Confronting Misinformation

How to Get Through This Election Stop arguing with people about what is true .
Instead ask how they are @ @ @ @ @ n't Go Away From a human-made virus to vaccine conspiracy theories , we rounded up @ @ @ @ @ about the pandemic

Stop arguing with people about what is true. Instead ask how they are voting
It’s not just “antiscience thinking”
What 1990s Internet protest movements share with today’s disinformation campaigns
Simulation games help newsrooms prepare for covering a chaotic election season
From a human-made virus to vaccine conspiracy theories, we rounded up the most insidious false claims about the pandemic


scientificamerican--2020-11-01--Election Science Stakes: Technology

Election Science Stakes: Technology

Steve Mirsky : For this last episode in our podcast series on the stakes for science in this election I talked about tech with Scientific American senior features editor Jen Schwartz .
SM : So Jen , what ’ s going in the world of , for simplicity ’ s sake , technology that will possibly be affected by this election .
Jen Schwartz : So technology is such a huge category these days .
It really depends how you define it .
But at Scientific American , we sort of look at it , as there 's the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe the more traditional things we think about we say technology , like machine learning and advanced therapeutics and things like this .
But right now , so much of what we 're dealing with in this country is the application of a lot of technologies or tools , if we want to simplify .
And we 're sort of dealing with both the ramifications , the major ramifications of how technology has affected our society , the soul of our country , how we have been divided , how we get information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wardle , calls it , information disorder is what we 're up against .
This feeling of overwhelm , of noise , and just the polarization in this country of how we just glean knowledge at this point , and how trust and information is transmitted .
And so that 's such a huge part of what we 're what 's really at stake .
And then another really big part that I think about when it comes to the broader world of technology is a lot of infrastructure issues in this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and in the near future , how we 're going to be adapting to the effects of climate change , to recovering from the pandemic , public health issues , you 're really looking at all of these infrastructure needs that encompass just wellbeing and public health and national security .
And there 's all these technological elements to that , of new ways of doing things , of new ways of securing the world , securing our communities .
And technology , you know , there 's a lot of interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then there 's the question of how it 's going to be implemented .
And is it going to be accessible to everyone .
Or there 's so many ethical considerations and just questions of equity and equality of how a lot of our innovation is going to be distributed .
And , I think , even more so than talking about the fascinating new devices or new technologies or—that stuff is great , and we do that so much at Scientific American .
But I think when it comes to the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways of applying those things .
Or even just maintaining the systems that we already have , and have shown their fragility in recent months and years .
SM : On that note , let me recommend the November issue of Scientific American , with its special section called Confronting Misinformation .
Which contains articles such as Jen Schwartz ’ s piece on how to train journalists not to be unwitting transmitters of bogus information ; an article by Tanya Lewis called Eight Persistent COVID-19 Myths and Why People Believe Them ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shodiya titled Why So Many Americans Are Skeptical of a Coronavirus Vaccine .

Full Transcript
For this last episode in our podcast series on the stakes for science in this election, I talked about tech with Scientific American senior features editor Jen Schwartz.
So Jen, what’s going in the world of, for simplicity’s sake, technology that will possibly be affected by this election?
“So technology is such a huge category these days. It really depends how you define it. But at Scientific American, we sort of look at it as there’s the very high-end, whizbang innovation stuff and maybe the more traditional things we think about when we say technology, like machine learning and advanced therapeutics and things like this. But right now so much of what we’re dealing with in this country is the application of a lot of technologies or tools, if we want to simplify. And we’re sort of dealing with both the ramifications—the major ramifications of how technology has affected our society, the soul of our country, how we have been divided, how we get information. Or as one researcher, Claire Wardle, calls it, information disorder is what we’re up against. This feeling of overwhelm, of noise and just the polarization in this country—of how we just glean knowledge at this point, and how trust and information is transmitted. And so that’s such a huge part of what’s really at stake.
“And then another really big part that I think about, when it comes to the broader world of technology, is a lot of infrastructure issues in this country. When you really look already, and in the near future, how we’re going to be adapting to the effects of climate change, to recovering from the pandemic, public health issues, you’re really looking at all of these infrastructure needs that encompass just well-being and public health and national security. And there’s all these technological elements to that, of new ways of doing things, of new ways of securing the world, securing our communities.
“And technology, you know, there’s a lot of interesting sort of new flashy stuff. But then there’s the question of how it’s going to be implemented. And is it going to be accessible to everyone? Or there’s so many ethical considerations and just questions of equity and equality of how a lot of our innovation is going to be distributed. And, I think, even more so than talking about the fascinating new devices or new technologies or—that stuff is great, and we do that so much at Scientific American. But I think when it comes to the election, we’re looking at vastly different ways of applying those things—or even just maintaining the systems that we already have and have shown their fragility in recent months and years.”
On that note, let me recommend the November issue of Scientific American, with its special section called Confronting Misinformation, which contains articles such as Jen Schwartz’s piece on how to train journalists not to be unwitting transmitters of bogus information, an article by Tanya Lewis called “Eight Persistent COVID-19 Myths and Why People Believe Them,” and a piece by Zakiya Whatley and Titilayo Shodiya titled “Why So Many Americans Are Skeptical of a Coronavirus Vaccine.”
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-11-01--Taking Early Cancer Detection to the Next Level

Early cancer detection can save lives , yet , cancer is predicted to become the world ’ s number one killer because we are still diagnosing most cancers too late .
In the United States , we currently screen for only five types of common cancers .
The rest are only identified when signs or symptoms appear , often signifying advanced disease when outcomes are poor .
We estimate that these five single cancer screening tests collectively detect only 16 percent of the 1.2 million cancers diagnosed each year in those aged 50–79 in the US .
Medical students are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screening , sensitivity of the test is what matters .
A screening test needs to find cancers that are present .
Here is the challenge .
We spend $ 27 billion annually on screening tests that yield about nine million positive results .
Of these , only 204,000 turn out to be real cancers , while 8.8 million end up being false positives .
Many women with suspicious mammograms know this harrowing journey too well , subjected to months of additional diagnostic tests only to be eventually declared as cancer-free .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60-year-old female with a history of smoking ( screening for breast , colon , cervical and lung cancers ) , yield a 43 percent likelihood of at least one false positive test .
This high sensitivity but suboptimal specificity approach to cancer screening targets one cancer at a time , taking decades to be adopted in a form where benefits are maximized , harms are minimized and the effort is cost-effective .
The importance of striking a balance between highly accurate and sensitive testing and screening a large population became apparent in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adopt a similar population-based strategy for other public health issues , such as cancer .
Improving early cancer detection may be the only way to really put a dent in the cancer mortality curve ; however , early cancer detection is suffering from a common ailment in medicine and public health : the streetlight effect .
We are looking for five cancers “ over here ” under the streetlight where we have early detection tests , but about 70 percent of cancer deaths are occurring “ over there , ” in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even looking .
Some may assume that we are n't screening for these cancers because we don ’ t have treatments , but a review of practice guidelines and the literature shows that nearly all early cancers have effective treatments , even if watchful waiting is recommended for some , such as nonaggressive early prostate cancers .
Patients do n't get to choose which cancer they get .
So , what if we transition away from screening for individual cancers , and start screening individuals for all possible cancers ?
What if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we shifted to tracking the cancer detection rate ( CDR ) in the population ?
First , the CDR represents the overall number of cancers detected out of the overall number of expected cancers in the monitored population .
It is a measure of the population yield of a screening program .
In the U.S. , for example , there will be about 1.2 million cases of cancer in adults in the age range of 50–79 this year ; mammography is expected to detect 114,000 of those cancers , for a CDR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all five single-cancer screening tests are combined , the CDR is still only approximately 16 percent .
While an enormous accomplishment , this alone will not bend the cancer mortality curve or address the public health crisis posed by cancer .
The genomic revolution provides an opportunity to rewrite this chapter , with a potentially happier ending .
There are now a number of novel multi-cancer early detection ( MCED ) tests nearing commercial availability .
These MCEDs use sophisticated technologies to find footprints of early cancers in readily accessible body substances like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Several novel tests in development are able to detect a variety of cancers , many of which are potentially lethal cancers with no recommended screening tests .
Such tests should be used in concert with existing single cancer screening tests , during preventive care visits or routine blood tests , which approximately 70 percent of Americans aged 50–79 have at least annually .
If everyone took an annual blood test in addition to current screening tests , it could detect 50 percent for all cancers—including the deadliest ones , like pancreatic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five-year survival rates of less than 50 percent .
Why is MCED such a profound , game-changing idea ?
Because it is simply not feasible to spend decades in developing and testing a new screening approach for each individual cancer .
With increases in cancer detection rates coupled with low false-positive rates , the balance would shift towards greater benefit than harm to the population .
Used alone , MCED tests may still miss some cancers , but some detection is better than no detection .
From a public health perspective , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early discovery of many cancers when potentially curative treatment is available .
Just as we track COVID-19 infection rates , detection rates and death rates , we need to embrace the CDR model and track our progress in early cancer detection .
Utilizing genomic signatures to dramatically improve the CDR may just be one of the first population-level benefits directly attributable to the vast investments made in the human genome project .

Early cancer detection can save lives, yet, cancer is predicted to become the world’s number one killer because we are still diagnosing most cancers too late. In the United States, we currently screen for only five types of common cancers. The rest are only identified when signs or symptoms appear, often signifying advanced disease when outcomes are poor. We estimate that these five single cancer screening tests collectively detect only 16 percent of the 1.2 million cancers diagnosed each year in those aged 50–79 in the US.
Medical students are taught that when it comes to cancer screening, sensitivity of the test is what matters. A screening test needs to find cancers that are present. Here is the challenge. We spend $27 billion annually on screening tests that yield about nine million positive results. Of these, only 204,000 turn out to be real cancers, while 8.8 million end up being false positives. Many women with suspicious mammograms know this harrowing journey too well, subjected to months of additional diagnostic tests only to be eventually declared as cancer-free. In fact, the screening tests recommended for a 60-year-old female with a history of smoking (screening for breast, colon, cervical and lung cancers), yield a 43 percent likelihood of at least one false positive test. This high sensitivity but suboptimal specificity approach to cancer screening targets one cancer at a time, taking decades to be adopted in a form where benefits are maximized, harms are minimized and the effort is cost-effective.
The importance of striking a balance between highly accurate and sensitive testing and screening a large population became apparent in the case of COVID-19. It is time to adopt a similar population-based strategy for other public health issues, such as cancer.
Improving early cancer detection may be the only way to really put a dent in the cancer mortality curve; however, early cancer detection is suffering from a common ailment in medicine and public health: the streetlight effect. We are looking for five cancers “over here” under the streetlight where we have early detection tests, but about 70 percent of cancer deaths are occurring “over there,” in the dark, where we aren’t even looking. Some may assume that we aren't screening for these cancers because we don’t have treatments, but a review of practice guidelines and the literature shows that nearly all early cancers have effective treatments, even if watchful waiting is recommended for some, such as nonaggressive early prostate cancers.
Patients don't get to choose which cancer they get. So, what if we transition away from screening for individual cancers, and start screening individuals for all possible cancers? What if we dramatically improved overall cancer detection? What if we shifted to tracking the cancer detection rate (CDR) in the population?
First, the CDR represents the overall number of cancers detected out of the overall number of expected cancers in the monitored population. It is a measure of the population yield of a screening program. In the U.S., for example, there will be about 1.2 million cases of cancer in adults in the age range of 50–79 this year; mammography is expected to detect 114,000 of those cancers, for a CDR of approximately 9 percent. Even when all five single-cancer screening tests are combined, the CDR is still only approximately 16 percent. While an enormous accomplishment, this alone will not bend the cancer mortality curve or address the public health crisis posed by cancer.
The genomic revolution provides an opportunity to rewrite this chapter, with a potentially happier ending. There are now a number of novel multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests nearing commercial availability. These MCEDs use sophisticated technologies to find footprints of early cancers in readily accessible body substances like blood, urine, saliva or stool. Several novel tests in development are able to detect a variety of cancers, many of which are potentially lethal cancers with no recommended screening tests. Such tests should be used in concert with existing single cancer screening tests, during preventive care visits or routine blood tests, which approximately 70 percent of Americans aged 50–79 have at least annually. If everyone took an annual blood test in addition to current screening tests, it could detect 50 percent for all cancers—including the deadliest ones, like pancreatic, stomach and lung cancers, that have five-year survival rates of less than 50 percent.
Why is MCED such a profound, game-changing idea? Because it is simply not feasible to spend decades in developing and testing a new screening approach for each individual cancer. With increases in cancer detection rates coupled with low false-positive rates, the balance would shift towards greater benefit than harm to the population. Used alone, MCED tests may still miss some cancers, but some detection is better than no detection. From a public health perspective, a 50 percent CDR could lead to the early discovery of many cancers when potentially curative treatment is available.
Just as we track COVID-19 infection rates, detection rates and death rates, we need to embrace the CDR model and track our progress in early cancer detection. Utilizing genomic signatures to dramatically improve the CDR may just be one of the first population-level benefits directly attributable to the vast investments made in the human genome project.


scientificamerican--2020-11-01--'Like Froth on a Cappuccino': Spacecraft's Chaotic Landing Reveals Comet's Softness

The chaotic crash-landing of a robotic spacecraft called Philae has yielded serendipitous insights into the softness of comets .
In 2014 , the pioneering European Space Agency ( ESA ) lander touched down on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko , after a ten-year journey aboard its mothership , Rosetta .
But rather than fix itself to the surface , Philae bounced twice and ended up on its side under a shady overhang , cutting its mission short .
After a meticulous search , an ESA team has now discovered the previously unknown site of Philae ’ s second touchdown—and with it an imprint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is billions of years old .
The imprint has allowed the researchers to measure the strength of ice beneath the comet ’ s surface—and they discovered that it is exceptionally soft .
“ It ’ s softer than the lightest snow , the froth on your cappuccino or even the bubbles in your bubble bath , ” says Laurence O ’ Rourke , an ESA scientist at the European Space Astronomy Centre in Madrid , who led a search to locate the wayward lander , which was found in 2016 .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work ” , says Jessica Sunshine , who studies comets at the University of Maryland in College Park , and was not involved in the work .
The study is important , she says , because some previous data from Philae had suggested that 67P ’ s surface could be very hard—which might hinder future attempts to retrieve samples of comet ice .
The latest result provides evidence that the ice is weak and compressible .
“ I ’ m very excited to have proof that we can get back out there and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says Sunshine .
The findings were published in Nature on 28 October .
ESA scientists knew that Philae bounced on landing and clipped a cliff edge .
It then tumbled towards a mystery location , before coming to rest .
The landing would not have been violent : in the comet ’ s low gravity , the 100-kilogram probe would have weighed one gram and taken 10 seconds to drift one metre , says O ’ Rourke .
To hunt for the second touchdown site , O ’ Rourke ’ s team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosetta .
After spotting telltale signs of bright , artificially cut ice around 30 metres away from the probe ’ s resting place , the researchers used images taken from all angles to build a 3D model of the area , which they nicknamed skull-top ridge because of the boulders ’ shape .
The team compared the landscape before and after Philae ’ s passage and analysed internal data from the probe to reconstruct the craft ’ s likely trajectory through the ridge .
They think that Philae touched the surface at four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down a slope , cartwheeled through a crevice and hit a boulder , then bounced on its head before departing for its resting place .
The third impact was the most revealing .
The top of the craft made a 25-centimetre-deep imprint in boulder ice .
By comparing this depth with the time taken to make the imprint—which it gleaned from how long Philae ’ s magnetic sensor was displaced—the researchers calculated the material ’ s compressive strength to be just 12 pascals .
That ’ s softer than freshly fallen snow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tilted final position meant the drill on its underside never reached the comet ’ s surface , the instrument ’ s housing , a tower on the craft ’ s surface , ended up penetrating the ice far enough to make some similar measurements .
“ We ’ ve been able to probe the interior of the comet and understand what it ’ s made of , all because of Philae ’ s movements , rather than a dedicated instrument on board , ” says O ’ Rourke .
“ This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 28 2020 .

The chaotic crash-landing of a robotic spacecraft called Philae has yielded serendipitous insights into the softness of comets.
In 2014, the pioneering European Space Agency (ESA) lander touched down on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, after a ten-year journey aboard its mothership, Rosetta. But rather than fix itself to the surface, Philae bounced twice and ended up on its side under a shady overhang, cutting its mission short.
After a meticulous search, an ESA team has now discovered the previously unknown site of Philae’s second touchdown—and with it an imprint that the craft left in comet ice that is billions of years old.
The imprint has allowed the researchers to measure the strength of ice beneath the comet’s surface—and they discovered that it is exceptionally soft. “It’s softer than the lightest snow, the froth on your cappuccino or even the bubbles in your bubble bath,” says Laurence O’Rourke, an ESA scientist at the European Space Astronomy Centre in Madrid, who led a search to locate the wayward lander, which was found in 2016.
This is “a wonderful piece of detective work”, says Jessica Sunshine, who studies comets at the University of Maryland in College Park, and was not involved in the work. The study is important, she says, because some previous data from Philae had suggested that 67P’s surface could be very hard—which might hinder future attempts to retrieve samples of comet ice. The latest result provides evidence that the ice is weak and compressible. “I’m very excited to have proof that we can get back out there and get a sample of 4.5-billion-year-old ice,” says Sunshine. The findings were published in Nature on 28 October.
ESA scientists knew that Philae bounced on landing and clipped a cliff edge. It then tumbled towards a mystery location, before coming to rest. The landing would not have been violent: in the comet’s low gravity, the 100-kilogram probe would have weighed one gram and taken 10 seconds to drift one metre, says O’Rourke.
To hunt for the second touchdown site, O’Rourke’s team analysed images around the lander taken by Rosetta. After spotting telltale signs of bright, artificially cut ice around 30 metres away from the probe’s resting place, the researchers used images taken from all angles to build a 3D model of the area, which they nicknamed skull-top ridge because of the boulders’ shape. The team compared the landscape before and after Philae’s passage and analysed internal data from the probe to reconstruct the craft’s likely trajectory through the ridge.
They think that Philae touched the surface at four points over two minutes: it slid down a slope, cartwheeled through a crevice and hit a boulder, then bounced on its head before departing for its resting place. The third impact was the most revealing. The top of the craft made a 25-centimetre-deep imprint in boulder ice. By comparing this depth with the time taken to make the imprint—which it gleaned from how long Philae’s magnetic sensor was displaced—the researchers calculated the material’s compressive strength to be just 12 pascals. That’s softer than freshly fallen snow, they say.
Although Philae’s tilted final position meant the drill on its underside never reached the comet’s surface, the instrument’s housing, a tower on the craft’s surface, ended up penetrating the ice far enough to make some similar measurements. “We’ve been able to probe the interior of the comet and understand what it’s made of, all because of Philae’s movements, rather than a dedicated instrument on board,” says O’Rourke. “This is the icing on the cake.”
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 28 2020.


scientificamerican--2020-11-03--Science News Briefs from Around the Globe

Hi , I ’ m Scott Hershberger , with Scientific American as an American Association for the Advancement of Science Mass Media Science and Engineering Fellow .
And here ’ s a short piece from the October 2020 issue of the magazine , in the section called Advances : Dispatches from the Frontiers of Science , Technology and Medicine .
The article is titled “ Quick Hits , ” and it ’ s a rundown of some stories from around the globe .
From Mexico : In now flooded caves , researchers discovered the oldest known ochre mines in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Yucatán Peninsula extracted the red pigment , possibly for use as an antiseptic and sunscreen or for symbolic purposes such as body painting .
From Italy : A massive bloom of pink algae , triggered by low snowfall and high spring and summer temperatures , could accelerate the melting of the Presena glacier by causing the ice to absorb more sunlight .
From Botswana : At least 350 elephants have dropped dead in the Okavango Panhandle since March , and live elephants have acted disoriented or seemed partially paralyzed .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causes , investigators suspect an unknown disease .
From Libya : A seven-million-year-old crocodile skull suggests the prehistoric animals may have traveled from Africa to the Americas .
Computerized tomography of the fossil , found in Libya , revealed a slight bump in the middle of the snout—a feature of modern American crocodiles but not their African counterparts .
From Polynesia : Through a genetic analysis of modern-day Polynesians and Indigenous people from South America 's Pacific coast , scientists concluded the two groups came into contact between A.D. 1150 and 1230 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the team suspects eastern Polynesia .
And from the United Arab Emirates : The successful launch of a Mars orbiter called Hope marked the first interplanetary mission conducted by an Arab nation .
Carrying instruments to study the Red Planet 's daily and seasonal weather , the spacecraft is set to enter Martian orbit in February 2021 .

Full Transcript
Hi, I’m Scott Hershberger, with Scientific American as an American Association for the Advancement of Science Mass Media Science and Engineering Fellow. And here’s a short piece from the October 2020 issue of the magazine, in the section called Advances: Dispatches from the Frontiers of Science, Technology and Medicine. The article is titled “Quick Hits,” and it’s a rundown of some stories from around the globe.
From Mexico: In now flooded caves, researchers discovered the oldest known ochre mines in the Americas. Around 12,000 years ago inhabitants of the Yucatán Peninsula extracted the red pigment, possibly for use as an antiseptic and sunscreen or for symbolic purposes such as body painting.
From Italy: A massive bloom of pink algae, triggered by low snowfall and high spring and summer temperatures, could accelerate the melting of the Presena glacier by causing the ice to absorb more sunlight.
From Botswana: At least 350 elephants have dropped dead in the Okavango Panhandle since March, and live elephants have acted disoriented or seemed partially paralyzed. With poaching and anthrax ruled out as potential causes, investigators suspect an unknown disease.
From Libya: A seven-million-year-old crocodile skull suggests the prehistoric animals may have traveled from Africa to the Americas. Computerized tomography of the fossil, found in Libya, revealed a slight bump in the middle of the snout—a feature of modern American crocodiles but not their African counterparts.
From Polynesia: Through a genetic analysis of modern-day Polynesians and Indigenous people from South America’s Pacific coast, scientists concluded the two groups came into contact between A.D. 1150 and 1230. Where the transoceanic encounter occurred remains unknown, but the team suspects eastern Polynesia.
And from the United Arab Emirates: The successful launch of a Mars orbiter called Hope marked the first interplanetary mission conducted by an Arab nation. Carrying instruments to study the Red Planet’s daily and seasonal weather, the spacecraft is set to enter Martian orbit in February 2021.
That was “Quick Hits.” I’m Scott Hershberger.
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-11-02--Beware Political Hype over the 'Right to Try' COVID Drugs

As we entered the final weeks of a presidential campaign held during a pandemic , access to experimental medical interventions played a major role in the Trump campaign ’ s case for reelection .
President Trump regularly boasted about the Right to Try legislation he signed as a major health care achievement .
Meanwhile , he has been hyping the availability of experimental treatments for COVID-19 .
With his diagnosis , the president became the living embodiment of how experimental medical interventions have entered the political spotlight .
After being hospitalized , Trump received Regeneron ’ s experimental antibody treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access pathway .
Fortunately for the president , the CEO of Regeneron is a friend and member of his golf club who was “ happy to oblige ” his request for access to this drug despite the company focusing its limited supply of REGN-COV2 on clinical trials and limiting expanded access to “ exceptional circumstances.
” Right to Try and the expanded access pathways are similar in that they allow medical researchers and developers to make experimental medical interventions available to people with serious or life-threatening conditions .
These recipients must have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enroll in a clinical trial for their medical condition .
In both instances , the sponsor of the intervention must agree to provide it , and may impose a charge to cover the direct costs of doing so .
Right to Try proponents argue that it is necessary as it removes the FDA from the process of approving requests for access to experimental interventions .
Critics have pointed out that the FDA approves nearly all of these requests and has streamlined the application and approval process .
Instead , these critics worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to reduce the FDA ’ s role in providing oversight of investigational medical products .
President Trump has spent the two and a half years since signing Right to Try claiming that it will revolutionize the ability of seriously ill Americans to access experimental medical interventions .
These claims include saying it will save “ hundreds of thousands ” of lives and that it is “ so incredible and so successful.
” There is , however , little evidence to support even more modest statements that the law has been successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a few people accessing treatment , these are very limited and do not include evidence that lives have been saved as a result .
The FDA is tasked with collecting yearly reports from treatment sponsors under the new law , but the requirements for doing so have not yet been finalized , and the first information on use of Right to Try will not be reported until after the presidential election .
To get a better sense of how Right to Try has been used in comparison to the preexisting expanded access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I decided to look at crowdfunding campaigns seeking treatment through these pathways .
While crowdfunding campaigns will not capture all or even most people using these pathways to access experimental interventions , some people use crowdfunding because the costs of accessing these interventions can be very high and are generally not reimbursed by insurance .
Our results were published in Regenerative Medicine on October 7 , 2020 , During the period following the passage of the Right to Try law , we found 26 campaigns mentioning expanded access or compassionate use pathways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Right to Try pathway that circumvents the FDA .
But while 21 of the expanded access campaigns reported being approved to access treatment via this pathway , only one Right to Try campaign did so .
This discrepancy may be in part because these campaigns generally showed poor understanding of how that pathway works in practice .
This so-called right still requires drug developers to agree to provide the intervention , and recipients have to demonstrate that they aren ’ t eligible to participate in a clinical trial for the drug , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a life-threatening medical condition , among other requirements .
These campaigns tended to treat the “ Right to Try ” as shorthand for wanting and deserving to access experimental interventions .
In this vein , several campaigns read like political statements , expressing support for President Trump for signing the Right to Try law .
Others acknowledged the roadblocks to accessing treatment via Right to Try , stating that no sponsor was willing to provide them treatment .
One frustrated campaigner facing this issue went so far as to state that the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right to Die.
” For both of these pathways , the direct and indirect costs of accessing experimental interventions create a significant barrier .
In our research , they ranged from $ 15,000 to $ 700,000 in costs for the intervention with more added on in travel and other expenses .
This shows that even when expanded access pathways are working well and creating a process to access experimental interventions , they still depend on the willingness of sponsors to provide these treatments and the financial means to pay for them .
Expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important tool for helping very sick and dying people have every chance to improve their health , especially when they don ’ t have the option of participating in clinical trials .
More can be done to improve this process , especially by addressing inequities in who has the opportunity to pursue this pathway .
As the president ’ s own use of expanded access ( notably not Right to Try ) shows , it pays to have friends who are the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies and access to the finest medical treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s regular lies about this pathway—claiming that the Right to Try legislation ’ s sidelining of the FDA is necessary , and , lately , that REGN-COV2 will be `` delivered to every hospital where you have sick people with the COVID ” —simply serve to confuse these issues .
It is unfortunate that the FDA will not provide the exact numbers on Right to Try usage before the November election .
But we know enough already to say that President Trump is using expanded access and Right to Try to cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation and to adequately address the COVID-19 pandemic .
Sick Americans deserve the truth on these pathways and all Americans should be able to vote with a clear understanding of the impacts of this administration ’ s actions—and inactions—on access to health care .

As we entered the final weeks of a presidential campaign held during a pandemic, access to experimental medical interventions played a major role in the Trump campaign’s case for reelection. President Trump regularly boasted about the Right to Try legislation he signed as a major health care achievement. Meanwhile, he has been hyping the availability of experimental treatments for COVID-19.
With his diagnosis, the president became the living embodiment of how experimental medical interventions have entered the political spotlight. After being hospitalized, Trump received Regeneron’s experimental antibody treatment REGN-COV2 through the FDA’s expanded access pathway. Fortunately for the president, the CEO of Regeneron is a friend and member of his golf club who was “happy to oblige” his request for access to this drug despite the company focusing its limited supply of REGN-COV2 on clinical trials and limiting expanded access to “exceptional circumstances.”
Right to Try and the expanded access pathways are similar in that they allow medical researchers and developers to make experimental medical interventions available to people with serious or life-threatening conditions. These recipients must have no alternative FDA-approved treatment options and be unable to enroll in a clinical trial for their medical condition. In both instances, the sponsor of the intervention must agree to provide it, and may impose a charge to cover the direct costs of doing so.
Right to Try proponents argue that it is necessary as it removes the FDA from the process of approving requests for access to experimental interventions. Critics have pointed out that the FDA approves nearly all of these requests and has streamlined the application and approval process. Instead, these critics worry, Right to Try is a way to try to reduce the FDA’s role in providing oversight of investigational medical products.
President Trump has spent the two and a half years since signing Right to Try claiming that it will revolutionize the ability of seriously ill Americans to access experimental medical interventions. These claims include saying it will save “hundreds of thousands” of lives and that it is “so incredible and so successful.”
There is, however, little evidence to support even more modest statements that the law has been successful. While there have been media reports of a few people accessing treatment, these are very limited and do not include evidence that lives have been saved as a result. The FDA is tasked with collecting yearly reports from treatment sponsors under the new law, but the requirements for doing so have not yet been finalized, and the first information on use of Right to Try will not be reported until after the presidential election.
To get a better sense of how Right to Try has been used in comparison to the preexisting expanded access pathway, Alison Bateman-House, Leigh Turner and I decided to look at crowdfunding campaigns seeking treatment through these pathways. While crowdfunding campaigns will not capture all or even most people using these pathways to access experimental interventions, some people use crowdfunding because the costs of accessing these interventions can be very high and are generally not reimbursed by insurance.
Our results were published in Regenerative Medicine on October 7, 2020, During the period following the passage of the Right to Try law, we found 26 campaigns mentioning expanded access or compassionate use pathways administered by the FDA and 29 referencing the Right to Try pathway that circumvents the FDA. But while 21 of the expanded access campaigns reported being approved to access treatment via this pathway, only one Right to Try campaign did so. This discrepancy may be in part because these campaigns generally showed poor understanding of how that pathway works in practice. This so-called right still requires drug developers to agree to provide the intervention, and recipients have to demonstrate that they aren’t eligible to participate in a clinical trial for the drug, have no other treatment options and have a life-threatening medical condition, among other requirements.
These campaigns tended to treat the “Right to Try” as shorthand for wanting and deserving to access experimental interventions. In this vein, several campaigns read like political statements, expressing support for President Trump for signing the Right to Try law. Others acknowledged the roadblocks to accessing treatment via Right to Try, stating that no sponsor was willing to provide them treatment. One frustrated campaigner facing this issue went so far as to state that the “Right to Try should be relabeled as Right to Die.”
For both of these pathways, the direct and indirect costs of accessing experimental interventions create a significant barrier. In our research, they ranged from $15,000 to $700,000 in costs for the intervention with more added on in travel and other expenses. This shows that even when expanded access pathways are working well and creating a process to access experimental interventions, they still depend on the willingness of sponsors to provide these treatments and the financial means to pay for them.
Expanded access to experimental medical interventions is an important tool for helping very sick and dying people have every chance to improve their health, especially when they don’t have the option of participating in clinical trials. More can be done to improve this process, especially by addressing inequities in who has the opportunity to pursue this pathway. As the president’s own use of expanded access (notably not Right to Try) shows, it pays to have friends who are the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies and access to the finest medical treatment in the country. The Trump administration’s regular lies about this pathway—claiming that the Right to Try legislation’s sidelining of the FDA is necessary, and, lately, that REGN-COV2 will be "delivered to every hospital where you have sick people with the COVID”—simply serve to confuse these issues.
It is unfortunate that the FDA will not provide the exact numbers on Right to Try usage before the November election. But we know enough already to say that President Trump is using expanded access and Right to Try to cover for failures to advance comprehensive health care legislation and to adequately address the COVID-19 pandemic. Sick Americans deserve the truth on these pathways and all Americans should be able to vote with a clear understanding of the impacts of this administration’s actions—and inactions—on access to health care.


scientificamerican--2020-11-02--How the Senate Race Could Shape Future U.S. Climate Action

As the nation watches the presidential election tomorrow , climate experts will be focusing on control of the Senate and whether Democrats can win a mandate to pursue ambitious climate legislation next year .
With polls showing Democrats favored to capture the presidency and the House , climate experts and advocates say securing the Senate would give the party an unprecedented opportunity to enact groundbreaking legislation to cut emissions and enhance clean energy .
“ Almost everything is at stake with climate in the Senate , ” said Michelle Deatrick , head of the Democratic National Committee ’ s Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Once you get Democratic leadership in the Senate , ” added Duke University environmental politics professor Megan Mullin , “ then climate change legislation becomes a possibility .
There are parts of the Democratic Party who will be demanding it.
” But even with a Democratic-controlled White House and Congress , climate legislation will face competition from other issues such as containing the COVID-19 pandemic , boosting the economy , addressing immigration and expanding access to health care .
And if Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins the presidency , he will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through administrative actions such as regulations and executive orders or through legislation , which is harder to enact but also harder to undo .
Biden ’ s $ 2 trillion climate plan aims to eliminate carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035 and make the U.S. a net-zero carbon emitter by 2050 .
“ I think it ’ s quite likely Biden will pursue both paths no matter what because neither is a slam dunk , ” University of Michigan environmental policy expert Barry Rabe said .
Republicans in Congress are likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors are almost certain to challenge climate-related executive orders in federal courts , which , Rabe notes , have increasing numbers of Republican appointees .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) have vowed to make climate legislation a priority in the 117th Congress , which starts in January .
They will face pressure to act quickly because recent political history suggests that if Democrats control Congress and the White House , they will lose one chamber in the 2022 midterm elections .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowded , and there ’ s very little evidence that a newly elected president , even with majorities [ in Congress ] , can get everything done in those first two years .
He ’ ll have to choose one or two priorities , ” Rabe said , referring to Biden .
“ There is going to be a racing of the clock from the minute the Biden presidency begins.
” When Democrats most recently controlled the White House and Congress , in President Obama ’ s first two years , they enacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats in the 2010 election and control of the chamber .
Biden is strongly favored to defeat President Trump tomorrow , polls show .
The House , with 232 Democrats and 197 Republicans , is almost certain to retain its Democratic majority .
Control of the Senate is the least certain .
Although polls suggest Democrats are likely to win a majority in the chamber , it is far from clear how many seats they would hold .
The number of Democrats in the Senate will be important in determining how much and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve .
“ The difference between 51 Democrats and 52 Democrats [ in the Senate ] is very important , ” Mullin said .
“ The Democratic leadership will be asking for multiple tough [ climate ] votes from marginal Democrats , and the larger the margin , the more they can spread out those asks and maybe lose a Democrat in a tough state.
” Democrats from states tied to fossil fuels , such as Sens .
Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters of Michigan , may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as harmful to their state economy or culture .
“ Even in coal states where it ’ s not really that important part of the state economy anymore , it ’ s still an important part of the identity and has rhetorical resonance that matters in politics , ” Mullin said .
“ Ending subsidies that support oil and coal , carbon-pricing schemes—those can be tough votes.
” Deatrick of the DNC said Biden and environmental activists would have to lobby reluctant Democratic senators to support aggressive climate legislation .
“ There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , there are Democratic senators who are going to be more conservative on climate than the Democratic Party membership .
Biden is going to have to lean on them and use the bully pulpit , ” Deatrick said .
“ If he wins , he is winning in part because of how he ’ s campaigned on climate .
That gives him a real mandate to move forward and ask the Senate to do what he needs to get done.
” With 47 Senate seats currently , Democrats will take control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats and Biden wins .
They ’ ll need to add four seats if Trump wins reelection .
As many as 10 Republican-held Senate seats are considered competitive , along with two seats held by Democrats .
The political website FiveThirtyEight yesterday gave Democrats a 76 % chance of winning control of the Senate .
The easiest legislative vehicle for climate measures would be spending that promotes a green agenda , possibly including clean energy and green infrastructure , and that could be part of a broader economic stimulus package .
“ All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down to decide what is in a green-stimulus spending bill , a one-time shot , that opens the sluice gates to every possible way you might define green energy or transition energy beyond production tax credits for wind or solar , ” said Rabe , the Michigan professor .
“ What about direct air capture ?
Carbon sequestration ?
Before you know it , it ’ s a massive package.
” A green-spending bill could attract support from Republicans in states such as Texas , Iowa and Oklahoma—the nation ’ s leading wind-power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown interest in climate change legislation such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Marco Rubio of Florida , Mullin said .
If Biden becomes president , he will be tempted to follow the path of Trump and Obama in using regulations and executive orders to establish climate policy .
“ Presidents are more and more likely to rely on an administrative route because it ’ s been so hard to pass new [ environmental ] legislation , ” Rabe said .
“ There is a lot a President Biden could do without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dozens of environmental rules and policies that Trump has weakened or reversed .
“ Those can be undone , and there ’ s real opportunity not just to undo them and go back to the status quo but to work further on them.
” She added that Biden may have to pursue climate rules and orders even if Democrats win control of the Senate and Sen. Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) is demoted from Senate majority leader .
“ Mitch McConnell is going to be a really effective minority leader , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the emperor of obstruction .
His goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president , and it ’ s going to be his goal again.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

As the nation watches the presidential election tomorrow, climate experts will be focusing on control of the Senate and whether Democrats can win a mandate to pursue ambitious climate legislation next year.
With polls showing Democrats favored to capture the presidency and the House, climate experts and advocates say securing the Senate would give the party an unprecedented opportunity to enact groundbreaking legislation to cut emissions and enhance clean energy.
“Almost everything is at stake with climate in the Senate,” said Michelle Deatrick, head of the Democratic National Committee’s Council on the Environment and Climate Crisis.
“Once you get Democratic leadership in the Senate,” added Duke University environmental politics professor Megan Mullin, “then climate change legislation becomes a possibility. There are parts of the Democratic Party who will be demanding it.”
But even with a Democratic-controlled White House and Congress, climate legislation will face competition from other issues such as containing the COVID-19 pandemic, boosting the economy, addressing immigration and expanding access to health care.
And if Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins the presidency, he will have to decide whether to pursue climate goals through administrative actions such as regulations and executive orders or through legislation, which is harder to enact but also harder to undo. Biden’s $2 trillion climate plan aims to eliminate carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035 and make the U.S. a net-zero carbon emitter by 2050.
“I think it’s quite likely Biden will pursue both paths no matter what because neither is a slam dunk,” University of Michigan environmental policy expert Barry Rabe said. Republicans in Congress are likely to oppose climate legislation, and Republican governors are almost certain to challenge climate-related executive orders in federal courts, which, Rabe notes, have increasing numbers of Republican appointees.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have vowed to make climate legislation a priority in the 117th Congress, which starts in January. They will face pressure to act quickly because recent political history suggests that if Democrats control Congress and the White House, they will lose one chamber in the 2022 midterm elections.
“The agenda is going to be very crowded, and there’s very little evidence that a newly elected president, even with majorities [in Congress], can get everything done in those first two years. He’ll have to choose one or two priorities,” Rabe said, referring to Biden. “There is going to be a racing of the clock from the minute the Biden presidency begins.”
When Democrats most recently controlled the White House and Congress, in President Obama’s first two years, they enacted the Affordable Care Act—and lost 64 House seats in the 2010 election and control of the chamber.
Biden is strongly favored to defeat President Trump tomorrow, polls show. The House, with 232 Democrats and 197 Republicans, is almost certain to retain its Democratic majority.
Control of the Senate is the least certain. Although polls suggest Democrats are likely to win a majority in the chamber, it is far from clear how many seats they would hold. The number of Democrats in the Senate will be important in determining how much and what type of climate legislation Congress could approve.
“The difference between 51 Democrats and 52 Democrats [in the Senate] is very important,” Mullin said. “The Democratic leadership will be asking for multiple tough [climate] votes from marginal Democrats, and the larger the margin, the more they can spread out those asks and maybe lose a Democrat in a tough state.”
Democrats from states tied to fossil fuels, such as Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters of Michigan, may be reluctant to support climate legislation seen as harmful to their state economy or culture.
“Even in coal states where it’s not really that important part of the state economy anymore, it’s still an important part of the identity and has rhetorical resonance that matters in politics,” Mullin said. “Ending subsidies that support oil and coal, carbon-pricing schemes—those can be tough votes.”
Deatrick of the DNC said Biden and environmental activists would have to lobby reluctant Democratic senators to support aggressive climate legislation.
“There’s no question that if we retake the Senate, there are Democratic senators who are going to be more conservative on climate than the Democratic Party membership. Biden is going to have to lean on them and use the bully pulpit,” Deatrick said. “If he wins, he is winning in part because of how he’s campaigned on climate. That gives him a real mandate to move forward and ask the Senate to do what he needs to get done.”
With 47 Senate seats currently, Democrats will take control of the chamber if they gain three seats and Biden wins. They’ll need to add four seats if Trump wins reelection.
As many as 10 Republican-held Senate seats are considered competitive, along with two seats held by Democrats. The political website FiveThirtyEight yesterday gave Democrats a 76% chance of winning control of the Senate.
The easiest legislative vehicle for climate measures would be spending that promotes a green agenda, possibly including clean energy and green infrastructure, and that could be part of a broader economic stimulus package.
“All that said, when reasonable people sit down to decide what is in a green-stimulus spending bill, a one-time shot, that opens the sluice gates to every possible way you might define green energy or transition energy beyond production tax credits for wind or solar,” said Rabe, the Michigan professor. “What about direct air capture? Carbon sequestration? Before you know it, it’s a massive package.”
A green-spending bill could attract support from Republicans in states such as Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma—the nation’s leading wind-power states—and also from Republican senators who have shown interest in climate change legislation such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Marco Rubio of Florida, Mullin said.
If Biden becomes president, he will be tempted to follow the path of Trump and Obama in using regulations and executive orders to establish climate policy.
“Presidents are more and more likely to rely on an administrative route because it’s been so hard to pass new [environmental] legislation,” Rabe said.
“There is a lot a President Biden could do without the Senate,” Deatrick said, referring to dozens of environmental rules and policies that Trump has weakened or reversed. “Those can be undone, and there’s real opportunity not just to undo them and go back to the status quo but to work further on them.”
She added that Biden may have to pursue climate rules and orders even if Democrats win control of the Senate and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is demoted from Senate majority leader.
“Mitch McConnell is going to be a really effective minority leader,” Deatrick said. “He’s the emperor of obstruction. His goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president, and it’s going to be his goal again.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-11-02--What 50 Gravitational-Wave Events Reveal about the Universe

Astronomers observed 39 cosmic events that released gravitational waves over a 6-month period in 2019—a rate of more than one per week .
The bounty , described in a series of papers published on 28 October , demonstrates how observatories that detect these ripples—usually created by the merging of two black holes—have dramatically increased their sensitivity since the first identification was made in 2015 .
The growing data set is helping astronomers to map how frequently such events have happened in the Universe ’ s history .
Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space-time that are released by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive objects spiral into each other and merge .
Their detailed properties provide numerous tests of Albert Einstein ’ s general theory of relativity , including some of the strongest evidence to date for the existence of black holes .
And through gravitational waves , astronomers have gained a new way of observing the cosmos , next to electromagnetic waves and cosmic rays .
The latest data release describes events observed during half of the third observation run of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory ( LIGO ) —a pair of twin detectors based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Louisiana—and its European counterpart Virgo , near Pisa , Italy .
It is the collaboration ’ s second catalogue of events , following one published in December 2018 describing their first 11 detections .
In all , the observation network has now observed 50 gravitational-wave events .
Most of the events are mergers of two black holes .
The detectors have also caught sight of a handful of collisions between two neutron stars and at least one merger of one neutron star and one black hole .
Mergers that involve neutron stars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are expected to release ordinary light as well as gravitational waves , which was confirmed in a merger of neutron stars seen in August 2017 .
A few of the most spectacular events in the catalogue had already been described in papers .
Those include the largest black-hole merger yet and the most ‘ lopsided ’ one—in which two black holes of vastly different masses collided .
One surprising discovery is in the masses of the black holes involved in the mergers .
Astrophysicists expected a sharp cut-off , with no black holes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Sun .
“ Now we ’ re seeing that it ’ s not so sharp , ” says Maya Fishbach , a LIGO researcher at Northwestern University in Evanston , Illinois .
The catalogue includes three events with outlier masses , including one announced in September with a black hole of 85 solar masses .
The wealth of data has now enabled LIGO–Virgo researchers to roughly estimate the rate at which black-hole mergers happen in an average galaxy .
That rate appears to have peaked around eight billion years ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forming—and some were later turning into black holes—at a particularly high rate , says Fishbach .
The catalogue also provides information on how the black holes spin , which holds the key to understanding how the objects came to orbit each other before they merged .
It shows that , in some binary systems , the two black holes have misaligned axes of rotation , which would imply that they formed separately .
But many other binaries appear to have roughly aligned axes of rotation , which is what astrophysicists expect when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a binary star system .
Two schools of thought in astrophysics have each favoured one of the two scenarios , but it now appears that both were correct , Fishbach says .
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 30 2020 .

Astronomers observed 39 cosmic events that released gravitational waves over a 6-month period in 2019—a rate of more than one per week. The bounty, described in a series of papers published on 28 October, demonstrates how observatories that detect these ripples—usually created by the merging of two black holes—have dramatically increased their sensitivity since the first identification was made in 2015. The growing data set is helping astronomers to map how frequently such events have happened in the Universe’s history.
Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space-time that are released by accelerating masses, in particular when two massive objects spiral into each other and merge. Their detailed properties provide numerous tests of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, including some of the strongest evidence to date for the existence of black holes. And through gravitational waves, astronomers have gained a new way of observing the cosmos, next to electromagnetic waves and cosmic rays.
The latest data release describes events observed during half of the third observation run of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO)—a pair of twin detectors based in Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana—and its European counterpart Virgo, near Pisa, Italy. It is the collaboration’s second catalogue of events, following one published in December 2018 describing their first 11 detections. In all, the observation network has now observed 50 gravitational-wave events.
Most of the events are mergers of two black holes. The detectors have also caught sight of a handful of collisions between two neutron stars and at least one merger of one neutron star and one black hole. Mergers that involve neutron stars are especially interesting to astrophysicists because they are expected to release ordinary light as well as gravitational waves, which was confirmed in a merger of neutron stars seen in August 2017. A few of the most spectacular events in the catalogue had already been described in papers. Those include the largest black-hole merger yet and the most ‘lopsided’ one—in which two black holes of vastly different masses collided.
One surprising discovery is in the masses of the black holes involved in the mergers. Astrophysicists expected a sharp cut-off, with no black holes weighing more than 45 times as much as the Sun. “Now we’re seeing that it’s not so sharp,” says Maya Fishbach, a LIGO researcher at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. The catalogue includes three events with outlier masses, including one announced in September with a black hole of 85 solar masses.
The wealth of data has now enabled LIGO–Virgo researchers to roughly estimate the rate at which black-hole mergers happen in an average galaxy. That rate appears to have peaked around eight billion years ago, following a period in which stars were forming—and some were later turning into black holes—at a particularly high rate, says Fishbach.
The catalogue also provides information on how the black holes spin, which holds the key to understanding how the objects came to orbit each other before they merged. It shows that, in some binary systems, the two black holes have misaligned axes of rotation, which would imply that they formed separately. But many other binaries appear to have roughly aligned axes of rotation, which is what astrophysicists expect when the two black holes began their lives as a binary star system. Two schools of thought in astrophysics have each favoured one of the two scenarios, but it now appears that both were correct, Fishbach says.
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 30 2020.


scientificamerican--2020-11-02--We Can Save Earth's Coral Reefs

We Can Save Earth's Coral Reefs

Our planet ’ s natural ecosystems are in trouble .
Recent advances in “ big data ” and improved remote sensing tools show us that collective human impacts are leaving fewer places untouched , with only 15 % of the Earth ’ s land mass formally protected and global biodiversity declining at an unprecedented rate .
Global assessments led by scientists , such as the 5th Global Biodiversity Outlook published this week , and others endorsed by governments through bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( IPBES ) , make it clear that governments are failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that critical ecosystems like coral reefs will be altered to the point that the biodiversity they hold , and the services they provide , will be damaged beyond repair .
Corals in particular have shown the most rapid increase in extinction risk of all assessed species groups , with studies showing an estimated two thirds of coral reef fish lost compared to historical reefs as only 2.5 percent of the world ’ s reefs are being actively protected .
We must respond to this remarkable scientific and political consensus on biodiversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international community , we must do more to help protect those important ecosystems such as coral reefs , which provide extraordinary contributions to both biodiversity ( about 25 percent of all marine biodiversity across about 0.1 percent of the ocean floor ) and human wellbeing ( economic and food security for hundreds of millions of people ) .
International plans , usually in the form of policy frameworks , are well suited to globalized threats such as climate change , but have a hard time addressing the myriad complex localized threats facing coral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , coastal and industrial development ) and other ecosystems .
They do , however , play an important role in driving consensus around how to measure and monitor ecosystems like coral reefs and the benefits they provide to people .
They also galvanize political will , unlock billions in financing for nature conservation , and provide the impetus to drive change at a local level .
Currently , all but a few of the world ’ s governments are in the process of negotiating updated , consensus-based goals and targets for biodiversity conservation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This “ post-2020 global biodiversity framework ” will guide the actions and investments of the 196 governments that are party to the Convention on Biological Diversity ( CBD ) .
The negotiations are expansive and complex .
Over the last two years , members of the International Coral Reef Initiative ( ICRI ) , a global partnership of more than forty governments and more than forty civil society organizations with coral reef expertise , have agreed on the parts of this framework that are critical for coral reefs .
First , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as priority ecosystems in the post-2020 framework .
Coral reefs provide unique contributions to both biodiversity and human wellbeing .
It is therefore vital to identify the key state-based indicators of reef health , and to dedicate resources for tracking coral reef change and , ultimately , the effectiveness of coral reef conservation and management .
Second , ICRI Members agree that coral reefs are complex ecosystems .
All too often conservation is reduced to a binary assessment of whether an ecosystem is present or not , and whether it is protected or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long before an ecosystem or species is lost ; indeed , we need targets to inspire proactive interventions to keep coral reefs from dropping below key thresholds ( see below ) .
In reality , ecosystems are highly complex in their health and functioning , and their conservation status can be measured in different ways .
Intact coral reefs , or those with high ecological integrity , are also key to food and economic security for coastal communities , and are deeply enmeshed in local culture or identity .
We will not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and protecting the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples , who rely on healthy ecosystems , including coral reefs , for their wellbeing and cultural identities .
Protecting the integrity and resilience of coral reefs therefore depends on identifying the context-appropriate interventions and management regimes to achieved desired ecological and social outcomes .
Lastly , ICRI Members agree to develop and use better tools , or indicators , to measure progress .
Assessments of progress towards existing goals on coral reefs typically focus on compilations of thousands of site-specific observations compiled by important organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Network ( GCRMN ) .
While these analyses are critical , several agencies monitoring coral reef health now collect more detailed information that , taken together , can better measure the integrity and function of coral reef ecosystems .
A new online data platform MERMAID ( datamermaid.org ) , for example , helps scientists and management officials collect , organize , and disseminate data on reef fish biomass and diversity , and the cover of hard corals , fleshy algae , and other benthic groups – and all of these are identified by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health , integrity and function to measure against science-based thresholds .
For example , scientific research has demonstrated that reefs need a precautionary threshold of roughly 30 percent live coral cover to secure growth , and at least 500-600 kilograms per hectare of reef fish biomass is needed to maintain fisheries productivity , ecosystem function , and biodiversity .
Although the ICRI recommendation represents remarkable consensus by over 80 governments and civil society organizations , the recommendation is non-binding under international law .
Moving from consensus to conservation action will require governments to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and implement the needed actions in close consultation with Indigenous Peoples , local communities , and stakeholders across civil society .
The decisions of governments during the ongoing CBD negotiations and their actions in the years to come will determine whether or not our planet 's coral reefs will continue to exist in ways that provide benefits to biodiversity and society .
Governments , and particularly the representatives leading the CBD negotiations , have an immense task in front of them—to safeguard functioning coral reefs , and in fact all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We know a future without coral reefs is no future at all .
Let ’ s get to work on moving from consensus to action .
To learn more about WCS ’ s recommendation on the CBD post-2020 negotiations , please follow this link

Our planet’s natural ecosystems are in trouble. Recent advances in “big data” and improved remote sensing tools show us that collective human impacts are leaving fewer places untouched, with only 15% of the Earth’s land mass formally protected and global biodiversity declining at an unprecedented rate.
Global assessments led by scientists, such as the 5th Global Biodiversity Outlook published this week, and others endorsed by governments through bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), make it clear that governments are failing to meet existing global targets for biodiversity, and that critical ecosystems like coral reefs will be altered to the point that the biodiversity they hold, and the services they provide, will be damaged beyond repair.
Corals in particular have shown the most rapid increase in extinction risk of all assessed species groups, with studies showing an estimated two thirds of coral reef fish lost compared to historical reefs as only 2.5 percent of the world’s reefs are being actively protected.
We must respond to this remarkable scientific and political consensus on biodiversity loss with meaningful action. As an international community, we must do more to help protect those important ecosystems such as coral reefs, which provide extraordinary contributions to both biodiversity (about 25 percent of all marine biodiversity across about 0.1 percent of the ocean floor) and human wellbeing (economic and food security for hundreds of millions of people).
International plans, usually in the form of policy frameworks, are well suited to globalized threats such as climate change, but have a hard time addressing the myriad complex localized threats facing coral reefs (such as overexploitation, pollution, coastal and industrial development) and other ecosystems.
They do, however, play an important role in driving consensus around how to measure and monitor ecosystems like coral reefs and the benefits they provide to people. They also galvanize political will, unlock billions in financing for nature conservation, and provide the impetus to drive change at a local level.
Currently, all but a few of the world’s governments are in the process of negotiating updated, consensus-based goals and targets for biodiversity conservation to replace those that expire in 2020. This “post-2020 global biodiversity framework” will guide the actions and investments of the 196 governments that are party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The negotiations are expansive and complex.
Over the last two years, members of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), a global partnership of more than forty governments and more than forty civil society organizations with coral reef expertise, have agreed on the parts of this framework that are critical for coral reefs.
First, they agree that vulnerable reefs must be recognized as priority ecosystems in the post-2020 framework. Coral reefs provide unique contributions to both biodiversity and human wellbeing. It is therefore vital to identify the key state-based indicators of reef health, and to dedicate resources for tracking coral reef change and, ultimately, the effectiveness of coral reef conservation and management.
Second, ICRI Members agree that coral reefs are complex ecosystems. All too often conservation is reduced to a binary assessment of whether an ecosystem is present or not, and whether it is protected or not. Action needs to be taken long before an ecosystem or species is lost; indeed, we need targets to inspire proactive interventions to keep coral reefs from dropping below key thresholds (see below). In reality, ecosystems are highly complex in their health and functioning, and their conservation status can be measured in different ways.
Intact coral reefs, or those with high ecological integrity, are also key to food and economic security for coastal communities, and are deeply enmeshed in local culture or identity. We will not be able to conserve coral reefs without respecting and protecting the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples, who rely on healthy ecosystems, including coral reefs, for their wellbeing and cultural identities.
Protecting the integrity and resilience of coral reefs therefore depends on identifying the context-appropriate interventions and management regimes to achieved desired ecological and social outcomes.
Lastly, ICRI Members agree to develop and use better tools, or indicators, to measure progress. Assessments of progress towards existing goals on coral reefs typically focus on compilations of thousands of site-specific observations compiled by important organizations such as the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN). While these analyses are critical, several agencies monitoring coral reef health now collect more detailed information that, taken together, can better measure the integrity and function of coral reef ecosystems.
A new online data platform MERMAID (datamermaid.org), for example, helps scientists and management officials collect, organize, and disseminate data on reef fish biomass and diversity, and the cover of hard corals, fleshy algae, and other benthic groups – and all of these are identified by ICRI as key indicators of coral reef health, integrity and function to measure against science-based thresholds.
For example, scientific research has demonstrated that reefs need a precautionary threshold of roughly 30 percent live coral cover to secure growth, and at least 500-600 kilograms per hectare of reef fish biomass is needed to maintain fisheries productivity, ecosystem function, and biodiversity.
Although the ICRI recommendation represents remarkable consensus by over 80 governments and civil society organizations, the recommendation is non-binding under international law. Moving from consensus to conservation action will require governments to adopt these targets through the CBD negotiations, and implement the needed actions in close consultation with Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and stakeholders across civil society.
The decisions of governments during the ongoing CBD negotiations and their actions in the years to come will determine whether or not our planet's coral reefs will continue to exist in ways that provide benefits to biodiversity and society. Governments, and particularly the representatives leading the CBD negotiations, have an immense task in front of them—to safeguard functioning coral reefs, and in fact all of the planet’s ecosystems and species.
We know a future without coral reefs is no future at all. Let’s get to work on moving from consensus to action.
To learn more about WCS’s recommendation on the CBD post-2020 negotiations, please follow this link


scientificamerican--2020-11-02--Rain Forest Canopy Bridges Aid Slow Lorises, Gibbons and Other Threatened Species

In July 2014 Super Typhoon Rammasun swept over Hainan , an island province of southern China , destroying at least 23,000 houses and causing $ 2 billion in damage .
It was not just people who experienced the impact , though .
In Hainan Bawangling National Nature Reserve , home to the world ’ s 30 remaining Hainan gibbons—the rarest primate on earth—landslides tore through sections of the forest .
With critical parts of their habitat now cleaved by deep gullies , the gibbons , a tree-dwelling species , were forced to leap across a distance of up to 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another .
The gibbons came to depend on just two places to cross the tree chasm , and sometimes they would barely make it—breaking their fall only by managing to grab hold of the tip of a particular palm frond .
“ It was very scary !
” says Bosco Chan , head of the Chinese conservation department at the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden in Hong Kong , who manages its Hainan gibbon conservation project .
As months passed , Chan noticed that constant use was causing the frond to fray and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crashing down with it—and breaking the critically endangered species ’ habitat into disparate islands .
“ I didn ’ t know how long the frond would be able to hold the gibbons , ” he says .
“ I thought , ‘ It ’ s just time for us to build something.
’ ” As recently described in Scientific Reports , Chan and his colleagues turned to aerial bridges—the arboreal answer to terrestrial wildlife underpasses and overpasses .
They hired professional tree climbers to brave the steep terrain to install a simple bridge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , consisting of two parallel mountaineering-grade ropes .
Including labor and materials , the bridge ’ s installation cost $ 5,000 .
It took the gibbons more than five months to catch on , likely because they have never encountered an artificial structure before .
But once they learned the ropes , they started regularly using the bridge to make safe , quick crossings .
( Check out a video . )
The take-home message is that solutions to similar conservation problems “ needn ’ t be very complicated and needn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Sometimes simple is beautiful.
” Chan and his colleagues ’ work adds to a growing body of evidence pointing to the usefulness of artificial bridges for helping arboreal animals cross fragmented landscapes to access habitat and unite populations , says Kylie Soanes , a conservation biologist at the University of Melbourne in Australia , who was not involved in the Hainan project .
“ The more information we have coming in from studies like this on different species in different situations , the better.
” Aerial bridges have been used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kenya , Brazil , Australia and other countries to help a diversity of animals ranging from marsupial gliders and squirrels to sloths and capuchin monkeys .
But many aerial-bridge installations are small , one-off projects carried out by local organizations or even individuals , with little or no scientific study of what does or does not work .
In addition , solutions for one species or habitat may not be applicable for another .
“ In the recent paper on gibbons , they created a specific design—two parallel ropes—that ’ s perfect for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work for spider monkeys in the Amazon , ” says Fernanda Abra , a postdoctoral researcher at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute , who was not involved in the study .
“ What we want is to build knowledge in tropical countries about what structures are most suitable for different species with different behaviors.
” At the beginning of 2021 Abra will begin testing the effectiveness of artificial bridges for helping various species cross hundreds of miles of highway running through Brazil ’ s Amazon rain forest from Manaus to Boa Vista .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ designs—a single large rope and a two-dimensional rope lattice—for helping two threatened species : pied tamarins and Guiana spider monkeys , both of which are regularly killed by cars .
If successful , her findings will provide a proof of concept that she hopes will be scaled up .
Fortunately , there is already promise of that happening .
Members of the Waimiri Atroari tribe , whose land the road cuts through , are enthusiastic about helping Abra locate the best places to install bridges and maintain the structures after her study comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also already expressed interest in learning to build the bridges themselves so they can install more of them .
“ They want to avoid animals being killed because they see it as a waste—because animals are their food , their source of meat , ” Abra says .
“ Now that they ’ re involved in this project , this is gold for me.
” Unlike the gibbon study , which took place in a strictly protected natural area , most artificial bridges are installed in places where humans dominate or at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In those cases , buy-in from local people is often critical for long-term success , says Anna Nekaris , a primate conservationist at Oxford Brookes University in England , who was not involved in the gibbon research .
Nekaris , who studies threatened slow lorises in agricultural areas of the Indonesian province of West Java , learned this lesson firsthand .
Originally , she and her colleagues sought to connect highly fragmented trees that the animals depend on by installing strips of industrial rubber .
But while the slow lorises loved the rubber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the animals lived “ didn ’ t care , ” Nekaris says .
“ If there was a windstorm , and the bridges blew down , they wouldn ’ t even tell us.
” To win the farmers over , Nekaris realized that she could use PVC pipes that would simultaneously act as bridges for slow lorises and valuable irrigation sources for agriculture .
The pipes—which are tied to trees on either side and supported by a strong wire—run from natural streams down to fields , allowing them to use the mountain gradient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to shell out about six months ’ worth of salary for such a system .
At the same time , Nekaris and her colleagues built up local pride and interest in slow lorises by teaching children about the animals and assigning each family an individual slow loris mascot .
As the team reported last month in Diversity , slow lorises are now just one of at least 20 species—including Javan palm civets , collared scops owls , Javan kingfishers and Horsfield ’ s tree shrews—that use the well-maintained bridges for crossing or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replacement for protecting intact habitat , they can play an important role in helping species survive in an increasingly human-dominated landscape , Soanes says .
“ In many places , so much has already been heavily modified , and so much already lost , ” she says .
“ We should be looking for ways to help species persist in these modified environments , too .
”

In July 2014 Super Typhoon Rammasun swept over Hainan, an island province of southern China, destroying at least 23,000 houses and causing $2 billion in damage. It was not just people who experienced the impact, though. In Hainan Bawangling National Nature Reserve, home to the world’s 30 remaining Hainan gibbons—the rarest primate on earth—landslides tore through sections of the forest. With critical parts of their habitat now cleaved by deep gullies, the gibbons, a tree-dwelling species, were forced to leap across a distance of up to 50 feet to get from one area to another.
The gibbons came to depend on just two places to cross the tree chasm, and sometimes they would barely make it—breaking their fall only by managing to grab hold of the tip of a particular palm frond. “It was very scary!” says Bosco Chan, head of the Chinese conservation department at the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden in Hong Kong, who manages its Hainan gibbon conservation project. As months passed, Chan noticed that constant use was causing the frond to fray and droop, threatening to bring the gibbons crashing down with it—and breaking the critically endangered species’ habitat into disparate islands. “I didn’t know how long the frond would be able to hold the gibbons,” he says. “I thought, ‘It’s just time for us to build something.’”
Hainan gibbons began to use the canopy bridge 176 days after it was first installed. Credit: Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden.
As recently described in Scientific Reports, Chan and his colleagues turned to aerial bridges—the arboreal answer to terrestrial wildlife underpasses and overpasses. They hired professional tree climbers to brave the steep terrain to install a simple bridge, 33 feet at its highest point, consisting of two parallel mountaineering-grade ropes. Including labor and materials, the bridge’s installation cost $5,000. It took the gibbons more than five months to catch on, likely because they have never encountered an artificial structure before. But once they learned the ropes, they started regularly using the bridge to make safe, quick crossings. (Check out a video.)
The take-home message is that solutions to similar conservation problems “needn’t be very complicated and needn’t be very expensive,” Chan says. “Sometimes simple is beautiful.”
Chan and his colleagues’ work adds to a growing body of evidence pointing to the usefulness of artificial bridges for helping arboreal animals cross fragmented landscapes to access habitat and unite populations, says Kylie Soanes, a conservation biologist at the University of Melbourne in Australia, who was not involved in the Hainan project. “The more information we have coming in from studies like this on different species in different situations, the better.”
Aerial bridges have been used in Peru, the U.K., India, Kenya, Brazil, Australia and other countries to help a diversity of animals ranging from marsupial gliders and squirrels to sloths and capuchin monkeys. But many aerial-bridge installations are small, one-off projects carried out by local organizations or even individuals, with little or no scientific study of what does or does not work. In addition, solutions for one species or habitat may not be applicable for another.
Porcupine on a canopy bridge close to Cantareira State Park, São Paulo Brazil. Credit: ViaFAUNA/Fábio Ferrão
“In the recent paper on gibbons, they created a specific design—two parallel ropes—that’s perfect for gibbons but maybe is not going to work for spider monkeys in the Amazon,” says Fernanda Abra, a postdoctoral researcher at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, who was not involved in the study. “What we want is to build knowledge in tropical countries about what structures are most suitable for different species with different behaviors.”
At the beginning of 2021 Abra will begin testing the effectiveness of artificial bridges for helping various species cross hundreds of miles of highway running through Brazil’s Amazon rain forest from Manaus to Boa Vista. She will start by comparing two different designs—a single large rope and a two-dimensional rope lattice—for helping two threatened species: pied tamarins and Guiana spider monkeys, both of which are regularly killed by cars. If successful, her findings will provide a proof of concept that she hopes will be scaled up.
A computer mockup for a rope lattice bridge to help two threatened species: pied tamarins and Guiana spider monkeys, both of which are often killed by vehicles on highway that goes through Brazil’s Amazon rain forest from Manaus to Boa Vista. Credit: Fernanda Abra (ViaFAUNA/SCBI/CCS)
Fortunately, there is already promise of that happening. Members of the Waimiri Atroari tribe, whose land the road cuts through, are enthusiastic about helping Abra locate the best places to install bridges and maintain the structures after her study comes to an end. The Waimiri Atroari have also already expressed interest in learning to build the bridges themselves so they can install more of them. “They want to avoid animals being killed because they see it as a waste—because animals are their food, their source of meat,” Abra says. “Now that they’re involved in this project, this is gold for me.”
Unlike the gibbon study, which took place in a strictly protected natural area, most artificial bridges are installed in places where humans dominate or at least are present in the landscape. In those cases, buy-in from local people is often critical for long-term success, says Anna Nekaris, a primate conservationist at Oxford Brookes University in England, who was not involved in the gibbon research. Nekaris, who studies threatened slow lorises in agricultural areas of the Indonesian province of West Java, learned this lesson firsthand. Originally, she and her colleagues sought to connect highly fragmented trees that the animals depend on by installing strips of industrial rubber. But while the slow lorises loved the rubber bridges, the farmers on whose land the animals lived “didn’t care,” Nekaris says. “If there was a windstorm, and the bridges blew down, they wouldn’t even tell us.”
To win the farmers over, Nekaris realized that she could use PVC pipes that would simultaneously act as bridges for slow lorises and valuable irrigation sources for agriculture. The pipes—which are tied to trees on either side and supported by a strong wire—run from natural streams down to fields, allowing them to use the mountain gradient to deliver water. Farmers would normally have to shell out about six months’ worth of salary for such a system. At the same time, Nekaris and her colleagues built up local pride and interest in slow lorises by teaching children about the animals and assigning each family an individual slow loris mascot. As the team reported last month in Diversity, slow lorises are now just one of at least 20 species—including Javan palm civets, collared scops owls, Javan kingfishers and Horsfield’s tree shrews—that use the well-maintained bridges for crossing or perching.
While aerial bridges are no replacement for protecting intact habitat, they can play an important role in helping species survive in an increasingly human-dominated landscape, Soanes says. “In many places, so much has already been heavily modified, and so much already lost,” she says. “We should be looking for ways to help species persist in these modified environments, too.”


scientificamerican--2020-11-02--Hacking the Immune System

Hacking the Immune System

1.4 COVID-19 Vaccine Developers Search for Antibodies that “ First Do No Harm ” by Esther Landhuis 1.5 What Immunity to COVID-19 Really Means by Stacey McKenna 2.2 Fact or Fiction : Vaccines Are Dangerous by Dina Fine Maron 2.3 Genomic Vaccines Fight Disease in Ways Not Possible Before by Geoffrey Ling 2.5 New Finding Advances the Search for a Universal Flu Vaccine by Dina Fine Maron 2.6 How to Kill HIV : Target Its “ Influencers ” by Apoorva Mandavilli 3.2 The Biology of Sugars Points to a Sweet Strategy for Treating Cancer by Esther Landhuis 3.3 The Next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are We Innately Immune to Cancer by Mark Lowdell 3.6 What ’ s Next after Creating a Cancer-Prevention Vaccine by Dina Fine Maron 4.1 Could Immunotherapy Treat Diseases Besides Cancer ?
by Karen Weintraub 4.2 Killer Infections : Is It in Your Genes ?
by Claudia Wallis 4.4 What Would It Take to Get an Effective Alzheimer ’ s Drug ?
by Sam Gandy , Tamas Bartfai , Graham Lees and Mary Sano 4.5 Fighting the Opioid Crisis with Vaccines and Better Chemistry by Dina Fine Maron 5.1 How to Boost Your Immunity @ @ @

Automatic Renewal Program: You can cancel your subscription at any time.
After your initial term, your subscription will automatically renew until you cancel. We will email you a reminder prior to renewal with the renewal rate and date of expected charge. If you do nothing, we will charge the card entered here and your subscription will continue. You can cancel at any time for a refund of the remaining portion of your subscription, just visit your subscription management page or email us at help@sciam.com.
Subscriptions offered here are for individuals only. Institutions, please contact us for pricing.