scientificamerican--2020-09-10--'Slam the Brakes': Regulator Flags Climate Risk in Markets

“ Frequent and devastating ” economic shocks brought on by climate change threaten to undermine the stability of the U.S. financial system , according to a first-of-its-kind report from a financial regulator .
The watershed document was released yesterday by a climate-focused subcommittee within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission , a federal agency that regulates derivatives markets .
The CFTC task force was created last year to investigate global warming ’ s potential to topple financial markets—and to determine what steps the federal government should take to prevent that outcome .
The subcommittee ’ s work resulted in a sweeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its assessment of the threat .
“ U.S .
financial regulators must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the U.S. financial system , and they should move urgently and decisively to measure , understand , and address these risks , ” wrote the authors .
They added that global warming has begun to affect “ nearly every facet of the U.S. economy.
” It ’ s a reality they said could threaten the well-being of countless American households—especially those that are low-income or otherwise marginalized .
That conclusion is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of existing research and is in line with advocacy efforts from financial firms , academics and green groups that for years have trumpeted their concerns about the financial perils of global warming .
But two elements of the document , said report co-author Nathaniel Keohane of the Environmental Defense Fund , are particularly noteworthy : who asked for it , and who backed it .
For starters , he said , the task force ’ s work was unanimously requested by all five CFTC commissioners—three Republicans , two Democrats—each of whom was appointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ the broad recognition by the CFTC that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed ” is significant in itself .
And second , the conclusions were approved by the entire subcommittee , Keohane said .
That group is made up of more than 30 representatives from a broad swath of organizations , including ConocoPhillips , Morgan Stanley , BP PLC and the Nature Conservancy .
Subcommittee Chairman Bob Litterman , who is a founding partner at New York-based investment firm Kepos Capital , agreed .
He highlighted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implores Congress to establish a carbon price to help slash planet-warming emissions and force capital markets in a greener direction .
“ Financial markets are very effective and efficient at allocating capital given the incentives that they face .
Right now , we don ’ t have adequate incentives ; therefore , capital is not flowing in the right direction .
And the financial markets can ’ t change that on their own , ” Litterman said .
“ We have to slam on the brakes , and that ’ s what this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he added .
“ And it doesn ’ t just say it from some crazy , left-wing perspective .
This is ConocoPhillips and BP , along with every other participant.
” The subcommittee listed dozens of other recommendations that suggest ways that various regulators should incorporate climate considerations into their existing mandates .
For example , the Financial Stability Oversight Council—a panel established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—should consider climate risk as it oversees national financial stability .
The Securities and Exchange Commission was likewise encouraged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies report the climate risks they face .
The task force wrote that modernizing that guidance , which dates back to 2010 , would help “ achieve greater consistency in disclosure to help inform the market.
” The report also called on financial regulators to join various international coalitions that for years have spearheaded efforts to address climate risk .
Among them is the Network for Greening the Financial System , a group of more than 50 foreign central banks and regulators that are working to push financial systems to meet the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Reserve has yet to become a formal member of the network .
Its absence stands in contrast to past statements by Fed Chair Jerome Powell , who on multiple occasions has acknowledged the central bank ’ s responsibility to ensure that major financial institutions are “ resilient to the longer-term risks from climate change ” ( Climatewire , Feb. 12 ) .
“ The U.S. is the big problem right now , ” said Litterman , who formerly directed risk management at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “ The Europeans are ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to move forward .
They are waiting for the U.S. ” To be sure , several panel members said their general approval of the document did not equate to support of every point in the final document .
Report co-author Daniel Paul , the manager of risk and regulatory affairs at ConocoPhillips , said in a statement that despite being broadly supportive of the report , its analysis and conclusions “ do not necessarily reflect in every instance ” the views of his company .
Citigroup Inc. , JPMorgan Chase & Co. and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We believe that with respect to certain recommendations , such as those around disclosure , there are challenges that require further study and examination by relevant authorities responsible for the development and implementation of any additional regulatory guidance or requirements within their regulatory scope , ” the three firms wrote in a joint statement .
Nonetheless , experts said the report likely would guide how the CFTC , other financial regulators and the federal government handle climate-related risk .
“ We have not yet addressed climate risk in the financial system .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report has 53 specific recommendations on how it can be addressed , ” Litterman said .
“ Going forward , this is going to be an obvious question to every financial regulator and Congress .
It ’ s obviously part of the national dialogue now.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

“Frequent and devastating” economic shocks brought on by climate change threaten to undermine the stability of the U.S. financial system, according to a first-of-its-kind report from a financial regulator.
The watershed document was released yesterday by a climate-focused subcommittee within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency that regulates derivatives markets.
The CFTC task force was created last year to investigate global warming’s potential to topple financial markets—and to determine what steps the federal government should take to prevent that outcome.
The subcommittee’s work resulted in a sweeping, 165-page publication that was unequivocal in its assessment of the threat.
“U.S. financial regulators must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the U.S. financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks,” wrote the authors.
They added that global warming has begun to affect “nearly every facet of the U.S. economy.” It’s a reality they said could threaten the well-being of countless American households—especially those that are low-income or otherwise marginalized.
That conclusion is not necessarily surprising. It mirrors a swath of existing research and is in line with advocacy efforts from financial firms, academics and green groups that for years have trumpeted their concerns about the financial perils of global warming.
But two elements of the document, said report co-author Nathaniel Keohane of the Environmental Defense Fund, are particularly noteworthy: who asked for it, and who backed it.
For starters, he said, the task force’s work was unanimously requested by all five CFTC commissioners—three Republicans, two Democrats—each of whom was appointed by President Trump. In his eyes, “the broad recognition by the CFTC that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed” is significant in itself.
And second, the conclusions were approved by the entire subcommittee, Keohane said. That group is made up of more than 30 representatives from a broad swath of organizations, including ConocoPhillips, Morgan Stanley, BP PLC and the Nature Conservancy.
Subcommittee Chairman Bob Litterman, who is a founding partner at New York-based investment firm Kepos Capital, agreed.
He highlighted the panel’s top-line recommendation, which implores Congress to establish a carbon price to help slash planet-warming emissions and force capital markets in a greener direction.
“Financial markets are very effective and efficient at allocating capital given the incentives that they face. Right now, we don’t have adequate incentives; therefore, capital is not flowing in the right direction. And the financial markets can’t change that on their own,” Litterman said.
“We have to slam on the brakes, and that’s what this report says in no uncertain terms,” he added. “And it doesn’t just say it from some crazy, left-wing perspective. This is ConocoPhillips and BP, along with every other participant.”
The subcommittee listed dozens of other recommendations that suggest ways that various regulators should incorporate climate considerations into their existing mandates.
For example, the Financial Stability Oversight Council—a panel established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—should consider climate risk as it oversees national financial stability.
The Securities and Exchange Commission was likewise encouraged to review its guidance that dictates how companies report the climate risks they face. The task force wrote that modernizing that guidance, which dates back to 2010, would help “achieve greater consistency in disclosure to help inform the market.”
The report also called on financial regulators to join various international coalitions that for years have spearheaded efforts to address climate risk. Among them is the Network for Greening the Financial System, a group of more than 50 foreign central banks and regulators that are working to push financial systems to meet the climate goals of the Paris Agreement.
The Federal Reserve has yet to become a formal member of the network. Its absence stands in contrast to past statements by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who on multiple occasions has acknowledged the central bank’s responsibility to ensure that major financial institutions are “resilient to the longer-term risks from climate change” (Climatewire, Feb. 12).
“The U.S. is the big problem right now,” said Litterman, who formerly directed risk management at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “The Europeans are ready to move forward. The Chinese are ready to move forward. They are waiting for the U.S.”
To be sure, several panel members said their general approval of the document did not equate to support of every point in the final document.
Report co-author Daniel Paul, the manager of risk and regulatory affairs at ConocoPhillips, said in a statement that despite being broadly supportive of the report, its analysis and conclusions “do not necessarily reflect in every instance” the views of his company.
Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley said the same.
“We believe that with respect to certain recommendations, such as those around disclosure, there are challenges that require further study and examination by relevant authorities responsible for the development and implementation of any additional regulatory guidance or requirements within their regulatory scope,” the three firms wrote in a joint statement.
Nonetheless, experts said the report likely would guide how the CFTC, other financial regulators and the federal government handle climate-related risk.
“We have not yet addressed climate risk in the financial system. That is obviously a problem, and the report has 53 specific recommendations on how it can be addressed,” Litterman said. “Going forward, this is going to be an obvious question to every financial regulator and Congress. It’s obviously part of the national dialogue now.”
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--2020-09-10--Molecular Medicine Keeps Mice Mighty in Microgravity

A sojourn in space is a great way to ruin one ’ s physique — the microgravity results in dramatic loss of muscle mass .
Residents of the International Space Station exercise regularly to stave off the atrophy , but perhaps there ’ s another way .
Scientists have now found that if they treat spacefaring mice with a particular molecule , the animals not only maintain their muscles , they even bulk up a bit .
The treatment also preserved and boosted bone density , another problem in microgravity , researchers reported September 7 in the Proceedings of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has implications not just for astronauts eyeing trips to the moon or Mars , but also for earthbound people struggling with muscle loss due to age , injury or illness .
Potential medications springing from this research might benefit people who are bedridden or in a wheelchair , as well as people with cancer , chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other causes of muscle wasting , says study author Se-Jin Lee , a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine in Farmington , Connecticut .
“ There are so many possible indications.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mice to space for decades .
Back in the 1990s , he eliminated a gene called myostatin from mice .
The myostatin protein normally blocks muscle growth , so without it , the mice grew to be quite buff , with double the muscle mass of regular mice .
Lee got his chance on December 5 , 2019 , when 40 mice launched on a SpaceX craft from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral , Florida .
This allowed Lee to test how the “ mighty mice ” muscles reacted to 33 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues saw that while normal mice lost muscle mass , the mighty rodents stayed ripped .
Eliminating the myostatin genes of people suffering muscle loss would be impractical , of course .
So Lee and colleagues also tested a way to preserve muscle in normal mice .
Normally , myostatin acts to shut off growth by attaching to a receptor that is stuck on the surface of muscle cells .
Lee and colleagues sent up a fragment of this receptor , and astronauts on the ISS injected it into the animals ’ bloodstreams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the animals ’ myostatin molecules and kept them away from muscle tissue .
The decoy has another effect : It traps a second protein , called activin A , which also prevents growth of muscle — as well as bone .
Sure enough , space mice injected with the decoy receptor gained a double benefit : They kept their muscles buff and their bone density high .
Bone and muscle even grew , so that the treated mice touched down with more of those tissues than untreated mice that were left on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the treatments could reverse muscle wasting and bone loss that had already happened .
To do this , they gave the decoy receptor to regular mice that had lost muscle and bone mass on the ISS , after they ’ d splashed down in the Pacific on January 7 , 2020 , and been taken to land in San Diego .
These animals quickly recovered both bone and muscle ; their muscles even grew bigger than they ’ d been before takeoff .
The results suggest that there could be a way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muscle and bone loss , says David Glass , vice president for research on aging and age-related disorders at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals in Tarrytown , New York .
He cautioned , however , that space atrophy is different from Earth-based forms .
Nonetheless , Lee ’ s hope is that blockers for myostatin and activin A could preserve or restore muscle on the ground .
Physiologist Christoph Handschin of the University of Basel in Switzerland agrees , but he adds a caveat : “ This looks super-promising — if this can be translated into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the landscape of therapies for muscle wasting in the Annual Review of Physiology , notes that several drug companies have tried to treat people with compounds that interfere with myostatin , without much success .
Lee is optimistic , though .
He suspects that blocking myostatin in people is not sufficient , so he hopes that compounds like the decoy receptor that engage activin A might prove more effective than earlier compounds did .
Glass says that to avoid side effects , it would be important to design a medication that is unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and activin A , as the decoy can .
And while supporting human space travel isn ’ t Lee ’ s main goal , such a molecule could , perhaps , catch NASA ’ s interest as the agency plans for longer space missions that will probably not have room for extensive gym equipment .
This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine , an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews .
Sign up for the newsletter .

A sojourn in space is a great way to ruin one’s physique — the microgravity results in dramatic loss of muscle mass. Residents of the International Space Station exercise regularly to stave off the atrophy, but perhaps there’s another way. Scientists have now found that if they treat spacefaring mice with a particular molecule, the animals not only maintain their muscles, they even bulk up a bit.
The treatment also preserved and boosted bone density, another problem in microgravity, researchers reported September 7 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The work has implications not just for astronauts eyeing trips to the moon or Mars, but also for earthbound people struggling with muscle loss due to age, injury or illness. Potential medications springing from this research might benefit people who are bedridden or in a wheelchair, as well as people with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other causes of muscle wasting, says study author Se-Jin Lee, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine in Farmington, Connecticut. “There are so many possible indications.”
Lee has longed to send his mice to space for decades. Back in the 1990s, he eliminated a gene called myostatin from mice. The myostatin protein normally blocks muscle growth, so without it, the mice grew to be quite buff, with double the muscle mass of regular mice.
Lee got his chance on December 5, 2019, when 40 mice launched on a SpaceX craft from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. This allowed Lee to test how the “mighty mice” muscles reacted to 33 days of space conditions. He and his colleagues saw that while normal mice lost muscle mass, the mighty rodents stayed ripped.
The Belgian Blue breed of cattle has a trait referred to as “double-muscled.” Scientists now know that it is caused by a mutation in the animal’s myostatin gene. The trait, despite its name, doesn’t fully double the musculature but increases it by 20 to 25 percent. Credit: Yann Arthus-Bertrand Getty Images
Eliminating the myostatin genes of people suffering muscle loss would be impractical, of course. So Lee and colleagues also tested a way to preserve muscle in normal mice. Normally, myostatin acts to shut off growth by attaching to a receptor that is stuck on the surface of muscle cells. Lee and colleagues sent up a fragment of this receptor, and astronauts on the ISS injected it into the animals’ bloodstreams. This “decoy” receptor captured the animals’ myostatin molecules and kept them away from muscle tissue.
The decoy has another effect: It traps a second protein, called activin A, which also prevents growth of muscle — as well as bone. Sure enough, space mice injected with the decoy receptor gained a double benefit: They kept their muscles buff and their bone density high. Bone and muscle even grew, so that the treated mice touched down with more of those tissues than untreated mice that were left on the ground.
The team also tested whether the treatments could reverse muscle wasting and bone loss that had already happened. To do this, they gave the decoy receptor to regular mice that had lost muscle and bone mass on the ISS, after they’d splashed down in the Pacific on January 7, 2020, and been taken to land in San Diego. These animals quickly recovered both bone and muscle; their muscles even grew bigger than they’d been before takeoff.
The results suggest that there could be a way to use a drug to protect astronauts from muscle and bone loss, says David Glass, vice president for research on aging and age-related disorders at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals in Tarrytown, New York. He cautioned, however, that space atrophy is different from Earth-based forms.
Nonetheless, Lee’s hope is that blockers for myostatin and activin A could preserve or restore muscle on the ground. Physiologist Christoph Handschin of the University of Basel in Switzerland agrees, but he adds a caveat: “This looks super-promising — if this can be translated into humans.” Handschin, who laid out the landscape of therapies for muscle wasting in the Annual Review of Physiology, notes that several drug companies have tried to treat people with compounds that interfere with myostatin, without much success.
Lee is optimistic, though. He suspects that blocking myostatin in people is not sufficient, so he hopes that compounds like the decoy receptor that engage activin A might prove more effective than earlier compounds did. Glass says that to avoid side effects, it would be important to design a medication that is unlikely to interact with molecules other than myostatin and activin A, as the decoy can.
And while supporting human space travel isn’t Lee’s main goal, such a molecule could, perhaps, catch NASA’s interest as the agency plans for longer space missions that will probably not have room for extensive gym equipment.
This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.


scientificamerican--2020-09-10--Discoverer of Neural Circuits for Parenting Wins $3-Million Breakthrough Prize

Discovering the “ on-and-off switch ” for good parenting in both male and female mouse brains has earned Catherine Dulac , a molecular biologist at Harvard University , in Cambridge , Massachusetts , one of this year ’ s US $ 3-million Breakthrough prizes — the most lucrative awards in science and mathematics .
Three other major prizes in biology , plus two in physics and one in mathematics , were also announced on 10 September , together with a number of smaller prizes .
“ Catherine Dulac has done amazing work that has really transformed the field , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Stanford University , California .
Dulac ’ s team provided the first evidence that male and female mouse brains have the same neural circuitry associated with parenting , which is just triggered differently in each sex .
“ It went against the dogma that for decades said that male and female brains are organized differently , ” says O ’ Connell .
Dulac says she was stunned to learn that she had won the award .
“ My brain froze , then I began to tear up , ” she says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road to acceptance , because others had initially been sceptical of her work .
In the 1990s , Dulac isolated the pheromone receptors in mice that govern sex-specific social behaviours .
Virgin male mice usually attack other males and kill pups .
But Dulac found that if their pheromone receptors were blocked , they would attempt to mate with both males and females , and virgin males would even care for pups .
Pheromone-blind females , by contrast , would attempt to mount males .
To elucidate the neural mechanisms at play , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expressed by neurons involved in parenting .
Killing the neurons in females stopped them parenting , while activating them in virgin males made them maternal .
“ It ’ s like an on-and-off switch for parenting , ” says Dulac .
“ It ’ s extraordinary.
” Her team then used the galanin marker to track the specific circuitry associated with the motivational , hormonal and behavioural changes needed for nurturing .
O ’ Connell says that the studies “ set the stage for a better understanding of the flexibility of human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one day be relevant for treating disorders such as post-partum depression .
Three other $ 3 million life-sciences awards were also announced .
David Baker at the University of Washington in Seattle won for developing the Rosetta software to design synthetic proteins for therapeutics .
His FoldIt game has enrolled more than 250,000 citizen scientists to help find optimal protein configurations .
Just yesterday , his team reported in Science a novel protein that might block the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to enter human cells .
Dennis Lo , at the Chinese University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognized for discovering that fetal DNA is present in maternal blood—a finding that led to the development of safer non-invasive prenatal tests for disorders such as Down ’ s syndrome .
And Richard J. Youle at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke won for uncovering the role of two proteins in Parkinson ’ s disease , opening a new avenue for therapeutics .
The Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics went to Martin Hairer at Imperial College London for his work on stochastic partial differential equations—a class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how complex systems evolve when random influences have to be taken into account .
“ I feel honoured and lucky , ” says Hairer .
“ I didn ’ t expect this at all.
” In 2011 , Hairer solved a sticky equation of this type that models , among other things , how a droplet of water will spread across the surface of a napkin .
After that , he produced an epic 180-page paper showing that the similar concepts could be used to attack all equations of that class .
Terry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Oxford , UK , says he is “ delighted ” by Hairer ’ s award , noting that until Hairer ’ s work came along , mathematicians and physicists had plugged away at such equations using different approaches , but without seeing how these might all be unified by one methodology .
“ He ’ s mapped an important aspect of the world to a precise mathematical language for the first time , ” Lyons says .
In 2014 , Hairer was a recipient of the Fields Medal , mathematics ’ most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fundamental Physics went to Eric Adelberger , Jens Gundlach and Blayne Heckel , all at the University of Washington , for their ultra-precise pendulum experiments showing that Newton ’ s law of gravity still holds , even down to scales of just 52 micrometres .
And a special award in fundamental physics recognized the life ’ s work of theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg , at the University of Texas at Austin .
Weinberg is one of the developers of the framework unifying the electromagnetic force with the weak nuclear force that governs radioactivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 by Russian–Israeli billionaire Yuri Milner , and are now sponsored by him and other Internet entrepreneurs , including Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg .
This year ’ s award ceremony has been postponed to 21 March 2021 , because of the coronavirus pandemic .
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on September 10 2020 .

Discovering the “on-and-off switch” for good parenting in both male and female mouse brains has earned Catherine Dulac, a molecular biologist at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, one of this year’s US$3-million Breakthrough prizes — the most lucrative awards in science and mathematics. Three other major prizes in biology, plus two in physics and one in mathematics, were also announced on 10 September, together with a number of smaller prizes.
“Catherine Dulac has done amazing work that has really transformed the field,” says biologist Lauren O’Connell, at Stanford University, California. Dulac’s team provided the first evidence that male and female mouse brains have the same neural circuitry associated with parenting, which is just triggered differently in each sex. “It went against the dogma that for decades said that male and female brains are organized differently,” says O’Connell.
Dulac says she was stunned to learn that she had won the award. “My brain froze, then I began to tear up,” she says, adding that it had been a long road to acceptance, because others had initially been sceptical of her work. In the 1990s, Dulac isolated the pheromone receptors in mice that govern sex-specific social behaviours. Virgin male mice usually attack other males and kill pups. But Dulac found that if their pheromone receptors were blocked, they would attempt to mate with both males and females, and virgin males would even care for pups. Pheromone-blind females, by contrast, would attempt to mount males.
To elucidate the neural mechanisms at play, Dulac identified a protein called galanin that is expressed by neurons involved in parenting. Killing the neurons in females stopped them parenting, while activating them in virgin males made them maternal. “It’s like an on-and-off switch for parenting,” says Dulac. “It’s extraordinary.” Her team then used the galanin marker to track the specific circuitry associated with the motivational, hormonal and behavioural changes needed for nurturing.
O’Connell says that the studies “set the stage for a better understanding of the flexibility of human and primate brains”, and could one day be relevant for treating disorders such as post-partum depression.
Windfall day
Three other $3 million life-sciences awards were also announced. David Baker at the University of Washington in Seattle won for developing the Rosetta software to design synthetic proteins for therapeutics. His FoldIt game has enrolled more than 250,000 citizen scientists to help find optimal protein configurations. Just yesterday, his team reported in Science a novel protein that might block the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to enter human cells.
Dennis Lo, at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, in Shatin, was recognized for discovering that fetal DNA is present in maternal blood—a finding that led to the development of safer non-invasive prenatal tests for disorders such as Down’s syndrome.
And Richard J. Youle at the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke won for uncovering the role of two proteins in Parkinson’s disease, opening a new avenue for therapeutics.
Randomness tamed
The Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics went to Martin Hairer at Imperial College London for his work on stochastic partial differential equations—a class of equations that are used to calculate how complex systems evolve when random influences have to be taken into account. “I feel honoured and lucky,” says Hairer. “I didn’t expect this at all.”
In 2011, Hairer solved a sticky equation of this type that models, among other things, how a droplet of water will spread across the surface of a napkin. After that, he produced an epic 180-page paper showing that the similar concepts could be used to attack all equations of that class. Terry Lyons, a mathematician at the University of Oxford, UK, says he is “delighted” by Hairer’s award, noting that until Hairer’s work came along, mathematicians and physicists had plugged away at such equations using different approaches, but without seeing how these might all be unified by one methodology. “He’s mapped an important aspect of the world to a precise mathematical language for the first time,” Lyons says. In 2014, Hairer was a recipient of the Fields Medal, mathematics’ most coveted honour.
The Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics went to Eric Adelberger, Jens Gundlach and Blayne Heckel, all at the University of Washington, for their ultra-precise pendulum experiments showing that Newton’s law of gravity still holds, even down to scales of just 52 micrometres. And a special award in fundamental physics recognized the life’s work of theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg, at the University of Texas at Austin. Weinberg is one of the developers of the framework unifying the electromagnetic force with the weak nuclear force that governs radioactivity.
The Breakthrough prizes were founded in 2012 by Russian–Israeli billionaire Yuri Milner, and are now sponsored by him and other Internet entrepreneurs, including Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg. This year’s award ceremony has been postponed to 21 March 2021, because of the coronavirus pandemic.
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on September 10 2020.


scientificamerican--2020-09-10--SpaceX's Dark Satellites Are Still Too Bright for Astronomers

Starlink , a “ megaconstellation ” of hundreds of Internet satellites launched by the aerospace company SpaceX , has been causing headaches for astronomers by outshining celestial objects .
Set to eventually include tens of thousands of spacecraft beaming high-speed Internet to the entire planet , Starlink has a downside for stargazing : the satellites reflect enough sunlight at night to be seen clearly with the naked eye ( not to mention sensitive telescopes ) .
Their brightness is only accentuated by the long trains they are arranged in , which pass across the heavens like dozens of glowing beads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first 60 Starlink satellites were launched in May 2019 , 655 more have been placed in orbit , affecting a number of astronomical observations .
Each launch has steadily held around 60 satellites , with one or two batches going up each month since January—the last did so on September 3 .
Finally , in August—after more than a year of complaints from the scientific community and damage-control efforts from SpaceX—the National Science Foundation ( NSF ) and the American Astronomical Society ( AAS ) released a report on the situation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250 experts at the virtual Satellite Constellations 1 ( SATCON1 ) workshop earlier this summer to provide recommendations for both astronomers and satellite constellation operators in order to minimize further disruptions .
For now many astronomers can do little more than hope that the situation will improve .
Although SpaceX ’ s satellites pose a problem for astronomical observations , the company does not “ want to mess up astronomy , ” says Meredith Rawls , an astronomer at the University of Washington .
Rawls works with the upcoming Vera C. Rubin Observatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Large Synoptic Survey Telescope .
The project ’ s steady stream of panoramic images of the entire sky will help uncover the nature of dark matter and dark energy , identify countless instances of transient astrophysical phenomena and map Earth-threatening asteroids—if , of course , interference from satellite constellations does not scuttle its delicate work .
SpaceX ’ s initial efforts at mitigating the spacecraft ’ s impact involved launching a prototype Starlink satellite known as DarkSat earlier this year that features a black antireflective coating .
Recent ground-based observations of DarkSat in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a standard Starlink satellite—a great improvement , according to experts , but still far from what astronomers say is needed .
“ I would not consider DarkSat as a victory but instead a good step in the right direction , ” says Jeremy Tregloan-Reed , an astronomer at the University of Antofagasta in Chile and a member of the observational team that assessed the prototype .
The team compared it with a typical Starlink sibling using a 0.6-meter telescope at the Ckoirama Observatory in Chile and found that although DarkSat ’ s antireflective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye , it remains far too bright to avoid interfering with the Rubin Observatory and other major telescopes .
These results show that DarkSat is essentially a dead end , says Jonathan McDowell , a researcher at the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution , who has run computer simulations of megaconstellation effects on astronomical observations .
Nevertheless , he says , the investigation by Tregloan-Reed ’ s team is an important step .
“ This study is notable as one of the first significant observational studies of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now organizing to do on a much bigger scale , ” McDowell adds .
He cautions that if the satellites continue to be launched without a fix , “ the impact would be huge.
” In the long term , Rawls worries that as satellite constellations become more common , future companies may launch them without any attempts to compromise with astronomers .
“ It creates a lot of systematic errors ... .
It becomes kind of a mess , ” she says .
SpaceX is hoping to eventually put 12,000 Starlink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year it filed for permission to put up 30,000 more .
With those plans—as well as Amazon ’ s Project Kuiper aiming for 3,236 satellites and OneWeb , a now bankrupt company recently acquired by the U.K. government , perhaps striving for 2,000—the scale of astronomy ’ s satellite-constellation problem will only increase .
While the dimming techniques tested by DarkSat are far from a sufficient solution , SpaceX has continued to develop other ways to further reduce spacecraft brightness .
The company ’ s second attempt at a darkened satellite , VisorSat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light reflection .
The first spacecraft with this design was launched on June 3 .
Astronomers are hoping to observe VisorSat and compare it with DarkSat once observatories reopen , following the COVID-19 shutdown .
Even before any detailed observations of VisorSat have been made , SpaceX seems to have doubled down on the new model .
All the satellites in the two Starlink batches launched in mid-June and early August were VisorSats , with each carrying its own sunshade .
Astronomers are not yet sure whether darkening methods such as DarkSat and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SATCON1 report ’ s 10 recommendations , only one asks satellite operators to use darkening techniques .
The others suggest deploying satellites in orbits below 600 kilometers to minimize their nighttime glare , controlling their orientations in space to reflect less sunlight , developing ways to remove their trails from astronomical observations and making their orbital information available so astronomers can point telescopes away from them .
By some mix of approaches from this menu of options , it is hoped , the problem can be managed .
Even so , the advent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degradation of astronomers ’ view of the night sky inevitable .
For now Tregloan-Reed is comforted by the fact that SpaceX is taking the problems seriously .
“ The development of both DarkSat and the new VisorSat shows that Starlink appears to be dedicated to mitigating the impact ” of its satellites on both astronomers and backyard stargazers , he says .
The spirit of collaboration at the SATCON1 workshop and the creation of the report that followed it are also promising , according to Patrick McCarthy , director of the NSF ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the AAS .
“ I hope that the collegiality and spirit of partnership between astronomers and commercial satellite operators will expand ... and that it will continue to prove useful and productive , ” he said in a statement in late August .
SATCON2 , the next workshop bringing together astronomers and satellite constellation operators , is planned for early to mid-2021 .
It will be geared toward tackling policy and regulation .
With the prospect of hundreds of satellites being launched in the meantime , Rawls stresses the urgency and importance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only going to accelerate , ” she says .
“ And it ’ s a long-term precedent .
It ’ s a question of what kind of sky you want your grandkids to have .
”

Starlink, a “megaconstellation” of hundreds of Internet satellites launched by the aerospace company SpaceX, has been causing headaches for astronomers by outshining celestial objects. Set to eventually include tens of thousands of spacecraft beaming high-speed Internet to the entire planet, Starlink has a downside for stargazing: the satellites reflect enough sunlight at night to be seen clearly with the naked eye (not to mention sensitive telescopes). Their brightness is only accentuated by the long trains they are arranged in, which pass across the heavens like dozens of glowing beads on a celestial string.
Ever since the first 60 Starlink satellites were launched in May 2019, 655 more have been placed in orbit, affecting a number of astronomical observations. Each launch has steadily held around 60 satellites, with one or two batches going up each month since January—the last did so on September 3.
Finally, in August—after more than a year of complaints from the scientific community and damage-control efforts from SpaceX—the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the American Astronomical Society (AAS) released a report on the situation. It drew from discussions among more than 250 experts at the virtual Satellite Constellations 1 (SATCON1) workshop earlier this summer to provide recommendations for both astronomers and satellite constellation operators in order to minimize further disruptions.
For now many astronomers can do little more than hope that the situation will improve. Although SpaceX’s satellites pose a problem for astronomical observations, the company does not “want to mess up astronomy,” says Meredith Rawls, an astronomer at the University of Washington. Rawls works with the upcoming Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile, formerly known as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. The project’s steady stream of panoramic images of the entire sky will help uncover the nature of dark matter and dark energy, identify countless instances of transient astrophysical phenomena and map Earth-threatening asteroids—if, of course, interference from satellite constellations does not scuttle its delicate work.
SpaceX’s initial efforts at mitigating the spacecraft’s impact involved launching a prototype Starlink satellite known as DarkSat earlier this year that features a black antireflective coating. Recent ground-based observations of DarkSat in orbit found it half as bright as a standard Starlink satellite—a great improvement, according to experts, but still far from what astronomers say is needed.
“I would not consider DarkSat as a victory but instead a good step in the right direction,” says Jeremy Tregloan-Reed, an astronomer at the University of Antofagasta in Chile and a member of the observational team that assessed the prototype. The team compared it with a typical Starlink sibling using a 0.6-meter telescope at the Ckoirama Observatory in Chile and found that although DarkSat’s antireflective coating rendered it invisible to the naked eye, it remains far too bright to avoid interfering with the Rubin Observatory and other major telescopes.
These results show that DarkSat is essentially a dead end, says Jonathan McDowell, a researcher at the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution, who has run computer simulations of megaconstellation effects on astronomical observations. Nevertheless, he says, the investigation by Tregloan-Reed’s team is an important step. “This study is notable as one of the first significant observational studies of a Starlink satellite, something that the community is now organizing to do on a much bigger scale,” McDowell adds. He cautions that if the satellites continue to be launched without a fix, “the impact would be huge.”
In the long term, Rawls worries that as satellite constellations become more common, future companies may launch them without any attempts to compromise with astronomers. “It creates a lot of systematic errors.... It becomes kind of a mess,” she says.
SpaceX is hoping to eventually put 12,000 Starlink satellites in the sky, and last year it filed for permission to put up 30,000 more. With those plans—as well as Amazon’s Project Kuiper aiming for 3,236 satellites and OneWeb, a now bankrupt company recently acquired by the U.K. government, perhaps striving for 2,000—the scale of astronomy’s satellite-constellation problem will only increase.
While the dimming techniques tested by DarkSat are far from a sufficient solution, SpaceX has continued to develop other ways to further reduce spacecraft brightness. The company’s second attempt at a darkened satellite, VisorSat, uses a black sunshade to reduce light reflection. The first spacecraft with this design was launched on June 3. Astronomers are hoping to observe VisorSat and compare it with DarkSat once observatories reopen, following the COVID-19 shutdown.
Even before any detailed observations of VisorSat have been made, SpaceX seems to have doubled down on the new model. All the satellites in the two Starlink batches launched in mid-June and early August were VisorSats, with each carrying its own sunshade.
Astronomers are not yet sure whether darkening methods such as DarkSat and VisorSat are the solution. Of the SATCON1 report’s 10 recommendations, only one asks satellite operators to use darkening techniques. The others suggest deploying satellites in orbits below 600 kilometers to minimize their nighttime glare, controlling their orientations in space to reflect less sunlight, developing ways to remove their trails from astronomical observations and making their orbital information available so astronomers can point telescopes away from them.
By some mix of approaches from this menu of options, it is hoped, the problem can be managed. Even so, the advent of satellite megaconstellations may have made further degradation of astronomers’ view of the night sky inevitable.
For now Tregloan-Reed is comforted by the fact that SpaceX is taking the problems seriously. “The development of both DarkSat and the new VisorSat shows that Starlink appears to be dedicated to mitigating the impact” of its satellites on both astronomers and backyard stargazers, he says.
The spirit of collaboration at the SATCON1 workshop and the creation of the report that followed it are also promising, according to Patrick McCarthy, director of the NSF’s NOIRLab, which produced the report with the AAS. “I hope that the collegiality and spirit of partnership between astronomers and commercial satellite operators will expand ... and that it will continue to prove useful and productive,” he said in a statement in late August.
SATCON2, the next workshop bringing together astronomers and satellite constellation operators, is planned for early to mid-2021. It will be geared toward tackling policy and regulation. With the prospect of hundreds of satellites being launched in the meantime, Rawls stresses the urgency and importance of the issue. “This is only going to accelerate,” she says. “And it’s a long-term precedent. It’s a question of what kind of sky you want your grandkids to have.”
Editor’s Note (9/11/20): The image caption in this article has been edited after posting to correct the reference to the observatory that created the exposure.


scientificamerican--2020-09-10--Don't Feel Guilty about Your Online Security Habits

Have you seen reports about massive increases in cybercrime during coronavirus : ransomware up 90 percent , data breaches up 223 percent ?
Noticed many major accounts getting hacked on Twitter ?
If so , you might be feeling a sense of déjà vu .
If you were on the Internet in 2009 , you would have heard that cybercrime had doubled .
You would also have heard about the growth of cybercrime and that police departments were staffing up to stop it .
Most of us probably feel like we ’ re asked to do a lot to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entering two-factor authentication codes to log in to websites , updating our computers , and maybe even running antivirus software .
The laundry list of security advice to follow is ever increasing : researchers recently documented over 400 unique pieces of advice about security and privacy available online .
To help you stay on top of things , you can even sign up to receive daily security advice emails .
How is it that we ’ re constantly expending effort on digital security , but cybercrime keeps rising ?
It turns out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t really know what you should do to stay safe from the crimes reported in those sensational news stories .
The argument for security advice seems clear .
In contrast to physical crime , which requires proximity , cybercrime gives attackers global reach .
Residents of leafy suburbs in the US don ’ t usually have to worry about criminal gangs half a world away but cybercrime changes this .
The Internet brings criminals from every part of the world into one shared space , hugely increasing the set set of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security expert Bruce Schneier writes , “ In cyberspace , you can set your computer to look for the one-in-a-hundred thousand chance .
You ’ ll probably find a couple dozen every day.
” To combat this cybercrime , we ’ re asked to take on an ever-growing list of security actions to protect our computers and our accounts .
You might presume that there is a large body of evidence showing that if you do what you ’ re told—use strong passwords , run your antivirus software—you ’ ll significantly reduce your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d be wrong .
Despite the prominence of digital security advice , we know remarkably little about its effectiveness .
In medicine , new treatments and healthy behavior recommendations must go through a rigorous set of clinical studies before doctors start making suggestions to patients .
Yet , for online security—on which many of us spend more time than on our physical health—there is little such evidence .
Coronavirus has given us an education in the importance of making evidence-based decisions and adjusting those decisions as we learn more .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings are risky and the importance of wearing masks has changed and adapted in response to new information .
Yet , no matter how pressing the need , we won ’ t release a vaccine , or even recommend mask usage , without unambiguous demonstration of efficacy .
How well do most cyber defenses work ?
The answer is ‘ We don ’ t know.
’ Any time a new possible digital attack is discovered , new recommendations come out to prevent it ; even if the probability of that attack taking place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the last six months alone , new lists of security advice have already been produced to help you stay safe from contact tracing scams , stimulus payment scams and unemployment relief scams , despite no known evidence of the prevalence nor longevity of these attacks .
The main source of information about online scams and what to do about them is from security experts .
However , recommendations offered by these experts turn out to be inconsistent across time and among experts .
Even experts struggle to identify what security advice is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 41 security experts asked to rate hundreds of pieces of security and privacy advice ended up categorizing 118 unique pieces of advice as being among the “ top five ” most important things for people to do to protect themselves !
Ask a security expert about the importance of strong passwords and you are likely to be told about pass-phrases , about the influence of length and composition on the number of guesses an attacker will have to make , and about how many billions of password guesses a computer can make per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear about is any data showing that those who choose stronger passwords do better than those with weak passwords .
Why not ?
First , we know little about the level of risk individual Internet users face .
How likely am I to be the victim of a cybercrime in the next year ?
The answer is unclear .
Why ?
Because many of the estimates of cybercrime losses cover enterprise rather than consumer costs and attempts to survey consumer losses often have methodology flawed to the point where we can not trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctor , she could give you a fairly precise estimate of the number of people who will develop cancer in the next year .
If you ask any security expert , she would be hard pressed to give you a data-driven estimate of the number of people whose Twitter accounts will be compromised in the same time period .
Second , we have no evidence of how well a given security behavior advised by experts prevents a particular online risk .
What we do have is an incoherent and growing collection of actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amorphous collection of harms .
It turns out that none of us—even security experts—have good data on what we ought to be doing to stay safe online .
Now this doesn ’ t mean we can do nothing , or that ignoring threats is advisable .
But , the evidence supporting what we ’ re supposed to do to stay safe online doesn ’ t come close to meeting the standards we expect from medicine and other fields .
So , you can stop feeling guilty for not listening to every piece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not wrong if you suspect that not all of it is necessary .
And digital security experts can take this as a call to catch up to data-driven standards of evidence : changing the behavior of billions of people is a lot easier if you come bearing data .

Have you seen reports about massive increases in cybercrime during coronavirus: ransomware up 90 percent, data breaches up 223 percent? Noticed many major accounts getting hacked on Twitter? If so, you might be feeling a sense of déjà vu. If you were on the Internet in 2009, you would have heard that cybercrime had doubled. You would also have heard about the growth of cybercrime and that police departments were staffing up to stop it.
Most of us probably feel like we’re asked to do a lot to protect ourselves online. Constantly changing passwords, entering two-factor authentication codes to log in to websites, updating our computers, and maybe even running antivirus software. The laundry list of security advice to follow is ever increasing: researchers recently documented over 400 unique pieces of advice about security and privacy available online. To help you stay on top of things, you can even sign up to receive daily security advice emails.
How is it that we’re constantly expending effort on digital security, but cybercrime keeps rising? It turns out, even the security experts giving this advice don’t really know what you should do to stay safe from the crimes reported in those sensational news stories.
The argument for security advice seems clear. In contrast to physical crime, which requires proximity, cybercrime gives attackers global reach. Residents of leafy suburbs in the US don’t usually have to worry about criminal gangs half a world away but cybercrime changes this. The Internet brings criminals from every part of the world into one shared space, hugely increasing the set set of people who might attack you. As security expert Bruce Schneier writes, “In cyberspace, you can set your computer to look for the one-in-a-hundred thousand chance. You’ll probably find a couple dozen every day.” To combat this cybercrime, we’re asked to take on an ever-growing list of security actions to protect our computers and our accounts.
You might presume that there is a large body of evidence showing that if you do what you’re told—use strong passwords, run your antivirus software—you’ll significantly reduce your risk of cybercrime.
Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. Despite the prominence of digital security advice, we know remarkably little about its effectiveness. In medicine, new treatments and healthy behavior recommendations must go through a rigorous set of clinical studies before doctors start making suggestions to patients. Yet, for online security—on which many of us spend more time than on our physical health—there is little such evidence.
Coronavirus has given us an education in the importance of making evidence-based decisions and adjusting those decisions as we learn more. For example, our understanding of which types of gatherings are risky and the importance of wearing masks has changed and adapted in response to new information. Yet, no matter how pressing the need, we won’t release a vaccine, or even recommend mask usage, without unambiguous demonstration of efficacy.
How well do most cyber defenses work? The answer is ‘We don’t know.’ Any time a new possible digital attack is discovered, new recommendations come out to prevent it; even if the probability of that attack taking place is extremely small. For example, in the last six months alone, new lists of security advice have already been produced to help you stay safe from contact tracing scams, stimulus payment scams and unemployment relief scams, despite no known evidence of the prevalence nor longevity of these attacks.
The main source of information about online scams and what to do about them is from security experts. However, recommendations offered by these experts turn out to be inconsistent across time and among experts. Even experts struggle to identify what security advice is most important. Recent research found that 41 security experts asked to rate hundreds of pieces of security and privacy advice ended up categorizing 118 unique pieces of advice as being among the “top five” most important things for people to do to protect themselves!
Ask a security expert about the importance of strong passwords and you are likely to be told about pass-phrases, about the influence of length and composition on the number of guesses an attacker will have to make, and about how many billions of password guesses a computer can make per second. What you will certainly not hear about is any data showing that those who choose stronger passwords do better than those with weak passwords.
Why not? First, we know little about the level of risk individual Internet users face. How likely am I to be the victim of a cybercrime in the next year? The answer is unclear. Why? Because many of the estimates of cybercrime losses cover enterprise rather than consumer costs and attempts to survey consumer losses often have methodology flawed to the point where we cannot trust the conclusions. If you ask any doctor, she could give you a fairly precise estimate of the number of people who will develop cancer in the next year. If you ask any security expert, she would be hard pressed to give you a data-driven estimate of the number of people whose Twitter accounts will be compromised in the same time period.
Second, we have no evidence of how well a given security behavior advised by experts prevents a particular online risk. What we do have is an incoherent and growing collection of actions aimed in the general direction of an amorphous collection of harms.
It turns out that none of us—even security experts—have good data on what we ought to be doing to stay safe online. Now this doesn’t mean we can do nothing, or that ignoring threats is advisable. But, the evidence supporting what we’re supposed to do to stay safe online doesn’t come close to meeting the standards we expect from medicine and other fields. So, you can stop feeling guilty for not listening to every piece of online security advice: you’re not wrong if you suspect that not all of it is necessary. And digital security experts can take this as a call to catch up to data-driven standards of evidence: changing the behavior of billions of people is a lot easier if you come bearing data.


scientificamerican--2020-09-10--Leftovers Are a Food-Waste Problem

Leftovers Are a Food-Waste Problem

When restaurants first shut down early in the pandemic , Americans raided grocery stores .
They started cooking more at home—and , presumably , generating more leftovers .
Those leftovers can be a convenient future meal—but they ’ ve got a dark side , too .
“ There ’ s a tendency that if you put an item on a plate that ’ s a leftover , there ’ s a higher probability that you ’ re not going to fully consume that item .
And so it ’ s probably going to go to waste.
” Brian Roe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University .
He and his colleagues recently studied leftovers and food waste by tracking the eating habits of 18 men and women in Baton Rouge , La .
The participants tracked what they ate using an iPhone app .
And during the weeklong study , the study subjects collectively piled 1,200 different foods on their plates .
After analyzing what got eaten , saved or thrown away , the researchers found that leftovers were more likely to be picked at and not fully eaten—a finding we can all probably identify with .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being older and less fresh—directed diners ’ attention to the other , more novel items on their plate , which brings up an interesting possible strategy to get people to eat their veggies .
“ I guess if you have an item that you don ’ t normally eat as much of , and you ’ re trying to get people to eat their peas , perhaps surrounding it with leftovers is a way to make them focus on the newest item on the plate.
” The findings are in the journal PLOS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al.
, Selection , intake , and plate waste patterns of leftover food items among U.S. consumers : A pilot study ] Overall , Roe says one bigger lesson emerged on how to avoid scraping food into the trash .
“ For us , the real take-home here was : all else equal , choose a smaller meal , and you ’ re less likely to generate leftovers .
And that ’ s a good thing because leftovers , all else equal , tend to be wasted more often.
” Not that Roe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around .
“ I ’ m guilty of this myself : we have things left over from last Thanksgiving still sitting in our freezer .
And I know people who ’ ve moved with frozen items before—without ever getting around to eating them.
” [ The above text is a transcript of this podcast . ]

Full Transcript
When restaurants first shut down early in the pandemic, Americans raided grocery stores. They started cooking more at home—and, presumably, generating more leftovers. Those leftovers can be a convenient future meal—but they’ve got a dark side, too.
“There’s a tendency that if you put an item on a plate that’s a leftover, there’s a higher probability that you’re not going to fully consume that item. And so it’s probably going to go to waste.”
Brian Roe, an applied economist at the Ohio State University. He and his colleagues recently studied leftovers and food waste by tracking the eating habits of 18 men and women in Baton Rouge, La. The participants tracked what they ate using an iPhone app. And during the weeklong study, the study subjects collectively piled 1,200 different foods on their plates.
After analyzing what got eaten, saved or thrown away, the researchers found that leftovers were more likely to be picked at and not fully eaten—a finding we can all probably identify with.
But they also observed that leftovers—perhaps due to being older and less fresh—directed diners’ attention to the other, more novel items on their plate, which brings up an interesting possible strategy to get people to eat their veggies.
“I guess if you have an item that you don’t normally eat as much of, and you’re trying to get people to eat their peas, perhaps surrounding it with leftovers is a way to make them focus on the newest item on the plate.”
The findings are in the journal PLOS ONE. [Brian E. Roe et al., Selection, intake, and plate waste patterns of leftover food items among U.S. consumers: A pilot study]
Overall, Roe says one bigger lesson emerged on how to avoid scraping food into the trash.
“For us, the real take-home here was: all else equal, choose a smaller meal, and you’re less likely to generate leftovers. And that’s a good thing because leftovers, all else equal, tend to be wasted more often.”
Not that Roe doesn’t have aspirational Tupperware sitting around.
“I’m guilty of this myself: we have things left over from last Thanksgiving still sitting in our freezer. And I know people who’ve moved with frozen items before—without ever getting around to eating them.”
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-09-11--Nine COVID-19 Myths That Just Won't Go Away

As the world continues to battle the coronavirus , it is also fighting a different sort of epidemic : misinformation .
This “ infodemic ” is just as harmful as COVID-19 itself , leading people to downplay the severity of the disease and ignore public health advice in favor of unproved treatments or “ cures.
” A recent survey by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup found that four in five Americans say the online spread of misinformation is the biggest problem facing the media .
Even with widely available evidence to the contrary , beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the most insidious falsehoods about the pandemic , and why they are wrong .
Myth 1 : The novel coronavirus was engineered in a lab in China .
Because the pathogen first emerged and began infecting people in Wuhan , China , President Donald Trump has claimed—without evidence—that it started in a laboratory there .
Some conspiracy theorists have even speculated it was engineered as a bioweapon , although U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied this possibility , stating that the intelligence community “ concurs with the wide scientific consensus that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetically modified.
” No credible evidence has emerged to support an accidental lab release either .
As Scientific American reported earlier this year , Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli—who studies bat coronaviruses and whose laboratory Trump and others had suggested was COVID-19 ’ s source—compared the pathogen ’ s sequence against that of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them .
Zhengli also explained in detail why her lab could not have been the source of the virus in a lengthy response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an independent , international investigation into how the virus originated , China has invited researchers from the World Health Organization to discuss the scope of such a mission .
But the evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not created in a lab .
Myth 2 : Wealthy elites intentionally spread the virus to win power and profit .
In a video from a conspiracy theory film entitled Plandemic and a book she co-authored , a woman named Judy Mikovits , who once published a high-profile , now retracted study on chronic fatigue syndrome , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates , suggesting they have used their power to profit from disease .
Science and the Web site PolitiFact have fact-checked some of the film ’ s claims , many of which appear elsewhere in this article .
The video was widely shared by anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory group QAnon .
It garnered more than eight million views on YouTube , Facebook , Twitter and Instagram before it was taken down because of its false statements .
Yet the large number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreads perniciously .
Myth 3 : COVID-19 is no worse than the flu .
Starting in the early days of the pandemic , Trump repeatedly claimed that the disease is not more dangerous than seasonal influenza .
But on September 9 the Washington Post published recordings of Trump telling journalist and author Bob Woodward—in interviews in early February and late March—that the president knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he wanted to play down its severity .
Although COVID-19 ’ s exact mortality rate is hard to pin down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than that of the flu .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the latter causes roughly 12,000 to 61,000 deaths per year in the U.S. By contrast , COVID-19 has caused more than 191,000 deaths in the country as of this writing .
* Many people also have partial immunity to the flu because of vaccination or prior infection , whereas most of the world has not yet encountered COVID-19 .
So no , coronavirus is not “ just the flu.
” Myth 4 : You don ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent , there is now a strong consensus among public health authorities—supported by numerous studies—that wearing a face covering can limit the transmission of the coronavirus through small exhaled droplets .
Masks have long been known as an effective means of source control ( preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others ) , but the early guidance was based , in part , on the fact that there was a shortage of high-quality “ N95 ” and surgical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face masks can be an effective alternative .
But despite the evidence , many people still refuse to wear one , considering it a violation of civil liberties or emasculating .
Georgia ’ s governor Brian Kemp went so far as to sign an executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates .
And he sued Atlanta ’ s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one , although he has now dropped the lawsuit .
But as coronavirus cases have spiked around the U.S. in recent months , even states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask orders .
Myth 5 : Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment .
When a small , now widely criticized study in France suggested the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine might be effective at treating the disease , Trump and others seized on it and have continued to tout the medication despite growing evidence that it does not benefit COVID-19 patients .
In a tweet , Trump called the hydroxychloroquine treatment “ one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine , ” and he has mentioned it repeatedly in his public coronavirus briefings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued an emergency use authorization for the drug , but the agency later warned against its use because of the risk of heart problems and ultimately revoked its authorization .
Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does not protect against COVID-19 in those who are exposed .
And in June the National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trial of the medication , stating that while it was not harmful to patients , it did not provide any benefit .
Yet Trump continues to hype the drug .
Just a few weeks ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of times before social media companies took it down—featuring Stella Immanuel , a Houston , Tex.–based physician ( who has made questionable assertions in the past , including that doctors had used alien DNA in treatments and that demons cause certain medical conditions by having sex with people in their dreams ) claiming hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19 .
Myth 6 : The Black Lives Matter protests led to increased transmission .
When thousands of people started taking to the streets in late May and June to protest the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Americans , some people questioned whether the mass gatherings would cause a spike in coronavirus cases .
But despite the concerns of Republicans such as Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio that the demonstrations pose as big a risk as going to church or the gym , such a marked increase from the protests has not been observed .
A white paper analysis of protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities by the National Bureau of Economic Research found no evidence that they led to more COVID-19 cases or deaths .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may actually have stayed home more than they would have otherwise .
The fact that the demonstrations happened outdoors , where the risk of transmission is much lower , and that many protesters wore masks likely prevented superspreading events .
Meanwhile , as states have reopened , there has been a notable increase in cases tied to bars and restaurants , as well as other indoor environments—likely because of the risk of airborne spread .
Myth 7 : Spikes in cases are because of increased testing .
As coronavirus cases began surging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , Trump has frequently claimed that these spikes are merely to the result of more people being tested .
He has tweeted that “ without testing ... we would be showing almost no cases ” and has said in interviews that the reason they appear to have gone up is because of increased testing .
If that scenario were true , we would expect the percentage of positive tests to go down .
But numerous analyses have shown the opposite .
The rate has risen in many states with big outbreaks ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , while it has decreased in those that have controlled their outbreaks ( such as New York ) , indicating that the national increase in positive tests reflects a true increase in cases .
Myth 8 : We can achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread through the population .
Early on in the pandemic , some speculated that the polices chosen by the U.K. and Sweden gave the impression that they planned on letting the virus circulate through their population until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it from spreading to others .
( Both nations ’ governments have denied that this idea was their official strategy , but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown , and Sweden had decided against widespread restrictions . )
There is a fundamental flaw with this approach , however : Experts estimate that roughly 60 to 70 percent of people would need to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity .
And given the relatively high mortality rate of the disease , letting it infect that many individuals could lead to millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic , in which roughly 50 million people are thought to have perished .
The U.K. ’ s COVID-19 death rate is among the world ’ s highest .
Sweden , for its part , has had significantly more deaths than neighboring countries , and its economy has suffered , despite not shutting down .
It is likely that many lives could have been saved if these countries had acted sooner .
Myth 9 : Any vaccine will be unsafe and a bigger risk than getting COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the disease , worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get one once it is available .
Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have circulated among anti-vax groups and in viral videos .
In Plandemic , Mikovits falsely claims that any COVID-19 vaccine will “ kill millions ” and that other vaccines have done so ( in fact , vaccines save millions of lives each year ) .
Another conspiracy theory asserts that Bill Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people ; Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not supported by evidence .
Most Americans still support vaccination , yet the few voices of opposition have been growing .
A recent study observed that although clusters of anti-vaxxers on Facebook are smaller than pro-vaccination groups , they are more heavily interconnected with clusters of undecided people .
A recent Gallup poll found that one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today , with Republicans being less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats .
There is good reason to be cautious about the safety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for prudence is why the top contenders are currently conducting large-scale clinical trials in tens of thousands of people to determine safety and efficacy .
If one or more of them pass muster , it will be critical for people to get vaccinated to save lives—including , perhaps , their own .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .
*Editor 's Note ( 9/10/20 ) : This paragraph has been updated in light of a report in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bob Woodward in recorded interviews from February and March that he knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he had intentionally downplayed the threat .

As the world continues to battle the coronavirus, it is also fighting a different sort of epidemic: misinformation. This “infodemic” is just as harmful as COVID-19 itself, leading people to downplay the severity of the disease and ignore public health advice in favor of unproved treatments or “cures.” A recent survey by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup found that four in five Americans say the online spread of misinformation is the biggest problem facing the media. Even with widely available evidence to the contrary, beliefs are hard to change. Here are some of the most insidious falsehoods about the pandemic, and why they are wrong.
Myth 1: The novel coronavirus was engineered in a lab in China. Because the pathogen first emerged and began infecting people in Wuhan, China, President Donald Trump has claimed—without evidence—that it started in a laboratory there. Some conspiracy theorists have even speculated it was engineered as a bioweapon, although U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied this possibility, stating that the intelligence community “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.” No credible evidence has emerged to support an accidental lab release either. As Scientific American reported earlier this year, Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli—who studies bat coronaviruses and whose laboratory Trump and others had suggested was COVID-19’s source—compared the pathogen’s sequence against that of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them. Zhengli also explained in detail why her lab could not have been the source of the virus in a lengthy response in Science. In reaction to calls for an independent, international investigation into how the virus originated, China has invited researchers from the World Health Organization to discuss the scope of such a mission. But the evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not created in a lab.
Myth 2: Wealthy elites intentionally spread the virus to win power and profit. In a video from a conspiracy theory film entitled Plandemic and a book she co-authored, a woman named Judy Mikovits, who once published a high-profile, now retracted study on chronic fatigue syndrome, makes unsubstantiated claims about National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, suggesting they have used their power to profit from disease. Science and the Web site PolitiFact have fact-checked some of the film’s claims, many of which appear elsewhere in this article. The video was widely shared by anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory group QAnon. It garnered more than eight million views on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram before it was taken down because of its false statements. Yet the large number of people who watched it suggests misinformation spreads perniciously.
Myth 3: COVID-19 is no worse than the flu. Starting in the early days of the pandemic, Trump repeatedly claimed that the disease is not more dangerous than seasonal influenza. But on September 9 the Washington Post published recordings of Trump telling journalist and author Bob Woodward—in interviews in early February and late March—that the president knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he wanted to play down its severity. Although COVID-19’s exact mortality rate is hard to pin down, epidemiologists suspect it is far higher than that of the flu. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the latter causes roughly 12,000 to 61,000 deaths per year in the U.S. By contrast, COVID-19 has caused more than 191,000 deaths in the country as of this writing.*
Many people also have partial immunity to the flu because of vaccination or prior infection, whereas most of the world has not yet encountered COVID-19. So no, coronavirus is not “just the flu.”
Myth 4: You don’t need to wear a mask. Although early guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent, there is now a strong consensus among public health authorities—supported by numerous studies—that wearing a face covering can limit the transmission of the coronavirus through small exhaled droplets. Masks have long been known as an effective means of source control (preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others), but the early guidance was based, in part, on the fact that there was a shortage of high-quality “N95” and surgical masks. We now know that cloth face masks can be an effective alternative. But despite the evidence, many people still refuse to wear one, considering it a violation of civil liberties or emasculating. Georgia’s governor Brian Kemp went so far as to sign an executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates. And he sued Atlanta’s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one, although he has now dropped the lawsuit. But as coronavirus cases have spiked around the U.S. in recent months, even states that were once staunch holdouts have now implemented mask orders.
Myth 5: Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment. When a small, now widely criticized study in France suggested the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine might be effective at treating the disease, Trump and others seized on it and have continued to tout the medication despite growing evidence that it does not benefit COVID-19 patients. In a tweet, Trump called the hydroxychloroquine treatment “one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,” and he has mentioned it repeatedly in his public coronavirus briefings. The Food and Drug Administration initially issued an emergency use authorization for the drug, but the agency later warned against its use because of the risk of heart problems and ultimately revoked its authorization. Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does not protect against COVID-19 in those who are exposed. And in June the National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trial of the medication, stating that while it was not harmful to patients, it did not provide any benefit. Yet Trump continues to hype the drug. Just a few weeks ago, he retweeted a video—viewed tens of millions of times before social media companies took it down—featuring Stella Immanuel, a Houston, Tex.–based physician (who has made questionable assertions in the past, including that doctors had used alien DNA in treatments and that demons cause certain medical conditions by having sex with people in their dreams) claiming hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Myth 6: The Black Lives Matter protests led to increased transmission. When thousands of people started taking to the streets in late May and June to protest the police killing of George Floyd and violence against Black Americans, some people questioned whether the mass gatherings would cause a spike in coronavirus cases. But despite the concerns of Republicans such as Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio that the demonstrations pose as big a risk as going to church or the gym, such a marked increase from the protests has not been observed. A white paper analysis of protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities by the National Bureau of Economic Research found no evidence that they led to more COVID-19 cases or deaths. And those who did not attend the protests may actually have stayed home more than they would have otherwise. The fact that the demonstrations happened outdoors, where the risk of transmission is much lower, and that many protesters wore masks likely prevented superspreading events. Meanwhile, as states have reopened, there has been a notable increase in cases tied to bars and restaurants, as well as other indoor environments—likely because of the risk of airborne spread.
Myth 7: Spikes in cases are because of increased testing. As coronavirus cases began surging in many parts of the U.S. in recent months, Trump has frequently claimed that these spikes are merely to the result of more people being tested. He has tweeted that “without testing ... we would be showing almost no cases” and has said in interviews that the reason they appear to have gone up is because of increased testing. If that scenario were true, we would expect the percentage of positive tests to go down. But numerous analyses have shown the opposite. The rate has risen in many states with big outbreaks (such as Arizona, Texas and Florida), while it has decreased in those that have controlled their outbreaks (such as New York), indicating that the national increase in positive tests reflects a true increase in cases.
Myth 8: We can achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread through the population. Early on in the pandemic, some speculated that the polices chosen by the U.K. and Sweden gave the impression that they planned on letting the virus circulate through their population until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people are immune to the virus to prevent it from spreading to others. (Both nations’ governments have denied that this idea was their official strategy, but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown, and Sweden had decided against widespread restrictions.) There is a fundamental flaw with this approach, however: Experts estimate that roughly 60 to 70 percent of people would need to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. And given the relatively high mortality rate of the disease, letting it infect that many individuals could lead to millions of deaths. That tragedy is what happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic, in which roughly 50 million people are thought to have perished. The U.K.’s COVID-19 death rate is among the world’s highest. Sweden, for its part, has had significantly more deaths than neighboring countries, and its economy has suffered, despite not shutting down. It is likely that many lives could have been saved if these countries had acted sooner.
Myth 9: Any vaccine will be unsafe and a bigger risk than getting COVID-19. As scientists race to develop a vaccine against the disease, worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get one once it is available. Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have circulated among anti-vax groups and in viral videos. In Plandemic, Mikovits falsely claims that any COVID-19 vaccine will “kill millions” and that other vaccines have done so (in fact, vaccines save millions of lives each year). Another conspiracy theory asserts that Bill Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people; Gates has denied the claim, which is not supported by evidence. Most Americans still support vaccination, yet the few voices of opposition have been growing. A recent study observed that although clusters of anti-vaxxers on Facebook are smaller than pro-vaccination groups, they are more heavily interconnected with clusters of undecided people. A recent Gallup poll found that one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today, with Republicans being less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats. There is good reason to be cautious about the safety of a new vaccine, but that need for prudence is why the top contenders are currently conducting large-scale clinical trials in tens of thousands of people to determine safety and efficacy. If one or more of them pass muster, it will be critical for people to get vaccinated to save lives—including, perhaps, their own.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.
*Editor's Note (9/10/20): This paragraph has been updated in light of a report in the Washington Post that Donald Trump told journalist Bob Woodward in recorded interviews from February and March that he knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he had intentionally downplayed the threat.