scientificamerican--2020-08-10--Trying to Tame the Klamath River Filled It with Toxic Algae

The Karuk people define themselves by the Klamath River , just as the Romans did the Tiber or the Egyptians did the Nile .
The word “ Karuk ” means “ upstream , ” a reference to the waterway , which runs from Klamath Lake in southern Oregon , across the mountains of northern California — where the Karuk live — before emptying into the Pacific Ocean .
Every year , at the end of summer , the Karuk celebrate the river , the mountains and the forest in their “ making the world right ” ceremonies .
“ These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibility to take care of our place , ” said Josh Saxon , executive director of the Karuk tribe .
“ We believe that we ’ re related to everything , so we have a responsibility to take care of our relatives , which are the fish and the water and the animals and the sky — everything.
” As part of these ceremonies , priests bathe in the river .
But from July through November , when the water is warmest , the Klamath fills with blue-green algae that render the river @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not actually algae , but a species of cyanobacteria , Microcystis aeruginosa — turn the water bright green and lend it the smell of rotting seaweed .
People can get rashes from bathing in the river or become violently ill from drinking the water , suffering nausea and diarrhea at the height of the ceremonies .
“ It would be like going to mass and them giving you toxic algae to drink instead of wine , ” said Craig Tucker , natural resources consultantfor the Karuk tribe .
“ People are supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and now they have to decide , is it more important to practice their religion , or is it more important to protect their health ?
It ’ s a horrible dilemma.
” Over the last century , humans fueled the algal blooms by draining wetlands , erecting hydroelectric dams and building farms along the Klamath — all of which upset the natural balance of the river .
The water grew warmer and filled with nutrients , allowing the cyanobacteria to thrive .
Healing the Klamath means reversing decades of damage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and now the Karuk and their allies are trying to break the binds .
The work is slow and arduous , and was made more difficult this month when federal regulators put a carefully crafted plan to remove a series of hydroelectric dams in doubt .
“ Every day , I pray for clean water , and it ’ s just disheartening when you go outside , and you smell that smell , and you see the river , ” Saxon said .
“ It weighs on me quite a bit.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you got that water , but do not touch it.
” Harmful algal blooms aren ’ t new .
Researchers have been studying algal blooms since the dawn of the scientific revolution .
One of the earliest papers published in Philosophical Transactions , the world ’ s oldest scientific journal , is a 1672 account of Tuchomskie Lake in Poland , which had become “ green in the middle with an hairy efflorescence.
” Cows , chickens and dogs , the author testified , died from drinking the lake water .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has grown substantially worse over the last 200 years .
That trend accelerated in the last half-century as humans altered the conditions in lakes and streams to favor cyanobacteria .
For the Karuk tribe , the problem began in 1906 , when the Klamath Project , a federal initiative , started draining the wetlands abutting the river to turn them into farmland .
The fertile volcanic soil of the Klamath River Basin made it ideal for farming , so officials carved up the map , offering plots of land to returning service members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War II , demand was so high , they held a lottery .
The Klamath Union High School band played as veterans waited to hear if their names would be plucked from a pickle jar and read aloud on national radio .
By turning wetlands into farms , the Klamath Project unwittingly gave ammunition to cyanobacteria .
The rich volcanic soil that made the land so well-suited to farming also yielded the nutrients that fed cyanobacteria .
At one time , the grasses that grew in the wetlands absorbed these surplus nutrients .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the wetlands , it blocked this critical offramp , allowing those nutrients to collect in the river .
Farmers later compounded the problem by feeding their crops synthetic fertilizer , which drained into the Klamath , helping nourish harmful algal blooms .
The Klamath Hydroelectric Project further aggravated the problem by building a series of power-generating dams along the middle Klamath , the first of which went online in 1918 .
Each dam created a large , mostly stagnant reservoir of water where cyanobacteria could feed , sunbathe and multiply .
Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Globally , rising temperatures are warming lakes and streams , helping spur the growth of cyanobacteria , studies show .
Climate change is also fueling drought , which dries up rivers , slowing their flow .
This further helps cyanobacteria , which fare better in slower-moving water , where they can gain a foothold .
TheKlamath is now subject to yearly blooms , during which cyanobacteria produce microcystins , a liver toxin and potential carcinogen that can kill animals and make people sick .
“ People knew for years that the reservoirs turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really understand what that was until 2004 when the Karuk tribe ’ s water quality team took samples and sent them off to a lab for testing .
The lab called us and said , ‘ We don ’ t know where you got that water , but do not touch it , ’ ” Tucker said .
“ These reservoirs have become liver toxin factories , just pumping this stuff out.
” Harmful algal blooms aren ’ t limited to the Klamath River .
They have taken hold in all 50 states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council .
One 2014 bloom in Lake Erie grew so large that it showed up in satellite images .
In Toledo , Ohio , which draws its water from the Lake Erie , locals were told to drink bottled water , because the tap water could make them ill .
Unlike humans , aquatic flora and fauna can ’ t escape the algal blooms .
Plants suffer because cyanobacteria , which sit on the surface of the water , prevent sunlight from reaching areas below .
And fish suffer when the cyanobacteria eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up cyanobacteria remains consume huge volumes of oxygen during their feast , leaving fish to suffocate .
Because algal blooms have no single cause , they also have no easy fix .
Healing the Klamath means unspooling the bitter legacy of manifest destiny , and returning the river to a more natural state .
“ It ’ s one of those death-by-a-thousand-cuts kind of problems.
” In 2007 , the Karuk tribe , joined by conservationists and fishers , brought a lawsuit against California regulators , who had failed to deal with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thereafter , California listed the Klamath as “ impaired ” by microcystins .
This made it harder for the regional power utility , PacifiCorp , to continue operating the hydroelectric dams that were fueling the algal blooms .
“ If PacifiCorp wanted to try to keep their dams and get a new license , they would have to somehow mitigate these algal blooms to the point where they were compliant with the Clean Water Act , and they weren ’ t sure how they could possibly do that , ” Tucker said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reservoirs .
It also considered installing aerators , which would stir up the water and prevent cyanobacteria from settling in .
But such measures would prove expensive , and hard to justify , under the circumstances .
Not only did PacifiCorp have to curb the algal blooms , it also had to upgrade its dams to allow salmon to move upstream .
Given the high cost of addressing both challenges , it would be cheaper to remove the aging dams entirely .
In 2016 , PacifiCorp agreed to a plan to remove the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , J.C. Boyle and Iron Gate dams .
According to the plan , PacifiCorp would transfer ownership of the dams to the newly formed Klamath River Renewal Corporation , which would tear down the dams with funds from the power utility and the state of California .
Last month , however , federal regulators threw a wrench in the works when they said that PacifiCorp must remain a co-licensee of the dams , meaning it could be liable for any additional costs associated with their removal .
California Gov .
Gavin Newsom has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm , Berkshire Hathaway , owns PacifiCorp — urging him to stick with the plan .
Parties say they are optimistic that they will be able to keep PacifiCorp on board , given the much steeper cost of continuing to operate the dams .
If they are successful , the largest dam removal in U.S. history will kick off in 2021 .
Even then , however , it will only be the first step in stemming the toxic algal blooms .
The Karuk still face rising temperatures and high nutrient levels .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of problems , ” Tucker said .
To further heal the river , farmers could build earthen barriers around their farms to prevent fertilizer from spilling into waterways .
Officials could work to restore the wetlands , and governments , broadly , could finally take the radical steps needed to curb climate change .
For now , algal blooms remain a marginal issue .
While the California Water Resources Control Board is keeping track of harmful algal blooms in lakes and rivers across the state , warning visitors when the water is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far set no objectives or issued any regulations related to cyanobacteria .
“ In terms of large-scale policy , there isn ’ t right now any explicit policy in California that ’ s addressing the drivers of harmful algal blooms , ” said Keith Bouma-Gregson , an environmental scientist who co-leads the freshwater harmful algal bloom program for the California Water Resources Control Board .
While the Karuk and their allies mustered the political will needed to tear down a series of aging dams , they are likely to face more resistance when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change could only make it harder to find areas of compromise .
Currently , drought is stifling growers in the Klamath Basin , so officials are diverting water from the river to farms in the region .
Removing water from the river could slow its flow , potentially exacerbating the algae problem , sources said .
For the Karuk , it is a relentlessly uphill fight .
“ I would like everyone who has had a stake in this process to recognize that our way of life and our connection to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity as a people is at stake , ” Saxon said .
“ This isn ’ t our livelihood .
These are our lives .
”

The Karuk people define themselves by the Klamath River, just as the Romans did the Tiber or the Egyptians did the Nile. The word “Karuk” means “upstream,” a reference to the waterway, which runs from Klamath Lake in southern Oregon, across the mountains of northern California — where the Karuk live — before emptying into the Pacific Ocean. Every year, at the end of summer, the Karuk celebrate the river, the mountains and the forest in their “making the world right” ceremonies.
“These ceremonies are to remind us of our responsibility to take care of our place,” said Josh Saxon, executive director of the Karuk tribe. “We believe that we’re related to everything, so we have a responsibility to take care of our relatives, which are the fish and the water and the animals and the sky — everything.”
As part of these ceremonies, priests bathe in the river. But from July through November, when the water is warmest, the Klamath fills with blue-green algae that render the river toxic. The algae — which are not actually algae, but a species of cyanobacteria, Microcystis aeruginosa — turn the water bright green and lend it the smell of rotting seaweed. People can get rashes from bathing in the river or become violently ill from drinking the water, suffering nausea and diarrhea at the height of the ceremonies.
“It would be like going to mass and them giving you toxic algae to drink instead of wine,” said Craig Tucker, natural resources consultantfor the Karuk tribe. “People are supposed to be in the water conducting religious ceremonies, and now they have to decide, is it more important to practice their religion, or is it more important to protect their health? It’s a horrible dilemma.”
Over the last century, humans fueled the algal blooms by draining wetlands, erecting hydroelectric dams and building farms along the Klamath — all of which upset the natural balance of the river. The water grew warmer and filled with nutrients, allowing the cyanobacteria to thrive.
Healing the Klamath means reversing decades of damage. Humans conquered the river and the wetlands, and now the Karuk and their allies are trying to break the binds. The work is slow and arduous, and was made more difficult this month when federal regulators put a carefully crafted plan to remove a series of hydroelectric dams in doubt.
“Every day, I pray for clean water, and it’s just disheartening when you go outside, and you smell that smell, and you see the river,” Saxon said. “It weighs on me quite a bit.”
“We don’t know where you got that water, but do not touch it.”
Harmful algal blooms aren’t new. Researchers have been studying algal blooms since the dawn of the scientific revolution. One of the earliest papers published in Philosophical Transactions, the world’s oldest scientific journal, is a 1672 account of Tuchomskie Lake in Poland, which had become “green in the middle with an hairy efflorescence.” Cows, chickens and dogs, the author testified, died from drinking the lake water.
The problem of harmful algal blooms, however, has grown substantially worse over the last 200 years. That trend accelerated in the last half-century as humans altered the conditions in lakes and streams to favor cyanobacteria.
For the Karuk tribe, the problem began in 1906, when the Klamath Project, a federal initiative, started draining the wetlands abutting the river to turn them into farmland. The fertile volcanic soil of the Klamath River Basin made it ideal for farming, so officials carved up the map, offering plots of land to returning service members after each world war. After World War II, demand was so high, they held a lottery. The Klamath Union High School band played as veterans waited to hear if their names would be plucked from a pickle jar and read aloud on national radio.
By turning wetlands into farms, the Klamath Project unwittingly gave ammunition to cyanobacteria. The rich volcanic soil that made the land so well-suited to farming also yielded the nutrients that fed cyanobacteria. At one time, the grasses that grew in the wetlands absorbed these surplus nutrients. But when the Klamath Project built dikes around the wetlands, it blocked this critical offramp, allowing those nutrients to collect in the river. Farmers later compounded the problem by feeding their crops synthetic fertilizer, which drained into the Klamath, helping nourish harmful algal blooms.
The Klamath Hydroelectric Project further aggravated the problem by building a series of power-generating dams along the middle Klamath, the first of which went online in 1918. Each dam created a large, mostly stagnant reservoir of water where cyanobacteria could feed, sunbathe and multiply.
Climate change has likely worsened the problem. Globally, rising temperatures are warming lakes and streams, helping spur the growth of cyanobacteria, studies show. Climate change is also fueling drought, which dries up rivers, slowing their flow. This further helps cyanobacteria, which fare better in slower-moving water, where they can gain a foothold. TheKlamath is now subject to yearly blooms, during which cyanobacteria produce microcystins, a liver toxin and potential carcinogen that can kill animals and make people sick.
“People knew for years that the reservoirs turned green, but they didn’t really understand what that was until 2004 when the Karuk tribe’s water quality team took samples and sent them off to a lab for testing. The lab called us and said, ‘We don’t know where you got that water, but do not touch it,’” Tucker said. “These reservoirs have become liver toxin factories, just pumping this stuff out.”
Harmful algal blooms aren’t limited to the Klamath River. They have taken hold in all 50 states, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. One 2014 bloom in Lake Erie grew so large that it showed up in satellite images. In Toledo, Ohio, which draws its water from the Lake Erie, locals were told to drink bottled water, because the tap water could make them ill.
Unlike humans, aquatic flora and fauna can’t escape the algal blooms. Plants suffer because cyanobacteria, which sit on the surface of the water, prevent sunlight from reaching areas below. And fish suffer when the cyanobacteria eventually die off. The microorganisms that gobble up cyanobacteria remains consume huge volumes of oxygen during their feast, leaving fish to suffocate.
Because algal blooms have no single cause, they also have no easy fix. Healing the Klamath means unspooling the bitter legacy of manifest destiny, and returning the river to a more natural state.
“It’s one of those death-by-a-thousand-cuts kind of problems.”
In 2007, the Karuk tribe, joined by conservationists and fishers, brought a lawsuit against California regulators, who had failed to deal with the toxic microcystins in the river.They won. Thereafter, California listed the Klamath as “impaired” by microcystins. This made it harder for the regional power utility, PacifiCorp, to continue operating the hydroelectric dams that were fueling the algal blooms.
“If PacifiCorp wanted to try to keep their dams and get a new license, they would have to somehow mitigate these algal blooms to the point where they were compliant with the Clean Water Act, and they weren’t sure how they could possibly do that,” Tucker said.
The company weighed using algaecides in the reservoirs. It also considered installing aerators, which would stir up the water and prevent cyanobacteria from settling in. But such measures would prove expensive, and hard to justify, under the circumstances. Not only did PacifiCorp have to curb the algal blooms, it also had to upgrade its dams to allow salmon to move upstream. Given the high cost of addressing both challenges, it would be cheaper to remove the aging dams entirely.
In 2016, PacifiCorp agreed to a plan to remove the Copco № 1, Copco № 2, J.C. Boyle and Iron Gate dams. According to the plan, PacifiCorp would transfer ownership of the dams to the newly formed Klamath River Renewal Corporation, which would tear down the dams with funds from the power utility and the state of California.
Last month, however, federal regulators threw a wrench in the works when they said that PacifiCorp must remain a co-licensee of the dams, meaning it could be liable for any additional costs associated with their removal. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has appealed to investor Warren Buffet — whose firm, Berkshire Hathaway, owns PacifiCorp — urging him to stick with the plan. Parties say they are optimistic that they will be able to keep PacifiCorp on board, given the much steeper cost of continuing to operate the dams. If they are successful, the largest dam removal in U.S. history will kick off in 2021.
Even then, however, it will only be the first step in stemming the toxic algal blooms. The Karuk still face rising temperatures and high nutrient levels. “It’s one of those death-by-a-thousand-cuts kind of problems,” Tucker said.
To further heal the river, farmers could build earthen barriers around their farms to prevent fertilizer from spilling into waterways. Officials could work to restore the wetlands, and governments, broadly, could finally take the radical steps needed to curb climate change. For now, algal blooms remain a marginal issue.
While the California Water Resources Control Board is keeping track of harmful algal blooms in lakes and rivers across the state, warning visitors when the water is unsafe for swimming, it has so far set no objectives or issued any regulations related to cyanobacteria.
“In terms of large-scale policy, there isn’t right now any explicit policy in California that’s addressing the drivers of harmful algal blooms,” said Keith Bouma-Gregson, an environmental scientist who co-leads the freshwater harmful algal bloom program for the California Water Resources Control Board.
While the Karuk and their allies mustered the political will needed to tear down a series of aging dams, they are likely to face more resistance when lobbying for regulations on farming. And climate change could only make it harder to find areas of compromise. Currently, drought is stifling growers in the Klamath Basin, so officials are diverting water from the river to farms in the region. Removing water from the river could slow its flow, potentially exacerbating the algae problem, sources said. For the Karuk, it is a relentlessly uphill fight.
“I would like everyone who has had a stake in this process to recognize that our way of life and our connection to our place and to our relatives and our identity as a people is at stake,” Saxon said. “This isn’t our livelihood. These are our lives.”


scientificamerican--2020-08-10--The Dark Side of Being a Female Shark Researcher

I was 21 years old when I encountered the place where sharks and television intersect .
It was my first research internship , working with a famous shark scientist I had long admired but only just met .
My second week , I was on a boat with a film crew , chumming for sharks in the background while the senior scientist dispensed expertise in the foreground .
At one point , the film crew suggested I sit next to my hero on camera and repeat the prompt : “ So , [ Dr .
Hero ] , why did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For the beautiful green-eyed assistants , of course , ” he replied , gesturing at me .
I froze , silent , a nervous half-smile on my face .
Don ’ t worry , ” a member of the film crew assured me afterward .
“ We won ’ t use it.
” I felt a wash of relief and gratitude .
It was years before I thought to wonder why I ’ d felt I was the one who would have looked bad if they had .
This isn ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman in shark science , or even in the top 10 .
It barely makes my list at all .
I remember it mainly for how small and ashamed it made me feel in the first moments of my career as a scientist ; for the way his joke told me clearly who I was to him , and how he thought I fit into the story .
Shark Week , a celebration of sharks on the Discovery Channel that attracts millions of viewers , is marine science ’ s premiere annual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or scientists of color in leading roles .
Many women I ’ ve spoken to were passionate viewers as children , but when they became scientists , found “ it wasn ’ t what it used to be , or what I remembered it to be , ” said Carlee Jackson , a co-founder of Minorities in Shark Sciences ( MISS ) .
Another scientist told me that Shark Week stopped feeling “ pure , ” to her , because she increasingly “ saw it through a lens tainted by sexism … and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d had a positive , inclusive experience in science from the start.
” To call shark science a “ boy ’ s club ” is an understatement—although more than 60 percent of graduate students in my field are women , the vast majority of senior scientists are white men .
During my research talk at my first shark science conference , a senior male scientist was so rude and aggressive during the question period that another male scientist apologized for him afterward , telling me “ he does that to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
I have seen it happen to others since ; at least one woman he targeted left the podium in tears .
For years , the annual conference “ officially ” ended at the beginning of the closing banquet so organizers wouldn ’ t be responsible for what came next .
“ Next ” included a fundraiser in which scantily clad female graduate students were expected to parade auction items around the room , a dinner at which one senior scientist demanded to sit with only the “ prettiest ” students , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be on constant guard against roaming hands .
The first male Ph.D. student who volunteered to display auction items to help his female colleagues had his rear laughingly slapped by a male senior scientist “ for old time ’ s sake.
” A photograph from a past meeting shows a senior scientist with his hands between the legs of two women graduate students , lifting them off the ground—one of them smiling , the other appearing on the verge of tears .
Misogynistic culture in science can be terribly dark .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 64 percent of respondents reported being subjected to sexual harassment during fieldwork , and 20 percent to sexual assault .
had these experiences as trainees or early in their careers .
My list from my own early career—in professional settings where I would have described myself as “ at work ” —includes being sexually assaulted , openly masturbated at , and verbally harassed .
I wish I were the only one , but I ’ m not .
I want to be sure young women know that if it ’ s happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone .
Fieldwork researching sharks often happens in remote locations , and can require close quarters , mixed-gender sleeping spaces in boats or bunkrooms , and physical contact between scientists ( especially during animal restraint ) .
I have heard male graduate students staffing educational programs refer to undergraduate women arriving at field sites as “ fresh meat ” more times than I can count , casually reflecting the attitudes of their seniors .
One woman told me how , after a day of fieldwork alongside a prominent scientist , she was pleased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him : “ I accepted and thought we were heading to a restaurant .
Turns out we went to his house .
From there he indicated I smelled bad and it would be best if I took a shower .
I thought it was odd , but I decided to do it .
While showering , I looked up at the ceiling .
I saw a camera lens sticking out of one of the ceiling tiles .
I could not believe my eyes .
[ … ] I gave the camera the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I went out , said nothing and had dinner .
I left .
I did not confront him .
I did not have the courage .
I wish I had .
I am only saddened to think that he did this to many women .
It is humiliating to think he watched me.
” This is an extreme example , but feelings of shame and humiliation at the realization it wasn ’ t your intellect or ability that attracted a mentor ’ s interest are familiar to many women .
Graduate students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists , including their own advisors , under circumstances where the list of potential professional repercussions for saying “ no ” are long .
Even when it doesn ’ t encompass harassment , rape or assault , inappropriate and sexist behavior and its aftermath can alter or derail career trajectories and close off opportunities for women .
These experiences continue throughout our careers—according to one woman I spoke with , her advisor told her it was “ game over ” for her professionally when she told him she was pregnant ; she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scientific award whether she had slept with the man in charge of it .
Nearly every female shark scientist I know readily lists her encounters with “ light ” misogyny—comments about how strong she is “ for a girl ” as she handles a shark ; “ friendly ” observations about her body or the clothes she ’ s wearing ; doubts expressed , subtly or explicitly , about her competence or expertise .
It wears us down ; combined with the big things , it leaves many of us frayed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in shark science must deal with the intersecting effects of sexism and racism .
Amani Webber-Schultz , a co-founder of MISS , shared that she chooses whom to work with carefully because , in the face of potentially violent racist threats , “ I need to feel that whoever I am working for or with will have my back and stand up for me in situations where it is not safe for me to stand up for myself.
” Alongside physical dangers exacerbated by race , sexual orientation , gender identity , sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelmingly white and male scientific spaces send unwelcoming signals to students about who “ belongs ” and who is likely to be given the chance to succeed in shark science .
Becoming a scientist should not require developing the grit to continually endure misogyny , discrimination , harassment , assault or bullying .
But from their earliest experiences , women scientists learn that if they complain , they ’ ll be described as “ difficult , ” or a “ problem ” ; if they ’ re heartbroken by how they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ll be told they ’ re “ too emotional ” and “ need to grow a thicker skin ” ; and if they leave the field , the problem was them : they “ weren ’ t tough enough to hack it in shark science.
” This is the backdrop to Shark Week .
Every year there are complaints on social media about how few women or people of color are featured , and how they ’ re presented when they do appear .
In one show , a woman with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first name , while a male student Shark Week included in the episode ( who did not have a Ph.D. ) was called “ Dr .
[ Lastname ] ” .
When women scientists objected to this error , some male scientists made it clear they saw it as a nonproblem , a “ simple mistake .
In a different episode , footage was cut together to create a misleading narrative arc so ridiculous and scientifically inaccurate that the woman scientist featured described it as “ professionally humiliating.
” Several told me they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an appearance went poorly .
Shark Week ’ s choice of hosts and featured experts systematically enhances or upholds the authority of white male scientists while rarely incorporating the voices or featuring the work of women or people of color .
Those choices have real , meaningful effects on shark science , because appearing on Shark Week is a professional opportunity .
After being featured on a show , Lisa Whitenack , associate professor of biology and geology at Allegheny College , found her visibility increased : “ Our local newspaper ran a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewing of the show .
Some incoming first-year students know who I am before they step onto campus or even end up checking out my institution because I work there .
Since appearing on Shark Week , I get contacted more often by the media to comment or consult on articles .
Every time I do this , there 's another entry on my CV that will later benefit me when I go up for promotion to full professor .
So , while I am not a ‘ star ’ who is getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding thrown my way , even that small increase in visibility has had some concrete benefits to my career.
” Shark scientist Melissa Cristina Márquez , who had a good experience appearing on two Shark Week shows , described herself as thankful for the resulting professional opportunities and for “ a greater platform than I would have ever achieved on my own.
” These benefits are meaningful to the careers of the people who receive them—and they are received overwhelmingly by white men .
This means Shark Week further concentrates power ( in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) in the hands of white male “ featured scientists , ” exacerbating academic power imbalances .
One former student of a scientist who frequently appeared on Shark Week told me : “ I didn ’ t complain about anything—not his mood swings , egomania , or shoulder massages—because I was getting to work with sharks , and as he ’ d said , there were so many people who would kill to be in my position .
Instead , I adapted .
I learned to read his behavior and avoid him on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the wall , to smile and nod when he bragged about all of the times he ’ d been on Shark Week and the famous people he ’ d met.
” Another told me she knew not to complain about her advisor ’ s abuse because it was clear from his fame that “ he was worth a lot more than I was to the university.
” I ’ ve found myself in the painful position of listening to students talk about their dream of working with sexist or abusive Shark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being frank with them was a risk to my career .
One woman who was part of a lab when she founded an educational program for girls in science later discovered that her former supervisor was promoting himself in the media as its founder and erasing her involvement .
When she confronted him , “ he told me I ’ d overestimated my contribution and at no point should have felt ownership over my work .
I considered fighting and exposing him , but at the time that felt insurmountable .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was protected by absolutely nothing.
” Critiques of Shark Week are often framed solely around representation and the importance of young girls seeing strong , diverse , competent female scientists in action .
Research certainly shows representation matters in attracting and retaining diverse talent and changing perceptions of who belongs in science .
Despite thinking sharks and Shark Week were “ incredibly cool ” as a kid , Amani Webber-Schultz noted that seeing almost exclusively white male scientists featured “ stopped me from believing becoming a shark scientist was even a possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the challenge we face isn ’ t just attracting diverse students—it ’ s making the structural and cultural changes needed to ensure shark science is a safe and welcoming place for them .
The lack of women scientists on Shark Week isn ’ t something that ’ s bad for women in the abstract .
It does concrete harm .
It distorts who is visible in shark science , and shapes whose voices are heard and how loudly .
It makes women invisible , and in some cases , it holds up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as heroes , giving them a platform and enhancing their careers .
I truly hope Discovery will commit to featuring more women scientists as leads on Shark Week—not because I want to see myself on TV , but because I want my incredible students to be able to envision a place for themselves there .
I hope women can harness Shark Week to benefit our own careers—not because we care about fame , but because we know enough to care deeply about power and how it ’ s distributed .
Most of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been through—and the grit it ’ s demanded—can be put to use now to change our field for the women coming after us .
I don ’ t want a single one of my students to have a damned list .
They deserve so much better .

I was 21 years old when I encountered the place where sharks and television intersect. It was my first research internship, working with a famous shark scientist I had long admired but only just met. My second week, I was on a boat with a film crew, chumming for sharks in the background while the senior scientist dispensed expertise in the foreground. At one point, the film crew suggested I sit next to my hero on camera and repeat the prompt: “So, [Dr. Hero], why did you become a shark scientist?”
For the beautiful green-eyed assistants, of course,” he replied, gesturing at me. I froze, silent, a nervous half-smile on my face.
Don’t worry,” a member of the film crew assured me afterward. “We won’t use it.” I felt a wash of relief and gratitude. It was years before I thought to wonder why I’d felt I was the one who would have looked bad if they had.
This isn’t the worst experience I’ve had as a woman in shark science, or even in the top 10. It barely makes my list at all. I remember it mainly for how small and ashamed it made me feel in the first moments of my career as a scientist; for the way his joke told me clearly who I was to him, and how he thought I fit into the story.
Shark Week, a celebration of sharks on the Discovery Channel that attracts millions of viewers, is marine science’s premiere annual television event—and it rarely features women scientists or scientists of color in leading roles. Many women I’ve spoken to were passionate viewers as children, but when they became scientists, found “it wasn’t what it used to be, or what I remembered it to be,” said Carlee Jackson, a co-founder of Minorities in Shark Sciences (MISS). Another scientist told me that Shark Week stopped feeling “pure,” to her, because she increasingly “saw it through a lens tainted by sexism … and I wonder what would be different if I’d had a positive, inclusive experience in science from the start.”
To call shark science a “boy’s club” is an understatement—although more than 60 percent of graduate students in my field are women, the vast majority of senior scientists are white men. During my research talk at my first shark science conference, a senior male scientist was so rude and aggressive during the question period that another male scientist apologized for him afterward, telling me “he does that to a female graduate student every year or two”. I have seen it happen to others since; at least one woman he targeted left the podium in tears.
For years, the annual conference “officially” ended at the beginning of the closing banquet so organizers wouldn’t be responsible for what came next. “Next” included a fundraiser in which scantily clad female graduate students were expected to parade auction items around the room, a dinner at which one senior scientist demanded to sit with only the “prettiest” students, and an alcohol-fueled mixer where women needed to be on constant guard against roaming hands. The first male Ph.D. student who volunteered to display auction items to help his female colleagues had his rear laughingly slapped by a male senior scientist “for old time’s sake.” A photograph from a past meeting shows a senior scientist with his hands between the legs of two women graduate students, lifting them off the ground—one of them smiling, the other appearing on the verge of tears.
Misogynistic culture in science can be terribly dark. In a 2013 global survey across scientific disciplines, 64 percent of respondents reported being subjected to sexual harassment during fieldwork, and 20 percent to sexual assault. The vast majority had these experiences as trainees or early in their careers. My list from my own early career—in professional settings where I would have described myself as “at work”—includes being sexually assaulted, openly masturbated at, and verbally harassed. I wish I were the only one, but I’m not. I want to be sure young women know that if it’s happened to them, they are far from alone.
Fieldwork researching sharks often happens in remote locations, and can require close quarters, mixed-gender sleeping spaces in boats or bunkrooms, and physical contact between scientists (especially during animal restraint). I have heard male graduate students staffing educational programs refer to undergraduate women arriving at field sites as “fresh meat” more times than I can count, casually reflecting the attitudes of their seniors. One woman told me how, after a day of fieldwork alongside a prominent scientist, she was pleased to be invited to have dinner with him:
“I accepted and thought we were heading to a restaurant. Turns out we went to his house. From there he indicated I smelled bad and it would be best if I took a shower. I thought it was odd, but I decided to do it. While showering, I looked up at the ceiling. I saw a camera lens sticking out of one of the ceiling tiles. I could not believe my eyes. […] I gave the camera the “bird” so he knew I knew. I went out, said nothing and had dinner. I left. I did not confront him. I did not have the courage. I wish I had. I am only saddened to think that he did this to many women. It is humiliating to think he watched me.”
This is an extreme example, but feelings of shame and humiliation at the realization it wasn’t your intellect or ability that attracted a mentor’s interest are familiar to many women. Graduate students may be asked out by senior male scientists, including their own advisors, under circumstances where the list of potential professional repercussions for saying “no” are long. Even when it doesn’t encompass harassment, rape or assault, inappropriate and sexist behavior and its aftermath can alter or derail career trajectories and close off opportunities for women. These experiences continue throughout our careers—according to one woman I spoke with, her advisor told her it was “game over” for her professionally when she told him she was pregnant; she was once asked by a colleague before receiving a scientific award whether she had slept with the man in charge of it.
Nearly every female shark scientist I know readily lists her encounters with “light” misogyny—comments about how strong she is “for a girl” as she handles a shark; “friendly” observations about her body or the clothes she’s wearing; doubts expressed, subtly or explicitly, about her competence or expertise. It wears us down; combined with the big things, it leaves many of us frayed, exhausted or hopeless.
Women of color in shark science must deal with the intersecting effects of sexism and racism. Amani Webber-Schultz, a co-founder of MISS, shared that she chooses whom to work with carefully because, in the face of potentially violent racist threats, “I need to feel that whoever I am working for or with will have my back and stand up for me in situations where it is not safe for me to stand up for myself.” Alongside physical dangers exacerbated by race, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, age and level of power, overwhelmingly white and male scientific spaces send unwelcoming signals to students about who “belongs” and who is likely to be given the chance to succeed in shark science.
Becoming a scientist should not require developing the grit to continually endure misogyny, discrimination, harassment, assault or bullying. But from their earliest experiences, women scientists learn that if they complain, they’ll be described as “difficult,” or a “problem”; if they’re heartbroken by how they’re treated compared to their male peers, they’ll be told they’re “too emotional” and “need to grow a thicker skin”; and if they leave the field, the problem was them: they “weren’t tough enough to hack it in shark science.”
This is the backdrop to Shark Week. Every year there are complaints on social media about how few women or people of color are featured, and how they’re presented when they do appear. In one show, a woman with a Ph.D. was referred to by her first name, while a male student Shark Week included in the episode (who did not have a Ph.D.) was called “Dr. [Lastname]”. When women scientists objected to this error, some male scientists made it clear they saw it as a nonproblem, a “simple mistake. In a different episode, footage was cut together to create a misleading narrative arc so ridiculous and scientifically inaccurate that the woman scientist featured described it as “professionally humiliating.” Several told me they feared letting their female colleagues down if an appearance went poorly.
Shark Week’s choice of hosts and featured experts systematically enhances or upholds the authority of white male scientists while rarely incorporating the voices or featuring the work of women or people of color. Those choices have real, meaningful effects on shark science, because appearing on Shark Week is a professional opportunity. After being featured on a show, Lisa Whitenack, associate professor of biology and geology at Allegheny College, found her visibility increased:
“Our local newspaper ran a short article and my institution hosted a viewing of the show. Some incoming first-year students know who I am before they step onto campus or even end up checking out my institution because I work there. Since appearing on Shark Week, I get contacted more often by the media to comment or consult on articles. Every time I do this, there's another entry on my CV that will later benefit me when I go up for promotion to full professor. So, while I am not a ‘star’ who is getting asked to do charity dinners or having funding thrown my way, even that small increase in visibility has had some concrete benefits to my career.”
Shark scientist Melissa Cristina Márquez, who had a good experience appearing on two Shark Week shows, described herself as thankful for the resulting professional opportunities and for “a greater platform than I would have ever achieved on my own.” These benefits are meaningful to the careers of the people who receive them—and they are received overwhelmingly by white men.
This means Shark Week further concentrates power (in the form of publicity and media attention) in the hands of white male “featured scientists,” exacerbating academic power imbalances. One former student of a scientist who frequently appeared on Shark Week told me:
“I didn’t complain about anything—not his mood swings, egomania, or shoulder massages—because I was getting to work with sharks, and as he’d said, there were so many people who would kill to be in my position. Instead, I adapted. I learned to read his behavior and avoid him on bad days, to sit with my back to the wall, to smile and nod when he bragged about all of the times he’d been on Shark Week and the famous people he’d met.”
Another told me she knew not to complain about her advisor’s abuse because it was clear from his fame that “he was worth a lot more than I was to the university.” I’ve found myself in the painful position of listening to students talk about their dream of working with sexist or abusive Shark Week–famous scientists, knowing from experience that being frank with them was a risk to my career. One woman who was part of a lab when she founded an educational program for girls in science later discovered that her former supervisor was promoting himself in the media as its founder and erasing her involvement. When she confronted him, “he told me I’d overestimated my contribution and at no point should have felt ownership over my work. I considered fighting and exposing him, but at the time that felt insurmountable. He was protected by a massive institution, and I was protected by absolutely nothing.”
Critiques of Shark Week are often framed solely around representation and the importance of young girls seeing strong, diverse, competent female scientists in action. Research certainly shows representation matters in attracting and retaining diverse talent and changing perceptions of who belongs in science. Despite thinking sharks and Shark Week were “incredibly cool” as a kid, Amani Webber-Schultz noted that seeing almost exclusively white male scientists featured “stopped me from believing becoming a shark scientist was even a possibility for me.” Representation clearly matters, but the challenge we face isn’t just attracting diverse students—it’s making the structural and cultural changes needed to ensure shark science is a safe and welcoming place for them.
The lack of women scientists on Shark Week isn’t something that’s bad for women in the abstract. It does concrete harm. It distorts who is visible in shark science, and shapes whose voices are heard and how loudly. It makes women invisible, and in some cases, it holds up men who abuse their power over women as heroes, giving them a platform and enhancing their careers. I truly hope Discovery will commit to featuring more women scientists as leads on Shark Week—not because I want to see myself on TV, but because I want my incredible students to be able to envision a place for themselves there.
I hope women can harness Shark Week to benefit our own careers—not because we care about fame, but because we know enough to care deeply about power and how it’s distributed. Most of all, I hope that all we’ve been through—and the grit it’s demanded—can be put to use now to change our field for the women coming after us. I don’t want a single one of my students to have a damned list.
They deserve so much better.


scientificamerican--2020-08-10--Could We Force the Universe to Crash?

Could We Force the Universe to Crash?

These are the days of fever dreams , whether induced by an actual virus or by the slow-motion stresses of a world dealing with a pandemic .
One kind of dream in particular that I know I ’ ve had has to do with discovering that this was all , well , a dream .
Except , when I really do wake up , I remember that there are ideas about the nature of reality that go beyond even this .
The trickiest variant of these concepts is the simulation hypothesis , which is that we far more likely exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical reality .
The proposition that the world is a sham is not new ; it ’ s been cropping up for thousands of years across different cultures , from China to ancient Greece , advocated by thinkers like Descartes with his mind-body dualism .
But this more recent version , based around computation—or at least artificial reconstruction—bubbled up around 2003 with the publication of a paper titled “ Are You Living in a Computer Simulation ?
” by the philosopher Nick Bostrom .
In essence Bostrom makes the argument that if any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run “ ancestor simulations ” ( to learn about their own pasts ) the simulated ancestral entities would likely far outnumber actual sentient entities in the universe .
With a little probabilistic hand-waving it is then possible to argue that we are most likely simulated .
All of which is good fun if you ’ ve had a few beers or spent a few too many hours cowering under your bedclothes .
But while you might love or hate this hypothesis , the simple fact is that before judging it we should really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any hypothesis , and the first step in that process is to ask whether it can be assessed in any reasonable way .
Intriguingly , the simulation hypothesis might be testable , under certain assumptions .
For example , we might suppose that a simulation has its limitations .
The most obvious one , extrapolating from the current state of digital computation , is simply that a simulation will have to make approximations to save on information storage and calculation overheads .
In other words : it would have limits on accuracy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could manifest themselves is in the discretization of the world , perhaps showing up in spatial and temporal resolution barriers .
Although we do think that there are some absolute limits in what constitutes meaningful small distances or time intervals—the Planck scale and Planck time—that has to do with the limits of our current understanding of physics rather than the kind of resolution limits on your pixelated screen .
Nonetheless , recent research suggests that the true limit of meaningful intervals of time might be orders of magnitude larger than the traditional Planck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Perhaps future physics experiments could reveal an unexpected chunkiness to time and space .
But the neatest test of the hypothesis would be to crash the system that runs our simulation .
Naturally , that sounds a bit ill-advised , but if we ’ re all virtual entities anyway does it really matter ?
Presumably a quick reboot and restore might bring us back online as if nothing had happened , but possibly we ’ d be able to tell , or at very least have a few microseconds of triumph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The question is : how do you bring down a simulation of reality from inside it ?
The most obvious strategy would be to try to cause the equivalent of a stack overflow—asking for more space in the active memory of a program than is available—by creating an infinitely , or at least excessively , recursive process .
And the way to do that would be to build our own simulated realities , designed so that within those virtual worlds are entities creating their version of a simulated reality , which is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on all the way down the rabbit hole .
If all of this worked , the universe as we know it might crash , revealing itself as a mirage just as we winked out of existence .
You could argue that any species capable of simulating a reality ( likely similar to its own ) would surely anticipate this eventuality and build in some safeguards to prevent it happening .
For instance , we might discover that it is strangely and inexplicably impossible to actually make simulated universes of our own , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generalized quantum computers or otherwise .
That in itself could be a sign that we already exist inside a simulation .
Of course , the original programmers might have anticipated that scenario too and found some way to trick us , perhaps just streaming us information from other simulation runs rather than letting us run our own .
But interventions like this risk undermining the reason for a species running such simulations in the first place , which would be to learn something deep about their own nature .
Perhaps letting it all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the integrity of the results .
Or perhaps they ’ re simply running the simulation containing us to find out whether they themselves are within a fake reality .

These are the days of fever dreams, whether induced by an actual virus or by the slow-motion stresses of a world dealing with a pandemic. One kind of dream in particular that I know I’ve had has to do with discovering that this was all, well, a dream. Except, when I really do wake up, I remember that there are ideas about the nature of reality that go beyond even this. The trickiest variant of these concepts is the simulation hypothesis, which is that we far more likely exist within a virtual reality than in a physical reality.
The proposition that the world is a sham is not new; it’s been cropping up for thousands of years across different cultures, from China to ancient Greece, advocated by thinkers like Descartes with his mind-body dualism. But this more recent version, based around computation—or at least artificial reconstruction—bubbled up around 2003 with the publication of a paper titled “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” by the philosopher Nick Bostrom. In essence Bostrom makes the argument that if any extremely advanced civilizations develop the capacity to run “ancestor simulations” (to learn about their own pasts) the simulated ancestral entities would likely far outnumber actual sentient entities in the universe. With a little probabilistic hand-waving it is then possible to argue that we are most likely simulated.
All of which is good fun if you’ve had a few beers or spent a few too many hours cowering under your bedclothes. But while you might love or hate this hypothesis, the simple fact is that before judging it we should really apply the criteria we use for assessing any hypothesis, and the first step in that process is to ask whether it can be assessed in any reasonable way.
Intriguingly, the simulation hypothesis might be testable, under certain assumptions. For example, we might suppose that a simulation has its limitations. The most obvious one, extrapolating from the current state of digital computation, is simply that a simulation will have to make approximations to save on information storage and calculation overheads. In other words: it would have limits on accuracy and precision.
One way that those limits could manifest themselves is in the discretization of the world, perhaps showing up in spatial and temporal resolution barriers. Although we do think that there are some absolute limits in what constitutes meaningful small distances or time intervals—the Planck scale and Planck time—that has to do with the limits of our current understanding of physics rather than the kind of resolution limits on your pixelated screen. Nonetheless, recent research suggests that the true limit of meaningful intervals of time might be orders of magnitude larger than the traditional Planck time (which itself is 10-43 seconds). Perhaps future physics experiments could reveal an unexpected chunkiness to time and space.
But the neatest test of the hypothesis would be to crash the system that runs our simulation. Naturally, that sounds a bit ill-advised, but if we’re all virtual entities anyway does it really matter? Presumably a quick reboot and restore might bring us back online as if nothing had happened, but possibly we’d be able to tell, or at very least have a few microseconds of triumph just before it all shuts down.
The question is: how do you bring down a simulation of reality from inside it? The most obvious strategy would be to try to cause the equivalent of a stack overflow—asking for more space in the active memory of a program than is available—by creating an infinitely, or at least excessively, recursive process. And the way to do that would be to build our own simulated realities, designed so that within those virtual worlds are entities creating their version of a simulated reality, which is in turn doing the same, and so on all the way down the rabbit hole. If all of this worked, the universe as we know it might crash, revealing itself as a mirage just as we winked out of existence.
You could argue that any species capable of simulating a reality (likely similar to its own) would surely anticipate this eventuality and build in some safeguards to prevent it happening. For instance, we might discover that it is strangely and inexplicably impossible to actually make simulated universes of our own, no matter how powerful our computational systems are—whether generalized quantum computers or otherwise. That in itself could be a sign that we already exist inside a simulation. Of course, the original programmers might have anticipated that scenario too and found some way to trick us, perhaps just streaming us information from other simulation runs rather than letting us run our own.
But interventions like this risk undermining the reason for a species running such simulations in the first place, which would be to learn something deep about their own nature. Perhaps letting it all crash is simply the price to pay for the integrity of the results. Or perhaps they’re simply running the simulation containing us to find out whether they themselves are within a fake reality.
Sweet dreams.


scientificamerican--2020-08-10--Construction Process Builds Brain Circuits

New research could let scientists co-opt biology 's basic building block—the cell—to construct materials and structures within organisms .
A study , published in March in Science and led by Stanford University psychiatrist and bioengineer Karl Deisseroth , shows how to make specific cells produce electricity-carrying ( or blocking ) polymers on their surfaces .
The work could someday allow researchers to build large-scale structures within the body or improve brain interfaces for prosthetic limbs .
In the medium term , the technique may be useful in bioelectric medicine , which involves delivering therapeutic electrical pulses .
Researchers in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polymers that conduct or inhibit electricity without damaging surrounding tissues .
Stimulating specific cells—to intervene in a seizure , for instance—is much more precise than flooding the whole organism with drugs , which can cause broad side effects .
But current bioelectric methods , such as those using electrodes , still affect large numbers of cells indiscriminately .
The new technique uses a virus to deliver genes to desired cell types , instructing them to produce an enzyme ( Apex2 ) on their surface .
The enzyme sparks a chemical reaction between precursor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the space between cells ; this reaction causes the precursors to fuse into a polymer on the targeted cells .
“ What 's new here is the intertwining of various emerging fields in one application , ” says University of Florida biomedical engineer Kevin Otto , who was not involved in the research but co-authored an accompanying commentary in Science .
“ The use of conductive polymers assembled [ inside living tissue ] through synthetic biology , to enable cell-specific interfacing , is very novel.
” The researchers tested the process and tracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificially grown human brain models , and living worms .
They also injected the ingredients into living mice 's brains to show they were not toxic .
The commentary authors say this work could pave the way for improved treatments for depression or Parkinson 's disease by increasing the precision with which neurons are stimulated .
It could also precisely target cells that carry information to the brain , potentially giving amputees sensations in a prosthetic limb .
Deisseroth sees the research having even broader uses .
“ We 've been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetically , so we have only the cells of interest construct something for us ; that 's pretty exciting and very , very general , ” he says .
“ It 's a basic science exploration of : What can we do ?
What can we build within biological structures using their structural complexity ?
” Obstacles remain , however .
“ There are regulatory hurdles associated with gene therapy in humans , ” Otto says .
The durability of changes , as well as viability of the technique in higher species , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adds .

New research could let scientists co-opt biology's basic building block—the cell—to construct materials and structures within organisms. A study, published in March in Science and led by Stanford University psychiatrist and bioengineer Karl Deisseroth, shows how to make specific cells produce electricity-carrying (or blocking) polymers on their surfaces. The work could someday allow researchers to build large-scale structures within the body or improve brain interfaces for prosthetic limbs.
In the medium term, the technique may be useful in bioelectric medicine, which involves delivering therapeutic electrical pulses. Researchers in this area have long been interested in incorporating polymers that conduct or inhibit electricity without damaging surrounding tissues. Stimulating specific cells—to intervene in a seizure, for instance—is much more precise than flooding the whole organism with drugs, which can cause broad side effects. But current bioelectric methods, such as those using electrodes, still affect large numbers of cells indiscriminately.
The new technique uses a virus to deliver genes to desired cell types, instructing them to produce an enzyme (Apex2) on their surface. The enzyme sparks a chemical reaction between precursor molecules and hydrogen peroxide, infused in the space between cells; this reaction causes the precursors to fuse into a polymer on the targeted cells. “What's new here is the intertwining of various emerging fields in one application,” says University of Florida biomedical engineer Kevin Otto, who was not involved in the research but co-authored an accompanying commentary in Science. “The use of conductive polymers assembled [inside living tissue] through synthetic biology, to enable cell-specific interfacing, is very novel.”
The researchers tested the process and tracked cell function in rodent brain cells, artificially grown human brain models, and living worms. They also injected the ingredients into living mice's brains to show they were not toxic.
The commentary authors say this work could pave the way for improved treatments for depression or Parkinson's disease by increasing the precision with which neurons are stimulated. It could also precisely target cells that carry information to the brain, potentially giving amputees sensations in a prosthetic limb.
Deisseroth sees the research having even broader uses. “We've been able to build new structures inside cells we target genetically, so we have only the cells of interest construct something for us; that's pretty exciting and very, very general,” he says. “It's a basic science exploration of: What can we do? What can we build within biological structures using their structural complexity?”
Obstacles remain, however. “There are regulatory hurdles associated with gene therapy in humans,” Otto says. The durability of changes, as well as viability of the technique in higher species, also needs to be demonstrated, he adds.


scientificamerican--2020-08-09--The Film Radioactive Shows How Marie Curie Was a "Woman of the Future"

Too often , the towering figures of science remain stick figures in the history books , known for their discoveries and accomplishments but not as the complicated , all-too-human people behind those achievements .
The stick-figure version of Marie Curie , one of the most famous scientists of all time , describes a pioneering researcher on radioactivity who discovered two new elements and whose revolutionary findings about the atom had widespread applications throughout the 20th century—from medicine to the atomic bomb .
Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize , the first person and only woman to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only person to win them in two different scientific fields , physics ( 1903 ) and chemistry ( 1911 ) .
These were phenomenal achievements , regardless of gender .
But while the new film Radioactive rightly celebrates Madame Curie ’ s brilliance , it also reveals her courage as a female scientist struggling with the male-dominated scientific community .
She had to fight for even the most rudimentary of laboratory space and face-down those who stood in her way .
Fortunately , she found a scientific partner and later husband , Pierre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fought along with her for scientific justice .
The movie also allows Curie to step down from her scientific pedestal as she faces the tragic early death of Pierre in 1906 at 46 and an international scandal over her 1911 affair with a married colleague , Paul Langevin , which drew punishing newspaper headlines and an angry mob at her doorstep , screaming epithets and urging her to “ go home ” to her native Poland .
The film is not a nuts-and-bolts science lesson , but it does provide a window into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the challenging lives of scientists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries .
We watch the husband-wife team as they conducted painstaking experiments in their underfunded labs and endured back-breaking labor to shovel , crush and boil tons of pitchblende ore to measure signs of radioactivity hidden within .
Born Maria Salomea Skłodowska in Warsaw , Poland , on November 7 , 1867 , she emigrated to Paris in 1891 , at age 24 , to study physics , chemistry and math at the University of Paris .
She finally managed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lab ; their joint scientific work brought them together , resulting in marriage on July 26 , 1895 .
Her bridal costume was a practical navy blue .
Marie is reported to have told Pierre : “ I have no dress except the one I wear every day .
If you are going to be kind enough to give me one , please let it be practical and dark so that I can put it on afterwards to go to the laboratory.
” The Curies loved long-distance bike trips .
With a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them riding side by side into the countryside , stopping along the way , stripping down to swim nude in a lake and lying naked on a blanket beside the shore ( What ?
Scientists have sex too ? )
.
The movie portrays the Curies as scientific equals , although Marie was often the leader in the early understanding of radiation—she coined the word “ radioactivity ” —and the discovery of the new elements radium and polonium ( named after her native Poland ) .
However , the inevitable sexism of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left out of the 1903 Nobel in Physics , which Pierre was to share with physicist Henri Becquerel , whose accidental discovery of a new form of radiation preceded the Curies ’ work .
Fortunately , Pierre got advance notice of the commendation and insisted that Marie share in the honor as well .
“ I told them if there ’ s a Nobel to be won , we ’ ll win it together , ” he announces in one film scene .
One gets the sense that if Marie not been added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay in the Curies ’ personal and professional worlds .
In the film , their marriage is strong , and Pierre is the ultimate champion of his wife ’ s achievements , telling her , “ You did the extraordinary .
You changed the world.
” Madame Curie is portrayed with admirable “ don ’ t mess with me ” strength by the remarkable British actress Rosamund Pike .
Her Madame Curie is bold—even arrogant—and not afraid to speak her mind .
At one point , she says to her husband “ you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve ever met .
It just so happens that mine is finer.
” After the tragic death of Pierre , who was trampled by a horse-drawn wagon , she loses her stoicism , privately breaking down in heart-wrenching sobs of despair .
“ Here is this brilliant , quite severe , sometimes odd creature who underneath has this well of emotion and love that most people never saw , ” noted Pike in an interview .
As a film , Radioactive has met with mixed reviews , in part because the Iranian-French @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a risky device to show how the Curies ’ work later impacted the world .
Her didactic “ back to the future ” approach jumps from the historic time of Marie Curie ’ s work forward to the use of radiation therapy in the late 1950s to treat a young boy suffering from cancer .
It also spells out how the Curies ’ basic research eventually led to the atomic bombs dropped 75 years ago over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 , to nuclear testing in Nevada in 1961 and to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connecting the dots in this way is distracting—and a bit awkward—but it does show the astounding impacts the Curies ’ transformative work would have on the history of the world .
In her own time , Madame Curie saw both the positive and negative health impacts of radiation , including its ability to shrink tumors .
Before his untimely death , Pierre , plagued by a hacking cough , was already showing signs of illness from repeated exposure to radiation in their research .
She , too , falls prey to radiation-related ailments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on July 4 , 1934 from aplastic anemia , a blood disease likely due to exposure to large amounts of radiation over her lifetime .
Many books , plays and films have drawn portraits of the First Lady—and First Couple—of science .
What I liked about Radioactive was the complex , nuanced way in which Pike portrays the driven Marie Curie and her ambition , determination and imperfections in pursuing a life befitting her brilliant mind .
The stick-figure image I had of Marie Curie is replaced with a flesh-and-blood woman who conducts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , floor-length dresses of the time .
But when she takes those clothes off , we see her as a woman whose romantic and sexual desires led her to risk her illustrious reputation for an ill-fated love affair .
Marie Curie was a major celebrity in her time , idolized by the public and then viciously torn down by the press—a cycle we ’ re all too familiar with today .
Idols fall hard , and Marie Curie suffered the scorn of France and the world , yet went on to win a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Curie also aided the French war effort , fighting for funding and even offering to melt down the gold in her Nobel medals for mobile x-ray units that could be taken to the battlefield to help reduce the number of unnecessary amputations .
The film shows her driving such a unit—they were dubbed petites Curies ( little Curies ) —joined by Irène , one of her two daughters , who was working in a hospital and beginning her own scientific research career .
( Irène Joliot-Curie and her husband Frédéric Joliot-Curie would go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chemistry in 1935 for their discovery of artificial radioactivity .
They , too , died from illnesses related to overexposure to radiation ) .
Marie Curie stared down the sexism and obstacles she faced in her day , providing a legacy of achievement and recognition that has inspired generations of scientists , particularly women interested in pursuing research .
She would likely have been surprised at the slow pace of achieving equality in the sciences , particularly in her fields of physics and chemistry , that has continued to this day .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Radioactive , recently released on Amazon Prime Video , is a timely reminder of the importance of science and scientists in our society .
“ The movie can be seen not only as a biopic of Marie Curie but also as a spirited defense of science itself , ” said a Los Angeles Times article titled “ Why It ’ s Time for Scientists to Become Cinematic Superheroes.
” Director Satrapi and actress Pike ( both former Oscar nominees ) wanted the film to be heroic and inspirational , showing Madame Curie as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife and mother who is relatable to a nonscientific audience .
As Pike noted , “ We presume a child will relate to Wonder Woman more readily than she ’ ll relate to Marie Curie .
But why ?
” Even today , says Satrapi , more than 150 years after her birth , Marie Curie “ is a woman of the future .
”

Too often, the towering figures of science remain stick figures in the history books, known for their discoveries and accomplishments but not as the complicated, all-too-human people behind those achievements. The stick-figure version of Marie Curie, one of the most famous scientists of all time, describes a pioneering researcher on radioactivity who discovered two new elements and whose revolutionary findings about the atom had widespread applications throughout the 20th century—from medicine to the atomic bomb. Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, the first person and only woman to win two Nobel Prizes, and the only person to win them in two different scientific fields, physics (1903) and chemistry (1911). These were phenomenal achievements, regardless of gender.
But while the new film Radioactive rightly celebrates Madame Curie’s brilliance, it also reveals her courage as a female scientist struggling with the male-dominated scientific community. She had to fight for even the most rudimentary of laboratory space and face-down those who stood in her way. Fortunately, she found a scientific partner and later husband, Pierre Curie, who shared her passions and fought along with her for scientific justice.
The movie also allows Curie to step down from her scientific pedestal as she faces the tragic early death of Pierre in 1906 at 46 and an international scandal over her 1911 affair with a married colleague, Paul Langevin, which drew punishing newspaper headlines and an angry mob at her doorstep, screaming epithets and urging her to “go home” to her native Poland.
The film is not a nuts-and-bolts science lesson, but it does provide a window into the importance of the Curies’ discoveries and the challenging lives of scientists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We watch the husband-wife team as they conducted painstaking experiments in their underfunded labs and endured back-breaking labor to shovel, crush and boil tons of pitchblende ore to measure signs of radioactivity hidden within.
Born Maria Salomea Skłodowska in Warsaw, Poland, on November 7, 1867, she emigrated to Paris in 1891, at age 24, to study physics, chemistry and math at the University of Paris. She finally managed to get space in Pierre Curie’s lab; their joint scientific work brought them together, resulting in marriage on July 26, 1895. Her bridal costume was a practical navy blue. Marie is reported to have told Pierre: “I have no dress except the one I wear every day. If you are going to be kind enough to give me one, please let it be practical and dark so that I can put it on afterwards to go to the laboratory.”
The Curies loved long-distance bike trips. With a romantic flourish, the new film shows them riding side by side into the countryside, stopping along the way, stripping down to swim nude in a lake and lying naked on a blanket beside the shore (What? Scientists have sex too?).
The movie portrays the Curies as scientific equals, although Marie was often the leader in the early understanding of radiation—she coined the word “radioactivity”—and the discovery of the new elements radium and polonium (named after her native Poland). However, the inevitable sexism of the time nearly resulted in Marie initially being left out of the 1903 Nobel in Physics, which Pierre was to share with physicist Henri Becquerel, whose accidental discovery of a new form of radiation preceded the Curies’ work.
Fortunately, Pierre got advance notice of the commendation and insisted that Marie share in the honor as well. “I told them if there’s a Nobel to be won, we’ll win it together,” he announces in one film scene. One gets the sense that if Marie not been added, there would have been hell to pay in the Curies’ personal and professional worlds. In the film, their marriage is strong, and Pierre is the ultimate champion of his wife’s achievements, telling her, “You did the extraordinary. You changed the world.”
Madame Curie is portrayed with admirable “don’t mess with me” strength by the remarkable British actress Rosamund Pike. Her Madame Curie is bold—even arrogant—and not afraid to speak her mind. At one point, she says to her husband “you have one of the finest minds I’ve ever met. It just so happens that mine is finer.” After the tragic death of Pierre, who was trampled by a horse-drawn wagon, she loses her stoicism, privately breaking down in heart-wrenching sobs of despair. “Here is this brilliant, quite severe, sometimes odd creature who underneath has this well of emotion and love that most people never saw,” noted Pike in an interview.
As a film, Radioactive has met with mixed reviews, in part because the Iranian-French graphic novelist and director Marjane Satrapi chose a risky device to show how the Curies’ work later impacted the world. Her didactic “back to the future” approach jumps from the historic time of Marie Curie’s work forward to the use of radiation therapy in the late 1950s to treat a young boy suffering from cancer. It also spells out how the Curies’ basic research eventually led to the atomic bombs dropped 75 years ago over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, to nuclear testing in Nevada in 1961 and to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in 1986. Connecting the dots in this way is distracting—and a bit awkward—but it does show the astounding impacts the Curies’ transformative work would have on the history of the world.
In her own time, Madame Curie saw both the positive and negative health impacts of radiation, including its ability to shrink tumors. Before his untimely death, Pierre, plagued by a hacking cough, was already showing signs of illness from repeated exposure to radiation in their research. She, too, falls prey to radiation-related ailments, leading to her death at 66 on July 4, 1934 from aplastic anemia, a blood disease likely due to exposure to large amounts of radiation over her lifetime.
Many books, plays and films have drawn portraits of the First Lady—and First Couple—of science. What I liked about Radioactive was the complex, nuanced way in which Pike portrays the driven Marie Curie and her ambition, determination and imperfections in pursuing a life befitting her brilliant mind. The stick-figure image I had of Marie Curie is replaced with a flesh-and-blood woman who conducts her painstaking science wearing the suffocating high-necked, floor-length dresses of the time.
But when she takes those clothes off, we see her as a woman whose romantic and sexual desires led her to risk her illustrious reputation for an ill-fated love affair. Marie Curie was a major celebrity in her time, idolized by the public and then viciously torn down by the press—a cycle we’re all too familiar with today. Idols fall hard, and Marie Curie suffered the scorn of France and the world, yet went on to win a second Nobel Prize that year.
Madame Curie also aided the French war effort, fighting for funding and even offering to melt down the gold in her Nobel medals for mobile x-ray units that could be taken to the battlefield to help reduce the number of unnecessary amputations. The film shows her driving such a unit—they were dubbed petites Curies (little Curies)—joined by Irène, one of her two daughters, who was working in a hospital and beginning her own scientific research career. (Irène Joliot-Curie and her husband Frédéric Joliot-Curie would go on to win a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1935 for their discovery of artificial radioactivity. They, too, died from illnesses related to overexposure to radiation).
Marie Curie stared down the sexism and obstacles she faced in her day, providing a legacy of achievement and recognition that has inspired generations of scientists, particularly women interested in pursuing research. She would likely have been surprised at the slow pace of achieving equality in the sciences, particularly in her fields of physics and chemistry, that has continued to this day.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Radioactive, recently released on Amazon Prime Video, is a timely reminder of the importance of science and scientists in our society. “The movie can be seen not only as a biopic of Marie Curie but also as a spirited defense of science itself,” said a Los Angeles Times article titled “Why It’s Time for Scientists to Become Cinematic Superheroes.” Director Satrapi and actress Pike (both former Oscar nominees) wanted the film to be heroic and inspirational, showing Madame Curie as a scientific superstar, as well as wife and mother who is relatable to a nonscientific audience. As Pike noted, “We presume a child will relate to Wonder Woman more readily than she’ll relate to Marie Curie. But why?”
Even today, says Satrapi, more than 150 years after her birth, Marie Curie “is a woman of the future.”


scientificamerican--2020-08-09--Awareness of Our Biases Is Essential to Good Science

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal , Lawrence Krauss bemoans what he sees as contemporary science ’ s “ ideological corruption.
” He blames this corruption on humanities scholars for pointing out how science can be “ tainted by ideological biases due to race , sex or economic dominance.
” His complaint rests on a basic mistake .
Krauss confuses what he calls ideological corruption—ideology leading science astray from facts—with ideological awareness .
Ideological commitments and social and political values have always influenced scientific research .
Such values can light the way for science or lead into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of medical research , studies have disproportionately focused on men .
As a result , we know far less about how various ailments manifest in women , and how to treat those ailments with appropriate drugs at appropriate dosages .
This is a problematic influence of values ; one that has had deadly outcomes .
Currently , a tremendous amount of scientific research has pivoted to address different facets of COVID-19 ; this is a laudable shift that reflects our collective priority of managing and ultimately ending this pandemic .
Science does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it were .
Rather , scientific research reflects the priorities , unquestioned assumptions , and blind spots of individual scientists and the broader cultures they participate in .
This influence of social and political values on science only becomes problematic when one of two circumstances arises .
First , pernicious values can shape scientific research , as regrettably has been the case for racism and sexism for far too much of science ’ s history .
Thus , the failure to devote proportionate attention in medical research to women ’ s health , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish the biological inferiority of people of color—genetic , neural or otherwise .
Second , whether values are pernicious or positive , they can lead scientific research astray if they wield improper influence on study design , data analysis or other elements of scientific research .
A well-known example of this is when the tobacco industry funded scientific experts to conduct misleading research about cigarettes ’ role in lung cancer .
What we fervently wish to be true , or what would enrich a corporation if it were true , should not shape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much attention is spent ensuring the funding sources of scientific research don ’ t improperly influence the findings .
But the influence of values on scientific research is much more pervasive than these kinds of problematic instances .
Scientists ’ and societies ’ values shape what research questions are posed , how many resources are devoted to answering those questions , what the exact aims of the research consist in , and more .
Even for science ’ s greatest successes , these social values are a motivating influence .
Einstein ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspired by his concerns about how to set clocks at different train stations to the same time .
In 2006 , I attended a talk in which the preeminent evolutionary biologist Richard Levins said that his scientific work begins with the question of what science will do for the children .
Our interests and our values are the engine of scientific discovery .
Ideological awareness is thus essential to our understanding of science .
The failure to recognize the pervasive influence of values on science is a danger because problematic roles for values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not acknowledged .
It took decades for the gender bias in medical research I mentioned above to gain recognition and even longer for any steps to be taken to mitigate it .
Just recently , a Hastings Center report found that a myopic focus on genomics has crowded out research on social determinants of health , at a cost to racial equity .
Disclosing how values influence science is the first step to analyzing their influence .
Ideology can not be challenged if it remains concealed .
It seems what Krauss is criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence at all , but rather ideological awareness , the recognition of ideological bias .
He ’ s right about one thing , though : periodically through science ’ s long history , there are abhorrent instances of scientific research going wrong for ideological reasons .
This is one reason why we need the humanities .
We need philosophers to help lay bare and analyze how values shape science ; we need historians to reveal science ’ s broader societal context .
What science needs is not a return to ideological obliviousness but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to uncover the social and political values that influence our scientific research in order to critically evaluate those values and the roles they play .
More intentional pursuit of ideological awareness is not a corrupting influence on science but a shift that will only result in better scientific research and a clearer understanding of the significance of our scientific findings .

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Krauss bemoans what he sees as contemporary science’s “ideological corruption.” He blames this corruption on humanities scholars for pointing out how science can be “tainted by ideological biases due to race, sex or economic dominance.” His complaint rests on a basic mistake. Krauss confuses what he calls ideological corruption—ideology leading science astray from facts—with ideological awareness.
Ideological commitments and social and political values have always influenced scientific research. Such values can light the way for science or lead into darkness. For most of the history of medical research, studies have disproportionately focused on men. As a result, we know far less about how various ailments manifest in women, and how to treat those ailments with appropriate drugs at appropriate dosages.
This is a problematic influence of values; one that has had deadly outcomes. Currently, a tremendous amount of scientific research has pivoted to address different facets of COVID-19; this is a laudable shift that reflects our collective priority of managing and ultimately ending this pandemic. Science does not occur in a social vacuum, as it were. Rather, scientific research reflects the priorities, unquestioned assumptions, and blind spots of individual scientists and the broader cultures they participate in.
This influence of social and political values on science only becomes problematic when one of two circumstances arises. First, pernicious values can shape scientific research, as regrettably has been the case for racism and sexism for far too much of science’s history. Thus, the failure to devote proportionate attention in medical research to women’s health, and the recurrent efforts over centuries to establish the biological inferiority of people of color—genetic, neural or otherwise. Second, whether values are pernicious or positive, they can lead scientific research astray if they wield improper influence on study design, data analysis or other elements of scientific research.
A well-known example of this is when the tobacco industry funded scientific experts to conduct misleading research about cigarettes’ role in lung cancer. What we fervently wish to be true, or what would enrich a corporation if it were true, should not shape scientific findings. This is why so much attention is spent ensuring the funding sources of scientific research don’t improperly influence the findings.
But the influence of values on scientific research is much more pervasive than these kinds of problematic instances. Scientists’ and societies’ values shape what research questions are posed, how many resources are devoted to answering those questions, what the exact aims of the research consist in, and more. Even for science’s greatest successes, these social values are a motivating influence. Einstein’s revolutionary theories of physics were in part inspired by his concerns about how to set clocks at different train stations to the same time. In 2006, I attended a talk in which the preeminent evolutionary biologist Richard Levins said that his scientific work begins with the question of what science will do for the children. Our interests and our values are the engine of scientific discovery.
Ideological awareness is thus essential to our understanding of science. The failure to recognize the pervasive influence of values on science is a danger because problematic roles for values can proceed unchecked if their role is not acknowledged. It took decades for the gender bias in medical research I mentioned above to gain recognition and even longer for any steps to be taken to mitigate it. Just recently, a Hastings Center report found that a myopic focus on genomics has crowded out research on social determinants of health, at a cost to racial equity. Disclosing how values influence science is the first step to analyzing their influence. Ideology cannot be challenged if it remains concealed.
It seems what Krauss is criticizing is not actually the role of ideological influence at all, but rather ideological awareness, the recognition of ideological bias. He’s right about one thing, though: periodically through science’s long history, there are abhorrent instances of scientific research going wrong for ideological reasons. This is one reason why we need the humanities. We need philosophers to help lay bare and analyze how values shape science; we need historians to reveal science’s broader societal context.
What science needs is not a return to ideological obliviousness but growing ideological awareness: a collective move to uncover the social and political values that influence our scientific research in order to critically evaluate those values and the roles they play. More intentional pursuit of ideological awareness is not a corrupting influence on science but a shift that will only result in better scientific research and a clearer understanding of the significance of our scientific findings.


scientificamerican--2020-08-09--50, 100 & 150 Years Ago: August 2020

50, 100 & 150 Years Ago: August 2020

“ In the broad , flat lunar maria , or ‘ seas ’ ( such as Mare Tranquillitatis , the site of the Apollo 11 manned landing ) , the depths of craters that have reached bedrock indicate a regolith thickness of from five to 10 meters .
Thus the Apollo 11 astronauts Neil A. Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin , Jr. , did not come within several meters of solid rock at Tranquillity Base , and the geology picks they had brought along for the purpose of chipping specimens off outcrops were superfluous .
They stood and walked on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lunar sample they returned was collected , with scoop and tongs , from this layer of rock debris .
Our own group at the Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory has been working with 16 grams ( about a tablespoonful ) of the soil .
—John A.
Wood ” “ The U.S. Department of Agriculture has secured through its agricultural explorers and by exchange with the British East Indian departments of agriculture one of the largest collection of mango varieties in the world , and now has in fruit , at its plant introduction station @ @ @ @ @ @ @ varieties .
It is said that these selected varieties strikingly belie the many unkind things that have been said about the mango .
Some of them have hardly more fiber in them than a freestone peach , and can be cut open lengthwise and eaten as easily with a spoon as a cantaloupe.
” “ The National Research Council announces that the mental tests which were used with striking success in the Army during the war are to be used on a large scale in American public schools .
A program of group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it possible to conduct wholesale surveys of schools annually , or even semiannually , so that grade classification and individual educational treatment can be adjusted with desirable frequency.
” “ It is a simple matter of fact and of every day observation that all forms of animal work are the result of the reception and assimilation of a few cubic feet of oxygen , a few ounces of water , of starch , of fat , and of flesh .
In a chemical point of view man may be defined to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority , Professor [ Thomas ] Huxley , has lately been discussing what he calls ‘ protoplasm , or ‘ the physical basis of life.
’ He seeks for that community of faculty which exists between the mossy , rock-incrusted lichen , and the painter or botanist that studies it .
Professor Huxley has not proved , and it is impossible for him to prove , that these protoplasms may not have essential points of difference .
Physiologists can not yet tell us how it is that ‘ of four cells absolutely identical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will grow into Socrates , another into a toadstool , one into a cockchafer , another into a whale.
’ ” Planets and stars are as much a product of “ nature ’ s laboratory ” as Homo sapiens .
And while our species examines the information gleaned from the universe that surrounds us , we also have an emotional sense of wonder at revealing the secrets of nature and our place within it .
( This magazine may tend to leave emotion to neuroscience , as our focus is on scientific data—but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the invention of the first telescope in 1608 to the discovery of the Milky Way galaxy ’ s place in Laniakea—a great river of galaxies streaming toward a giant hidden gravity source—our exploration of the universe so far follows a trend : we explore with instruments and with our imaginations .
And one day we will go ourselves , leaving our footprints across the universe .
—D.S .

1970
A Lunar “Tablespoonful”
“In the broad, flat lunar maria, or ‘seas’ (such as Mare Tranquillitatis, the site of the Apollo 11 manned landing), the depths of craters that have reached bedrock indicate a regolith thickness of from five to 10 meters. Thus the Apollo 11 astronauts Neil A. Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., did not come within several meters of solid rock at Tranquillity Base, and the geology picks they had brought along for the purpose of chipping specimens off outcrops were superfluous. They stood and walked on top of the regolith, and the lunar sample they returned was collected, with scoop and tongs, from this layer of rock debris. Our own group at the Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory has been working with 16 grams (about a tablespoonful) of the soil. —John A. Wood”
1920
The Mango Bears Fruit
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture has secured through its agricultural explorers and by exchange with the British East Indian departments of agriculture one of the largest collection of mango varieties in the world, and now has in fruit, at its plant introduction station at Miami, Fla., about 20 varieties. It is said that these selected varieties strikingly belie the many unkind things that have been said about the mango. Some of them have hardly more fiber in them than a freestone peach, and can be cut open lengthwise and eaten as easily with a spoon as a cantaloupe.”
Schools and the Army
“The National Research Council announces that the mental tests which were used with striking success in the Army during the war are to be used on a large scale in American public schools. A program of group tests has been worked out which will make it possible to conduct wholesale surveys of schools annually, or even semiannually, so that grade classification and individual educational treatment can be adjusted with desirable frequency.”
1870
Of Toadstools and Whales
“It is a simple matter of fact and of every day observation that all forms of animal work are the result of the reception and assimilation of a few cubic feet of oxygen, a few ounces of water, of starch, of fat, and of flesh. In a chemical point of view man may be defined to be something of this sort. That great authority, Professor [Thomas] Huxley, has lately been discussing what he calls ‘protoplasm, or ‘the physical basis of life.’ He seeks for that community of faculty which exists between the mossy, rock-incrusted lichen, and the painter or botanist that studies it. Professor Huxley has not proved, and it is impossible for him to prove, that these protoplasms may not have essential points of difference. Physiologists cannot yet tell us how it is that ‘of four cells absolutely identical in organic structure and composition, one will grow into Socrates, another into a toadstool, one into a cockchafer, another into a whale.’”
EPIC TALES
Space Exploration
1915: This cover imagined what the surface of Saturn’s moon Titan would look like. Ninety years later the Huygens probe touched down on Titan and sent back images of the actual landscape. Credit: Scientific American, Vol. CXII, No. 12; March 20, 1915
Planets and stars are as much a product of “nature’s laboratory” as Homo sapiens. And while our species examines the information gleaned from the universe that surrounds us, we also have an emotional sense of wonder at revealing the secrets of nature and our place within it. (This magazine may tend to leave emotion to neuroscience, as our focus is on scientific data—but we also publish poetry.) From the invention of the first telescope in 1608 to the discovery of the Milky Way galaxy’s place in Laniakea—a great river of galaxies streaming toward a giant hidden gravity source—our exploration of the universe so far follows a trend: we explore with instruments and with our imaginations. And one day we will go ourselves, leaving our footprints across the universe. —D.S.