scientificamerican--2020-08-20--How to Ensure the U.S.'s Quantum Future

How to Ensure the U.S.'s Quantum Future

Science knows no borders .
Fundamental research , done by domestic or foreign talent , underpins progress and drives innovation—and ultimately , improves our lives .
Continuing to attract foreign highly skilled scientists to the United States and retaining them is crucial for building a bright future that relies on emerging technologies such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence ( AI ) .
We need these scientists—and we need them badly .
Over the years , foreign-born physicists , chemists , computer scientists , mathematicians , you name it , have been contributing greatly to the U.S. leadership in quantum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research .
IBM is an American company with a global footprint , and in the U.S. we have three research labs—in Yorktown Heights , N.Y. , Almaden , Calif. , and Cambridge , Mass .
Among our AI-skilled researchers , 58 percent are from abroad .
In quantum computing , it ’ s a quarter of our workforce .
And in cloud , another important area for us , it ’ s 55 percent of our research community .
I am the director of IBM Research .
When I speak , I speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my foreign-born colleagues .
I was born in Spain and came to the U.S. as a teenager .
I finished my last year of high school here in 1993 , at Los Altos High near Palo Alto , Calif. , and loved the country so much that I decided to stay .
Ever since , I ’ ve been working to make America a better place to live , having graduated from MIT with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and computer science .
I promised myself then to give my wit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , my new home .
My case is far from unique .
America has long been called the Land of Opportunity .
But every individual opportunity yields dividends for the whole nation .
Talent is the most critical resource in today ’ s knowledge economy .
We must prioritize the development , attraction and retention of highly skilled workers .
A declining birth rate , the ever-changing nature of work that increasingly demands STEM skills , and not enough STEM training at home—a problem we must urgently address—means the U.S. must remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talent .
Nations that understand the importance of developing , attracting and retaining human capital will be uniquely positioned to create the best future and benefit from the advancements in science and technology .
Our world has not run out of problems to solve—from pandemics to climate change to creating economic opportunity for all .
The urgency of science has never been greater .
Make no mistake .
While emerging technologies like AI and quantum are absolutely crucial for our economy , society and the continuous progress of our country , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world leader in these , and many other , areas .
And it ’ s top talent that is in short supply .
MIT ’ s President Rafael Reif put it quite bluntly in a recent New York Times opinion piece .
“ Why is foreign talent so important to the United States ?
For the same reason the Boston Red Sox don ’ t limit themselves to players born in Boston : The larger the pool you draw from , the larger the supply of exceptional talent , ” he argued .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one another , they make one another better , just as star players raise a whole team ’ s level of play.
” Take quantum .
This technology of the near future is set to revolutionize the world of computing and will likely deeply impact our society and economy .
Having been confined to research labs for years , it ’ s finally emerging as a nascent industry .
For specific tasks , quantum computers promise to unlock processing power much superior to traditional , classical , computers .
With continued progress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and generate simulations of unprecedented complexity at a fraction of the time it would take a classical computer .
They should even be able to deal with problems a classical computer could never solve .
The implications of quantum for security , chemistry , material design , financial markets , AI and machine learning are immense .
And now look at the people driving this quantum revolution in the U.S. ; IBM , Google , Microsoft , Honeywell , Intel and startups like Rigetti and IonQ are all pursuing quantum computing research here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the foreign-born quantum researchers is the lead of our quantum program , IBM Fellow Jay Gambetta .
An Australian , he has been working in quantum computing for 20 years , having come to the U.S. in 2004 to continue his research studies .
He became a citizen last year .
When Gambetta first arrived in the U.S. , quantum computing was n't yet mainstream .
It was thanks to foreign-born , highly skilled researchers like him that this country has been able to emerge as a global leader in this crucial area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which included IBM Fellow Matthias Steffen—another immigrant and naturalized American—that in 2012 put IBM Research on the global experimental quantum computing map .
They created stable superconducting qubits , the building blocks of quantum computers .
And four years later , Gambetta and his colleagues became the first in the world to make quantum computers available globally and for free through the cloud—to anyone .
According to a 2019 report by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology ( CSET ) , more than 50 percent of computer scientists with graduate degrees currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 70 percent of enrolled computer science graduate students as well .
The same report found , though , that the vast majority of this foreign-born talent wants to remain in the U.S .
In AI-related fields specifically , around 80 percent of U.S.-educated Ph.D. graduates have stayed in the country—just like the 58 percent of foreign-born AI researchers that now work at IBM ’ s American labs .
These stats show that we should keep investing in our highly skilled citizens with vigor and ambition—be they naturalized citizens or citizens by birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it will soon be increasingly difficult to attract and retain these workers—the workers we so desperately need here in America .
We must also consider the security of our research enterprise , particularly when it comes to the countries that do not share our democratic values , respect for human rights , and the rule of the law .
But above all , investing in our citizens is simply the right thing to do , as it means we recognize and value the intrinsic potential of the talent present in every corner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address the chronic underfunding of historically Black colleges and universities ( HBCUs ) —great scientific , economic and cultural drivers .
They accomplish a lot with very modest investment .
Just consider that although only about 9 percent of America ’ s Black students enroll in HBCUs , roughly 16 percent of all Black scientists and engineers are their graduates .
Imagine what they could achieve with more funding .
Each year , more than 50,000 bachelor ’ s degrees in computer science and related fields are awarded to U.S. citizens or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ staple ” green cards to the diplomas of all foreign-born Ph.D.s who graduate in STEM from American universities .
Similarly , we should award graduate fellowships to all U.S. undergraduate majors in computer science with GPAs above a certain level .
Our country and the world are full of talent .
We should embrace diversity and foreign highly skilled workers as much as we embrace the emerging technology that they bring us .
The skills and passion of our citizens and immigrants are the pillars of strength for advancing the scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Avi Loeb , the chair of the Astronomy Department at Harvard University , has written in these very pages , science is an infinite-sum game .
Diversity is our strength and competitive advantage .
It is time to reset America ’ s commitment to science and to raise our level of ambition to ensure our country remains a beacon to , and the home of , the world ’ s best STEM talent .

Science knows no borders. Fundamental research, done by domestic or foreign talent, underpins progress and drives innovation—and ultimately, improves our lives. Continuing to attract foreign highly skilled scientists to the United States and retaining them is crucial for building a bright future that relies on emerging technologies such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence (AI).
We need these scientists—and we need them badly.
Over the years, foreign-born physicists, chemists, computer scientists, mathematicians, you name it, have been contributing greatly to the U.S. leadership in quantum and AI. Just look at IBM Research. IBM is an American company with a global footprint, and in the U.S. we have three research labs—in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., Almaden, Calif., and Cambridge, Mass. Among our AI-skilled researchers, 58 percent are from abroad. In quantum computing, it’s a quarter of our workforce. And in cloud, another important area for us, it’s 55 percent of our research community.
I am the director of IBM Research. When I speak, I speak with an accent, just like all of my foreign-born colleagues. I was born in Spain and came to the U.S. as a teenager. I finished my last year of high school here in 1993, at Los Altos High near Palo Alto, Calif., and loved the country so much that I decided to stay. Ever since, I’ve been working to make America a better place to live, having graduated from MIT with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and computer science. I promised myself then to give my wit, education, dedication and passion to this country, my new home.
My case is far from unique. America has long been called the Land of Opportunity. But every individual opportunity yields dividends for the whole nation. Talent is the most critical resource in today’s knowledge economy. We must prioritize the development, attraction and retention of highly skilled workers. A declining birth rate, the ever-changing nature of work that increasingly demands STEM skills, and not enough STEM training at home—a problem we must urgently address—means the U.S. must remain a beacon to attract the best global talent. Nations that understand the importance of developing, attracting and retaining human capital will be uniquely positioned to create the best future and benefit from the advancements in science and technology.
Our world has not run out of problems to solve—from pandemics to climate change to creating economic opportunity for all. The urgency of science has never been greater.
Make no mistake. While emerging technologies like AI and quantum are absolutely crucial for our economy, society and the continuous progress of our country, it is top talent that makes the U.S. a world leader in these, and many other, areas. And it’s top talent that is in short supply. MIT’s President Rafael Reif put it quite bluntly in a recent New York Times opinion piece. “Why is foreign talent so important to the United States? For the same reason the Boston Red Sox don’t limit themselves to players born in Boston: The larger the pool you draw from, the larger the supply of exceptional talent,” he argued. “By challenging, inspiring and stretching one another, they make one another better, just as star players raise a whole team’s level of play.”
Take quantum. This technology of the near future is set to revolutionize the world of computing and will likely deeply impact our society and economy. Having been confined to research labs for years, it’s finally emerging as a nascent industry. For specific tasks, quantum computers promise to unlock processing power much superior to traditional, classical, computers. With continued progress, they should be able to perform calculations and generate simulations of unprecedented complexity at a fraction of the time it would take a classical computer. They should even be able to deal with problems a classical computer could never solve. The implications of quantum for security, chemistry, material design, financial markets, AI and machine learning are immense.
And now look at the people driving this quantum revolution in the U.S.; IBM, Google, Microsoft, Honeywell, Intel and startups like Rigetti and IonQ are all pursuing quantum computing research here in America. At IBM, among the foreign-born quantum researchers is the lead of our quantum program, IBM Fellow Jay Gambetta. An Australian, he has been working in quantum computing for 20 years, having come to the U.S. in 2004 to continue his research studies. He became a citizen last year.
When Gambetta first arrived in the U.S., quantum computing wasn't yet mainstream. It was thanks to foreign-born, highly skilled researchers like him that this country has been able to emerge as a global leader in this crucial area. It was his quantum team, which included IBM Fellow Matthias Steffen—another immigrant and naturalized American—that in 2012 put IBM Research on the global experimental quantum computing map. They created stable superconducting qubits, the building blocks of quantum computers. And four years later, Gambetta and his colleagues became the first in the world to make quantum computers available globally and for free through the cloud—to anyone.
According to a 2019 report by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), more than 50 percent of computer scientists with graduate degrees currently employed in the U.S. were born abroad—and nearly 70 percent of enrolled computer science graduate students as well. The same report found, though, that the vast majority of this foreign-born talent wants to remain in the U.S. In AI-related fields specifically, around 80 percent of U.S.-educated Ph.D. graduates have stayed in the country—just like the 58 percent of foreign-born AI researchers that now work at IBM’s American labs.
These stats show that we should keep investing in our highly skilled citizens with vigor and ambition—be they naturalized citizens or citizens by birth. Economic opportunities abroad are rising, and it will soon be increasingly difficult to attract and retain these workers—the workers we so desperately need here in America. We must also consider the security of our research enterprise, particularly when it comes to the countries that do not share our democratic values, respect for human rights, and the rule of the law. But above all, investing in our citizens is simply the right thing to do, as it means we recognize and value the intrinsic potential of the talent present in every corner of our country.
We also need to address the chronic underfunding of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs)—great scientific, economic and cultural drivers. They accomplish a lot with very modest investment. Just consider that although only about 9 percent of America’s Black students enroll in HBCUs, roughly 16 percent of all Black scientists and engineers are their graduates. Imagine what they could achieve with more funding.
Each year, more than 50,000 bachelor’s degrees in computer science and related fields are awarded to U.S. citizens or permanent residents. It has been recommended to “staple” green cards to the diplomas of all foreign-born Ph.D.s who graduate in STEM from American universities. Similarly, we should award graduate fellowships to all U.S. undergraduate majors in computer science with GPAs above a certain level.
Our country and the world are full of talent. We should embrace diversity and foreign highly skilled workers as much as we embrace the emerging technology that they bring us. The skills and passion of our citizens and immigrants are the pillars of strength for advancing the scientific and technological leadership of our nation. As Avi Loeb, the chair of the Astronomy Department at Harvard University, has written in these very pages, science is an infinite-sum game. Diversity is our strength and competitive advantage. It is time to reset America’s commitment to science and to raise our level of ambition to ensure our country remains a beacon to, and the home of, the world’s best STEM talent.


scientificamerican--2020-08-19--Cows with Eye Images Keep Predators in Arrears

In Botswana , farmers graze their cattle at the edge of the Okavango Delta .
The region is teeming with wildlife , including hungry predators with a taste for beef .
“ Lions and leopards , in particular , are ambush predators .
They often rely on the element of surprise to creep up and take down their prey.
” “ Livestock losses can be crippling to some of these farmers , and their subsequent retaliatory killing of predators in response to that is a major cause of population decline in large carnivores.
” But what if there were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their losses ?
“ The idea came about of painting eyes on the backsides of cows to trick lions and leopards into thinking they ’ ve been seen by their would-be prey .
And once seen , they often abandon the hunt.
” This visionary solution was inspired by nature .
A variety of species have evolved eyespot markings that thwart deadly adversaries—some frog derrieres feature eyespots , as do the backends of some fish .
Jordan ’ s colleague , Cameron Radford : “ Probably the most famous example is on butterflies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their wings , and these deter predators such as birds from attacking them.
” Even humans are susceptible to eyespots : one study found that people are less likely to steal bikes when an image of watchful eyes is displayed near bike racks .
But despite their usefulness , predator-foiling eyespots don ’ t occur naturally in mammals .
To make up for this egregious evolutionary oversight , the scientists/cow-butt artists got to work .
“ I can guarantee the cows didn ’ t enjoy the experience .
I mean it , didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but herding those cows up in the morning for their artificial-eye treatment probably wasn ’ t the most exciting thing for them.
” Over the four-year experiment , the researchers found that not one of the hundreds of cows with eyespots on their keisters was killed by an ambush predator .
But the study also showed that , while less effective , simply painting crude cross marks on the cows deterred predators better than leaving them au naturel .
So perhaps any kind of novel marking can startle an unsuspecting carnivore .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificial eyespots or cross marks .
But we recommend the eyespots because that was the best result.
” The Botswana Predator Conservation Trust and the Taronga Conservation Society Australia also contributed to this research , which appeared in the journal Communications Biology .
[ Cameron Radford et al.
, Artificial eyespots on cattle reduce predation by large carnivores ] Ultimately , a little artistic license could go a long way to safeguard both livestock herds and predators at risk of extinction .
[ The above text is a transcript of this podcast .
@

Full Transcript
In Botswana, farmers graze their cattle at the edge of the Okavango Delta. The region is teeming with wildlife, including hungry predators with a taste for beef.
“Lions and leopards, in particular, are ambush predators. They often rely on the element of surprise to creep up and take down their prey.”
University of New South Wales conservation biologist Neil Jordan.
“Livestock losses can be crippling to some of these farmers, and their subsequent retaliatory killing of predators in response to that is a major cause of population decline in large carnivores.”
But what if there were a simple thing farmers could do to cut their losses?
“The idea came about of painting eyes on the backsides of cows to trick lions and leopards into thinking they’ve been seen by their would-be prey. And once seen, they often abandon the hunt.”
This visionary solution was inspired by nature. A variety of species have evolved eyespot markings that thwart deadly adversaries—some frog derrieres feature eyespots, as do the backends of some fish. Jordan’s colleague, Cameron Radford:
“Probably the most famous example is on butterflies and moths. They have eyespots in their wings, and these deter predators such as birds from attacking them.”
Even humans are susceptible to eyespots: one study found that people are less likely to steal bikes when an image of watchful eyes is displayed near bike racks. But despite their usefulness, predator-foiling eyespots don’t occur naturally in mammals. To make up for this egregious evolutionary oversight, the scientists/cow-butt artists got to work.
“I can guarantee the cows didn’t enjoy the experience. I mean it, didn’t hurt them at all, but herding those cows up in the morning for their artificial-eye treatment probably wasn’t the most exciting thing for them.”
Over the four-year experiment, the researchers found that not one of the hundreds of cows with eyespots on their keisters was killed by an ambush predator. But the study also showed that, while less effective, simply painting crude cross marks on the cows deterred predators better than leaving them au naturel. So perhaps any kind of novel marking can startle an unsuspecting carnivore.
“Farmers can potentially paint their cattle with artificial eyespots or cross marks. But we recommend the eyespots because that was the best result.”
The Botswana Predator Conservation Trust and the Taronga Conservation Society Australia also contributed to this research, which appeared in the journal Communications Biology. [Cameron Radford et al., Artificial eyespots on cattle reduce predation by large carnivores]
Ultimately, a little artistic license could go a long way to safeguard both livestock herds and predators at risk of extinction.
—Susanne Bard
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-08-21--How an Article about the H-Bomb Landed Scientific American in the Middle of the Red Scare

On April 1 , 1950 , the New York Times carried a sensational front-page headline , “ U.S .
Censors H-Bomb Data ; 3,000 Magazine Copies Burnt.
” The story 's lead sentence read : “ Gerard Piel , editor of the Scientific American , attacked the censorship policies of the Atomic Energy Commission yesterday when he disclosed ... .
” The article went on to report that the government had destroyed every trace of the original text by physicist Hans Bethe , melting down the “ objectionable linotype slugs ” at the printing plant and then incinerating the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those 3,000 printed copies .
Piel , a scion of the family that brewed Piels Beer , was one of the first journalists to recognize the implications of nuclear research for weapon making , and he faced censorship , blacklisting and surveillance .
Reporting for Life from 1943 to 1944 , Piel was shown a telegram from the wartime Office of Censorship warning the magazine that certain topics , such as “ atomic energy ” and “ uranium , ” were now classified .
“ I took that telegram as a reading list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview with Piel , Robert W. Wood of Johns Hopkins University fumed about a secret Manhattan Project that was placing heavy orders for his spectroscopic research equipment .
The physicist , however , figured out the purpose of the classified endeavor .
“ They 're engaged in making the most frightful weapon , ” Wood told Piel .
Realizing the “ Age of the Atom ” was dawning , Piel spoke with close colleagues at Life about a new publication with the editorial independence for an informed discussion about the uses of science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York friend Donald H. Miller , Jr. , Piel relaunched the moribund Scientific American in 1948 with a simple editorial approach .
Leading scientists would explain developments in their fields to intelligent readers , and Scientific American 's editors would translate their convoluted texts into readable prose .
This editorial formula captivated its educated audience , eventually attracting essays by more than 150 Nobel Prize winners , including Albert Einstein , Niels Bohr and Francis Crick .
After Piel recruited colleagues from Life , famed informer Whitaker Chambers , then a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ that a group of three or four people left Time and became editors of Scientific American.
” He also reported they were “ probably Communist sympathizers , ” adding erroneously that “ a mysterious subsidy ” became available to buy Scientific American .
In 1950 Scientific American joined the nuclear debate with a four-part inquiry into the hydrogen bomb .
In the first installment , scientist Louis Ridenour criticized the decision to build this destructive weapon and condemned the “ bankruptcy of our secrecy policy ” that stifled public debate .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue , physicist Hans Bethe pleaded for finding ways to “ save humanity from this ultimate disaster ” by reconsidering the president 's decision to build the new super bomb .
Because he had circulated his draft among colleagues , the Atomic Energy Commission ( AEC ) had seen the manuscript , and it telegrammed the magazine to bar publication of Bethe 's article , which had already gone through part of its press run .
When Piel asked for specific objections , the AEC replied that any details could compromise national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AEC finally agreed to permit publication with some “ ritual deletions.
” Piel recalled that at this sensitive juncture , Miller asked the AEC security officers : “ Well , what do we do with the 3,000 copies already printed of the magazine ?
” Miller then suggested : “ There are good shredders up there .
But then , you know , someone could take the shredded pieces and put them back together again .
Maybe it 's better to burn it , do n't you think ?
” Oblivious to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had staged book burnings , the tone-deaf AEC security men agreed .
All those 3,000 copies were incinerated—an act almost without precedent in America .
Adding gravity to the act , the issue featured an essay by Einstein that propounded a comprehensive field theory that would hold physics together .
Piel 's mind was still not at rest , though .
His magazine was “ a very fragile little institution , ” with just over 100,000 circulation .
“ The Atomic Energy Commission or somebody in it at any time can leak this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe McCarthy , ” he thought , “ and we 'll be cooked .
So I called up the New York Times and said I have a story.
” The incident became what Piel called “ a nationwide overnight sensation ” that protected him from accusations of breaching national security .
A Times editorial supported Scientific American , warning that “ censors ... run the risk of doing great harm.
” Piel 's stance won him public admiration and closer FBI surveillance .
Agents reported that Piel and his first wife , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active in the ‘ 12th Street Neighbors for Peace , ' which was connected with the Stockholm Peace Petition , ” an advocacy group for a nuclear weapons ban .
At the peak of the McCarthy-era 's witch hunt for Communists in May 1953 , a Senate subcommittee summoned Scientific American managing editor Leon Svirsky .
Although suspecting that Svirsky had been a member of a secret Communist cell at Time magazine , Piel provided skilled counsel that let him emerge from the Senate hearing unscathed .
While investigating alleged Communists inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate 's Internal Security Subcommittee subpoenaed Scientific American 's promotions director , Stephen M. Fischer , who had been press secretary for Henry Wallace 's 1948 Progressive presidential campaign .
With the adept lawyer Piel provided , Fischer evaded prosecution by confessing his Communist Party membership while refusing to name names .
But the most challenging security case was Piel 's own .
When Piel was asked to become an adviser for a journal published by the U.S. Public Health Service , his acceptance required an FBI security check .
The bureau determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a subversive and disloyal to the United States.
” At an appeal to the Loyalty Board , the FBI reported that Scientific American had “ derided ” the evidence in the Rosenberg atomic espionage case , which , Piel said , “ it certainly had.
” Another demerit was his friendship with Harvard University astronomer Harlow Shapley , a contributor to the magazine and a peace activist who had dismissed Senator Joseph McCarthy 's accusations of his disloyalty as “ untrue and vague.
” Finally , the FBI report accused Piel of membership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Progressive group allied with Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia of New York , to which Piel said , “ I certainly was.
” Even so , his name was cleared from the taint of disloyalty .
All this dissent established the magazine 's reputation for editorial independence , winning subscribers and advertisers .
By deftly manipulating the historical forces at play—press freedom versus national security—Gerard Piel had made his publication an important forum for critical analysis of U.S. science policy during the coldest years of the cold war .

On April 1, 1950, the New York Times carried a sensational front-page headline, “U.S. Censors H-Bomb Data; 3,000 Magazine Copies Burnt.” The story's lead sentence read: “Gerard Piel, editor of the Scientific American, attacked the censorship policies of the Atomic Energy Commission yesterday when he disclosed ....” The article went on to report that the government had destroyed every trace of the original text by physicist Hans Bethe, melting down the “objectionable linotype slugs” at the printing plant and then incinerating the “complete file of proofs” along with those 3,000 printed copies.
Piel, a scion of the family that brewed Piels Beer, was one of the first journalists to recognize the implications of nuclear research for weapon making, and he faced censorship, blacklisting and surveillance. Reporting for Life from 1943 to 1944, Piel was shown a telegram from the wartime Office of Censorship warning the magazine that certain topics, such as “atomic energy” and “uranium,” were now classified. “I took that telegram as a reading list,” Piel recalled. During an interview with Piel, Robert W. Wood of Johns Hopkins University fumed about a secret Manhattan Project that was placing heavy orders for his spectroscopic research equipment. The physicist, however, figured out the purpose of the classified endeavor. “They're engaged in making the most frightful weapon,” Wood told Piel.
Realizing the “Age of the Atom” was dawning, Piel spoke with close colleagues at Life about a new publication with the editorial independence for an informed discussion about the uses of science. With Life buddy Dennis Flanagan and New York friend Donald H. Miller, Jr., Piel relaunched the moribund Scientific American in 1948 with a simple editorial approach. Leading scientists would explain developments in their fields to intelligent readers, and Scientific American's editors would translate their convoluted texts into readable prose. This editorial formula captivated its educated audience, eventually attracting essays by more than 150 Nobel Prize winners, including Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and Francis Crick.
After Piel recruited colleagues from Life, famed informer Whitaker Chambers, then a senior editor at Time, told the FBI “that a group of three or four people left Time and became editors of Scientific American.” He also reported they were “probably Communist sympathizers,” adding erroneously that “a mysterious subsidy” became available to buy Scientific American.
In 1950 Scientific American joined the nuclear debate with a four-part inquiry into the hydrogen bomb. In the first installment, scientist Louis Ridenour criticized the decision to build this destructive weapon and condemned the “bankruptcy of our secrecy policy” that stifled public debate. A month later, in the April 1950 issue, physicist Hans Bethe pleaded for finding ways to“save humanity from this ultimate disaster” by reconsidering the president's decision to build the new super bomb. Because he had circulated his draft among colleagues, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) had seen the manuscript, and it telegrammed the magazine to bar publication of Bethe's article, which had already gone through part of its press run. When Piel asked for specific objections, the AEC replied that any details could compromise national security. In a closed-door confrontation, the AEC finally agreed to permit publication with some “ritual deletions.”
Piel recalled that at this sensitive juncture, Miller asked the AEC security officers: “Well, what do we do with the 3,000 copies already printed of the magazine?” Miller then suggested: “There are good shredders up there. But then, you know, someone could take the shredded pieces and put them back together again. Maybe it's better to burn it, don't you think?” Oblivious to the symbolism after a war against Nazis who had staged book burnings, the tone-deaf AEC security men agreed. All those 3,000 copies were incinerated—an act almost without precedent in America. Adding gravity to the act, the issue featured an essay by Einstein that propounded a comprehensive field theory that would hold physics together.
Piel's mind was still not at rest, though. His magazine was “a very fragile little institution,” with just over 100,000 circulation. “The Atomic Energy Commission or somebody in it at any time can leak this to the House Un-American Activities Committee or Joe McCarthy,” he thought, “and we'll be cooked. So I called up the New York Times and said I have a story.”
The incident became what Piel called “a nationwide overnight sensation” that protected him from accusations of breaching national security. A Times editorial supported Scientific American, warning that “censors ... run the risk of doing great harm.”
Piel's stance won him public admiration and closer FBI surveillance. Agents reported that Piel and his first wife, then living in Greenwich Village, “were active in the ‘12th Street Neighbors for Peace,' which was connected with the Stockholm Peace Petition,” an advocacy group for a nuclear weapons ban.
At the peak of the McCarthy-era's witch hunt for Communists in May 1953, a Senate subcommittee summoned Scientific American managing editor Leon Svirsky. Although suspecting that Svirsky had been a member of a secret Communist cell at Time magazine, Piel provided skilled counsel that let him emerge from the Senate hearing unscathed.
While investigating alleged Communists inside the U.S. Army in July 1954, the Senate's Internal Security Subcommittee subpoenaed Scientific American's promotions director, Stephen M. Fischer, who had been press secretary for Henry Wallace's 1948 Progressive presidential campaign. With the adept lawyer Piel provided, Fischer evaded prosecution by confessing his Communist Party membership while refusing to name names. But the most challenging security case was Piel's own. When Piel was asked to become an adviser for a journal published by the U.S. Public Health Service, his acceptance required an FBI security check. The bureau determined, Piel said, “I was a subversive and disloyal to the United States.”
At an appeal to the Loyalty Board, the FBI reported that Scientific American had “derided” the evidence in the Rosenberg atomic espionage case, which, Piel said, “it certainly had.” Another demerit was his friendship with Harvard University astronomer Harlow Shapley, a contributor to the magazine and a peace activist who had dismissed Senator Joseph McCarthy's accusations of his disloyalty as “untrue and vague.” Finally, the FBI report accused Piel of membership in the American Labor Party, a Progressive group allied with Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia of New York, to which Piel said, “I certainly was.” Even so, his name was cleared from the taint of disloyalty.
All this dissent established the magazine's reputation for editorial independence, winning subscribers and advertisers. By deftly manipulating the historical forces at play—press freedom versus national security—Gerard Piel had made his publication an important forum for critical analysis of U.S. science policy during the coldest years of the cold war.


scientificamerican--2020-08-21--When Scientific American Made M. C. Escher Famous

Between 1957 and 1986 Martin Gardner wrote the Mathematical Games column for this magazine , with a total of 297 @ @ @ @ @ he became the world 's most prolific and best-known popularizer of recreational mathematics .
His @ @ @ @ @ a kind of sorcerer who conjured up an endless feast of puzzles , games and @ @ @ @ @ that often turned on counterintuitive twists .
He may have lived as he wrote : @ @ @ @ @ , in the attic of the writer 's home , the late mathematician John Horton @ @ @ @ @ was filled with puzzles , games , mechanical toys , scientific curiosities , and a @ @ @ @ @ , exactly like a wizard 's den .
”

Between 1957 and 1986 Martin Gardner wrote the Mathematical Games column for this magazine, with a total of 297 installments. During that time he became the world's most prolific and best-known popularizer of recreational mathematics. His fans still revere him as a kind of sorcerer who conjured up an endless feast of puzzles, games and riddles built on mathematical ideas that often turned on counterintuitive twists. He may have lived as he wrote: after visiting Gardner's office, in the attic of the writer's home, the late mathematician John Horton Conway remarked that “it was filled with puzzles, games, mechanical toys, scientific curiosities, and a host of other intriguing objects, exactly like a wizard's den.”
In his April 1961 column, Gardner introduced U.S. audiences to Dutch artist M. C. Escher, a meticulous craftsman who took great delight in defying expectations and breaking rules. He created mind-bending worlds where impossible things happen: Animals crawl out of the page, staircases rise to meet themselves and form infinite closed loops where one can climb forever, gravity pulls in multiple directions, and waterfalls cascade into the same pools that produced them.
Gardner's column was not directly about Escher. It was a rave review of Introduction to Geometry by University of Toronto geometer H.S.M. Coxeter, which explored areas where older textbooks had feared to tread, such as non-Euclidean geometries. Coxeter had used Escher's works to illustrate the book.
It was a natural pairing: For all of his blatant disregard for convention and authority, Escher embraced the laws of symmetry in geometry. In math-speak, “symmetry groups” refers to the collection of ways one can slide, reflect or rotate an object so that its final appearance is the same as its starting one. Escher often invoked translations, mirror reflections and repetition of forms.
One version of M. C. Escher's image of knights appeared in a 1961 Scientific American column by Martin Gardner. Credit: M. C. Escher's “Symmetry Drawing E67,” © The M. C. Escher Company, The Netherlands. All Rights Reserved. www.mcescher.com
The cover of Scientific American's April 1961 issue shows a flock of flying geese drawn by Escher with half facing to the left and the other half facing right. Closer inspection reveals that the birds are similar—the left-facing half look like, but are not quite, mirror images of the right-facing half. After a few seconds of staring at the picture, a viewer realizes that the birds interlock like puzzle pieces. Mathematicians describe one or more geometric shapes arranged to interlock and completely cover a flat surface as “tiling the plane.” Squares, hexagons and equilateral triangles can do it. Escher's birds can, too, apparently.
Mathematician Doris Schattschneider, the world's foremost expert on symmetry in Escher's works, says that 1961 column likely served to “whet the appetites” of mathematicians and scientists. Five years later Gardner devoted an entire column to Escher's work and included a wide variety of examples.
And that is when things took off. “Escher was overwhelmed” by a deluge of letters from collectors and admirers who wanted to own their own Escher, Schattschneider says. “After Mr. Gardner's article, my customers, especially in America, give me no peace,” Escher wrote to his friend Cornelius Roosevelt, a former cia agent (and grandson of Theodore Roosevelt), who by that time had become the world's foremost collector of all things Escher. Gardner, in the wake of his column, became a kind of Escher broker, redirecting would-be buyers who (through letters to this magazine) requested a print of their own.
The Escher craze had begun, and his popularity exploded in the late 1960s and the 1970s. Escher's work challenged long-held ideas about certainty and truth, coinciding with the countercultural wave of the period. “I cannot help mocking all our unwavering certainties,” he said in 1965. “Are you sure that a floor cannot also be a ceiling? Are you absolutely certain that you go up when you walk up a staircase? Can you be definite that it is impossible to have your cake and eat it?” Escher died in 1972, but his work lives on in large (often pirated) posters on dormitory-room walls and in wildly popular museum exhibitions around the world.
Despite this popularity, the artist never felt at home—or even welcome—in the worlds of math and art. The art world often seemed hostile to his work, and Escher once said he was “embarrassed” by the term “artist.” In a review of a 1998 retrospective, a New York Times art critic dismissed Escher as the “nonartist's nonartist.”
“I'm starting to speak a language which is understood by very few people. It makes me feel increasingly lonely,” he wrote to his son George in 1959, two years before Gardner's first column. “Mathematicians may be friendly and interested and give me a fatherly pat on the back, but in the end I am only a bungler to them. ‘Artistic' people mainly become irritated.”
But in the playful world of Gardner's Mathematical Games, Escher had found a home. “I think your article is excellent indeed,” he wrote to Gardner after seeing a 1966 column. Today he would likely recognize his community as the growing group of artists who find aesthetic inspiration in mathematical ideas.
One key attribute Escher shares with those artists, as well as with mathematicians and with anyone who finds themselves unable to resist a puzzle, is a certain kind of perseverance. “What can I do,” he once wrote to his son Arthur, “when this sort of problem fascinates me so much that I cannot leave it alone?”


scientificamerican--2020-08-21--Why Hurricane Names Are Retired

Why Hurricane Names Are Retired

Since 1950 , when a formal naming process began , the monikers of 89 northeastern Atlantic , Caribbean and Gulf @ @ @ @ @ retired because of the deaths or excessive financial damage they caused .
A list of @ @ @ @ @ each of six successive years ; in year seven , the set from year one @ @ @ @ @ .
( Beyond 21 , which is rare , names come from the Greek alphabet @ @ @ @ @ replaced .
A storm “ Florence ” formed eight times before it achieved infamy in @ @ @ @ @ fatalities may have been high even when damages were modest , in part because early-warning @ @ @ @ @ not as effective as today .
In recent times damages have mounted largely because coastal @ @ @ @ @ have risen dramatically .

Since 1950, when a formal naming process began, the monikers of 89 northeastern Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico hurricanes have been retired because of the deaths or excessive financial damage they caused. A list of 21 names is designated for each of six successive years; in year seven, the set from year one repeats, and so on. (Beyond 21, which is rare, names come from the Greek alphabet.) Retired names are replaced. A storm “Florence” formed eight times before it achieved infamy in 2018. In the mid-1900s fatalities may have been high even when damages were modest, in part because early-warning systems and emergency responses were not as effective as today. In recent times damages have mounted largely because coastal population and value of infrastructure have risen dramatically.


scientificamerican--2020-08-21--Scientific American vs. the Supernatural

In 1922 Scientific American announced a high-stakes international contest to find scientific proof of ghosts .
The competition offered $ @ @ @ @ @ top scientists of the day against wildly popular psychic mediums .
The contest also escalated @ @ @ @ @ famous friends : renowned magician and escape artist Harry Houdini and Sherlock Holmes creator Arthur @ @ @

In 1922 Scientific American announced a high-stakes international contest to find scientific proof of ghosts. The competition offered $5,000,and it pitted top scientists of the day against wildly popular psychic mediums. The contest also escalated a growing feud between two famous friends: renowned magician and escape artist Harry Houdini and Sherlock Holmes creator Arthur Conan Doyle.
The magazine's interest in the afterlife was not so much an anomaly but a product of the time. The U.S. and Europe were reeling from enormous numbers of deaths in the Great War and the 1918 influenza pandemic. To their families and friends, the spirits of the newly departed seemed to be appearing everywhere-in parlor séances with mediums and at kitchen tables through store-bought Ouija boards. “There was this desperation, this collective yearning to know if there was existence after death,” says David Jaher, whose book The Witch of Lime Street chronicles the period.
In parallel to this supernatural fascination, these years were filled with breakneck technological innovation. Electricity and radio were making what was previously unimaginable possible: instant illumination and voices from afar appearing out of thin air. “The science and technology of the time all seemed very magical to people,” Jaher says. “There was such a thin line between what is a scientific miracle and what is a supernatural miracle.” So cross-Styx communication, or spiritualism, did not seem entirely unreasonable.
In an unlikely turn, Conan Doyle, a trained medical doctor as well as the author behind a famously rational detective, had become one of the highest profile proponents of spiritualism on either side of the Atlantic. He was convinced that, among other things, he had been able to communicate with his dead son. He even toured the U.S. in the early 1920s to lecture on the topic.
On the debunking side was Houdini. The magician and Conan Doyle had briefly been friends, but then the writer tried to arrange for Houdini to receive a message from his dead mother via a medium. The illusionist saw that the act was a ruse, however, and he easily spotted trickery by other mediums as well, such as the use of a wire to move a distant object. He was unhappy with Conan Doyle and condemned the work of mediums as a “racket,” Jaher says, “defrauding the bereaved.”
Scientific American regularly covered spiritualism as an interest of science. Many well-respected scientists, including renowned physicist Oliver Lodge—a magazine contributor—were vocal defenders of the practice's legitimacy. While in the U.S., Conan Doyle contacted Scientific American's publisher, Orson Munn, and suggested that instead of covering psychic work as an ongoing debate, the magazine ought to take an official stance on it. Munn agreed.
Munn and the magazine's editors decided that the best way to determine their stance would be to hold the aforementioned contest, which was refereed by a committee consisting of two scientists, two psychic experts and the skeptical Houdini. The contest promised to use the latest scientific tools to ascertain once and for all whether there were true conduits to the spirit world. This equipment included “induction coils, galvanometers, electroscopes, etc., some with the purpose of testing the electrical condition of the medium at the moment when phenomena are produced, others to prove the presence or absence of material objects,” the magazine explained in the March 1923 issue.
The psychic tests, initially performed in the magazine's library, got off to a slow and rocky start. Many of Conan Doyle's most revered mediums refused to appear in a public competition. Contestants who did show were quickly dismissed by the judges as tricksters. “I never saw such awkward work in my life,” Houdini noted after one of the early sessions.
And so it went, in fits and false apparition starts, for more than a year. Then news began to emerge about a medium in Boston who did not take money for her séances and who seemed to have no particular motive for being a conduit. The woman, Mina Crandon, was married to a respected surgeon and so loathed publicity– unlike other mediums the magazine had encountered–that she received a pseudonym: Margery. So an editor and some of the contest judges set off to the Crandons' residence on Lime Street in Boston for preliminary visits. Bells rang in the dark, a Victrola played without explanation and the voice of the medium's dead brother conversed with observers.
But Margery could not convince Houdini, who called her “all fraud.” The Scientific American committee eventually reached the same conclusion after observing nearly 100 séances. In 1925 the magazine announced, “The famous Margery case is over so far as the Scientific American Psychic Investigation is concerned.”
Notably, however, the publication did not call humbug on the entire field and kept its committee going. As late as 1941, it upped the prize to $15,000. But it seemed unconvinced that conclusive evidence would surface on either side. In a 1942 article, a writer for the magazine mused that “it is, perhaps, too much to hope that it may ever be permanently settled.”


scientificamerican--2020-08-21--The Surprising Advantages of Virtual Conferences

It ’ s easy to see why people don ’ t love the idea of virtual conferences .
Sitting for hours behind a computer screen , listening to a floating head , isn ’ t exactly a thrilling prospect .
You don ’ t get to bask in the exotic setting of a tropical island or other international location .
And virtual conferences don ’ t allow researchers to retreat from their everyday routines and fully immerse themselves in sharing knowledge .
The lack of in-person interaction is also a problem .
It ’ s no exaggeration that many a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traced back to a long conference lunch queue .
Even being invited to present at a virtual conference can ring somewhat hollow .
Alone in the office , speakers must struggle not only with technological demands but also with connecting with their remote audience .
There is no doubt that virtual conferences in the current time of COVID-19 raise challenges for organizers , attendees and speakers .
However , a number of surprising positives show how virtual conferences are not only overcoming these hurdles but also triggering a paradigm shift in how conferences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the greatest beneficiaries of the online migration of conferences has been the environment .
A recent review estimated that the amount of carbon dioxide generated by each researcher through conference travel ranges from 0.5 to 2 metric tons .
Staggeringly , the total carbon footprint of the world ’ s estimated 7.8 million researchers each traveling to one conference a year is equivalent to that of some small nations .
In contrast , organizers of two fully virtual conferences in the U.S. estimated that their total carbon emissions were less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” event .
Relocating conferences online has also made them accessible to a larger and more diverse audience .
Traveling and prolonged home absence have long raised problems for people with children or disabilities .
Similarly , financial and visa restrictions prevent many from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and specific countries from attending international meetings .
Removing these barriers associated with travel has instantly rendered many conferences more inclusive .
While the 2019 European Geosciences Union ( EGU ) General Assembly in Vienna attracted just over 16,200 participants , the online 2020 General Assembly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtual conferences scale much better than in-person counterparts , it has been relatively easy to accommodate all these extra attendees .
To kindle social interactions amongst participants scattered across continents and time zones , conferences are bringing new apps into play .
“ Braindate ” and “ Brella ” match profiles uploaded by attendees and suggest private video conferences to discuss shared interests .
Such matchmaking apps not only reintroduce the networking opportunities sought by conferencegoers but may even lower the barrier for more introverted or junior members to reach out to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizers have been using the ability of online platforms to randomly split participants into groups to foster more mixing , rather than watching attendees automatically gravitate towards renowned names .
Conference moderators are also finding other silver linings to the virtual format , which have opened up new possibilities in panel discussion and Q & A sessions .
At the American Association for Cancer Research ( AACR ) Annual Meeting , held online this year in April , attendees were asked to vote in real time on questions submitted through a chat channel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quality of question , ” noted Emily Costa , a Ph.D. student from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York .
Aside from improving the wording and airing of more insightful questions , this also drew a larger audience into actively participating throughout the discussion sessions .
Panel discussions can also be better controlled in online conferences .
Professor Russ Altman , one of the chairs of the Stanford University–organized COVID-19 and AI Virtual Conference in April , revealed that messaging between moderators on a separate channel helped finesse discussions in real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had one panelist who we thought was contributing a little bit too much , ” he said .
Through a “ backchannel conversation ” moderators jointly decided to ask questions that would engage the other , less vocal panelists .
BEST OF BOTH WORLDS Ultimately , in-person and virtual conferences are not interchangeable .
However , the two formats need not be mutually exclusive , and conferences of the future should aim to capture the main strengths of both .
An informal survey by Nature showed that 80 percent of 486 respondents believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held virtually , even after the COVID-19 pandemic .
As a recent participant of a virtual conference thoughtfully observed , “ the snacks at the break were nothing new , while the restroom lines were shorter , and the receptions were BYOB .
”

It’s easy to see why people don’t love the idea of virtual conferences. Sitting for hours behind a computer screen, listening to a floating head, isn’t exactly a thrilling prospect. You don’t get to bask in the exotic setting of a tropical island or other international location. And virtual conferences don’t allow researchers to retreat from their everyday routines and fully immerse themselves in sharing knowledge. The lack of in-person interaction is also a problem. It’s no exaggeration that many a fruitful collaboration and career move can be traced back to a long conference lunch queue. Even being invited to present at a virtual conference can ring somewhat hollow. Alone in the office, speakers must struggle not only with technological demands but also with connecting with their remote audience.
There is no doubt that virtual conferences in the current time of COVID-19 raise challenges for organizers, attendees and speakers. However, a number of surprising positives show how virtual conferences are not only overcoming these hurdles but also triggering a paradigm shift in how conferences of the future could look.
A GREENER WAY
Indisputably one of the greatest beneficiaries of the online migration of conferences has been the environment. A recent review estimated that the amount of carbon dioxide generated by each researcher through conference travel ranges from 0.5 to 2 metric tons. Staggeringly, the total carbon footprint of the world’s estimated 7.8 million researchers each traveling to one conference a year is equivalent to that of some small nations. In contrast, organizers of two fully virtual conferences in the U.S. estimated that their total carbon emissions were less than 1 percent of a traditional “fly-in” event.
LEVELING THE FIELD
Relocating conferences online has also made them accessible to a larger and more diverse audience. Traveling and prolonged home absence have long raised problems for people with children or disabilities. Similarly, financial and visa restrictions prevent many from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and specific countries from attending international meetings. Removing these barriers associated with travel has instantly rendered many conferences more inclusive. While the 2019 European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly in Vienna attracted just over 16,200 participants, the online 2020 General Assembly registered over 26,000 individual users. Since virtual conferences scale much better than in-person counterparts, it has been relatively easy to accommodate all these extra attendees.
To kindle social interactions amongst participants scattered across continents and time zones, conferences are bringing new apps into play. “Braindate” and “Brella” match profiles uploaded by attendees and suggest private video conferences to discuss shared interests. Such matchmaking apps not only reintroduce the networking opportunities sought by conferencegoers but may even lower the barrier for more introverted or junior members to reach out to the superstars in their field. Other conference organizers have been using the ability of online platforms to randomly split participants into groups to foster more mixing, rather than watching attendees automatically gravitate towards renowned names.
BEHIND THE SCENES
Conference moderators are also finding other silver linings to the virtual format, which have opened up new possibilities in panel discussion and Q&A sessions. At the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting, held online this year in April, attendees were asked to vote in real time on questions submitted through a chat channel. This “resulted in a better quality of question,” noted Emily Costa, a Ph.D. student from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Aside from improving the wording and airing of more insightful questions, this also drew a larger audience into actively participating throughout the discussion sessions.
Panel discussions can also be better controlled in online conferences. Professor Russ Altman, one of the chairs of the Stanford University–organized COVID-19 and AI Virtual Conference in April, revealed that messaging between moderators on a separate channel helped finesse discussions in real time. “For example, we had one panelist who we thought was contributing a little bit too much,” he said. Through a “backchannel conversation” moderators jointly decided to ask questions that would engage the other, less vocal panelists.
BEST OF BOTH WORLDS
Ultimately, in-person and virtual conferences are not interchangeable. However, the two formats need not be mutually exclusive, and conferences of the future should aim to capture the main strengths of both. An informal survey by Nature showed that 80 percent of 486 respondents believe that some meetings should continue to be held virtually, even after the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a recent participant of a virtual conference thoughtfully observed, “the snacks at the break were nothing new, while the restroom lines were shorter, and the receptions were BYOB.”


scientificamerican--2020-08-21--Lidar Advances Show Mosquito Rush Hours

Lidar Advances Show Mosquito Rush Hours

During a 2016 solar eclipse , a team led by researchers at Sweden 's Lund University projected a beam of infrared laser light into the darkened Tanzanian sky to measure how insects responded to the unusual twilight .
Afterward , the group continued monitoring for another five nights and four days .
The laser-based system used , known as lidar , detected more than 300,000 insects during this time .
Many of these bugs were the world 's deadliest : the mosquito , one genus of which can carry the parasite that causes half a million malaria deaths every year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evening “ rush hour , ” the researchers measured high numbers of the insects taking flight at nearly the exact same times each day .
The eclipse , they found , also summoned a large cloud of mosquitoes .
The result suggests that in nature , light levels , rather than circadian rhythms , dictate mosquitoes ' activity .
Crucially , the study , published in May in Science Advances , also illustrates lidar 's potential to assess malaria risk and prevention measures—and to help collect entomological data .
The study marks “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple different types of insects over the field in their natural settings , ” says lead author and Lund physicist Mikkel Brydegaard .
The study tested an entomological lidar type Brydegaard invented , which is used around the world .
In his system , each insect flying through a lidar beam reflects light back into a telescope .
The light , called backscatter , can be analyzed to find the frequency of wingbeats , which lets researchers determine the numbers and species of insects passing through .
The team was able to identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could even differentiate between male and female mosquitoes .
Scientists fighting malaria often use physical traps to catch mosquitoes at various life stages , then analyze them and their genes in a laboratory .
But this method is time-consuming and expensive , and it does not let scientists assess populations over time or evaluate the efficacy of spraying or other control measures in the field .
“ With this type of lidar , they 're demonstrating with the eclipse and in general that you can actually track the population with much higher accuracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Technology physicist Benjamin Thomas , who was not involved in the study but is among a growing number of entomology researchers experimenting with lidar .
“ You can observe thousands and thousands of insects , finally opening the door to us being able to monitor those populations.
” The scientists say lidar installations could raise malaria risk alerts , as a weather station can warn of impending storms .
And tracking mosquitoes is just one application of the technology ; it could also be used to detect pollinator diversity and monitor pests on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .

During a 2016 solar eclipse, a team led by researchers at Sweden's Lund University projected a beam of infrared laser light into the darkened Tanzanian sky to measure how insects responded to the unusual twilight. Afterward, the group continued monitoring for another five nights and four days. The laser-based system used, known as lidar, detected more than 300,000 insects during this time.
Many of these bugs were the world's deadliest: the mosquito, one genus of which can carry the parasite that causes half a million malaria deaths every year. During the mosquitoes' morning and evening “rush hour,” the researchers measured high numbers of the insects taking flight at nearly the exact same times each day. The eclipse, they found, also summoned a large cloud of mosquitoes. The result suggests that in nature, light levels, rather than circadian rhythms, dictate mosquitoes' activity. Crucially, the study, published in May in Science Advances, also illustrates lidar's potential to assess malaria risk and prevention measures—and to help collect entomological data.
The study marks “the first time that you can classify multiple different types of insects over the field in their natural settings,” says lead author and Lund physicist Mikkel Brydegaard.
The study tested an entomological lidar type Brydegaard invented, which is used around the world. In his system, each insect flying through a lidar beam reflects light back into a telescope. The light, called backscatter, can be analyzed to find the frequency of wingbeats, which lets researchers determine the numbers and species of insects passing through. The team was able to identify mosquitoes, moths, flies and midges—and could even differentiate between male and female mosquitoes.
Scientists fighting malaria often use physical traps to catch mosquitoes at various life stages, then analyze them and their genes in a laboratory. But this method is time-consuming and expensive, and it does not let scientists assess populations over time or evaluate the efficacy of spraying or other control measures in the field.
“With this type of lidar, they're demonstrating with the eclipse and in general that you can actually track the population with much higher accuracy,” says New Jersey Institute of Technology physicist Benjamin Thomas, who was not involved in the study but is among a growing number of entomology researchers experimenting with lidar. “You can observe thousands and thousands of insects, finally opening the door to us being able to monitor those populations.”
The scientists say lidar installations could raise malaria risk alerts, as a weather station can warn of impending storms. And tracking mosquitoes is just one application of the technology; it could also be used to detect pollinator diversity and monitor pests on farms or in protected areas, Brydegaard says.


scientificamerican--2020-08-21--Jeffrey Epstein's Harvard Connections Show How Money Can Distort Research

This past May , Harvard University ( where I teach ) issued a report on its relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein .
It was an admirably forthright mea culpa highlighting three areas of concern .
The first was the contradiction of addressing sexual assault and harassment on campus while accepting money from a man who had promoted sexual abuse of minors .
The second was the mockery made of academic standards when , after donating $ 200,000 to the psychology department , Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection to Harvard 's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics ( PED ) .
Even after his release from prison , Epstein continued to be a frequent visitor : between 2010 and 2018 Epstein ( at that point a registered sex offender ) went to the PED offices more than 40 times .
During that period he had an on-campus office and a key card and pass code with which he could enter buildings during off-hours .
It is not just that an awful person was able to buy a halo of respectability .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger problem : it undermines the integrity of the research enterprise when individuals can pick and choose lines of inquiry that appeal to them simply because they can pay for them .
Academic life is tough in part because researchers with good ideas have to compete for funding .
When peer review operates properly , it identifies the best ideas to support , usually by using panels—not individuals—to see to it that a range of views is represented .
The process is imperfect , but women , people of color , young scholars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting ideas that challenge conventional wisdom at least have a chance .
But more than two thirds of Epstein 's donations— $ 6.5 million—went to PED director Martin Nowak .
Epstein encouraged others to give another $ 2 million to geneticist George Church .
Both were already extremely well established and well funded ; Epstein was helping the flush get flusher .
( Church notes that Epstein 's funding supported not just him but also his large and diverse team ; Nowak did not reply to a request for comment . )
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a latter-day eugenicist whose interests were tied to a delusional notion of seeding the human race with his own DNA .
Given this stance , it is particularly disturbing that he focused his largesse on research on the genetic basis of human behavior .
Human genetics is an ethically sensitive and intellectually contested domain where it behooves us to ensure that the highest standards of scientific rigor are in place and that nongenetic explanations for behavior are given a fair chance to compete .
Scientists might claim that Epstein 's money in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards , but we have broad evidence that the interests of funders often influence the work done .
The New York Times concluded that in this case it led researchers “ to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein 's half-baked scientific musings.
” True or not , it should trouble us that a corrupt man was making decisions affecting research at a major U.S. university .
He had no academic competence—yet he effectively made choices about which research initiatives were interesting and promising .
Moreover , when Epstein got into trouble , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visited him in jail .
When Epstein 's lawyer , Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz , needed help to argue ( on semantic grounds ) that Epstein was not guilty as charged , he reached out to Harvard psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker .
Pinker ( who never took funds from Epstein ) says he did not know to what use his advice was being put and aided Dershowitz only as “ a favor to a friend and colleague.
” But that is precisely the point : Epstein had purchased friends in high places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped him , even if inadvertently .
These matters have come to light because Epstein was a criminal , but Harvard is not alone in accepting tainted money .
Universities need to develop policies to ensure that research funding is based on merit , not cronyism , and researchers who are seeking public trust must be able to show that their own ethical compasses are not deflected by the magnetism of money .
”

This past May, Harvard University (where I teach) issued a report on its relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. It was an admirably forthright mea culpa highlighting three areas of concern. The first was the contradiction of addressing sexual assault and harassment on campus while accepting money from a man who had promoted sexual abuse of minors. The second was the mockery made of academic standards when, after donating $200,000 to the psychology department, Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic qualifications. The third was his close connection to Harvard's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED). Even after his release from prison, Epstein continued to be a frequent visitor: between 2010 and 2018 Epstein (at that point a registered sex offender) went to the PED offices more than 40 times. During that period he had an on-campus office and a key card and pass code with which he could enter buildings during off-hours.
It is not just that an awful person was able to buy a halo of respectability. The Epstein affair brings to light a much larger problem: it undermines the integrity of the research enterprise when individuals can pick and choose lines of inquiry that appeal to them simply because they can pay for them.
Academic life is tough in part because researchers with good ideas have to compete for funding. When peer review operates properly, it identifies the best ideas to support, usually by using panels—not individuals—to see to it that a range of views is represented. The process is imperfect, but women, people of color, young scholars, investigators at nonelite universities and individuals promoting ideas that challenge conventional wisdom at least have a chance. But more than two thirds of Epstein's donations—$6.5 million—went to PED director Martin Nowak. Epstein encouraged others to give another $2 million to geneticist George Church. Both were already extremely well established and well funded; Epstein was helping the flush get flusher. (Church notes that Epstein's funding supported not just him but also his large and diverse team; Nowak did not reply to a request for comment.)
What made it even worse was that Epstein was a latter-day eugenicist whose interests were tied to a delusional notion of seeding the human race with his own DNA. Given this stance, it is particularly disturbing that he focused his largesse on research on the genetic basis of human behavior. Human genetics is an ethically sensitive and intellectually contested domain where it behooves us to ensure that the highest standards of scientific rigor are in place and that nongenetic explanations for behavior are given a fair chance to compete.
Scientists might claim that Epstein's money in no way caused them to lower their standards, but we have broad evidence that the interests of funders often influence the work done. The New York Times concluded that in this case it led researchers “to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings.” True or not, it should trouble us that a corrupt man was making decisions affecting research at a major U.S. university. He had no academic competence—yet he effectively made choices about which research initiatives were interesting and promising.
Moreover, when Epstein got into trouble, several faculty members defended him and even visited him in jail. When Epstein's lawyer, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, needed help to argue (on semantic grounds) that Epstein was not guilty as charged, he reached out to Harvard psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker. Pinker (who never took funds from Epstein) says he did not know to what use his advice was being put and aided Dershowitz only as “a favor to a friend and colleague.” But that is precisely the point: Epstein had purchased friends in high places, and those friends had friends who helped him, even if inadvertently.
These matters have come to light because Epstein was a criminal, but Harvard is not alone in accepting tainted money. Universities need to develop policies to ensure that research funding is based on merit, not cronyism, and researchers who are seeking public trust must be able to show that their own ethical compasses are not deflected by the magnetism of money.”


scientificamerican--2020-08-21--Coronavirus News Roundup, August 15-August 21

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter , “ Smart , useful , science stuff about COVID-19.
” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox , sign up here .
Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter .
The New York Times is routinely updating a graphic resource for readers , “ Is your state doing enough coronavirus testing ?
” The U.S. only conducts 52 percent of the daily coronavirus tests that Harvard Global Health Institute researchers estimate are necessary to keep the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in check , Keith Collins writes .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state-by-state estimates , which show the extent of testing in all 52 U.S. states , based on data collected by the Covid Tracking Project .
A total of 10 U.S. states are meeting a testing target set by the Harvard researchers , the story states .
Where are these states ?
Hint : stick close to the New England states , our nation ’ s capital , `` Seward ’ s Folly , ” and “ the Land of Enchantment ” ( last updated 8/20/20 ) .
A “ spit test ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University researchers received emergency-use approval on 8/15/20 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration , several outlets reported .
The test is “ easier to administer and analyze than the standard nasal swabs , ” reports Tanya Lewis at Scientific American .
The Yale test , called SalivaDirect , “ is not the first saliva test the FDA has authorized , ” Lewis writes , but it can work with chemicals made by a variety of companies , which should prevent supply-chain issues that have slowed other coronavirus testing methods .
The bulk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Q & A with one of the Yale researchers who helped develop the spit test .
It sounds like it could be a while before this spit test is widely available ( 8/20/20 ) .
A piece by Claudia Wallis for Scientific American dives into the science — both biological and social — behind why older people , men , individuals with certain genetic variants , people with underlying chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes , Latinx people , and Black people are at higher risk for severe cases of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8/20/20 ) .
Early in the story , Wallis introduces the analogy of a Russian nesting doll for thinking about how multiple risk factors can “ stack up ” for any one of us .
Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times reports that more than a dozen scientists think that the pandemic ’ s herd immunity , “ the point at which the virus can no longer spread widely because there are not enough vulnerable humans , ” is 50 percent or less .
Previously , scientists have put the figure at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be acquired by overcoming an infection with SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination if vaccines become available .
Some scientists estimate that parts of New York , London , and Mumbai might already have sufficient immunity among their populaces to resist a second wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections , the story states .
Unlike previous estimates , some new estimates for herd immunity take into account the extent to which the reproductive number , R-naught , varies in different groups and subpopulations .
R-naught in these new estimates is assumed to vary by population density in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among community members , and the age profile of a community .
“ The new models offer food for thought…but should not be used to set policy , ” according to some experts interviewed for the story , Mandavilli writes ( 8/17/20 ) .
Freelance journalist Tara Haelle has written a compassionate first-person piece for Medium ’ s Elemental about the limits of our mental and physical “ surge capacity ” for responding to drawn-out events like the current pandemic .
Haelle talks about how she got through feeling despondent and adrift in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with “ reckoning with what ’ s called ambiguous loss , ” Haelle writes , which refers to “ any loss that ’ s unclear and lacks a resolution.
” With the pandemic , what we ’ ve lost is a “ way of life , of the ability to meet up with your friends and extended family , ” says a family therapist and emeritus professor of social sciences at the University of Minnesota who is quoted in the story .
My favorite tip from the solutions section near the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect less from yourself ” ( 8/18/20 ) .
Electric rice-cookers and multi-cookers may effectively inactivate 99.9 percent of four common viruses in an artificial saliva solution applied to medical-grade N95 masks without degrading the masks ' fit or filtration efficiency , according to a recently published study covered by Allyson Chiu at The Washington Post ( 8/14/20 ) .
The relatively simple method could be used to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 on used medical-grade masks , the story suggests .
A 50-minute treatment “ without pressure at a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` thoroughly cleaned ” for re-use , Chiu writes .
Engineers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign published their results 7/15/20 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters .
Inside the cooker , N95 ’ s should be wrapped in a towel to protect them from the cooker ’ s inner walls or heating elements , the story states ( 8/14/20 ) .
We are bigger threats to our pets than our pets are to us when it comes to passing SARS-CoV-2 across species , reports David Grimm for Science .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this conclusion , but “ everything scientists have seen so far suggests cats and dogs are highly unlikely to pass SARS-CoV-2 to humans , ” Grimm writes .
Nearly all pets who have tested positive for the virus had contact with infected humans , the story states .
Fortunately , pets infected with the virus tend to only have mild COVID-19 symptoms or none at all , the story states .
Failure to wear a mask , wash hands frequently and social distance puts both pets and their humans at risk for infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8/14/20 ) .
A Chemical & Engineering News story by Massachusetts-based freelance writer XiaoZhi Lim raises safety concerns about disinfectants that contain “ quats ” — quaternary ammonium compounds .
Quat disinfectants , which are found in many disinfecting sprays , wipes , soaps , and hand sanitizers , have been widely used for decades and now are widely used by consumers , hospital workers , janitors , and public transit workers to reduce the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2 .
But quat compounds also have been linked to developmental and fertility problems in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative changes in cellular processes .
No data links quats with “ systemic toxicity ” in humans , Lim reports .
The California Department of Public Health is quoted in the story as saying , “ We proactively recommend the use of disinfectants that do not contain [ quats ] or other harmful chemicals , whenever possible.
” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to release updated risk assessments for quotes in 2021 , and at least one study has measured quat levels in samples of human blood and analyzed them for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reviewers currently are assessing the results for publication in a journal , the story states ( 8/2/20 ) .
You might enjoy “ Virtual freshman orientation , ” by Nicky Guerreiro and Ethan Simon , for The New Yorker ( 8/17/20 ) .

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter, “Smart, useful, science stuff about COVID-19.” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox, sign up here. Please consider a monthly contribution to support this newsletter.
The New York Times is routinely updating a graphic resource for readers, “Is your state doing enough coronavirus testing?” The U.S. only conducts 52 percent of the daily coronavirus tests that Harvard Global Health Institute researchers estimate are necessary to keep the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in check, Keith Collins writes. But perhaps more useful for lay people are state-by-state estimates, which show the extent of testing in all 52 U.S. states, based on data collected by the Covid Tracking Project. A total of 10 U.S. states are meeting a testing target set by the Harvard researchers, the story states. Where are these states? Hint: stick close to the New England states, our nation’s capital, "Seward’s Folly,” and “the Land of Enchantment” (last updated 8/20/20).
A “spit test” for SARS-CoV-2 infections that was developed by Yale University researchers received emergency-use approval on 8/15/20 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, several outlets reported. The test is “easier to administer and analyze than the standard nasal swabs,” reports Tanya Lewis at Scientific American. The Yale test, called SalivaDirect, “is not the first saliva test the FDA has authorized,” Lewis writes, but it can work with chemicals made by a variety of companies, which should prevent supply-chain issues that have slowed other coronavirus testing methods. The bulk of Lewis’s piece features a Q&A with one of the Yale researchers who helped develop the spit test. It sounds like it could be a while before this spit test is widely available (8/20/20).
A piece by Claudia Wallis for Scientific American dives into the science — both biological and social — behind why older people, men, individuals with certain genetic variants, people with underlying chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, Latinx people, and Black people are at higher risk for severe cases of COVID-19 or for dying from the disease (8/20/20). Early in the story, Wallis introduces the analogy of a Russian nesting doll for thinking about how multiple risk factors can “stack up” for any one of us.
Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times reports that more than a dozen scientists think that the pandemic’s herd immunity, “the point at which the virus can no longer spread widely because there are not enough vulnerable humans,” is 50 percent or less. Previously, scientists have put the figure at 60 to 70 percent. Immunity can be acquired by overcoming an infection with SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination if vaccines become available. Some scientists estimate that parts of New York, London, and Mumbai might already have sufficient immunity among their populaces to resist a second wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections, the story states. Unlike previous estimates, some new estimates for herd immunity take into account the extent to which the reproductive number, R-naught, varies in different groups and subpopulations. R-naught in these new estimates is assumed to vary by population density in a region, the extent of mixing among community members, and the age profile of a community. “The new models offer food for thought…but should not be used to set policy,” according to some experts interviewed for the story, Mandavilli writes (8/17/20).
Freelance journalist Tara Haelle has written a compassionate first-person piece for Medium’s Elemental about the limits of our mental and physical “surge capacity” for responding to drawn-out events like the current pandemic. Haelle talks about how she got through feeling despondent and adrift in recent months. Some of it has to do with “reckoning with what’s called ambiguous loss,” Haelle writes, which refers to “any loss that’s unclear and lacks a resolution.” With the pandemic, what we’ve lost is a “way of life, of the ability to meet up with your friends and extended family,” says a family therapist and emeritus professor of social sciences at the University of Minnesota who is quoted in the story. My favorite tip from the solutions section near the end of the essay is to “expect less from yourself” (8/18/20).
Electric rice-cookers and multi-cookers may effectively inactivate 99.9 percent of four common viruses in an artificial saliva solution applied to medical-grade N95 masks without degrading the masks' fit or filtration efficiency, according to a recently published study covered by Allyson Chiu at The Washington Post (8/14/20). The relatively simple method could be used to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 on used medical-grade masks, the story suggests. A 50-minute treatment “without pressure at a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit” of an N95 mask made by 3M "thoroughly cleaned” for re-use, Chiu writes. Engineers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign published their results 7/15/20 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters. Inside the cooker, N95’s should be wrapped in a towel to protect them from the cooker’s inner walls or heating elements, the story states (8/14/20).
We are bigger threats to our pets than our pets are to us when it comes to passing SARS-CoV-2 across species, reports David Grimm for Science. There’s no strong evidence for this conclusion, but “everything scientists have seen so far suggests cats and dogs are highly unlikely to pass SARS-CoV-2 to humans,” Grimm writes. Nearly all pets who have tested positive for the virus had contact with infected humans, the story states. Fortunately, pets infected with the virus tend to only have mild COVID-19 symptoms or none at all, the story states. Failure to wear a mask, wash hands frequently and social distance puts both pets and their humans at risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the story states (8/14/20).
A Chemical & Engineering News story by Massachusetts-based freelance writer XiaoZhi Lim raises safety concerns about disinfectants that contain “quats” — quaternary ammonium compounds. Quat disinfectants, which are found in many disinfecting sprays, wipes, soaps, and hand sanitizers, have been widely used for decades and now are widely used by consumers, hospital workers, janitors, and public transit workers to reduce the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. But quat compounds also have been linked to developmental and fertility problems in mice, Lim writes, and to negative changes in cellular processes. No data links quats with “systemic toxicity” in humans, Lim reports. The California Department of Public Health is quoted in the story as saying, “We proactively recommend the use of disinfectants that do not contain [quats] or other harmful chemicals, whenever possible.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to release updated risk assessments for quotes in 2021, and at least one study has measured quat levels in samples of human blood and analyzed them for markers of cellular dysfunction and inflammation. Reviewers currently are assessing the results for publication in a journal, the story states (8/2/20).
You might enjoy “Virtual freshman orientation,” by Nicky Guerreiro and Ethan Simon, for The New Yorker (8/17/20).