scientificamerican--2020-09-02--LIGO and Virgo Capture Their Most Massive Black Holes Yet

The alert caught Zsuzsanna Márka ’ s attention immediately .
Whenever the U.S.-based Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory ( LIGO ) and its European counterpart Virgo detect a potential gravitational wave event , an automatic notice is quickly dispatched to members of the collaboration .
Soon after receiving the notification for such an event on May 21 , 2019 , Márka , an astrophysicist at Columbia University , was on the team ’ s internal Slack channel , sending an excited message to her husband Szabolcs Márka , who also works with the LIGO group at Columbia , and Imre Bartos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This one was very special , ” Zsuzanna Márka recalls .
“ I noticed [ it involved ] high masses right away.
” Details from LIGO-Virgo ’ s instruments indicated they had captured the signal of two behemoth black holes spinning around each other and merging into a single entity some 17 billion light-years away .
The progenitor leviathans respectively weighed around 85 and 66 times the sun ’ s mass , the heaviest pair detected to date by the facilities .
And the subsequent black hole clocked in at an astounding 142 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only reason for the scientific elation .
LIGO and Virgo , which use ultrasensitive quantum-mechanical sensors to identify ripples in the fabric of spacetime generated by cosmic cataclysms , have never before found black holes in what is known as the “ intermediate ” range between 100 and 1,000 solar masses .
Astronomers have not previously seen an unambiguous example of such black holes—and are not even sure how they might be created .
But within the LIGO-Virgo data lay tantalizing clues to the environment in which these heavyweights formed , providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an object that had been largely theoretical until now .
Those in the field know that the finding is a harbinger of things to come , and they are looking forward to soon having many more such signals to analyze .
“ I see it as a threshold event—it ’ s just the tip of the iceberg , ” says Priyamvada Natarajan , an astrophysicist at Yale University , who studies black hole formation but was not involved in the work .
“ I ’ m so stoked.
” A black hole typically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ star , which ends its life in a spectacular supernova explosion .
As the star disintegrates , its dense core collapses into an object so compact and heavy that not even light can escape its gravitational pull—a black hole .
The more massive the original star is , the more massive its subsequent remnant will be , at least until a certain point .
The death throes of an extremely heavy stars , those greater than 130 times the sun ’ s mass , include an extra twist .
Temperatures get so hot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin generating pairs of electrons and their antiparticles , positrons .
This change leads to a drop in the outward “ radiation pressure ” that the photons exert , causing the bulky outer layers to collapse inward with such ferocity that the entire core detonates in a thermonuclear explosion powerful enough to annihilate the star .
No black hole relic can be left behind in that wake of stellar devastation , leading to a theoretical upper limit to black holes ’ size : around 65 solar masses .
The problem is that researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of times the mass of the sun are lurking in the centers of pretty much every known large galaxy .
So where exactly did these monsters come from ?
Many stars form with a nearby stellar companion , and the two will orbit each other for their entire life .
If both of them are high-mass stars , they might explode at roughly the same time and leave behind a pair of black holes .
These black holes can gravitationally attract and slowly spiral toward each other , and their eventual merger will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all directions at the speed of light .
LIGO-Virgo was built in part to capture such signals , and the collaboration ’ s instruments have so far seen more than 10 such mergers , each involving black holes ranging from roughly five to 60 50 times the sun ’ s mass .
But if two black holes can merge , then perhaps the resulting entity can find another black hole and repeat the process .
“ It ’ s like a little assembly machine , ” Szabolcs Márka says .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , make a bigger black hole and merge it.
” Such so-called hierarchical mergers have been previously theorized but , until now , never seen .
Though the event on May 21 , 2019 , which has been labeled GW190521 , lit up LIGO-Virgo ’ s sensors for less than a tenth of a second , it contained enticing information about the merging black hole pair .
Specifically , the detectors found that each of the black holes was spinning around like an enormous top , a property that LIGO-Virgo had only previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This observation alone made GW190521 ’ s black holes unusual .
But researchers were even more intrigued to see that their spins were not aligned—a telltale sign that the compact objects had not known each for very long .
When two stars form two black holes , gravity acts as a harmonizing force , bringing each entity in line with its partner .
The black holes should both spin in the same direction as their orbital path around each other , much like how the moon spins around its own axis in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The misaligned spins of GW190521 ’ s gigantic black holes hint that gravity did not have a great deal of time to work its coordinating magic before they merged .
That idea suggests they did not originally form together but rather lived in an environment thick with other black holes .
“ There is one special kind of place where this can happen , ” Bartos says .
“ And that ’ s in the centers of galaxies , where smaller black holes tend to congregate in the vicinity of a supermassive black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes a galactic center rather like the bottom of a well .
Other heavy objects , such as stellar-mass black holes , will fall in the direction of its hefty attraction .
Because GW190521 occurred so far away , it comes from a time when the universe was only half its current age , an era when many galaxies were blazing brightly as their central supermassive black holes were vigorously consuming gas and dust and belching out energy .
Such swirling active galactic nuclei ( AGNs ) , as they are known , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller black holes could have met new partners and merged , explaining the new LIGO-Virgo event .
Though such a picture is not guaranteed to be the situation with GW190521 , much of the evidence points in this direction .
It is even possible that the heavier object in the pair , at 85 solar masses , formed from its own prior merger , Bartos says , though it can not be ruled out that this extra-bulky black hole was created by some exotic unknown process .
“ That ’ s one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he adds .
“ We are working with complex systems that are very far away.
” The team ’ s findings appeared today in two papers in Physical Review Letters and the Astrophysical Journal Letters .
Natarajan , who has been working on models to form black holes between 100 and a million times the sun ’ s mass , says that the results are exciting because “ they directly give you the stepping stone to supermassive black holes.
” Astronomers know that supermassive black holes must have gone through such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but until now evidence of that period had been elusive .
LIGO-Virgo ’ s facilities are currently closed because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic .
Once the instruments come back online , however , researchers are eager to see if they will find more events involving black holes in this intermediate mass range .
The fact that it has taken this long to see these first results suggests that such mergers are somewhat rare , though not exceedingly so .
Upgrades to the observatories should give scientists a clearer view of the moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping to determine whether they occurred in an AGN or some different environment .
Particularly helpful data could come from other telescopes that hunt for flashes of light whenever they get a LIGO-Virgo alert .
Studying the optical , ultraviolet or infrared counterparts to gravitational-wave events gives astronomers multiple pathways to understanding their details .
Just after the May 2019 detection , the Zwicky Transient Facility at the Palomar Observatory in California spotted an optical flicker in the vicinity of a distant AGN , but it remains unclear if the two results are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field are happy to be at this turning point .
Although GW190521 will go down in history as the first intermediate black hole definitively discovered , researchers are confident that they will soon have plenty of other examples to learn from .
“ From this moment on , we have agents that are teaching us about something we couldn ’ t reach in any other way , ” says Szabolcs Márka .
“ Before this event , it was all a dream .
Now it has become a testable theory .
”

The alert caught Zsuzsanna Márka’s attention immediately. Whenever the U.S.-based Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) and its European counterpart Virgo detect a potential gravitational-wave event, an automatic notice is quickly dispatched to members of the collaboration.
Soon after receiving the notification for such an event on May 21, 2019, Márka, an astrophysicist at Columbia University, was on the team’s internal Slack channel, sending an excited message to her husband, Szabolcs Márka, who also works with the LIGO group at Columbia, and to Imre Bartos of the University of Florida.
“This one was very special,” Zsuzsanna Márka recalls. “I noticed [it involved] high masses right away.”
Details from LIGO-Virgo’s instruments indicated they had captured the signal of two behemoth black holes spinning around each other and merging into a single entity some 17 billion light-years away. The progenitor leviathans respectively weighed around 85 and 66 times the sun’s mass, the heaviest pair detected to date by the facilities. And the subsequent black hole clocked in at an astounding 142 solar masses.
The breaking of records was not the only reason for the scientific elation. LIGO and Virgo, which use ultrasensitive quantum-mechanical sensors to identify ripples in the fabric of spacetime generated by cosmic cataclysms, had never before found black holes in what is known as the “intermediate” range between 100 and 1,000 solar masses. Astronomers have not previously seen an unambiguous example of such black holes—and are not even sure how they might be created.
But within the LIGO-Virgo data lay tantalizing clues to the environment in which these heavyweights formed, providing researchers with their best real-world observations of an object that had hitherto been largely theoretical. Those in the field know that the finding is a harbinger of things to come, and they are looking forward to soon having many more such signals to analyze.
“I see it as a threshold event—it’s just the tip of the iceberg,” says Priyamvada Natarajan, an astrophysicist at Yale University, who studies black hole formation but was not involved in the work. “I’m so stoked.”
A black hole typically arises from the death of a massive star, which ends its life in a spectacular supernova explosion. As the star disintegrates, its dense core collapses into an object so compact and heavy that not even light can escape its gravitational pull—a black hole. The more massive the original star is, the more massive its subsequent remnant will be, at least until a certain point.
The death throes of extremely heavy stars, those greater than 130 times the sun’s mass, include an extra twist. Temperatures get so hot in their core that photons of light begin generating pairs of electrons and their antiparticles, positrons. This change leads to a drop in the outward “radiation pressure” that the photons exert, causing the bulky outer layers to collapse inward with such ferocity that the entire core detonates in a thermonuclear explosion powerful enough to annihilate the star. No black hole relic can be left behind in that wake of stellar devastation, leading to a theoretical upper limit to black holes’ size: around 65 solar masses.
The problem is that researchers know black holes with millions to billions of times the mass of the sun are lurking in the centers of pretty much every known large galaxy. So where exactly did these monsters come from?
Many stars form with a nearby stellar companion, and the two will orbit each other for their entire lives. If both of them are high-mass stars, they might explode at roughly the same time and leave behind a pair of black holes. These black holes can gravitationally attract and slowly spiral toward each other, and their eventual merger will send out copious gravitational waves traveling in all directions at the speed of light. LIGO-Virgo was built in part to capture such signals, and the collaboration’s instruments have so far seen more than 10 such mergers, each involving black holes ranging from roughly five to 50 times the sun’s mass.
But if two black holes can merge, then perhaps the resulting entity can find another black hole and repeat the process. “It’s like a little assembly machine,” Szabolcs Márka says. “You take a black hole and merge it, make a bigger black hole and merge it.” Such so-called hierarchical mergers had been previously theorized but never seen.
Although the event in May 2019, which has been labeled GW190521, lit up LIGO-Virgo’s sensors for less than a tenth of a second, it contained enticing information about the merging black hole pair. Specifically, the detectors found that each of the black holes was spinning around like an enormous top, a property that LIGO-Virgo had seen in only one black hole merger. This observation alone made GW190521’s black holes unusual. But researchers were even more intrigued to see that their spins were not aligned—a telltale sign that the compact objects had not known each other for very long.
When two stars form two black holes, gravity acts as a harmonizing force, bringing each entity in line with its partner. The black holes should both spin in the same direction as their orbital path around each other, much like how the moon spins around its own axis in the same direction that it orbits Earth. The misaligned spins of GW190521’s gigantic black holes hint that gravity did not have a great deal of time to work its coordinating magic before they merged. That idea suggests they did not originally form together but rather lived in an environment thick with other black holes.
“There is one special kind of place where this can happen,” Bartos says. “And that’s in the centers of galaxies, where smaller black holes tend to congregate in the vicinity of a supermassive black hole.”
A lurking supermassive black hole makes a galactic center rather like the bottom of a well. Other heavy objects, such as stellar-mass black holes, will fall in the direction of its hefty attraction. Because GW190521 occurred so far away, it comes from a time when the universe was only half its current age, an era when many galaxies were blazing brightly as their central supermassive black holes were vigorously consuming gas and dust and belching out energy. Such swirling active galactic nuclei (AGNs), as they are known, would have been hotspots of commotion where smaller black holes could have met new partners and merged, explaining the new LIGO-Virgo event.
Such a picture is not guaranteed to be the situation with GW190521, but much of the evidence points in this direction. It is even possible that the heavier object in the pair, at 85 solar masses, formed from its own prior merger, Bartos says, although it cannot be ruled out that this extra-bulky black hole was created by some exotic, unknown process. “That’s one of the beauties and difficulties of this field,” he adds. “We are working with complex systems that are very far away.” The team’s findings appeared last September in two papers in Physical Review Letters and the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Natarajan, who has been working on models to form black holes between 100 and a million times the sun’s mass, says that the results are exciting because “they directly give you the stepping-stone to supermassive black holes.” Astronomers know that supermassive black holes must have gone through such a middle stage, she adds, but until now evidence of that period had been elusive.
LIGO-Virgo’s facilities are currently closed because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Once the instruments come back online, however, researchers are eager to see whether they will find more events involving black holes in this intermediate mass range. The fact that it has taken this long to see these first results suggests that such mergers are somewhat rare, though not exceedingly so. Upgrades to the observatories should give scientists a clearer view of the moments leading up to the merging events, helping to determine whether they occurred in an AGN or some different environment.
Particularly helpful data could come from other telescopes that hunt for flashes of light whenever they get a LIGO-Virgo alert. Studying the optical, ultraviolet or infrared counterparts to gravitational-wave events gives astronomers multiple pathways to understanding their details. Just after the May 2019 detection, the Zwicky Transient Facility at the Palomar Observatory in California spotted an optical flicker in the vicinity of a distant AGN, but it remains unclear whether the two results are related.
Nevertheless, people in the field are happy to be at this turning point. Although GW190521 will go down in history as the first intermediate black hole definitively discovered, researchers are confident that they will soon have plenty of other examples to learn from.
“From this moment on, we have agents that are teaching us about something we couldn’t reach in any other way,” Szabolcs Márka says. “Before this event, it was all a dream. Now it has become a testable theory.”


scientificamerican--2020-09-02--Stop Stealing Doctors from Developing Countries

Every year , more than 4,000 foreign graduates of international medical schools come to the United States for a residency program .
They rarely return home to serve the countries that raised and educated them .
Meanwhile , more than 2,000 graduates from U.S. medical schools each year are blocked from becoming doctors because there are not enough residency programs for them to enter , and they can not practice medicine without this training experience .
A further 2,000 American graduates of international medical schools are also denied the opportunity to practice medicine in the U.S. for the same reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developing countries , this policy will come to be seen for what it is : robbing developing countries of their desperately needed medical professionals .
This must stop , even though American medical care benefits from being able to take the best doctors for ourselves .
In the U.S. , there is one doctor per every 385 individuals .
In South Asia , there is one physician for every 1,250 individuals .
But in Sub-Saharan Africa , on average there is one doctor per 5,000 people with some countries faring far worse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ per 71,000 individuals .
Roughly half of Sub-Saharan African countries suffer a loss of more than 30 percent of the doctors they train .
This equates to tens of thousands of doctors .
Roughly equal numbers of nurses from such countries also immigrate to developed countries .
To be clear , while the U.S. accepts a significant number of doctors from developing countries , some come to the U.S. from other advanced economies , which is much less concerning , given that many European countries have a significantly higher number of doctor per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number from developed countries is small ; for example , 21 percent of foreign-trained doctors in the U.S. come from India , while only 3 percent come from Canada .
We also need more U.S. medical students each year , more residency programs for them to enter and more clinical opportunities for them during medical school .
While medical school and residency spots are expanding , neither are growing quickly enough .
Research by the Association of American Medical Colleges ( AAMC ) indicates the U.S. will face a doctor shortage of up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draft legislation , the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act , has proposed increased funding for residency programs , which is a start .
But we must accept that it is unethical to steal doctors from countries with greater need , especially given our vast financial resources and capable student pool .
In 2010 , the World Health Organization adopted a Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel to discourage the recruitment of practitioners from developing countries with shortages .
Yet its voluntary principles have largely been ignored .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take the lead in reversing this practice .
Of the nearly 650,000 foreign-born doctors in developed countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ) , 42 percent reside in the U.S. , compared to 13 percent in the United Kingdom , the second highest destination ( this figure also captures some children who immigrated at an early age to OECD countries and individuals who migrated to an OECD country to study medicine ) .
Of course , even if we stop taking doctors from countries that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent all physicians from poor countries from immigrating to the U.S. to take up another profession—either working as nurses or outside the medical field .
Yet such limitations should not stop the U.S. from showing solidarity with the more than 170 countries battling the disease by acknowledging that we have many more doctors than most .
This argument is not an attempt at isolationism ; it is about stemming global suffering .
We can be advocates for allowing the world 's best scientists and medical researchers to immigrate , just not practicing physicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can leverage the resources we have to discover treatments to help the world , yet patients must often be seen locally .
As a nation we can be pro-immigration while acknowledging this critical exception .
Ideally , the number of residency programs would grow sufficiently to include spots for all U.S. students and some international students who would return home to serve .
This would not only halt a medical brain drain in developing countries but allow the U.S. to help spread our cutting-edge knowledge of medicine .

Every year, more than 4,000 foreign graduates of international medical schools come to the United States for a residency program. They rarely return home to serve the countries that raised and educated them. Meanwhile, more than 2,000 graduates from U.S. medical schools each year are blocked from becoming doctors because there are not enough residency programs for them to enter, and they cannot practice medicine without this training experience. A further 2,000 American graduates of international medical schools are also denied the opportunity to practice medicine in the U.S. for the same reason.
As COVID-19 has inevitably spread to developing countries, this policy will come to be seen for what it is: robbing developing countries of their desperately needed medical professionals. This must stop, even though American medical care benefits from being able to take the best doctors for ourselves.
In the U.S., there is one doctor per every 385 individuals. In South Asia, there is one physician for every 1,250 individuals. But in Sub-Saharan Africa, on average there is one doctor per 5,000 people with some countries faring far worse. For example, Tanzania has 1 doctor per 71,000 individuals. Roughly half of Sub-Saharan African countries suffer a loss of more than 30 percent of the doctors they train. This equates to tens of thousands of doctors. Roughly equal numbers of nurses from such countries also immigrate to developed countries.
To be clear, while the U.S. accepts a significant number of doctors from developing countries, some come to the U.S. from other advanced economies, which is much less concerning, given that many European countries have a significantly higher number of doctor per capita than the U.S. Yet the number from developed countries is small; for example, 21 percent of foreign-trained doctors in the U.S. come from India, while only 3 percent come from Canada.
We also need more U.S. medical students each year, more residency programs for them to enter and more clinical opportunities for them during medical school. While medical school and residency spots are expanding, neither are growing quickly enough. Research by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) indicates the U.S. will face a doctor shortage of up to 122,000 in 12 years. Recent draft legislation, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, has proposed increased funding for residency programs, which is a start. But we must accept that it is unethical to steal doctors from countries with greater need, especially given our vast financial resources and capable student pool.
In 2010, the World Health Organization adopted a Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel to discourage the recruitment of practitioners from developing countries with shortages. Yet its voluntary principles have largely been ignored. As the worst offender, the U.S. should take the lead in reversing this practice. Of the nearly 650,000 foreign-born doctors in developed countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 42 percent reside in the U.S., compared to 13 percent in the United Kingdom, the second highest destination (this figure also captures some children who immigrated at an early age to OECD countries and individuals who migrated to an OECD country to study medicine).
Of course, even if we stop taking doctors from countries that need them more, it will not prevent all physicians from poor countries from immigrating to the U.S. to take up another profession—either working as nurses or outside the medical field. Yet such limitations should not stop the U.S. from showing solidarity with the more than 170 countries battling the disease by acknowledging that we have many more doctors than most.
This argument is not an attempt at isolationism; it is about stemming global suffering. We can be advocates for allowing the world's best scientists and medical researchers to immigrate, just not practicing physicians. Immigrant medical researchers in the U.S. can leverage the resources we have to discover treatments to help the world, yet patients must often be seen locally. As a nation we can be pro-immigration while acknowledging this critical exception. Ideally, the number of residency programs would grow sufficiently to include spots for all U.S. students and some international students who would return home to serve. This would not only halt a medical brain drain in developing countries but allow the U.S. to help spread our cutting-edge knowledge of medicine.


scientificamerican--2020-09-02--Want to Talk to Aliens? Try Changing the Technological Channel Beyond Radio

The endeavor known as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ( SETI ) has long relied on radio telescopes to listen for broadcasts from potential alien callers .
Yet in an expansive galaxy such as ours , how can we ever be sure that we have tuned in to the right station ?
A new model simulating contact across the Milky Way suggests—perhaps unsurprisingly—that unless our galaxy is dense with long-lived intelligent species , the odds of stumbling across a signal are low .
Yet the findings , which were published in the International Journal of Astrobiology , also point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest at the moment when a novel communication technology first comes online .
Along with providing fodder for imaginative scenarios—we flip the switch on some new listening device and , voilà , receive a transmission from E.T.—the results might encourage would-be alien hunters to innovate .
Research efforts dedicated to discovering and developing new methods to communicate across cosmic distances may ultimately offer greater chances of making contact than long programs using a single technology .
For Marcelo Lares , the research began with a challenge .
An astronomer at the National University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works on data-rich statistical analyses involving stellar populations , the large-scale structure of the universe and gravitational-wave events .
Thinking about aliens offers no such informational abundance .
“ We have just one observation , which is that the Earth is the only known planet with life , ” Lares says .
Scientific speculations about otherworldly life , intelligence and technology often rely on the Drake equation .
This mathematical framework was first written down by astronomer Frank Drake in 1961 .
It estimates the number of communicating species by looking at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planets , the percentage of those planets that develop life and the odds that such living creatures will grow curious about , and capable of , making interstellar contact with other beings .
Lares and his collaborators wanted something simpler .
Rather than hazard guesses about the unknowns involved in life ’ s genesis and the development of intelligence and technology , they created a model with essentially three parameters : the moment when communicating species “ awaken ” and begin broadcasting evidence of their presence , the reach of such signals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The resulting arrangement places a bunch of nodes—or intelligent message creators—at random throughout the Milky Way , where they sometimes broadcast and sometimes do not .
“ It ’ s like a Christmas tree , ” says astronomer José Funes of at the Catholic University of Córdoba , who was Lares ’ s co-author .
“ You have lights going on and off.
” The team ran more than 150,000 simulations , each time with a different set of assumptions about these basic parameters , to see which scenarios favored interstellar contact .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves produced far more interactions than one where species were separated by vast distances or great amounts of time .
Such conclusions might not necessarily be shocking .
“ It ’ s just a statistical way of saying , ‘ If you want to increase your chances of contact , you need greater numbers [ of communicators ] or have them last a long time , ’ ” says planetary scientist Ravi Kopparapu of NASA ’ s Goddard Spaceflight Center , who was not involved in the work .
But Lares counters that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be valuable , if only to serve as a reality check on our basic understanding .
The findings set a kind of upper limit on the probability of contact under different circumstances , he adds .
In each case , the simulations showed that the odds of interstellar interaction are by far the largest just at the moment when a species “ awakens ” and figures out the right way to communicate .
That result is because other nodes will have already come online and presumably found one another , essentially creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Christmas tree lights and increasing the chances of stumbling across this broadcasting network .
But if the lights are flashing out of sync with one another or at vastly different times—a situation analogous to using the wrong contact technology or being separated by large time spans—intelligent species might never find one another .
After SETI ’ s historically preferred contact technology , radio waves , became commonly available in the early part of the 20th century , some discoveries were even initially thought to be alien transmissions .
And in the 1960s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antony Hewish originally called the first detection of a pulsar , a rapidly spinning stellar corpse , LGM-1 for “ little green men , ” because the source ’ s pulses seemed too regular to be natural .
Yet humanity has slowly been sending out fewer radio emissions over the decades as we have upgraded our technology to wired and fiber optic cables , which has lessened the chances that aliens might stumble across our leaking transmissions .
The new study ’ s authors see their findings as one possible answer to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not found evidence of intelligent aliens , given that in the long history of our galaxy , some technological species could have arisen and sent dispatches of its existence across space by now .
The work suggests this absence is not very meaningful—perhaps E.T .
is too far away from us in space and time or is just using some calling card that is unknown to us .
At the heart of the research is also an attempt to step away from some of the human-centric biases that tend to plague speculations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very difficult to imagine extraterrestrial communication without our anthropomorphic way of thinking , ” Funes says .
“ We need to make an effort to exit from ourselves.
” Kopparapu concurs with this assessment .
“ Unexpected discoveries come from unexpected sources , ” he says .
“ In our common-knowledge thinking , we are in a box .
It is hard for us to accept that there could be something else outside it.
” SETI ’ s focus on radio waves developed under particular circumstances during a small slice of human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried other means to discover intelligent aliens , such as looking for high-powered laser beams or evidence of massive star-encircling artificial structures called Dyson spheres , any search still seemingly remains just as limited by the human imagination as it is by fundamental physics .
Yet looking for something as potentially fantastical as another cosmic culture requires the convergence of many disciplines , including physics , biology and even philosophy , Lares says .
The effort to consider more creative messages , such as ones made by neutrinos , gravitational waves or phenomena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can help break down our parochial conceptions and give us a fuller understanding of ourselves .
Despite the small odds of contact , Lares is hopeful that attacking the problem in many ways will one day pay off .
“ I think that a SETI search is a high-risk bet , ” he says .
“ The probability of success is actually very low .
But the prize is really very high .
”

The endeavor known as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has long relied on radio telescopes to listen for broadcasts from potential alien callers. Yet in an expansive galaxy such as ours, how can we ever be sure that we have tuned in to the right station?
A model simulating contact across the Milky Way suggests—perhaps unsurprisingly—that unless our galaxy is dense with long-lived intelligent species, the odds of stumbling across a signal are low. Yet the findings, which were published in 2020 in the International Journal of Astrobiology, also point out that the probability of interaction could be greatest at the moment when a novel communication technology first comes online.
Along with providing fodder for imaginative scenarios—we flip the switch on some new listening device and, voilà, receive a transmission from E.T.—the results might encourage would-be alien hunters to innovate. Research efforts dedicated to discovering and developing new methods to communicate across cosmic distances may ultimately offer greater chances of making contact than long programs that use a single technology.
For Marcelo Lares, the research began with a challenge. An astronomer at the National University of Córdoba in Argentina, Lares ordinarily works on data-rich statistical analyses involving stellar populations, the large-scale structure of the universe and gravitational-wave events.
Thinking about aliens offers no such informational abundance. “We have just one observation, which is that Earth is the only known planet with life,” Lares says.
Scientific speculations about otherworldly life, intelligence and technology often rely on the Drake equation. This mathematical framework was first written down by astronomer Frank Drake in 1961. It estimates the number of communicating species by looking at the fraction of stars in the galaxy with planets, the percentage of those planets that develop life and the odds that such living creatures will grow curious about, and capable of, making interstellar contact with other beings.
Lares and his collaborators wanted something simpler. Rather than hazarding guesses about the unknowns involved in life’s genesis and the development of intelligence and technology, they created a model that had essentially three parameters: the moment when communicating species “awaken” and begin broadcasting evidence of their presence, the reach of such signals and the lifetime of any given transmission.
The resulting arrangement places a bunch of nodes—or intelligent message creators—at random throughout the Milky Way, where they sometimes broadcast and sometimes do not. “It’s like a Christmas tree,” says astronomer José Funes of Catholic University of Córdoba, one of Lares’s co-authors. “You have lights going on and off.”
The team ran more than 150,000 simulations, each time with a different set of assumptions about these basic parameters, to see which scenarios favored interstellar contact. A galaxy full of technological aliens announcing themselves produced far more interactions than one where species were separated by vast distances or great amounts of time.
Such conclusions might not necessarily be shocking. “It’s just a statistical way of saying, ‘If you want to increase your chances of contact, you need greater numbers [of communicators] or have them last a long time,’” says planetary scientist Ravi Kopparapu of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, who was not involved in the work.
But Lares counters that quantifying our intuitive conceptions with mathematical models can be valuable, if only to serve as a reality check on our basic understanding. The findings set a kind of upper limit on the probability of contact under different circumstances, he adds.
In each case, the simulations showed that the odds of interstellar interaction are by far the largest just at the moment when a species “awakens” and figures out the right way to communicate. That result happens because other nodes will have already come online and presumably found one another, essentially creating a large branch of “lit up” Christmas tree lights and increasing the chances of stumbling across this broadcasting network. But if the lights are flashing out of sync with one another or at vastly different times—a situation that is analogous to using the wrong contact technology or being separated by large time spans—intelligent species might never find one another.
After SETI’s historically preferred contact technology—radio waves—became commonly available in the early part of the 20th century, some discoveries were even initially thought to be alien transmissions. And in the 1960s British astronomers Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Antony Hewish originally called the first detection of a pulsar, a rapidly spinning stellar corpse, LGM-1 for “little green men” because the source’s pulses seemed too regular to be natural. Yet humanity has slowly been sending out fewer radio emissions over the decades as we have upgraded our technology to wired and fiber-optic cables, which has lessened the chances that aliens might stumble across our leaking transmissions.
The study’s authors see their findings as one possible answer to the Fermi paradox, which asks why we have not found evidence of intelligent aliens, given that in the long history of our galaxy, some technological species could have arisen and sent dispatches of its existence across space by now. The work suggests this absence is not very meaningful—perhaps E.T. is too far away from us in space and time or is just using some calling card that is unknown to us.
At the heart of the research is also an attempt to step away from some of the human-centric biases that tend to plague speculations about alien others. “It’s very difficult to imagine extraterrestrial communication without our anthropomorphic way of thinking,” Funes says. “We need to make an effort to exit from ourselves.”
Kopparapu concurs with this assessment. “Unexpected discoveries come from unexpected sources,” he says. “In our common-knowledge thinking, we are in a box. It is hard for us to accept that there could be something else outside it.”
SETI’s focus on radio waves developed under particular circumstances during a small slice of human history. Although the undertaking has sometimes tried other means to discover intelligent aliens, such as looking for high-powered laser beams or evidence of massive star-encircling artificial structures called Dyson spheres, any search still seemingly remains just as limited by the human imagination as it is by fundamental physics.
Yet looking for something as potentially fantastical as another cosmic culture requires the convergence of many disciplines, including physics, biology and even philosophy, Lares says. The effort to consider more creative messages, such as ones made by neutrinos, gravitational waves or phenomena that science has yet to discover, can help break down our parochial conceptions and give us a fuller understanding of ourselves.
Despite the small odds of contact, Lares is hopeful that attacking the problem in many ways will one day pay off. “I think that a SETI search is a high-risk bet,” he says. “The probability of success is actually very low. But the prize is really very high.”


scientificamerican--2020-09-02--Death by Lightning Is Common for Tropic Trees

The chance that a human being like you will be struck by lightning is miniscule .
But what if you ’ re a tall tree in the tropics ?
“ Lightning happens in milliseconds .
We can ’ t predict where it 's going to be and we generally can ’ t find it after it ’ s happened , so what a hard thing to study.
” Evan Gora , an ecologist at the University of Louisville .
Now , for the first time , Gora and his colleagues were able to quantify the effects of lightning strikes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data and a network of ground sensors .
“ We saw that forests that have more lightning strikes hitting per hectare per year have fewer large trees per hectare , presumably because they ’ re killed by lightning .
More biomass turns over every year , so basically the lightning seems to be affecting the forests and causing trees to die .
And then they have less total biomass.
” In a ground survey in Panama , the researchers found that a single lightning strike typically damages more than 20 trees .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them die .
The scientists combined this figure with their satellite data from around the world to estimate how many trees in tropical forests die each year due to lightning .
“ We think around 830 million trees are struck by lightning , and about a quarter of those , around 200 million , are killed .
So that ’ s a lot .
And as I mentioned before , we know that it ’ s not just a random tree in the forest , typically it ’ s the largest trees.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Global Change Biology .
[ Evan M. Gora et al.
, Pantropical geography of lightning-caused disturbance and its implications for tropical forests ] Gora says the findings reveal that that lightning is one of the most important natural factors killing trees in the tropics .
How climate change will affect lightning patterns is not well-understood .
But some models predict more frequent lightning as the planet continues to warm—which could mean even more carbon-storing trees would disappear .
“ Tropical forests basically function as our planet ’ s , you know , main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re decreasing the carbon stored in them , that 's going to have a big effect on their ability to continue , you know , conditioning our planet and taking up all that carbon that we ’ re producing.
” Gora ’ s work is just the beginning of this research .
He hopes that future technological advances and field work will help scientists better understand lightning ’ s role in ecosystems across the planet .
The findings should be illuminating .
[ The above text is a transcript of this podcast @ @

Full Transcript
[CLIP: Thunder sound]
The chance that a human being like you will be struck by lightning is minuscule. But what if you’re a tall tree in the tropics?
“Lightning happens in milliseconds. We can’t predict where it’s going to be, and we generally can’t find it after it’s happened, so what a hard thing to study.”
Evan Gora, an ecologist at the University of Louisville. Now, for the first time, Gora and his colleagues were able to quantify the effects of lightning strikes in tropical forests around the world—thanks to satellite data and a network of ground sensors.
“We saw that forests that have more lightning strikes hitting per hectare per year have fewer large trees per hectare, presumably because they’re killed by lightning. More biomass turns over every year, so basically, the lightning seems to be affecting the forests and causing trees to die. And then they have less total biomass.”
In a ground survey in Panama, the researchers found that a single lightning strike typically damages more than 20 trees. And within a year, five or six of them die. The scientists combined this figure with their satellite data from around the world to estimate how many trees in tropical forests die each year due to lightning.
“We think around 830 million trees are struck by lightning, and about a quarter of those, around 200 million, are killed. So that’s a lot. And as I mentioned before, we know that it’s not just a random tree in the forest: typically, it’s the largest trees.”
The study is in the journal Global Change Biology. [Evan M. Gora et al., Pantropical geography of lightning-caused disturbance and its implications for tropical forests]
Gora says the findings reveal that that lightning is one of the most important natural factors killing trees in the tropics. How climate change will affect lightning patterns is not well-understood. But some models predict more frequent lightning as the planet continues to warm—which could mean even more carbon-storing trees would disappear.
“Tropical forests basically function as our planet’s, you know, main terrestrial air conditioner. So if we’re decreasing the carbon stored in them, that’s going to have a big effect on their ability to continue, you know, conditioning our planet and taking up all that carbon that we’re producing.”
Gora’s work is just the beginning of this research. He hopes that future technological advances and fieldwork will help scientists better understand lightning’s role in ecosystems across the planet. The findings should be illuminating.
—Scott Hershberger
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-09-02--Elon Musk's Pig-Brain Implant Is Still a Long Way from 'Solving Paralysis'

Last week Elon Musk ’ s brain tech start-up Neuralink unveiled the latest version of its neural implant technology .
In characteristic Musk style , the billionaire CEO of SpaceX and Tesla announced the news during a widely hyped livestreamed event in which he showed off the implant ’ s functionality in several pigs .
The device is about the size of a large coin and can be fully embedded in the skull .
Attached to it are 1,024 threadlike , flexible electrodes that extend down into the cerebral cortex , the outer layer of the brain responsible for numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feedback .
A customized computer chip in the device amplifies signals from the cortex and wirelessly relays them to a nearby computer .
The electrodes are carefully inserted by a surgical robot and are capable of recording ( and , theoretically , also generating ) the tiny electrical signals , or “ spikes , ” produced by individual neurons .
The idea is that these signals could be used to one day do things such as restore movement to people who are paralyzed or create a visual prosthesis for blindness .
During Musk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pen containing several pigs , some of which had Neuralink implants .
One animal , named Gertrude , had hers for two months .
The device ’ s electrodes were situated in a part of Gertrude ’ s cortex that connected to neurons in her snout .
And for the purposes of the demo , her brain signals were converted to audible bleeps that became more frequent as she sniffed around the pen and enjoyed some tasty treats .
Musk also showed off a pig whose implant had been successfully removed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of the other displayed pigs had multiple implants .
Neuralink , which was founded by Musk and a team of engineers and scientists in 2016 , unveiled an earlier , wired version of its implant technology in 2019 .
It had several modules : the electrodes were connected to a USB port in the skull , which was intended to be wired to an external battery and a radio transmitter that were located behind the ear .
The latest version consists of a single integrated implant that fits in a hole in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skin via a Bluetooth radio .
The wireless design makes it seem much more practical for human use but limits the bandwidth of data that can be sent , compared with state-of-the-art brain-computer interfaces .
The company ’ s goal , Musk said in the demo , is to “ solve important spine and brain problems with a seamlessly implanted device ” —a far cry from his previously stated , much more fantastic aim of allowing humans to merge with artificial intelligence .
This time Musk seemed more circumspect about the device ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted the demonstration was purely intended as a recruiting event to attract potential staff .
Neuralink ’ s efforts build on decades of work from researchers in the field of brain-computer interfaces .
Although technically impressive , this wireless brain implant is not the first to be tested in pigs or other large mammals .
About a decade ago Brown University scientists David Borton and Arto Nurmikko and their colleagues developed a wireless neurosensor that was capable of recording neural activity from pigs and monkeys .
In 2016 the researchers showed it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
* “ Neuralink , with a lot of creativity , has been able to cut and paste a lot of stuff that the field has developed , ” Nurmikko says .
The technology may not be unique , he adds .
But “ might it have a robust future in terms of actually getting into humans ?
That ’ s kind of the pending question , and the answer could very well be yes.
” Musk and Neuralink are devoting significant resources to their project .
“ It is an extremely well-funded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have 100 people working on this , ” says Ken Shepard , a professor of electrical and biomedical engineering at Columbia University .
“ That 's a level of resources that is pretty impressive to work on something like this .
I think that gives them a real advantage over other groups.
” Neuralink ’ s robotic technology for inserting flexible electrodes is very notable , Shepard says .
There will be challenges in scaling up the number of polymer electrodes , or “ threads , ” and the interconnections between them and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The data bandwidth will also have to increase : recording from 1,000 electrodes yields a large amount of information , so Neuralink must compress it to relay it over Bluetooth .
“ Where we ’ re at is : we have [ basically ] a prototype of the iPhone , and there are a whole bunch of refinements that need to be done ” in terms of the surgery , the device itself , the wireless range , data transfer , and so on , says Shivon Zilis , a project director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many optimizations that have to happen in between prototype and the thing that you are super-duper proud of that you want to [ show ] consumers as your first product.
” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted Neuralink a “ breakthrough device ” designation , which essentially means the company has submitted the paperwork to start the process of gathering the data necessary for FDA approval .
There are numerous challenges to overcome before the device could be ready for human use , however .
It will have to be shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage to brain tissue .
And its sensitive electronics must be able to withstand the corrosive environment of the human body .
Neuralink is not the only company venturing into the realm of brain-computer interfaces .
An Austin-based company called Paradromics—funded by the U.S. government ’ s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—is also developing one potentially capable of recording signals from tens of thousands of neurons .
The project aims to restore communication to people with paralysis who have lost the ability to speak or type .
And the Culver City , Calif.–based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for monitoring brain signals noninvasively , which can be used to do things such as identify what song a person is listening to .
It lacks the resolution of Neuralink ’ s device and similar implanted systems but has the benefit of not requiring brain surgery .
Still , devices such as Neuralink will likely be made less invasive over time as electrodes become thinner and more flexible and as robotic insertion becomes more streamlined .
Musk has previously compared the process to LASIK eye surgery , which is now routine .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to be weighed against the risk .
Shepard thinks noninvasive approaches have real advantages for applications involving healthy people .
“ It ’ s hard for me to imagine , in my lifetime , a day in which a healthy person would have surgery to have [ an implant ] put in their brain , ” he says .
*Editor ’ s Note : The author worked as an undergraduate in a lab led by Leigh Hochberg of Brown University , who is an adviser to Neuralink .
Arto Nurmikko also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not affiliated with Neuralink .

Last week Elon Musk’s brain tech start-up Neuralink unveiled the latest version of its neural implant technology. In characteristic Musk style, the billionaire CEO of SpaceX and Tesla announced the news during a widely hyped livestreamed event in which he showed off the implant’s functionality in several pigs.
The device is about the size of a large coin and can be fully embedded in the skull. Attached to it are 1,024 threadlike, flexible electrodes that extend down into the cerebral cortex, the outer layer of the brain responsible for numerous functions, including motor control and sensory feedback. A customized computer chip in the device amplifies signals from the cortex and wirelessly relays them to a nearby computer. The electrodes are carefully inserted by a surgical robot and are capable of recording (and, theoretically, also generating) the tiny electrical signals, or “spikes,” produced by individual neurons. The idea is that these signals could be used to one day do things such as restore movement to people who are paralyzed or create a visual prosthesis for blindness.
During Musk’s demonstration, he strolled near a pen containing several pigs, some of which had Neuralink implants. One animal, named Gertrude, had hers for two months. The device’s electrodes were situated in a part of Gertrude’s cortex that connected to neurons in her snout. And for the purposes of the demo, her brain signals were converted to audible bleeps that became more frequent as she sniffed around the pen and enjoyed some tasty treats. Musk also showed off a pig whose implant had been successfully removed to show that the surgery was reversible. Some of the other displayed pigs had multiple implants.
Neuralink implantable device, v0.9. Credit: Neuralink
Neuralink, which was founded by Musk and a team of engineers and scientists in 2016, unveiled an earlier, wired version of its implant technology in 2019. It had several modules: the electrodes were connected to a USB port in the skull, which was intended to be wired to an external battery and a radio transmitter that were located behind the ear. The latest version consists of a single integrated implant that fits in a hole in the skull and relays data through the skin via a Bluetooth radio. The wireless design makes it seem much more practical for human use but limits the bandwidth of data that can be sent, compared with state-of-the-art brain-computer interfaces.
The company’s goal, Musk said in the demo, is to “solve important spine and brain problems with a seamlessly implanted device”—a far cry from his previously stated, much more fantastic aim of allowing humans to merge with artificial intelligence. This time Musk seemed more circumspect about the device’s applications. As before, he insisted the demonstration was purely intended as a recruiting event to attract potential staff.
Neuralink’s efforts build on decades of work from researchers in the field of brain-computer interfaces. Although technically impressive, this wireless brain implant is not the first to be tested in pigs or other large mammals. About a decade ago Brown University scientists David Borton and Arto Nurmikko and their colleagues developed a wireless neurosensor that was capable of recording neural activity from pigs and monkeys. In 2016 the researchers showed it could be used to help paralyzed monkeys walk.* “Neuralink, with a lot of creativity, has been able to cut and paste a lot of stuff that the field has developed,” Nurmikko says. The technology may not be unique, he adds. But “might it have a robust future in terms of actually getting into humans? That’s kind of the pending question, and the answer could very well be yes.”
Musk and Neuralink are devoting significant resources to their project. “It is an extremely well-funded, focused effort. They said they have 100 people working on this,” says Ken Shepard, a professor of electrical and biomedical engineering at Columbia University. “That's a level of resources that is pretty impressive to work on something like this. I think that gives them a real advantage over other groups.”
Neuralink’s robotic technology for inserting flexible electrodes is very notable, Shepard says. There will be challenges in scaling up the number of polymer electrodes, or “threads,” and the interconnections between them and the integrated circuit chip, he says. The data bandwidth will also have to increase: recording from 1,000 electrodes yields a large amount of information, so Neuralink must compress it to relay it over Bluetooth.
“Where we’re at is: we have [basically] a prototype of the iPhone or a ‘Fitbit for the brain,’ and there are a whole bunch of refinements that need to be done” in terms of the surgery, the device itself, the wireless range, data transfer, and so on, says Shivon Zilis, a project director at Neuralink. “There are so many optimizations that have to happen in between prototype and the thing that you are super-duper proud of that you want to [show] consumers as your first product.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted Neuralink a “breakthrough device” designation, which essentially means the company has submitted the paperwork to start the process of gathering the data necessary for FDA approval. There are numerous challenges to overcome before the device could be ready for human use, however. It will have to be shown to be safe and not cause any damage to brain tissue. And its sensitive electronics must be able to withstand the corrosive environment of the human body.
Neuralink is not the only company venturing into the realm of brain-computer interfaces. An Austin-based company called Paradromics—funded by the U.S. government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—is also developing one potentially capable of recording signals from tens of thousands of neurons. The project aims to restore communication to people with paralysis who have lost the ability to speak or type. And the Culver City, Calif.–based company Kernel is developing a helmetlike device for monitoring brain signals noninvasively, which can be used to do things such as identify what song a person is listening to. It lacks the resolution of Neuralink’s device and similar implanted systems but has the benefit of not requiring brain surgery.
Still, devices such as Neuralink’s will likely be made less invasive over time as electrodes become thinner and more flexible and as robotic insertion becomes more streamlined. Musk has previously compared the process to LASIK eye surgery, which is now routine. But as with any surgery, the reward will have to be weighed against the risk. Shepard thinks noninvasive approaches have real advantages for applications involving healthy people. “It’s hard for me to imagine, in my lifetime, a day in which a healthy person would have surgery to have [an implant] put in their brain,” he says.
*Editor’s Note: The author worked as an undergraduate in a lab led by Leigh Hochberg of Brown University, who is an adviser to Neuralink. Arto Nurmikko also collaborates with Hochberg’s lab but is not affiliated with Neuralink.


scientificamerican--2020-09-02--Want to Talk to Aliens? Try Changing the Technological Channel beyond Radio


scientificamerican--2020-09-02--Common Steroid Could Be Cheap and Effective Treatment for Severe COVID-19

Editor 's Note ( 9/2/20 ) : This story is being republished in light of the results of several international clinical trials that have found steroids may be a lifesaving treatment for the sickest COVID-19 patients .
The World Health Organization is expected to release guidelines encouraging the treatment 's use soon , according to the New York Times .
On Tuesday headlines around the world hailed a common steroid drug as a “ breakthrough ” treatment for the most severe cases of coronavirus—based on findings from a large , randomized controlled trial in the U.K .
The findings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal .
But experts say there is good reason for optimism .
“ This is a major , major breakthrough .
I can not overstate how important this is , ” says Sam Parnia , an associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone Health .
He cautions that neither he nor his colleagues have seen a published manuscript , but notes , “ this is coming from very reputable group , with a very large sample size.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RECOVERY ) trial involved 2,104 people hospitalized for the illness who were randomly assigned to receive the common corticosteroid drug dexamethasone .
The medication is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions .
A control group of 4,321 patients received only standard care .
The drug reduced deaths by one third among patients on ventilators and by one fifth among those receiving oxygen therapy alone .
It did not have any benefit for patients who did not need breathing support .
The findings suggest that the steroid treatment would prevent one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one death for every 25 patients getting oxygen therapy , the researchers say .
Given the pace at which science has been moving—and the fact that a number of highly touted “ treatments ” have since been withdrawn from use because they were found to be ineffective or harmful—there is good reason to proceed with caution .
Corticosteroids are hormones that are often used to suppress inflammation .
But they can sometimes have serious side effects .
If they are given too soon in the course of an infection—or given to someone with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body ’ s own immune system from fighting the virus effectively .
Some studies have used corticosteroids to treat other coronaviruses , including SARS ( severe acute respiratory syndrome ) or MERS ( Middle East respiratory syndrome ) , and found they were not very effective , says Stanley Perlman , a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa .
“ The [ new ] data need to be peer-reviewed and carefully analyzed.
” But unlike the new study , the SARS and MERS studies were not all randomized controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as high-quality .
At least one small study of corticosteroid treatment for COVID-19 , published in May in Clinical Infectious Diseases , found it improved clinical outcomes in moderate to severe cases .
And doctors in many hospitals have been giving their patients steroids and noting anecdotal improvements .
Scientific American spoke with Randy Cron , a professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham , about the significance of the RECOVERY findings and why he ’ s optimistic about steroids as a treatment for patients hospitalized with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an expert on cytokine storms , the out-of-control immune response that can occur in some illnesses , including COVID-19 .
Although the new results have not yet been published , he says he is confident that corticosteroids are a promising avenue for treatment for several reasons .
“ They ’ re likely to work , they ’ re cheap , and they ’ re available worldwide , ” he says .
[ An edited transcript of the conversation follows . ]
What do you make of the recently announced findings ?
My overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to be the way to help the planet .
Other drugs are expensive and not available worldwide .
I wasn ’ t surprised when I saw the announcement .
There was another report out there—not a randomized trial , but a historical cohort control study out of Michigan [ the May Clinical Infectious Diseases study ] .
It also suggested [ corticosteroids ] could benefit COVID-19 patients .
We used steroids for variety of cytokine storm syndromes long before COVID-19 came along .
It makes sense that they would work [ for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of case series [ studies ] of [ other immunomodulators such as inhibitors of interleukin-1 ] ( IL-1 ) and interleukin-6 ( IL-6 ) , which are also saving [ the lives of people with COVID-19 ] .
The big take-home message isn ’ t so much that steroids work but that the virus is [ just ] the trigger .
And really what ’ s killing people is the immune response to the infection .
Weren ’ t some scientists hesitant to use corticosteroids to treat COVID-19 because of the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the virus ?
The [ World Health Organization ] and a lot of other groups [ have , until now , been ] opposed to using steroids for COVID-19 .
A lot of that was based on [ studies of ] SARS and MERS ( other deadly coronaviruses ) , [ but ] the data are kind of mixed—a lot of them are not great data .
Some important things to note : The timing of [ when the drug is given ] is important .
So is the population treated—this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are asymptomatic , to people who are [ well ] enough to ride it out at home with a flulike illness or anywhere in between .
The [ ideal ] patients are the ones who are sick enough to need hospitalization for respiratory distress from COVID-19 .
And you should treat them prior to the point that they need to be invasively mechanically ventilated or otherwise require intensive care .
In terms of timing , the first five to seven days of symptoms are probably not when you want to treat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in respiratory distress requiring hospitalization—that ’ s the point when you want to dampen the immune system .
Likely the dosing is [ also ] important .
You probably don ’ t need to use the high doses used [ to treat ] cytokine storms [ in other diseases ] .
Moderate doses may suffice .
Dexamethasone and other steroids are broad-brush treatments that suppress the immune system as a whole .
How do these compare with drugs that are targeted to specific immune system molecules , which are also being tested against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we ’ re not immune to it .
In this country , [ roughly ] two million people [ have been ] infected .
My guess is it ’ s more like 20 million if we tested everyone .
If [ up to 20 percent of them ] need to be hospitalized , you are not going to have enough targeted [ cytokine-blocking drug ] therapies available .
We will have enough corticosteroids .
The downside is there are more side effects .
If you have those more targeted drugs available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if you ’ re in a country where you don ’ t have them , corticosteroid drugs could be a more feasible option .
These drugs definitely will have side effects .
Steroids are problematic ; there ’ s no doubt about that .
But if the choice is [ potential side effects versus ] death , side effects may be a relatively small price to pay .
Studies of steroid treatment for SARS and MERS infections found little or no benefit .
Why should it work for COVID-19 ?
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some [ found ] they do more harm than good .
Some were randomized [ studies ] ; some were not .
Some were controlled ; some were not .
Now we are so inundated with data—this is way bigger than SARS or MERS in terms of the numbers [ of individuals ] infected .
I ’ ve talked to people all over the world .
A colleague at Temple University in Philadelphia reports their center has treated more than 1,500 individuals [ some of whom were ] not in a clinical trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hospital ] gets a moderate dose of corticosteroids .
Many patients were from the inner city and had a lot of comorbid conditions .
Approximately 50 percent were African American ; 30 percent were Hispanic— [ all groups that are disproportionately at risk of severe COVID-19 infections ] .
Their mortality rate was under 7 or 8 percent .
I ’ m pretty convinced [ that corticosteroids are effective for severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia ] .
The U.K. is now making dexamethasone a standard of care for patients hospitalized with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision is justified ?
It ’ s likely a better standard of care than [ the antiviral drug ] remdesivir .
We ’ ll see if that ’ s the right decision .
Even the kids who are getting [ an inflammatory syndrome post-COVID-19 infection ] —they do well on steroids .
The [ biggest ] concern I have with steroids is that people are going to want to start taking them at home—that ’ s not a good thing .
This is really for hospitalized patients under the care of a clinician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being touted as treatments for COVID-19 before .
Why should this one be different ?
[ Most of those treatments ] were being driven by infectious disease doctors , not doctors who treat cytokine storms .
[ Many of the drugs were ] antivirals .
There is going to be more steroid data coming out , but it ’ s going to lag [ behind that on ] antivirals .
Of course , we can ’ t really know how significant the new findings are until they are published , right ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ But ] I think the concept is correct .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

Editor's Note (9/2/20): This story is being republished in light of the results of several international clinical trials that have found steroids may be a lifesaving treatment for the sickest COVID-19 patients. The World Health Organization is expected to release guidelines encouraging the treatment's use soon, according to the New York Times.
On Tuesday headlines around the world hailed a common steroid drug as a “breakthrough” treatment for the most severe cases of coronavirus—based on findings from a large, randomized controlled trial in the U.K. The findings, announced in a press release, have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But experts say there is good reason for optimism.
“This is a major, major breakthrough. I cannot overstate how important this is,” says Sam Parnia, an associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone Health. He cautions that neither he nor his colleagues have seen a published manuscript, but notes, “this is coming from very reputable group, with a very large sample size.”
The Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial involved 2,104 people hospitalized for the illness who were randomly assigned to receive the common corticosteroid drug dexamethasone. The medication is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions. A control group of 4,321 patients received only standard care. The drug reduced deaths by one third among patients on ventilators and by one fifth among those receiving oxygen therapy alone. It did not have any benefit for patients who did not need breathing support. The findings suggest that the steroid treatment would prevent one death for every eight ventilated patients or one death for every 25 patients getting oxygen therapy, the researchers say.
Given the pace at which science has been moving—and the fact that a number of highly touted “treatments” have since been withdrawn from use because they were found to be ineffective or harmful—there is good reason to proceed with caution. Corticosteroids are hormones that are often used to suppress inflammation. But they can sometimes have serious side effects. If they are given too soon in the course of an infection—or given to someone with only a mild infection—they could prevent the body’s own immune system from fighting the virus effectively. Some studies have used corticosteroids to treat other coronaviruses, including SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) or MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), and found they were not very effective, says Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa. “The [new] data need to be peer-reviewed and carefully analyzed.”
But unlike the new study, the SARS and MERS studies were not all randomized controlled trials, and the data were not as high-quality. At least one small study of corticosteroid treatment for COVID-19, published in May in Clinical Infectious Diseases, found it improved clinical outcomes in moderate to severe cases. And doctors in many hospitals have been giving their patients steroids and noting anecdotal improvements.
Scientific American spoke with Randy Cron, a professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, about the significance of the RECOVERY findings and why he’s optimistic about steroids as a treatment for patients hospitalized with the most severe coronavirus infections. Cron is an expert on cytokine storms, the out-of-control immune response that can occur in some illnesses, including COVID-19. Although the new results have not yet been published, he says he is confident that corticosteroids are a promising avenue for treatment for several reasons. “They’re likely to work, they’re cheap, and they’re available worldwide,” he says.
[An edited transcript of the conversation follows.]
What do you make of the recently announced findings?
My overall take on this is that corticosteroids are likely to be the way to help the planet. Other drugs are expensive and not available worldwide. I wasn’t surprised when I saw the announcement. There was another report out there—not a randomized trial, but a historical cohort control study out of Michigan [the May Clinical Infectious Diseases study]. It also suggested [corticosteroids] could benefit COVID-19 patients. We used steroids for variety of cytokine storm syndromes long before COVID-19 came along. It makes sense that they would work [for COVID-19]. There have been a lot of case series [studies] of [other immunomodulators such as inhibitors of interleukin-1] (IL-1) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), which are also saving [the lives of people with COVID-19]. The big take-home message isn’t so much that steroids work but that the virus is [just] the trigger. And really what’s killing people is the immune response to the infection.
Weren’t some scientists hesitant to use corticosteroids to treat COVID-19 because of the risk of weakening the body’s response to the virus?
The [World Health Organization] and a lot of other groups [have, until now, been] opposed to using steroids for COVID-19. A lot of that was based on [studies of] SARS and MERS (other deadly coronaviruses), [but] the data are kind of mixed—a lot of them are not great data. Some important things to note: The timing of [when the drug is given] is important. So is the population treated—this is not something you should be giving to people who are asymptomatic, to people who are [well] enough to ride it out at home with a flulike illness or anywhere in between. The [ideal] patients are the ones who are sick enough to need hospitalization for respiratory distress from COVID-19. And you should treat them prior to the point that they need to be invasively mechanically ventilated or otherwise require intensive care. In terms of timing, the first five to seven days of symptoms are probably not when you want to treat the patient. When the patient is in respiratory distress requiring hospitalization—that’s the point when you want to dampen the immune system. Likely the dosing is [also] important. You probably don’t need to use the high doses used [to treat] cytokine storms [in other diseases]. Moderate doses may suffice.
Dexamethasone and other steroids are broad-brush treatments that suppress the immune system as a whole. How do these compare with drugs that are targeted to specific immune system molecules, which are also being tested against COVID-19?
This is a worldwide pandemic, and we’re not immune to it. In this country, [roughly] two million people [have been] infected. My guess is it’s more like 20 million if we tested everyone. If [up to 20 percent of them] need to be hospitalized, you are not going to have enough targeted [cytokine-blocking drug] therapies available. We will have enough corticosteroids. The downside is there are more side effects. If you have those more targeted drugs available, sure, you should use them. But if you’re in a country where you don’t have them, corticosteroid drugs could be a more feasible option.
What about side effects?
These drugs definitely will have side effects. Steroids are problematic; there’s no doubt about that. But if the choice is [potential side effects versus] death, side effects may be a relatively small price to pay.
Studies of steroid treatment for SARS and MERS infections found little or no benefit. Why should it work for COVID-19?
Some studies showed [steroids] helped. Some [found] they do more harm than good. Some were randomized [studies]; some were not. Some were controlled; some were not. Now we are so inundated with data—this is way bigger than SARS or MERS in terms of the numbers [of individuals] infected.
I’ve talked to people all over the world. A colleague at Temple University in Philadelphia reports their center has treated more than 1,500 individuals [some of whom were] not in a clinical trial. Everyone admitted [to the university’s hospital] gets a moderate dose of corticosteroids. Many patients were from the inner city and had a lot of comorbid conditions. Approximately 50 percent were African American; 30 percent were Hispanic—[all groups that are disproportionately at risk of severe COVID-19 infections]. Their mortality rate was under 7 or 8 percent. I’m pretty convinced [that corticosteroids are effective for severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia].
The U.K. is now making dexamethasone a standard of care for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Do you think this decision is justified?
It’s likely a better standard of care than [the antiviral drug] remdesivir. We’ll see if that’s the right decision. Even the kids who are getting [an inflammatory syndrome post-COVID-19 infection]—they do well on steroids.
Any words of caution?
The [biggest] concern I have with steroids is that people are going to want to start taking them at home—that’s not a good thing. This is really for hospitalized patients under the care of a clinician.
We’ve seen other drugs being touted as treatments for COVID-19 before. Why should this one be different?
[Most of those treatments] were being driven by infectious disease doctors, not doctors who treat cytokine storms. [Many of the drugs were] antivirals. There is going to be more steroid data coming out, but it’s going to lag [behind that on] antivirals.
Of course, we can’t really know how significant the new findings are until they are published, right?
We have to look at the data. [But] I think the concept is correct.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-09-03--A New View of Sexual Harassment in the Sciences

This digital issue plus 12 new issues ( in print , digital and tablet formats ) plus archive access to @ @

Picture a Scientist
by Sharon Shattuck and Ian Cheney
Visit pictureascientist.com for screenings
In limited release, starting June 12, 2020
Overt sexual advances are just one form of harassment against women in the sciences; the bulk of offenses are made up of quiet acts of discrimination and bullying that accumulate over time. This essential documentary by filmmakers Shattuck and Cheney gives disturbing first-person accounts of such abuse and mistreatment by prominent male researchers—from the rocky fields of Antarctica to the genetic laboratories of Harvard—and offers a powerful contribution to the larger conversation about inherent bias, unseen prejudice and personal accountability. The film uniquely captures the emotion of the battle that women in science—especially women of color—have had to wage simply to do the work they love. It is a stark reminder that although some progress has been made, equal representation—and treatment—in research science has a long way to go.
The End of the River: Why the Long Struggle to Hold Back the Mississippi May Soon Be Lost, Wreaking Trillion-Dollar Chaos across the American South
by Simon Winchester
Scribd Originals, 2020
(by subscription)
In the early 1800s people began straightening the Mississippi River to make it more navigable and to control flooding. Now, in a stretch at the border of Louisiana and Mississippi, the water, inclined to follow the easiest path to the sea, is straining to jump over its human-made channel and into the neighboring Atchafalaya Basin. If it does, the downstream remnant passage of the Mississippi will stagnate, disrupting ports and city water sources. In this slim volume, writer Winchester describes how human hubris caused this predicament, as he explores the engineering feats that are struggling to keep the river in place. The situation, he writes, has turned the waterway into “the nation's Achilles' heel.” —Andrea Thompson
Six Days in August: The Story of Stockholm Syndrome
by David King
W. W. Norton, 2020 ($26.95)
American historian and author King shares remarkable on-the-ground details of the famed Norrmalmstorg robbery of 1973 in this smart cross between a true-crime thriller and a psychological investigation. During the nearly weeklong ordeal, Jan-Erik Olsson held four people hostage in a Stockholm bank and demanded his friend, career criminal Clark Olofsson, be released from prison and brought to the scene. In the event's aftermath, the hostages reported surprisingly fond feelings for their captors, inspiring the term “Stockholm syndrome.” Use of the expression is still widely popular, although little research exists. Some suggest it confuses hostage allegiance to a captor with the desperate need to survive. Others allege that because the incident involved three women hostages, misogynist biases led psychologists to label these victims with an illness.
The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking)
by Katie Mack
Scribner, 2020 ($26)
The cosmos might end by drifting into uniform chaos. Or the finale could involve an expanding bubble universe with new laws of physics. The very space between galaxies, stars, planets and atoms may even spread so much that it rips everything apart from within. If the world's current troubles weren't worrying enough, astrophysicist Mack offers a whirlwind tour of our possible demises and what investigating the options can reveal about physics. Through informal but rigorous prose, she describes the weird wrinkles and implications of these potential endings—for instance, how expansion makes the most distant galaxies actually look larger or how quantum changes could prompt new physical laws—and what they would look like from our only vantage point. —Sarah Lewin Frasier


scientificamerican--2020-09-03--Science on the Small Screen, Retro Style

In 1952 , educators and broadcasters met in State College , Pa. , to discuss the potential of a new technology—television—for education .
The mood was hopeful yet tempered with skepticism .
One attendee pessimistically compared the medium with the potential of “ atomic energy ” ; perhaps neutral , but possibly dangerous .
One of the special guests of this conference was a slight man , with horn-rimmed glasses and wisps of white hair .
He suggested , optimistically , that television was actually the perfect tool for education .
“ The potential is there , the professional enthusiasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the instrument of swift advance toward lasting values , ” he argued .
And , he knew what he was talking about .
Under the auspices of Johns Hopkins University , Lynn Poole had launched the first nationwide television program about science .
The Johns Hopkins Science Review ran from 1948 until 1956 , just before the launch of Sputnik .
Poole and his wife , Gray Johnson , pioneered the science television genre in the United States .
This summer , as I ’ ve heard my colleagues talk about how they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other video platforms , I think back to what it must have been like for Poole to work with a new educational medium and create a whole new genre of television : the science series .
Television was one of the first forms of remote teaching ; it allowed students to be connected to a professor , miles away—even across the country !
The Johns Hopkins Science Review was the first science series to be broadcast from San Francisco to New York City .
Decades later , what might Poole , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us about educating students remotely ?
Rummaging through my archive , I actually found an article printed in the 1950s , listing Poole ’ s suggestions for educators of the small screen .
Here are Poole ’ s top three television teaching tips : Television is obviously show business .
At his center , Lynn Poole was a showman .
He wasn ’ t a scientist himself—he was a jack-of-all trades : a former modern dancer , an art collector and an amateur classics scholar .
When Johns Hopkins University hired Poole as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably expected that he would film their professors standing in front of blackboards .
That ’ s what passed for educational television in the late 1940s .
But Poole wanted to put his professors on stage and expected them to perform .
He was the first educator to recognize the value of televised spectacle .
“ One thing that educators must not forget is that television is an entertainment medium , ” Poole said in an interview , “ They have to dramatize.
” The Johns Hopkins Science Review intentionally blended entertainment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prime-time television shows , Poole entertained his audience by featuring scientific experiments , humorous skits and dramatic reenactments .
In one episode featuring Wernher von Braun , an astronaut wearing a papier-mâché helmet appeared to walk on the surface of the moon , while a 12-foot plywood rocket loomed above him .
If you can ’ t show it , don ’ t talk about it for more than one minute .
Poole urge his colleagues to think through the presentation of materials and anticipate how their audience would understand what was on-screen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a successful television program was careful attention to detail .
Poole told colleagues that television educators needed to be “ willing to expend the same thought and energy used in preparation for classroom teaching.
” A single episode of the Johns Hopkins Science Review , he noted , required around 200 hours of preparation .
Poole worked with Johnson to brainstorm material for the program .
He planned almost every second of the program .
This was a problem for his scientific guests , who were not used to the demands of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time in the middle of writing out a mathematical formula , Poole would actually roll their blackboards off-stage .
He also gave them feedback on how to perform on camera .
In an interview , Poole noted , “ [ Scientists ] must learn to stay within camera range , not weave in the cobralike fashion used in the classroom… .
They must learn to pick up objects slowly and hold [ them ] immobile so the viewer can get a good look.
” Give the viewer credit for intelligence .
Poole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respected his audience .
He believed the best thing that broadcasters could do was to be as honest and transparent as possible .
While the university suggested using actors , Poole insisted on using real scientists on screen .
“ Mrs .
Jones watching Dr. Ralph Witt , head of the Johns Hopkins plastics research laboratory , can see how he tests and does his research , ” Poole remarked .
“ He ’ s not a polished actor ; he ’ s a pipe-smoking research man who knows what he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” On screen , Poole often talked directly to his viewers .
He asked them to send him their questions about science , and he would try to answer them on air .
As a nonscientist himself , he reassured his viewers that the show was for everyone , not just scientists .
During the show ’ s seven-year run , a national fan base coalesced around the series .
Poole received hundreds of letters from high school teachers , bus drivers , engineers and parents around the United States .
One viewer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think we ’ re morons .
Keep it up !
” Using these principles of broadcasting , Poole created a successful science television that won multiple Peabody Awards .
Television producers came from Mexico , France and Lebanon to learn Poole ’ s style of educational broadcasting .
In a period where people were very much skeptical about virtual education , Poole ’ s program proved that viewers could enjoy learning about science via remote learning .
There were many talented science educators that arose on television in the 1950s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sumner Miller , Daniel Posin , and Hubert Alyea .
Decades later , Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan perfected the form in their television opus Cosmos .
For my generation , we were lucky to have Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson thrill us with the wonders of science .
Today , there are new video series released every month , such as Netflix ’ s Connected , that tell stories about science in exciting ways .
It ’ s worth realizing that many of the fundamentals of good science broadcasting still hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audience .
You should always prepare your lectures .
And , most importantly , you should try to have fun with your lectures .
For those of us who stuck teaching with Zoom this fall , we have an opportunity to take these lessons to heart .
Much like Poole , we can learn the nuances of remote learning and take advantage of a new , dynamic form of educational technology .

In 1952, educators and broadcasters met in State College, Pa., to discuss the potential of a new technology—television—for education. The mood was hopeful yet tempered with skepticism. One attendee pessimistically compared the medium with the potential of “atomic energy”; perhaps neutral, but possibly dangerous.
One of the special guests of this conference was a slight man, with horn-rimmed glasses and wisps of white hair. He suggested, optimistically, that television was actually the perfect tool for education. “The potential is there, the professional enthusiasm exists, and the medium can be the instrument of swift advance toward lasting values,” he argued.
And, he knew what he was talking about. Under the auspices of Johns Hopkins University, Lynn Poole had launched the first nationwide television program about science. The Johns Hopkins Science Review ran from 1948 until 1956, just before the launch of Sputnik. Poole and his wife, Gray Johnson, pioneered the science television genre in the United States.
This summer, as I’ve heard my colleagues talk about how they’re preparing to lecture on Zoom and other video platforms, I think back to what it must have been like for Poole to work with a new educational medium and create a whole new genre of television: the science series. Television was one of the first forms of remote teaching; it allowed students to be connected to a professor, miles away—even across the country!
The Johns Hopkins Science Review was the first science series to be broadcast from San Francisco to New York City. Decades later, what might Poole, a pioneer of the television lecture, teach us about educating students remotely? Rummaging through my archive, I actually found an article printed in the 1950s, listing Poole’s suggestions for educators of the small screen. Here are Poole’s top three television teaching tips:
Television is obviously show business. At his center, Lynn Poole was a showman. He wasn’t a scientist himself—he was a jack-of-all trades: a former modern dancer, an art collector and an amateur classics scholar. When Johns Hopkins University hired Poole as their director of public relations, they probably expected that he would film their professors standing in front of blackboards. That’s what passed for educational television in the late 1940s.
But Poole wanted to put his professors on stage and expected them to perform. He was the first educator to recognize the value of televised spectacle. “One thing that educators must not forget is that television is an entertainment medium,” Poole said in an interview, “They have to dramatize.” The Johns Hopkins Science Review intentionally blended entertainment and education together. Like just like other prime-time television shows, Poole entertained his audience by featuring scientific experiments, humorous skits and dramatic reenactments. In one episode featuring Wernher von Braun, an astronaut wearing a papier-mâché helmet appeared to walk on the surface of the moon, while a 12-foot plywood rocket loomed above him.
If you can’t show it, don’t talk about it for more than one minute. Poole urge his colleagues to think through the presentation of materials and anticipate how their audience would understand what was on-screen. He believed that the key to a successful television program was careful attention to detail. Poole told colleagues that television educators needed to be “willing to expend the same thought and energy used in preparation for classroom teaching.” A single episode of the Johns Hopkins Science Review, he noted, required around 200 hours of preparation. Poole worked with Johnson to brainstorm material for the program. He planned almost every second of the program. This was a problem for his scientific guests, who were not used to the demands of a live program. If they ran out of time in the middle of writing out a mathematical formula, Poole would actually roll their blackboards off-stage. He also gave them feedback on how to perform on camera. In an interview, Poole noted, “[Scientists] must learn to stay within camera range, not weave in the cobralike fashion used in the classroom…. They must learn to pick up objects slowly and hold [them] immobile so the viewer can get a good look.”
Give the viewer credit for intelligence. Poole respected his scientific guests, and he respected his audience. He believed the best thing that broadcasters could do was to be as honest and transparent as possible. While the university suggested using actors, Poole insisted on using real scientists on screen. “Mrs. Jones watching Dr. Ralph Witt, head of the Johns Hopkins plastics research laboratory, can see how he tests and does his research,” Poole remarked. “He’s not a polished actor; he’s a pipe-smoking research man who knows what he’s doing, and Mrs. Jones knows it.”
On screen, Poole often talked directly to his viewers. He asked them to send him their questions about science, and he would try to answer them on air. As a nonscientist himself, he reassured his viewers that the show was for everyone, not just scientists. During the show’s seven-year run, a national fan base coalesced around the series. Poole received hundreds of letters from high school teachers, bus drivers, engineers and parents around the United States. One viewer in New Jersey wrote, “You don’t think we’re morons. Keep it up!”
Using these principles of broadcasting, Poole created a successful science television that won multiple Peabody Awards. Television producers came from Mexico, France and Lebanon to learn Poole’s style of educational broadcasting. In a period where people were very much skeptical about virtual education, Poole’s program proved that viewers could enjoy learning about science via remote learning. There were many talented science educators that arose on television in the 1950s, such as Don Herbert, Julius Sumner Miller, Daniel Posin, and Hubert Alyea. Decades later, Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan perfected the form in their television opus Cosmos. For my generation, we were lucky to have Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson thrill us with the wonders of science.
Today, there are new video series released every month, such as Netflix’s Connected, that tell stories about science in exciting ways. It’s worth realizing that many of the fundamentals of good science broadcasting still hold true. You should always respect your audience. You should always prepare your lectures. And, most importantly, you should try to have fun with your lectures. For those of us who stuck teaching with Zoom this fall, we have an opportunity to take these lessons to heart. Much like Poole, we can learn the nuances of remote learning and take advantage of a new, dynamic form of educational technology.