in the clinical trial. We also worked ahead of any application to make sure that we were on top of the manufacturing issues that might or might not arise with any vaccine.
This was an expedited process, compared with what we normally do. Let me just give you an example: for a clinical trial that has 44,000 participants such as the Pfizer trial, that application, if it were part of the biologics license application that came before it, would normally be reviewed in a four- to six-month time period. We received that application on November 20, so you can see that in a matter of weeks, we’re doing the work that’s very similar to what we would do for an application that would take us months. And that is because, of course, of the urgency of the situation.
What steps will you be taking to reassure the public that any vaccine that is authorized is indeed safe and effective?
We’re not going to cut any corners in our assessment of the vaccine. We need to make sure that we’re comfortable that we can make recommendations to the American people about safety and efficacy.
Confidence in the vaccine is of utmost importance to us. There has been quite a lot of discussion about vaccine hesitancy in the country. We wanted to make sure that there was confidence in the FDA’s review procedures and that we were following them. Thus, the need for an outside group of experts, the [vaccine advisory] committee, that was part of our normal process. And we felt strongly that that would indeed bolster confidence. These scientific eyes on the data are really important for America to see. I think that transparency—and the transparency that we will have with respect to explaining any decision we make—is really important.
President Trump has baselessly complained that the FDA slowed the approval of vaccines and therapeutics until after the election. Have you ever felt pressured by the president or his administration to move more quickly on a vaccine? And if so, has that pressure interfered with your ability to do your job?
Of course there’s pressure—the pressure of the moment is substantial. There are people who would argue we’re moving too fast, and there are people who would argue we’re moving too slow. The reason we were very transparent about what we needed to see and the process we needed to put in place to make the best decision for the American people was precisely for this reason: to demonstrate that we were not just following that process but making the absolute best decision. So yes, there’s pressure because this is a major medical event. It’s a serious and life-threatening pandemic. And we have to move quickly. We’re aware of the human toll that this has taken socioeconomically, medically. But at the same time, we’re also aware that in order to put this pandemic behind us, we need people to take the vaccine, we need to achieve herd immunity. And in order to do that, folks have to have confidence that they can and should take the vaccine. Part of that is our making sure that we do a very thorough scientific review.
I have to tell you that, personally and also [speaking for] the agency that I represent, we are always going to do the right thing. The FDA did not control the timing of when data were available from a clinical trial. That’s in the domain of the companies that sponsor these applications. We have spent a lot of time talking to them. We’re aware of their decision-making, and we stand ready and have stood ready to look at data when they’re available. No other factors went into our decision-making other than a knowledge and a review of science and data. And that’s going to continue.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-12-10--Climate Inequality Exists in U.S. Cities and Has Deep Racist Roots

Lower-income residents and people of color are more likely to live in the hottest neighborhoods in cities across the country , putting them at greater risk of heat-related illnesses and death .
A trio of studies presented yesterday at the American Geophysical Union ’ s annual fall meeting underscored that sobering point .
“ Disparities in urban heat exposure as a direct result of urban planning and design , environmental racism , and the policies such as redlining ... do in fact exist , ” said Angel Hsu , an environmental policy expert at the University of North Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the studies .
“ And now we have the evidence and the quantitative data to show that these patterns are not isolated to case studies or ad hoc anecdotal evidence , but actually they ’ re widespread , pervasive and consistent.
” The perils of city heat are well known .
Urban centers are often significantly hotter than surrounding rural areas — by as much as several degrees in some cases .
It ’ s a phenomenon known as the “ urban heat island effect.
” There are a variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from one city to the next .
But it ’ s often a combination of less vegetation and denser populations , with closely set buildings and lots of dark surfaces that help trap heat .
That can mean different neighborhoods within the same city may be hotter than others .
Now , research increasingly suggests that residents of the hottest neighborhoods are often predominantly lower-income people and people of color .
Hsu ’ s study looked at 175 cities across the U.S. , each with a population of more than 250,000 .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in each city , including race and ethnicity , age , and income .
In 97 % of these cities , people of color were likely to live in hotter neighborhoods than white residents .
On average , they were exposed to temperatures a full degree Celsius higher , or nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit .
In 94 % of these cities , a similar trend held true for households living below the poverty line .
A second study , looking at data from more than 400 counties across the U.S. , came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lowest-income residents were exposed to significantly higher temperatures than the highest-income residents in 80 % of the counties analyzed .
When income was held equal , they found that people of color were still exposed to higher temperatures than white residents in more than half the counties .
These disparities appear to be linked to three main factors , according to lead study author Susanne Benz of the University of California , San Diego .
Neighborhoods with higher population densities , less vegetation and more built-up areas tended to be hotter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ design are rooted in a long history of racist “ redlining ” practices and entrenched residential segregation .
Redlining refers to a discriminatory practice in which lenders refused to provide mortgages in neighborhoods with large minority populations .
Although the practice was outlawed in 1968 by the Fair Housing Act , its effects remain apparent decades later .
A third study , also presented yesterday at the AGU meeting , examines the links between redlining and urban heat in five Virginia cities .
Redlined neighborhoods were significantly warmer than non-redlined neighborhoods , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t changed much since the 1980s , suggesting that the difference in these communities “ has existed for decades and has locked in these disparities , ” according to lead study author Allison Grant , an undergraduate student at the University of Mary Washington .
Grant ’ s study also found that heat disparities were linked to urban design .
The hotter neighborhoods had greater numbers of roads and buildings than their cooler counterparts .
The three studies have not yet been published in journals , meaning they haven ’ t undergone a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban heat inequalities have been less studied than other environmental inequalities , like exposure to pollution or toxins .
But the issue is gaining more attention as urban temperatures rise .
And several other recent studies have come to similar conclusions .
A January study in the journal Climate , for instance , also found that redlined areas tend to be warmer than non-redlined areas in cities across the country ( Climatewire , Jan. 21 ) .
Hsu co-authored an earlier study , published last year in Environmental Research Letters , that looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
In nearly three-quarters of the studied areas , lower-income neighborhoods were exposed to higher heat than wealthier neighborhoods .
Heat-related illnesses kill hundreds of people across the U.S. each year , and these risks are expected to increase as temperatures climb .
Studies suggest extreme heat events will become more frequent and more intense in the future and that more people will be exposed to severe heat waves ( Climatewire , Aug. 18 ) .
Solutions to neighborhood-level disparities vary from one place to the next , depending on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique characteristics .
In some places , planting more vegetation may help .
Installing reflective surfaces on rooftops or roads , which can help beam sunlight away , is another potential tool .
“ There ’ s not a one-size-fits-all solution to urban heat island management , ” Hsu said .
“ You have to consider where you are and what ’ s feasible.
” But knowing where the disparities lie , and which communities are at the greatest risk , is the first step .
“ Climate change is inevitable , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it today , ” said Grant of Mary Washington .
“ But what we need to do now is figure out where these communities are struggling and what needs to be done to make them more resilient to the impacts of extreme heat.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

Lower-income residents and people of color are more likely to live in the hottest neighborhoods in cities across the country, putting them at greater risk of heat-related illnesses and death.
A trio of studies presented yesterday at the American Geophysical Union’s annual fall meeting underscored that sobering point.
“Disparities in urban heat exposure as a direct result of urban planning and design, environmental racism, and the policies such as redlining ... do in fact exist,” said Angel Hsu, an environmental policy expert at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and lead author of one of the studies.
“And now we have the evidence and the quantitative data to show that these patterns are not isolated to case studies or ad hoc anecdotal evidence, but actually they’re widespread, pervasive and consistent.”
The perils of city heat are well known. Urban centers are often significantly hotter than surrounding rural areas — by as much as several degrees in some cases.
It’s a phenomenon known as the “urban heat island effect.” There are a variety of causes, not always the same ones from one city to the next. But it’s often a combination of less vegetation and denser populations, with closely set buildings and lots of dark surfaces that help trap heat.
That can mean different neighborhoods within the same city may be hotter than others.
Now, research increasingly suggests that residents of the hottest neighborhoods are often predominantly lower-income people and people of color.
Hsu’s study looked at 175 cities across the U.S., each with a population of more than 250,000. It compared urban summer heat and demographic data in each city, including race and ethnicity, age, and income.
In 97% of these cities, people of color were likely to live in hotter neighborhoods than white residents. On average, they were exposed to temperatures a full degree Celsius higher, or nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit.
In 94% of these cities, a similar trend held true for households living below the poverty line.
A second study, looking at data from more than 400 counties across the U.S., came to similar conclusions. The researchers found that the lowest-income residents were exposed to significantly higher temperatures than the highest-income residents in 80% of the counties analyzed.
When income was held equal, they found that people of color were still exposed to higher temperatures than white residents in more than half the counties.
These disparities appear to be linked to three main factors, according to lead study author Susanne Benz of the University of California, San Diego. Neighborhoods with higher population densities, less vegetation and more built-up areas tended to be hotter.
Racism and urban design
Around the country, disparities in neighborhood design are rooted in a long history of racist “redlining” practices and entrenched residential segregation.
Redlining refers to a discriminatory practice in which lenders refused to provide mortgages in neighborhoods with large minority populations. Although the practice was outlawed in 1968 by the Fair Housing Act, its effects remain apparent decades later.
A third study, also presented yesterday at the AGU meeting, examines the links between redlining and urban heat in five Virginia cities. Redlined neighborhoods were significantly warmer than non-redlined neighborhoods, the study found.
These patterns haven’t changed much since the 1980s, suggesting that the difference in these communities “has existed for decades and has locked in these disparities,” according to lead study author Allison Grant, an undergraduate student at the University of Mary Washington.
Grant’s study also found that heat disparities were linked to urban design. The hotter neighborhoods had greater numbers of roads and buildings than their cooler counterparts.
The three studies have not yet been published in journals, meaning they haven’t undergone a formal peer-review process. In general, urban heat inequalities have been less studied than other environmental inequalities, like exposure to pollution or toxins.
But the issue is gaining more attention as urban temperatures rise. And several other recent studies have come to similar conclusions.
A January study in the journal Climate, for instance, also found that redlined areas tend to be warmer than non-redlined areas in cities across the country (Climatewire, Jan. 21).
Hsu co-authored an earlier study, published last year in Environmental Research Letters, that looked at neighborhood-level data in 25 cities around the world. In nearly three-quarters of the studied areas, lower-income neighborhoods were exposed to higher heat than wealthier neighborhoods.
Heat-related illnesses kill hundreds of people across the U.S. each year, and these risks are expected to increase as temperatures climb. Studies suggest extreme heat events will become more frequent and more intense in the future and that more people will be exposed to severe heat waves (Climatewire, Aug. 18).
Solutions to neighborhood-level disparities vary from one place to the next, depending on the local climate and the city’s unique characteristics. In some places, planting more vegetation may help. Installing reflective surfaces on rooftops or roads, which can help beam sunlight away, is another potential tool.
“There’s not a one-size-fits-all solution to urban heat island management,” Hsu said. “You have to consider where you are and what’s feasible.”
But knowing where the disparities lie, and which communities are at the greatest risk, is the first step.
“Climate change is inevitable, and we are already seeing the impacts of it today,” said Grant of Mary Washington. “But what we need to do now is figure out where these communities are struggling and what needs to be done to make them more resilient to the impacts of extreme heat.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-12-10--Young Ravens Rival Adult Chimps in a Big Test of General Intelligence

Scientists and casual observers alike have known for years that ravens and their corvid relatives are extremely smart .
But most studies use single experiments that provide a limited view of their overall intelligence .
“ Quite often , in single tasks , you ’ re just testing whether the bird can understand that you ’ re hiding something , ” says Simone Pika , a cognitive scientist at Osnabrück University in Germany .
A new study that that tries to address that deficit provides some of the best proof yet that ravens , including young birds of just four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of smarts that are on par with those of adult great apes .
The brainy birds performed just as well as chimpanzees and orangutans across a broad array of tasks designed to measure intelligence .
“ We now have very strong evidence to say that , at least in the tasks we used , ravens are very similar to great apes , ” says Pika , lead author of the study .
“ Across a whole spectrum of cognitive skills , their intelligence is really quite amazing.
” The findings , published in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body of evidence indicating that impressive cognitive skills are not solely the domain of primates but occur in certain species across the animal kingdom .
In their new work , Pika and her colleagues turned to a large group of tests that study co-author Esther Herrmann of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig , Germany , originally developed in 2007 to investigate cognitive performance in great apes and human children .
Herrmann ’ s method measures general performance across a range of social and physical tasks rather than just one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most prior approaches did .
Herrmann and other scientists have used her now well-established technique to make additional cross-species comparisons in monkeys , dogs and parrots .
Pika , Herrmann and their colleagues adapted and administered the same suite of tests to eight hand-raised ravens .
The assays consisted of nine physical categories and six social ones , which were individually comprised of up to four different tasks repeated multiple times each .
“ We tried to have many tasks in many domains to have a comprehensive understanding of what ravens can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was so much work !
” Physical tests measured the birds ’ abilities to track objects in space and to understand numbers .
For example , researchers placed a reward under a certain cup and then moved that cup around with several others to see if the ravens could track which one contained the reward .
Under the social test umbrella , the researchers measured how well the birds could follow cues given by an experimenter .
The human signaled which cup contained a reward by looking or pointing at it , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to access a reward and then observed whether they were able to apply what they observed .
Ravens understand that objects can change their locations .
Here , the experimenter switched the position of the cup that contained bait with an empty cup .
That task was an easy one for the raven ; it quickly found the cup with the bait and its just reward was forthcoming .
Credit : Miriam J. Sima The authors repeated the same 33 tasks for each raven at four , eight , 12 and 16 months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find that by just four months old , the birds had mastered most tasks—to the point that , almost across the board , the young ravens ’ results compared similarly to those of adult chimpanzees and orangutans that Herrmann had previously tested .
“ We didn ’ t expect that they ’ d master these tasks so quickly , ” Pika says .
She and her colleagues suspect that ravens ’ cognitive development must be fast-tracked because they begin interacting more with their ecological and social environment at about four months of age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human performance against that of other apes , Herrmann surmises that children who are 2.5 years old would outperform ravens in social cognition tasks but would be about equal to the birds for most of the physical cognition tests . )
In some ways , the findings about raven intelligence are expected , but they are important in terms of validating the birds ’ cognitive performance , says Claudia Wascher , a behavioral ecologist at Anglia Ruskin University in England , who was not involved in the research .
“ Great apes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long time now , been praised for their ‘ extraordinary ’ cognitive abilities , but we now find that other taxa , including birds , show similar cognitive performance , ” she says .
“ In order to fully understand the evolution of cognitive abilities in nonhumans , we need much broader comparisons like this study in ravens .
And we need to test many more species.
” While the new study provides some of the strongest evidence to date that ravens , like primates , possess a flexible , strong general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are some important caveats .
She and her colleagues only worked with eight birds .
And the cognitive challenges the ravens were presented with in the captive environment differ from those they would face in the wild .
The ravens in the study , for example , did not do as well as expected on spatial tasks—which was a surprise , given that birds spend their life navigating large areas by wing .
The ravens could have also been thrown off because they were interacting with humans rather than members of their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the case of great apes and human handlers ) .
“ Ravens are quick learners , and these ones had been hand raised by humans , but there still is a dinosaur-mammal void between the species , which has to be overcome , ” says Mathias Osvath , a cognitive scientist at Lund University in Sweden , who was not involved in the research .
“ Imagine having raven demonstrators for human toddlers or great apes .
How would they perform ?
” If anything , he says , the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further testament to their flexible social skills .

Scientists and casual observers alike have known for years that ravens and their corvid relatives are extremely smart. But most studies use single experiments that provide a limited view of their overall intelligence. “Quite often, in single tasks, you’re just testing whether the bird can understand that you’re hiding something,” says Simone Pika, a cognitive scientist at Osnabrück University in Germany.
A new study that that tries to address that deficit provides some of the best proof yet that ravens, including young birds of just four months of age, have certain types of smarts that are on par with those of adult great apes. The brainy birds performed just as well as chimpanzees and orangutans across a broad array of tasks designed to measure intelligence. “We now have very strong evidence to say that, at least in the tasks we used, ravens are very similar to great apes,” says Pika, lead author of the study. “Across a whole spectrum of cognitive skills, their intelligence is really quite amazing.” The findings, published in Scientific Reports, add to a growing body of evidence indicating that impressive cognitive skills are not solely the domain of primates but occur in certain species across the animal kingdom.
In their new work, Pika and her colleagues turned to a large group of tests that study co-author Esther Herrmann of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, originally developed in 2007 to investigate cognitive performance in great apes and human children. Herrmann’s method measures general performance across a range of social and physical tasks rather than just one specific aspect of cognitive reasoning, as most prior approaches did. Herrmann and other scientists have used her now well-established technique to make additional cross-species comparisons in monkeys, dogs and parrots.
Pika, Herrmann and their colleagues adapted and administered the same suite of tests to eight hand-raised ravens. The assays consisted of nine physical categories and six social ones, which were individually comprised of up to four different tasks repeated multiple times each. “We tried to have many tasks in many domains to have a comprehensive understanding of what ravens can do,” Pika says. “It was so much work!”
Physical tests measured the birds’ abilities to track objects in space and to understand numbers. For example, researchers placed a reward under a certain cup and then moved that cup around with several others to see if the ravens could track which one contained the reward. Under the social test umbrella, the researchers measured how well the birds could follow cues given by an experimenter. The human signaled which cup contained a reward by looking or pointing at it, for instance, or showed the ravens how to access a reward and then observed whether they were able to apply what they observed.
Ravens understand that objects can change their locations. Here, the experimenter switched the position of the cup that contained bait with an empty cup. That task was an easy one for the raven; it quickly found the cup with the bait and its just reward was forthcoming. Credit: Miriam J. Sima
The authors repeated the same 33 tasks for each raven at four, eight, 12 and 16 months of age. They were surprised to find that by just four months old, the birds had mastered most tasks—to the point that, almost across the board, the young ravens’ results compared similarly to those of adult chimpanzees and orangutans that Herrmann had previously tested. “We didn’t expect that they’d master these tasks so quickly,” Pika says. She and her colleagues suspect that ravens’ cognitive development must be fast-tracked because they begin interacting more with their ecological and social environment at about four months of age. (Based on earlier studies comparing human performance against that of other apes, Herrmann surmises that children who are 2.5 years old would outperform ravens in social cognition tasks but would be about equal to the birds for most of the physical cognition tests.)
In some ways, the findings about raven intelligence are expected, but they are important in terms of validating the birds’ cognitive performance, says Claudia Wascher, a behavioral ecologist at Anglia Ruskin University in England, who was not involved in the research. “Great apes and primates in general have, for quite a long time now, been praised for their ‘extraordinary’ cognitive abilities, but we now find that other taxa, including birds, show similar cognitive performance,” she says. “In order to fully understand the evolution of cognitive abilities in nonhumans, we need much broader comparisons like this study in ravens. And we need to test many more species.”
While the new study provides some of the strongest evidence to date that ravens, like primates, possess a flexible, strong general intelligence, Pika points out that there are some important caveats. She and her colleagues only worked with eight birds. And the cognitive challenges the ravens were presented with in the captive environment differ from those they would face in the wild. The ravens in the study, for example, did not do as well as expected on spatial tasks—which was a surprise, given that birds spend their life navigating large areas by wing.
The ravens could have also been thrown off because they were interacting with humans rather than members of their own species (or a closely related species, in the case of great apes and human handlers). “Ravens are quick learners, and these ones had been hand raised by humans, but there still is a dinosaur-mammal void between the species, which has to be overcome,” says Mathias Osvath, a cognitive scientist at Lund University in Sweden, who was not involved in the research. “Imagine having raven demonstrators for human toddlers or great apes. How would they perform?”
If anything, he says, the new study might underestimate raven intelligence—and is a further testament to their flexible social skills.


scientificamerican--2020-12-10--SpaceX's Starship SN8 Prototype Soars on Epic Test Launch, with Explosive Landing

SpaceX ’ s Starship spaceflight system just took a big step on its path to Mars .
The latest Starship prototype , a shiny silver vehicle known as SN8 , launched on an epic high-altitude test flight today ( Dec. 9 ) , taking off at 5:45 p.m. EST ( 2245 GMT ) from SpaceX ’ s facility near the South Texas village of Boca Chica .
The goal was to soar about 7.8 miles ( 12.5 kilometers ) into the sky , perform some complex aerial maneuvers—including a “ belly flop ” like the one the final Starship will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operational flights—and then land safely near the launch stand .
The 165-foot-tall ( 50 meters ) SN8 appeared to notch all of these big milestones , except for the final one : The vehicle hit its landing mark but came in too fast , exploding in a dramatic fireball 6 minutes and 42 seconds after liftoff .
SN8 ’ s rapid unplanned disassembly did nothing to dampen the spirits of SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk , who was thrilled by the results of today ’ s flight .
“ Fuel header tank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causing touchdown velocity to be high & RUD , but we got all the data we needed !
Congrats SpaceX team hell yeah !
!
” Musk tweeted this evening .
“ Mars , here we come !
” he added in another tweet .
Musk was not expecting complete , wire-to-wire success today ; he had previously given SN8 ( short for “ Serial No .
8 ” ) just a 1-in-3 chance of landing in one piece .
That ’ s because today ’ s flight was far more complex and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The previous altitude record was about 500 feet ( 150 m ) , achieved by three different Starship vehicles—the stubby Starhopper , SN5 and SN6 .
All three of those predecessors were pretty bare-bones ; they looked like flying silos and featured just one of SpaceX ’ s next-generation Raptor engines .
SN8 was much more capable and complex .
It was powered by three Raptors and had a nose cone and stabilizing body flaps .
These new pieces did their jobs well today , Musk said in another tweet : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & precise flap control to landing point !
” SpaceX is developing Starship to carry people and cargo to the moon , Mars and other distant destinations .
The system consists of two elements : a stainless-steel spacecraft called Starship , which will sport six Raptors , and a giant rocket known as Super Heavy , which will have about 30 of the engines .
Both of these vehicles will be fully and rapidly reusable , Musk has said .
Starship will be capable of making many trips from Earth to Mars and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rack up many launches during its life .
( Starship will be powerful enough to launch itself off the moon and Mars , but it will need Super Heavy to get off our much more massive Earth . )
SpaceX wants Starship and Super Heavy to be operational soon .
NASA ’ s Artemis program is considering using Starship to land astronauts on the lunar surface , for example , and the first of those touchdowns is targeted for 2024 .
And Musk recently said he ’ s confident that SpaceX will launch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the milestone possible in 2024 “ if we ’ re lucky.
” SpaceX aims to meet this ambitious timeline by iterating fast and flying often .
The company is building multiple Starship prototypes at its South Texas site , and we should expect those coming vehicles to get off the ground fairly soon—especially SN9 , which is apparently nearly done .
SN9 and SN10 will be quite similar to the three-engine SN8 , featuring “ many small improvements ” over the vehicle that flew today , Musk said via Twitter on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slated for SN15 , '' he said in another tweet that day .
Today ’ s launch was originally scheduled to take place yesterday ( Dec. 8 ) .
But SN8 detected something abnormal with one or more of its Raptors and aborted the attempt automatically less than two seconds before liftoff .
Copyright 2020 Space.com , a Future company .
All rights reserved .
This material may not be published , broadcast , rewritten or redistributed .

SpaceX’s Starship spaceflight system just took a big step on its path to Mars.
The latest Starship prototype, a shiny silver vehicle known as SN8, launched on an epic high-altitude test flight today (Dec. 9), taking off at 5:45 p.m. EST (2245 GMT) from SpaceX’s facility near the South Texas village of Boca Chica.
The goal was to soar about 7.8 miles (12.5 kilometers) into the sky, perform some complex aerial maneuvers—including a “belly flop” like the one the final Starship will perform when coming back to Earth on operational flights—and then land safely near the launch stand.
The 165-foot-tall (50 meters) SN8 appeared to notch all of these big milestones, except for the final one: The vehicle hit its landing mark but came in too fast, exploding in a dramatic fireball 6 minutes and 42 seconds after liftoff.
SN8’s rapid unplanned disassembly did nothing to dampen the spirits of SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk, who was thrilled by the results of today’s flight.
“Fuel header tank pressure was low during landing burn, causing touchdown velocity to be high & RUD, but we got all the data we needed! Congrats SpaceX team hell yeah!!” Musk tweeted this evening.
“Mars, here we come!” he added in another tweet.
Musk was not expecting complete, wire-to-wire success today; he had previously given SN8 (short for “Serial No. 8”) just a 1-in-3 chance of landing in one piece.
That’s because today’s flight was far more complex and demanding than any other Starship prototype test. The previous altitude record was about 500 feet (150 m), achieved by three different Starship vehicles—the stubby Starhopper, SN5 and SN6.
All three of those predecessors were pretty bare-bones; they looked like flying silos and featured just one of SpaceX’s next-generation Raptor engines. SN8 was much more capable and complex. It was powered by three Raptors and had a nose cone and stabilizing body flaps.
These new pieces did their jobs well today, Musk said in another tweet: “Successful ascent, switchover to header tanks & precise flap control to landing point!”
SpaceX is developing Starship to carry people and cargo to the moon, Mars and other distant destinations. The system consists of two elements: a stainless-steel spacecraft called Starship, which will sport six Raptors, and a giant rocket known as Super Heavy, which will have about 30 of the engines.
Both of these vehicles will be fully and rapidly reusable, Musk has said. Starship will be capable of making many trips from Earth to Mars and back, and each Super Heavy will rack up many launches during its life. (Starship will be powerful enough to launch itself off the moon and Mars, but it will need Super Heavy to get off our much more massive Earth.)
SpaceX wants Starship and Super Heavy to be operational soon. NASA’s Artemis program is considering using Starship to land astronauts on the lunar surface, for example, and the first of those touchdowns is targeted for 2024. And Musk recently said he’s confident that SpaceX will launch its first crewed Mars mission by 2026, with the milestone possible in 2024 “if we’re lucky.”
SpaceX aims to meet this ambitious timeline by iterating fast and flying often. The company is building multiple Starship prototypes at its South Texas site, and we should expect those coming vehicles to get off the ground fairly soon—especially SN9, which is apparently nearly done.
SN9 and SN10 will be quite similar to the three-engine SN8, featuring “many small improvements” over the vehicle that flew today, Musk said via Twitter on Nov. 24. “Major upgrades are slated for SN15," he said in another tweet that day.
Today’s launch was originally scheduled to take place yesterday (Dec. 8). But SN8 detected something abnormal with one or more of its Raptors and aborted the attempt automatically less than two seconds before liftoff.
Copyright 2020 Space.com, a Future company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.