scientificamerican--2020-10-26--Why Some Easter Island Statues Are Where They Are

The statues on Easter Island are among the most mysterious objects made by humans .
We still don ’ t know how they were moved , why they were placed at particular sites around the island , and why they were made in the first place .
Now , researchers think they have at least some answers .
Because a new analysis finds that the statues are situated near sources of freshwater .
The study appears in the journal PLoS ONE .
[ Robert J. DiNapoli et al , Rapa Nui ( Easter Island ) monument ( ahu ) locations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s believed that the residents of Rapa Nui—the indigenous name for Easter Island—began constructing these carvings in the 13th century .
The statues , called moai , which sit upon stone platforms called ahu , are the very definition of monumental .
Most weigh between 20 and 30 tons .
And of the thousand on the island , about 400 have been moved from the quarry where they originated and placed on ahu located elsewhere .
“ But those ahu locations aren ’ t necessarily everywhere .
They ’ re in some places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question we started to ask ourselves was , why do we find these ahu and moai some places on the landscape but not others ?
” Carl Lipo , an anthropologist at Binghamton University in central New York .
He says that most of these sculptures are found along the coast , but some are inland .
And they ’ re not necessarily at obvious places .
“ For example , we don ’ t find ahu and statues located on the tops of hills .
Places that we might expect to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representing ancestors where you wanted to show off to everybody in he world , or the island itself , the fruits of your creation of these statues.
” So the statues are more than just towering talismans to be admired from afar .
Indeed , Lipo and his colleagues noted that people spent most of their time living and working around these sites .
Which made the researchers think that the the statues might be located near a valuable resource .
“ So the question was : what resource , was it water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultivation places ?
Which of those or which combination of those best explained the locations of ahu on the landscape.
” Their statistical analyses pointed toward potable water , which Lipo says made sense .
“ Every single time we found a big source of freshwater , there would be a statue and an ahu .
And we saw this over and over and over again .
And places where we didn ’ t find freshwater , we didn ’ t find statues and ahu.
” Now , that doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign saying Get Your Water Here .
But rather that the community themselves were connected to those resources and thus their investment in statues was done around that resource .
“ Because these are the locations that had the resources that they needed to survive.
” It seems that many of the massive sculptures are where they are for totally pragmatic reasons : we ’ ll build here because here is where we want to be .

Full Transcript
The statues on Easter Island are among the most mysterious objects made by humans. We still don’t know how they were moved, why they were placed at particular sites around the island and why they were made in the first place. Now researchers think they have at least some answers, because a new analysis finds that the statues are situated near sources of freshwater. The study appears in the journal PLOS ONE. [Robert J. DiNapoli et al., Rapa Nui (Easter Island) monument (ahu) locations explained by freshwater sources]
It’s believed that the residents of Rapa Nui—the Indigenous name for Easter Island—began constructing these carvings in the 13th century. The statues, called moai, which sit upon stone platforms called ahu, are the very definition of monumental. Most weigh between 20 and 30 tons. And of the 1,000 on the island, about 400 have been moved from the quarry where they originated and placed on ahu located elsewhere.
“But those ahu locations aren’t necessarily everywhere. They’re in some places and not in others. And the question we started to ask ourselves was, ‘Why do we find these ahu and moai some places on the landscape but not others?’”
Carl Lipo, an anthropologist at Binghamton University in central New York. He says that most of these sculptures are found along the coast, but some are inland. And they’re not necessarily at obvious places.
“For example, we don’t find ahu and statues located on the tops of hills—places that we might expect to find them if these things were symbolic or representing ancestors, where you wanted to show off to everybody in he world, or the island itself, the fruits of your creation of these statues.”
So the statues are more than just towering talismans to be admired from afar. Indeed, Lipo and his colleagues noted that people spent most of their time living and working around these sites, which made the researchers think that the the statues might be located near a valuable resource.
“So the question was: What resource? Was it water, freshwater, marine resources or cultivation places? Which of those, or which combination of those, best explained the locations of ahu on the landscape?”
Their statistical analyses pointed toward potable water, which Lipo says made sense.
“Every single time we found a big source of freshwater, there would be a statue and an ahu. And we saw this over and over and over again. And places where we didn’t find freshwater, we didn’t find statues and ahu.”
Now, that doesn’t mean that the structures served as markers—like a sign saying “Get Your Water Here”—but rather that the community themselves were connected to those resources. And thus, their investment in statues was done around that resource.
“Because these are the locations that had the resources that they needed to survive.”
It seems that many of the massive sculptures are where they are for totally pragmatic reasons: “We’ll build here because here is where we want to be.”
—Karen Hopkin
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-10-25--The Science of Nerdiness

The Science of Nerdiness

Do you get excited and energized by the possibility of learning something new and complex ?
Do you get turned on by nuance ?
Do you get really stimulated by new ideas and imaginative scenarios ?
If so , you may have an influx of dopamine in your synapses , but not where we traditionally think of this neurotransmitter flowing .
In general , the potential for growth from disorder has been encoded deeply into our DNA .
We didn ’ t only evolve the capacity to regulate our defensive and destructive impulses , but we also evolved the capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Engaging in exploration allows us to integrate novel or unexpected events with existing knowledge and experiences , a process necessary for growth .
Dopamine production is essential for growth .
But there are so many misconceptions about the role of dopamine in cognition and behavior .
Dopamine is often labeled the “ feel-good molecule , ” but this is a gross mischaracterization of this neurotransmitter .
As personality neuroscientist Colin DeYoung ( a close colleague of mine ) notes , dopamine is actually the “ neuromodulator of exploration.
” Dopamine ’ s primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not necessarily like things .
We get the biggest rush of dopamine coursing through our brains at the possibility of reward , but this rush is no guarantee that we ’ ll actually like or even enjoy the thing once we get it .
Dopamine is a huge energizing force in our lives , driving our motivation to explore and facilitating the cognitive and behavioral processes that allow us to extract the most delights from the unknown .
If dopamine is not all about feeling good , then why does the feel-good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it ’ s because so much research on dopamine has been conducted with regard to its role in motivating exploration toward our more primal “ appetitive ” rewards , such as chocolate , social attention , social status , sexual partners , gambling or drugs like cocaine .
However , in recent years , other dopamine pathways in the brain have been proposed that are strongly linked to the reward value of information .
People who score high in the general tendency toward exploration are not only driven to engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to get energized through the possibility of discovering new information and extracting meaning and growth from their experiences .
These “ cognitive needs , ” as the humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow referred to them , are just as important as other human needs for becoming a whole person .
How active is your nerdy dopamine pathway ?
If some or all of these statements describe you , dopamine might well be flowing strongly to your prefrontal cortex : • I am curious about many different things .
Don ’ t understand why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in sex , drugs and money , and why you get so turned on by stimulating ideas and learning new and interesting things ?
Now you have a potential answer : You may be highly sensitive to the reward value of information .
This essay is adapted from Transcend : The New Science of Self-Actualization .

Do you get excited and energized by the possibility of learning something new and complex? Do you get turned on by nuance? Do you get really stimulated by new ideas and imaginative scenarios?
If so, you may have an influx of dopamine in your synapses, but not where we traditionally think of this neurotransmitter flowing.
In general, the potential for growth from disorder has been encoded deeply into our DNA. We didn’t only evolve the capacity to regulate our defensive and destructive impulses, but we also evolved the capacity to make sense of the unknown. Engaging in exploration allows us to integrate novel or unexpected events with existing knowledge and experiences, a process necessary for growth.
Dopamine production is essential for growth. But there are so many misconceptions about the role of dopamine in cognition and behavior. Dopamine is often labeled the “feel-good molecule,” but this is a gross mischaracterization of this neurotransmitter. As personality neuroscientist Colin DeYoung (a close colleague of mine) notes, dopamine is actually the “neuromodulator of exploration.” Dopamine’s primary role is to make us want things, not necessarily like things. We get the biggest rush of dopamine coursing through our brains at the possibility of reward, but this rush is no guarantee that we’ll actually like or even enjoy the thing once we get it. Dopamine is a huge energizing force in our lives, driving our motivation to explore and facilitating the cognitive and behavioral processes that allow us to extract the most delights from the unknown.
If dopamine is not all about feeling good, then why does the feel-good myth persist in the public imagination? I think it’s because so much research on dopamine has been conducted with regard to its role in motivating exploration toward our more primal “appetitive” rewards, such as chocolate, social attention, social status, sexual partners, gambling or drugs like cocaine.
However, in recent years, other dopamine pathways in the brain have been proposed that are strongly linked to the reward value of information. People who score high in the general tendency toward exploration are not only driven to engage in behavioral forms of exploration, but also tend to get energized through the possibility of discovering new information and extracting meaning and growth from their experiences. These “cognitive needs,” as the humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow referred to them, are just as important as other human needs for becoming a whole person.
How active is your nerdy dopamine pathway? If some or all of these statements describe you, dopamine might well be flowing strongly to your prefrontal cortex:
I love spending time reflecting on things.
I am full of ideas.
I have a vivid imagination.
I am interested in abstract ideas.
I am curious about many different things.
Don’t understand why everyone else around you is so interested in sex, drugs and money, and why you get so turned on by stimulating ideas and learning new and interesting things? Now you have a potential answer: You may be highly sensitive to the reward value of information.
This essay is adapted from Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization.


scientificamerican--2020-10-25--The Psychology of Fact Checking

The Psychology of Fact Checking

Distortions and outright lies by politicians and pundits have become so common that major news outlets like the Associated Press , CNN , BBC , Fox News , and Washington Post routinely assign journalists and fact-checkers to verify claims made during stump speeches and press briefings .
The motivation to uncover falsehoods and misleading statements taken out of context is laudable .
But when it comes to real-world complexities , the trouble is that people often see different things when looking at the same event , a phenomenon repeatedly documented by psychologists .
Laboratory studies reveal that , when shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people see either a peaceful protest or an unruly mob blocking pedestrian access , depending on their sociopolitical beliefs .
The world outside the lab shows similar biased perception : For example , 68 percent of Republicans consider the videotaped demonstrations in Portland , Ore. , Kenosha , Wisc.
, and New York City to be riots , versus only 30 percent of Democrats , according to a Fox News poll released in September .
Journalists and fact-checkers are human beings subject to the same psychological biases as everyone else—and their analyses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affected by their own political and ideological values , resulting in what psychologists term selective perception .
Consider the claim that during an interview with the progressive activist Ady Barkan , Joe Biden stated he favors defunding the police .
This allegation has been dismissed as taken out of context and consequently false by some journalists and fact-checkers ( e.g.
, Politifact ’ s Jon Greenberg ) , and CNN ’ s Facts First argued that Biden had denied he favored defunding in comments that were not included in the published interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s statement about supporting “ redirecting ” funds to other agencies was a clear acknowledgement of his support of decreased funding for police .
For example , Evie Fordham of Fox News states that redirecting funds from the police is the only context in which Biden ’ s “ yes , absolutely ” answer to Barkan ’ s question can be understood , in her words : “ despite the fact that Barkan did not say `` for police '' at the end of the question , the context of the original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about redirecting police funding.
” ) .
The result is a massive disagreement , with many journalists and fact-checkers arguing that Biden ’ s critics did indeed take his statement out of context , and he did not intend to support a redirection of funds away from law enforcement , as fact-checkers Hope Yen at the Associated Press and the BBC ’ s Jake Horton contended , whereas CNN cited a Biden statement from early June in which he said it makes sense for some local communities to reduce police funding .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is possible to make a case for both positions .
The same is true of the allegation that in the aftermath of Heather Heyer ’ s death in Charlottesville , Va. , in 2017 , Trump said there were “ fine people ” among protestors and counterprotestors , a statement generally interpreted by liberal fact-checkers and journalists as referring to fine people among the white supremacists and Neo-Nazis , but disputed by conservative journalists .
Even when the original facts may tilt in the direction of journalists ’ and fact-checker ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambiguous to justify the unequivocal headlines that have appeared : ( “ AP Fact Check : Trump distorts record ; BLM falsely accused ” ) Fact-checkers ’ decisions have significant consequences for debates about fake news that can not be overstated .
Researchers have studied the cascading cognitive effects of misinformation , and their findings are relevant to current concerns about fake news and to the limitations of fact-checking .
Misinformation can be insidious ; it can seep into the unconscious mind and influence beliefs and behaviors long after we have forgotten its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Under laboratory conditions , a selection of objective facts and complete fabrications can be presented , and researchers can then examine the spread of misinformation about these facts and whether and how this spread results in false beliefs .
Unlike a pristine laboratory setting , however , the world of politics is messy , and there can be deep disagreements about the facts themselves , as the above contradictory claims illustrate .
When it comes to partisan fact-checking about complex issues—which describes much of the fact-checking that takes place in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often the subjective opinion of people with shared political views .
One path to a solution is “ adversarial fact-checking.
” Fact-checking is often done by teams of two or more journalists rather than by a single person .
We propose that political claims continue to be aggressively fact-checked , but by teams of individuals with diverse sociopolitical views ; for example , by pairing fact-checkers from major liberal and conservative news sources .
This would add little , if any , cost .
The media should abandon fact-checkers ’ pretext of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their sociopolitical leanings in much the way that NPR tries to pit pro and con points of view in political coverage .
Research underscores that fact-checkers ’ personal biases influence both their choice of which statements to analyze and their determination of accuracy .
Let diverse fact-checkers work as members of an adversarial team , much like two sides in arbitration .
Fact-checkers are human beings who live in the real world , rather than in a sociopolitical monastery .
Let ’ s abandon the pretense of objectivity and design a system of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing claims front and center .
Exposure to contrasting views sometimes happens when a counterclaim appears days or weeks later or an independent fact-checker like PolitiFact requests a retraction , but the key to better cognitive reasoning outcomes is for both sides ’ claims to appear simultaneously in the very same report .
This would minimize the creation of false beliefs that emerge as a consequence of exposure to only one side .
When adversarial fact-checking leads to unresolvable disagreements among team members , readers will be better able to judge how persuasive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrive at a more informed conclusion than they would if only one side ’ s evidence is presented .
It would be a valuable antidote to the tendency of Americans to base their views on sources solely within their “ bubble.
” Such an adversarial arrangement challenges the presumption that there can be no doubt about the validity of fact-checkers ’ conclusions , as implied by CNN ’ s Facts First feature : “ CNN holds elected officials and candidates accountable by pointing out what ’ s true and what ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is somehow a psychologically straightforward process .
Having each side ’ s fact-checkers checked by the other side ’ s fact-checkers could lead to an infinite regress toward an uncertain truth .
But this is preferable to belief in a truth that may not exist .
Adversarial fact-checkers would debate the same “ evidence ” and ensure a balanced presentation of the facts .
This may not guarantee that fact-checkers will agree or even that readers will discern the truth .
But it will reveal the sometimes-tenuous nature of fact-checkers ’ claims and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfolds—and this would be a meaningful barrier to the spread of fake news and the creation of false beliefs among voters .

Distortions and outright lies by politicians and pundits have become so common that major news outlets like the Associated Press, CNN, BBC, Fox News, and Washington Post routinely assign journalists and fact-checkers to verify claims made during stump speeches and press briefings. The motivation to uncover falsehoods and misleading statements taken out of context is laudable. But when it comes to real-world complexities, the trouble is that people often see different things when looking at the same event, a phenomenon repeatedly documented by psychologists.
Laboratory studies reveal that, when shown a video of a group of protesters, people see either a peaceful protest or an unruly mob blocking pedestrian access, depending on their sociopolitical beliefs. The world outside the lab shows similar biased perception: For example, 68 percent of Republicans consider the videotaped demonstrations in Portland, Ore., Kenosha, Wisc., and New York City to be riots, versus only 30 percent of Democrats, according to a Fox News poll released in September. Journalists and fact-checkers are human beings subject to the same psychological biases as everyone else—and their analyses of what constitute “facts” is affected by their own political and ideological values, resulting in what psychologists term selective perception.
Consider the claim that during an interview with the progressive activist Ady Barkan, Joe Biden stated he favors defunding the police. This allegation has been dismissed as taken out of context and consequently false by some journalists and fact-checkers (e.g., Politifact’s Jon Greenberg), and CNN’s Facts First argued that Biden had denied he favored defunding in comments that were not included in the published interview with Barkan. However, others argued Biden’s statement about supporting “redirecting” funds to other agencies was a clear acknowledgement of his support of decreased funding for police.
For example, Evie Fordham of Fox News states that redirecting funds from the police is the only context in which Biden’s “yes, absolutely” answer to Barkan’s question can be understood, in her words: “despite the fact that Barkan did not say "for police" at the end of the question, the context of the original exchange made clear that Barkan was talking about redirecting police funding.”). The result is a massive disagreement, with many journalists and fact-checkers arguing that Biden’s critics did indeed take his statement out of context, and he did not intend to support a redirection of funds away from law enforcement, as fact-checkers Hope Yen at the Associated Press and the BBC’s Jake Horton contended, whereas CNN cited a Biden statement from early June in which he said it makes sense for some local communities to reduce police funding. In examining the evidence that each side invoked, it is possible to make a case for both positions.
The same is true of the allegation that in the aftermath of Heather Heyer’s death in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, Trump said there were “fine people” among protestors and counterprotestors, a statement generally interpreted by liberal fact-checkers and journalists as referring to fine people among the white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, but disputed by conservative journalists.
Even when the original facts may tilt in the direction of journalists’ and fact-checker’s claims, they may be too ambiguous to justify the unequivocal headlines that have appeared: (“AP Fact Check: Trump distorts record; BLM falsely accused”)
Fact-checkers’ decisions have significant consequences for debates about fake news that cannot be overstated. Researchers have studied the cascading cognitive effects of misinformation, and their findings are relevant to current concerns about fake news and to the limitations of fact-checking. Misinformation can be insidious; it can seep into the unconscious mind and influence beliefs and behaviors long after we have forgotten its source or the evidence invoked to support it. Under laboratory conditions, a selection of objective facts and complete fabrications can be presented, and researchers can then examine the spread of misinformation about these facts and whether and how this spread results in false beliefs.
Unlike a pristine laboratory setting, however, the world of politics is messy, and there can be deep disagreements about the facts themselves, as the above contradictory claims illustrate. When it comes to partisan fact-checking about complex issues—which describes much of the fact-checking that takes place in the context of political news—the truth as stated is often the subjective opinion of people with shared political views.
One path to a solution is “adversarial fact-checking.” Fact-checking is often done by teams of two or more journalists rather than by a single person. We propose that political claims continue to be aggressively fact-checked, but by teams of individuals with diverse sociopolitical views; for example, by pairing fact-checkers from major liberal and conservative news sources. This would add little, if any, cost. The media should abandon fact-checkers’ pretext of objectivity and political disinterest and instead acknowledge their sociopolitical leanings in much the way that NPR tries to pit pro and con points of view in political coverage.
Research underscores that fact-checkers’ personal biases influence both their choice of which statements to analyze and their determination of accuracy. Let diverse fact-checkers work as members of an adversarial team, much like two sides in arbitration. Fact-checkers are human beings who live in the real world, rather than in a sociopolitical monastery. Let’s abandon the pretense of objectivity and design a system of adversarial fact-checking that places the evidence for competing claims front and center.
Exposure to contrasting views sometimes happens when a counterclaim appears days or weeks later or an independent fact-checker like PolitiFact requests a retraction, but the key to better cognitive reasoning outcomes is for both sides’ claims to appear simultaneously in the very same report. This would minimize the creation of false beliefs that emerge as a consequence of exposure to only one side. When adversarial fact-checking leads to unresolvable disagreements among team members, readers will be better able to judge how persuasive each side’s argument is and arrive at a more informed conclusion than they would if only one side’s evidence is presented.
It would be a valuable antidote to the tendency of Americans to base their views on sources solely within their “bubble.” Such an adversarial arrangement challenges the presumption that there can be no doubt about the validity of fact-checkers’ conclusions, as implied by CNN’s Facts First feature: “CNN holds elected officials and candidates accountable by pointing out what’s true and what’s not,” as if determining the truth is somehow a psychologically straightforward process.
Having each side’s fact-checkers checked by the other side’s fact-checkers could lead to an infinite regress toward an uncertain truth. But this is preferable to belief in a truth that may not exist. Adversarial fact-checkers would debate the same “evidence” and ensure a balanced presentation of the facts. This may not guarantee that fact-checkers will agree or even that readers will discern the truth. But it will reveal the sometimes-tenuous nature of fact-checkers’ claims and the psychological context in which human cognition unfolds—and this would be a meaningful barrier to the spread of fake news and the creation of false beliefs among voters.


scientificamerican--2020-10-25--Billions of Dollars for Stem Cell Research Institute On California's November Ballot

SACRAMENTO , Calif.—In an election year dominated by a chaotic presidential race and splashy statewide ballot initiative campaigns , Californians are being asked to weigh in on the value of stem cell research—again .
Proposition 14 would authorize the state to borrow $ 5.5 billion to keep financing the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine ( CIRM ) , currently the second-largest funder of stem cell research in the world .
Factoring in interest payments , the measure could cost the state roughly $ 7.8 billion over about 30 years , according to an estimate from the nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters approved Proposition 71 , a $ 3 billion bond , to be repaid with interest over 30 years .
The measure got the state agency up and running and was designed to seed research .
During that first campaign , voters were told research funded by the measure could lead to cures for cancer , Alzheimer ’ s and other devastating diseases , and that the state could reap millions in royalties from new treatments .
Yet most of those ambitions remain unfulfilled .
“ I think the initial promises were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , CIRM ’ s senior director of public communications , about how quickly research would yield cures .
“ You can ’ t rush this kind of work.
” So advocates are back after 16 years for more research money , and to increase the size of the state agency .
Stem cells hold great potential for medicine because of their ability to develop into different types of cells in the body , and to repair and renew tissue .
When the first bond measure was adopted in 2004 , the George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research at the national level because of opposition to the use of one kind of stem cell : human embryonic stem cells .
They derive from fertilized eggs , which has made them controversial among politicians who oppose abortion .
Federal funding resumed in 2009 , and thus far this year the National Institutes of Health has spent about $ 321 million on human embryonic stem cell research .
But advocates for Proposition 14 say the ability to do that research is still tenuous .
In September , Republican lawmakers sent a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut off those funds once again .
The funding from California ’ s original bond measure was used to create the new state institute and fund grants to conduct research at California hospitals and universities for diseases such as blood cancer and kidney failure .
The money has paid for 90 clinical trials .
A 2019 report from the University of Southern California concluded the center has contributed about $ 10.7 billion to the California economy , which includes hiring , construction and attracting more research dollars to the state .
CIRM funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of which are considered high-paying .
Despite the campaign promises , just two treatments developed with some help from CIRM have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the past 13 years , one for leukemia and one for scarring of the bone marrow .
But it ’ s a bit of a stretch for the institute to take credit for these drugs , said Jeff Sheehy , a CIRM board member who does not support the new bond measure .
He said the agency funded the researcher whose lab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIRM holds no rights to those drugs and doesn ’ t receive royalties from them .
The state has received about $ 518,000 in revenue from licensing other institute-funded discoveries , such as devices , McCormack said .
McCormack also pointed to some promising stem cell therapies still in clinical trials , such as a treatment that has cured 50 children of severe combined immunodeficiency , a genetic disorder often called “ bubble baby ” disease , and others that have led to “ dramatic ” improvements in paralysis and blindness , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures may be giving people unrealistic expectations and false hope , said Marcy Darnovsky , executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society .
“ It undermines people ’ s trust in science , ” Darnovsky said .
“ No one can promise cures , and nobody should.
” Robert Klein , a real estate developer who wrote both ballot measures , disagrees .
He was inspired to invest in stem cell research after he lost his youngest son to Type 1 diabetes .
He said some of CIRM ’ s breakthroughs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are you going to do if this doesn ’ t pass ?
Tell those people we ’ re sorry , but we ’ re not going to do this ?
” Klein said .
“ The thought of other children needlessly dying is unbearable.
” Sheehy , who has served on the agency ’ s board for 16 years , said he ’ s proud of the work the institute has done but believes it should be funded through the legislature , not by borrowing more money .
“ The promise was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it hasn ’ t , ” Sheehy said .
“ We can ’ t really afford it , and this is the worst way to pay for it.
” Even if CIRM isn ’ t turning a profit , some researchers and private companies are benefiting from the public money .
Take the company Forty Seven Inc. , named after a human protein and co-founded by Irving Weissman , director of Stanford University ’ s stem cell research program .
The state stem cell agency awarded more than $ 15 million to Forty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weissman at Stanford for research .
That money fueled research that uncovered a promising treatment for several different cancers .
Gilead Sciences , the pharmaceutical giant , bought Forty Seven in 2018 for $ 4.9 billion .
Of that , $ 21.2 million went back to CIRM to pay back Forty Seven ’ s research grants , with interest .
“ Gilead will make far more than that if it turns out to be lucrative , ” said Ameet Sarpatwari , a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who studies drug development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both expensive and risky , private companies are reluctant to pay for early research , when scientists have no idea if their work will yield results , let alone profits , Sarpatwari said .
So the state pays for this work , and drug companies come in to finance later-stage research once a molecule looks promising—and ultimately reap the profits .
Case in point : Fedratinib , one of the two FDA-approved drugs funded partly by CIRM , can cost about $ 20,000 for 120 capsules , according to GoodRx .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development and privatizing the gains , ” Sarpatwari said .
On paper , the institute has stricter pricing regulations than the NIH , which does not require that drugs developed with public money are accessible to the public .
In California , companies have to submit plans for how uninsured patients will get medicine and are required to sell those medications to the state ’ s public health programs at a specified rate .
But in practice , the regulations have never really been tested .
Proposition 14 would add a new rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes from royalties and use it to help patients afford those treatments .
It also benefits drug companies : Whatever revenue the state makes from these drugs will go back to the companies in the form of state-financed patient subsidies .
The measure also would establish a new working group ( complete with 15 new , full-time staffers ) that would help make clinical trials more affordable for patients by paying for lodging and transportation to the trials .
And it would increase the size of CIRM ’ s governing board from 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Institute of Medicine , which suggested shrinking the board to avoid conflicts of interest .
Klein argues the extra board positions are necessary to represent different regions and areas of expertise .
Ultimately , California voters must weigh the possibility of new treatments against the cost of financing them with debt .
“ We want to develop new therapies , and initiatives like what California is doing are well positioned to do that , ” Sarpatwari said .
“ But at the end of the day , they ’ re only as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them affordably.
” This KHN story first published on California Healthline , a service of the California Health Care Foundation .

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—In an election year dominated by a chaotic presidential race and splashy statewide ballot initiative campaigns, Californians are being asked to weigh in on the value of stem cell research—again.
Proposition 14 would authorize the state to borrow $5.5 billion to keep financing the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), currently the second-largest funder of stem cell research in the world. Factoring in interest payments, the measure could cost the state roughly $7.8 billion over about 30 years, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office.
In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, a $3 billion bond, to be repaid with interest over 30 years. The measure got the state agency up and running and was designed to seed research.
During that first campaign, voters were told research funded by the measure could lead to cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s and other devastating diseases, and that the state could reap millions in royalties from new treatments.
Yet most of those ambitions remain unfulfilled.
“I think the initial promises were a little optimistic,” said Kevin McCormack, CIRM’s senior director of public communications, about how quickly research would yield cures. “You can’t rush this kind of work.”
So advocates are back after 16 years for more research money, and to increase the size of the state agency.
Stem cells hold great potential for medicine because of their ability to develop into different types of cells in the body, and to repair and renew tissue.
When the first bond measure was adopted in 2004, the George W. Bush administration refused to fund stem cell research at the national level because of opposition to the use of one kind of stem cell: human embryonic stem cells. They derive from fertilized eggs, which has made them controversial among politicians who oppose abortion.
Federal funding resumed in 2009, and thus far this year the National Institutes of Health has spent about $321 million on human embryonic stem cell research.
But advocates for Proposition 14 say the ability to do that research is still tenuous. In September, Republican lawmakers sent a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to cut off those funds once again.
The funding from California’s original bond measure was used to create the new state institute and fund grants to conduct research at California hospitals and universities for diseases such as blood cancer and kidney failure. The money has paid for 90 clinical trials.
A 2019 report from the University of Southern California concluded the center has contributed about $10.7 billion to the California economy, which includes hiring, construction and attracting more research dollars to the state. CIRM funds more than 56,500 jobs, more than half of which are considered high-paying.
Despite the campaign promises, just two treatments developed with some help from CIRM have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the past 13 years, one for leukemia and one for scarring of the bone marrow.
But it’s a bit of a stretch for the institute to take credit for these drugs, said Jeff Sheehy, a CIRM board member who does not support the new bond measure. He said the agency funded the researcher whose lab discovered and developed the drugs, but CIRM holds no rights to those drugs and doesn’t receive royalties from them.
The state has received about $518,000 in revenue from licensing other institute-funded discoveries, such as devices, McCormack said.
McCormack also pointed to some promising stem cell therapies still in clinical trials, such as a treatment that has cured 50 children of severe combined immunodeficiency, a genetic disorder often called “bubble baby” disease, and others that have led to “dramatic” improvements in paralysis and blindness, he said.
The campaigns for both bond measures may be giving people unrealistic expectations and false hope, said Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society. “It undermines people’s trust in science,” Darnovsky said. “No one can promise cures, and nobody should.”
Robert Klein, a real estate developer who wrote both ballot measures, disagrees. He was inspired to invest in stem cell research after he lost his youngest son to Type 1 diabetes. He said some of CIRM’s breakthroughs are helping patients right now.
“What are you going to do if this doesn’t pass? Tell those people we’re sorry, but we’re not going to do this?” Klein said. “The thought of other children needlessly dying is unbearable.”
Sheehy, who has served on the agency’s board for 16 years, said he’s proud of the work the institute has done but believes it should be funded through the legislature, not by borrowing more money.
“The promise was that it would pay for itself and it hasn’t,” Sheehy said. “We can’t really afford it, and this is the worst way to pay for it.”
Even if CIRM isn’t turning a profit, some researchers and private companies are benefiting from the public money. Take the company Forty Seven Inc., named after a human protein and co-founded by Irving Weissman, director of Stanford University’s stem cell research program. The state stem cell agency awarded more than $15 million to Forty Seven, and $30 million to Weissman at Stanford for research.
That money fueled research that uncovered a promising treatment for several different cancers. Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical giant, bought Forty Seven in 2018 for $4.9 billion. Of that, $21.2 million went back to CIRM to pay back Forty Seven’s research grants, with interest.
“Gilead will make far more than that if it turns out to be lucrative,” said Ameet Sarpatwari, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who studies drug development.
Because this kind of work is both expensive and risky, private companies are reluctant to pay for early research, when scientists have no idea if their work will yield results, let alone profits, Sarpatwari said. So the state pays for this work, and drug companies come in to finance later-stage research once a molecule looks promising—and ultimately reap the profits.
Case in point: Fedratinib, one of the two FDA-approved drugs funded partly by CIRM, can cost about $20,000 for 120 capsules, according to GoodRx.
“We’re socializing the risk of drug development and privatizing the gains,” Sarpatwari said.
On paper, the institute has stricter pricing regulations than the NIH, which does not require that drugs developed with public money are accessible to the public. In California, companies have to submit plans for how uninsured patients will get medicine and are required to sell those medications to the state’s public health programs at a specified rate.
But in practice, the regulations have never really been tested.
Proposition 14 would add a new rule. It would take the money California makes from royalties and use it to help patients afford those treatments. It also benefits drug companies: Whatever revenue the state makes from these drugs will go back to the companies in the form of state-financed patient subsidies.
The measure also would establish a new working group (complete with 15 new, full-time staffers) that would help make clinical trials more affordable for patients by paying for lodging and transportation to the trials.
And it would increase the size of CIRM’s governing board from 29 to 35. This contradicts recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, which suggested shrinking the board to avoid conflicts of interest. Klein argues the extra board positions are necessary to represent different regions and areas of expertise.
Ultimately, California voters must weigh the possibility of new treatments against the cost of financing them with debt.
“We want to develop new therapies, and initiatives like what California is doing are well positioned to do that,” Sarpatwari said. “But at the end of the day, they’re only as good as people being able to access them affordably.”
This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.


scientificamerican--2020-10-26--Seabirds Anticipate Typhoons to Help Migrations

Migrating terns may alter their flight plans based on a keen sense of approaching typhoons , escaping the brunt of the storms but still benefiting from feeding opportunities in their wakes .
Researchers at the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology examined data recorded by tracking devices on six black-naped terns from Okinawa , Japan , to learn more about the birds ' migrations over multiple years .
The terns flew across part of the Philippine Sea 's “ typhoon highway ” to get to the islands of Borneo and Sulawesi and varied their departure times—often apparently waiting to leave until a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projected path .
“ They seem to be able to predict it , ” says Jean-Baptiste Thiebot , a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Polar Research in Japan and lead author of the new study , which was published in June in Marine Biology .
The study offers few clues about how terns might do this , but other research suggests some migrating birds detect infrasonic weather signals or observe changing clouds .
The terns Thiebot studied typically avoided the typhoons themselves .
But these storms can churn food to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may help the hungry travelers .
“ They might actually use the typhoon to know when to leave ” for their migrations each year , Thiebot says .
In the unusually quiet 2017 season , without a strong typhoon cue , the birds started their journeys later and flew without pit stops .
Thiebot would like to see this pattern confirmed in a larger study .
He also worries that increasing typhoon frequency could affect birds ' prediction accuracy , potentially getting them caught in dangerous weather .
Robert Gill , an emeritus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Survey , who was not involved in the work , says that although the study 's sample size is small , it adds to scientists ' overall understanding of migration .
He has studied shorebirds that time their migrations based partly on incoming storms , but little research has delved into this behavior .
“ They are able to predict better than the best weather forecasters we have , ” Gill says , “ but they 've also had tens of thousands , if not millions , of years to hone that skill @ @

Migrating terns may alter their flight plans based on a keen sense of approaching typhoons, escaping the brunt of the storms but still benefiting from feeding opportunities in their wakes.
Researchers at the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology examined data recorded by tracking devices on six black-naped terns from Okinawa, Japan, to learn more about the birds' migrations over multiple years. The terns flew across part of the Philippine Sea's “typhoon highway” to get to the islands of Borneo and Sulawesi and varied their departure times—often apparently waiting to leave until a large typhoon was about to cross their projected path.
“They seem to be able to predict it,” says Jean-Baptiste Thiebot, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute of Polar Research in Japan and lead author of the new study, which was published in June in Marine Biology. The study offers few clues about how terns might do this, but other research suggests some migrating birds detect infrasonic weather signals or observe changing clouds.
The terns Thiebot studied typically avoided the typhoons themselves. But these storms can churn food to the ocean surface, so their immediate aftermath may help the hungry travelers. “They might actually use the typhoon to know when to leave” for their migrations each year, Thiebot says. In the unusually quiet 2017 season, without a strong typhoon cue, the birds started their journeys later and flew without pit stops. Thiebot would like to see this pattern confirmed in a larger study. He also worries that increasing typhoon frequency could affect birds' prediction accuracy, potentially getting them caught in dangerous weather.
Robert Gill, an emeritus research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, who was not involved in the work, says that although the study's sample size is small, it adds to scientists' overall understanding of migration. He has studied shorebirds that time their migrations based partly on incoming storms, but little research has delved into this behavior. “They are able to predict better than the best weather forecasters we have,” Gill says, “but they've also had tens of thousands, if not millions, of years to hone that skill.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-26--Conservative and Liberal Brains Might Have Some Real Differences

In 1968 a debate was held between conservative thinker William F. Buckley , Jr. , and liberal writer Gore Vidal .
It was hoped that these two members of opposing intellectual elites would show Americans living through tumultuous times that political disagreements could be civilized .
That idea did not last for long .
Instead Buckley and Vidal descended rapidly into name-calling .
Afterward , they sued each other for defamation .
The story of the 1968 debate opens a well-regarded 2013 book called Predisposed , which introduced the general public to the field of political neuroscience .
The authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Rice University , argued that if the differences between liberals and conservatives seem profound and even unbridgeable , it is because they are rooted in personality characteristics and biological predispositions .
On the whole , the research shows , conservatives desire security , predictability and authority more than liberals do , and liberals are more comfortable with novelty , nuance and complexity .
If you had put Buckley and Vidal in a magnetic resonance imaging machine and presented them with identical images , you would likely have seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the areas that process social and emotional information .
The volume of gray matter , or neural cell bodies , making up the anterior cingulate cortex , an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts , tends to be larger in liberals .
And the amygdala , which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats , is larger in conservatives .
While these findings are remarkably consistent , they are probabilities , not certainties—meaning there is plenty of individual variability .
The political landscape includes lefties who own guns , right-wingers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is also an unresolved chicken-and-egg problem : Do brains start out processing the world differently or do they become increasingly different as our politics evolve ?
Furthermore , it is still not entirely clear how useful it is to know that a Republican ’ s brain lights up over X while a Democrat ’ s responds to Y .
So what can the study of neural activity suggest about political behavior ?
The still emerging field of political neuroscience has begun to move beyond describing basic structural and functional brain differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the biggest amygdala—to more nuanced investigations of how certain cognitive processes underlie our political thinking and decision-making .
Partisanship does not just affect our vote ; it influences our memory , reasoning and even our perception of truth .
Knowing this will not magically bring us all together , but researchers hope that continuing to understand the way partisanship influences our brain might at least allow us to counter its worst effects : the divisiveness that can tear apart the shared values required to retain a sense of national unity .
Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sphere can gain substantial insight into the hazards of errant partisanship .
Political neuroscience , however , attempts to deepen these observations by supplying evidence that a belief or bias manifests as a measure of brain volume or activity—demonstrating that an attitude , conviction or misconception is , in fact , genuine .
“ Brain structure and function provide more objective measures than many types of survey responses , ” says political neuroscientist Hannah Nam of Stony Brook University .
“ Participants may be induced to be more honest when they think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their brains.
” That is not to say that political neuroscience can be used as a tool to “ read minds , ” but it can pick up discrepancies between stated positions and underlying cognitive processes .
Brain scans are also unlikely to be used as a biomarker for specific political results because the relationships between the brain and politics is not one-to-one .
Yet “ neurobiological features could be used as a predictor of political outcomes—just not in a deterministic way , ” Nam says .
To study how we process political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychologist Ingrid Haas of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and her colleagues created hypothetical candidates from both major parties and assigned each candidate a set of policy statements on issues such as school prayer , Medicare and defense spending .
Most statements were what you would expect : Republicans , for instance , usually favor increasing defense spending , and Democrats generally support expanding Medicare .
But some statements were surprising , such as a conservative expressing a pro-choice position or a liberal arguing for invading Iran .
Haas put 58 people with diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On each trial , participants were asked whether it was good or bad that a candidate held a position on a particular issue and not whether they personally agreed or disagreed with it .
Framing the task that way allowed the researchers to look at neural processing as a function of whether the information was expected or unexpected—what they termed congruent or incongruent .
They also considered participants ’ own party identification and whether there was a relationship between ideological differences and how the subjects did the task .
Liberals proved more attentive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates .
When they encountered such a position , it took them longer to make a decision about whether it was good or bad .
They were likely to show activation for incongruent information in two brain regions : the insula and anterior cingulate cortex , which “ are involved in helping people form and think about their attitudes , ” Haas says .
How do out-of-the-ordinary positions affect later voting ?
Haas suspects that engaging more with such information might make voters more likely to punish candidates for it later .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particular form of bias called “ motivated reasoning ” to downplay the incongruity .
Motivated reasoning , in which people work hard to justify their opinions or decisions , even in the face of conflicting evidence , has been a popular topic in political neuroscience because there is a lot of it going around .
While partisanship plays a role , motivated reasoning goes deeper than that .
Just as most of us like to think we are good-hearted human beings , people generally prefer to believe that the society they live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Even if society isn ’ t perfect , and there are things to be criticized about it , there is a preference to think that you live in a good society , ” Nam says .
When that preference is particularly strong , she adds , “ that can lead to things like simply rationalizing or accepting long-standing inequalities or injustices.
” Psychologists call the cognitive process that lets us do so “ system justification.
” Nam and her colleagues set out to understand which brain areas govern the affective processes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the volume of gray matter in the amygdala is linked to the tendency to perceive the social system as legitimate and desirable .
Their interpretation is that “ this preference to system justify is related to these basic neurobiological predispositions to be alert to potential threats in your environment , ” Nam says .
After the original study , Nam ’ s team followed a subset of the participants for three years and found that their brain structure predicted the likelihood of whether they participated in political protests during that time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lower likelihood of participating in political protests , ” Nam says .
“ That makes sense in so far as political protest is a behavior that says , ‘ We ’ ve got to change the system.
’ ” Understanding the influence of partisanship on identity , even down to the level of neurons , “ helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy , and even over truth , ” argued psychologists Jay Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira , both then at New York University , in Trends in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we derive our identities from both our individual characteristics , such as being a parent , and our group memberships , such as being a New Yorker or an American .
These affiliations serve multiple social goals : they feed our need to belong and desire for closure and predictability , and they endorse our moral values .
And our brain represents them much as it does other forms of social identity .
Among other things , partisan identity clouds memory .
In a 2013 study , liberals were more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina , and conservatives were more likely to falsely recall seeing Barack Obama shaking hands with the president of Iran .
Partisan identity also shapes our perceptions .
When they were shown a video of a political protest in a 2012 study , liberals and conservatives were more or less likely to favor calling police depending on their interpretation of the protest ’ s goal .
If the objective was liberal ( opposing the military barring openly gay people from service ) , the conservatives were more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was true when participants thought it was a conservative protest ( opposing an abortion clinic ) .
The more strongly we identify with a party , the more likely we are to double down on our support for it .
That tendency is exacerbated by rampant political misinformation and , too often , identity wins out over accuracy .
If we understand what is at work cognitively , we might be able to intervene and try to ease some of the negative effects of partisanship .
The tension between accuracy and identity probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cortex , which computes the value of goals and beliefs and is strongly connected to memory , executive function and attention .
If identity helps determine the value of different beliefs , it can also distort them , Van Bavel says .
Appreciating that political affiliation fulfills an evolutionary need to belong suggests we should create alternative means of belonging—depoliticizing the novel coronavirus by calling on us to come together as Americans , for instance .
And incentivizing the need to be accurate could increase the importance accorded that goal : paying money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for incorrect ones have been shown to be effective .
It will be nearly impossible to lessen the partisan influences before the November 3 election because the volume of political information will only increase , reminding us of our political identities daily .
But here is some good news : a large 2020 study at Harvard University found that participants consistently overestimated the level of out-group negativity toward their in-group .
In other words , the other side may not dislike us quite so much as we think .
Inaccurate information heightened the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news ) correcting inaccurate information significantly reduced it .
“ The biology and neuroscience of politics might be useful in terms of what is effective at getting through to people , ” Van Bavel says .
“ Maybe the way to interact with someone who disagrees with me politically is not to try to persuade them on the deep issue , because I might never get there .
It ’ s more to try to understand where they ’ re coming from and shatter their stereotypes .
”

In 1968 a debate was held between conservative thinker William F. Buckley, Jr., and liberal writer Gore Vidal. It was hoped that these two members of opposing intellectual elites would show Americans living through tumultuous times that political disagreements could be civilized. That idea did not last for long. Instead Buckley and Vidal descended rapidly into name-calling. Afterward, they sued each other for defamation.
The story of the 1968 debate opens a well-regarded 2013 book called Predisposed, which introduced the general public to the field of political neuroscience. The authors, a trio of political scientists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Rice University, argued that if the differences between liberals and conservatives seem profound and even unbridgeable, it is because they are rooted in personality characteristics and biological predispositions.
On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. If you had put Buckley and Vidal in a magnetic resonance imaging machine and presented them with identical images, you would likely have seen differences in their brain, especially in the areas that process social and emotional information. The volume of gray matter, or neural cell bodies, making up the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals. And the amygdala, which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats, is larger in conservatives.
While these findings are remarkably consistent, they are probabilities, not certainties—meaning there is plenty of individual variability. The political landscape includes lefties who own guns, right-wingers who drive Priuses and everything in between. There is also an unresolved chicken-and-egg problem: Do brains start out processing the world differently or do they become increasingly different as our politics evolve? Furthermore, it is still not entirely clear how useful it is to know that a Republican’s brain lights up over X while a Democrat’s responds to Y.
So what can the study of neural activity suggest about political behavior? The still emerging field of political neuroscience has begun to move beyond describing basic structural and functional brain differences between people of different ideological persuasions—gauging who has the biggest amygdala—to more nuanced investigations of how certain cognitive processes underlie our political thinking and decision-making. Partisanship does not just affect our vote; it influences our memory, reasoning and even our perception of truth. Knowing this will not magically bring us all together, but researchers hope that continuing to understand the way partisanship influences our brain might at least allow us to counter its worst effects: the divisiveness that can tear apart the shared values required to retain a sense of national unity.
Social scientists who observe behaviors in the political sphere can gain substantial insight into the hazards of errant partisanship. Political neuroscience, however, attempts to deepen these observations by supplying evidence that a belief or bias manifests as a measure of brain volume or activity—demonstrating that an attitude, conviction or misconception is, in fact, genuine. “Brain structure and function provide more objective measures than many types of survey responses,” says political neuroscientist Hannah Nam of Stony Brook University. “Participants may be induced to be more honest when they think that scientists have a ‘window’ into their brains.” That is not to say that political neuroscience can be used as a tool to “read minds,” but it can pick up discrepancies between stated positions and underlying cognitive processes.
Brain scans are also unlikely to be used as a biomarker for specific political results because the relationships between the brain and politics is not one-to-one. Yet “neurobiological features could be used as a predictor of political outcomes—just not in a deterministic way,” Nam says.
To study how we process political information in a 2017 paper, political psychologist Ingrid Haas of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and her colleagues created hypothetical candidates from both major parties and assigned each candidate a set of policy statements on issues such as school prayer, Medicare and defense spending. Most statements were what you would expect: Republicans, for instance, usually favor increasing defense spending, and Democrats generally support expanding Medicare. But some statements were surprising, such as a conservative expressing a pro-choice position or a liberal arguing for invading Iran.
Haas put 58 people with diverse political views in a brain scanner. On each trial, participants were asked whether it was good or bad that a candidate held a position on a particular issue and not whether they personally agreed or disagreed with it. Framing the task that way allowed the researchers to look at neural processing as a function of whether the information was expected or unexpected—what they termed congruent or incongruent. They also considered participants’ own party identification and whether there was a relationship between ideological differences and how the subjects did the task.
Liberals proved more attentive to incongruent information, especially for Democratic candidates. When they encountered such a position, it took them longer to make a decision about whether it was good or bad. They were likely to show activation for incongruent information in two brain regions: the insula and anterior cingulate cortex, which “are involved in helping people form and think about their attitudes,” Haas says. How do out-of-the-ordinary positions affect later voting? Haas suspects that engaging more with such information might make voters more likely to punish candidates for it later. But she acknowledges that they may instead exercise a particular form of bias called “motivated reasoning” to downplay the incongruity.
Motivated reasoning, in which people work hard to justify their opinions or decisions, even in the face of conflicting evidence, has been a popular topic in political neuroscience because there is a lot of it going around. While partisanship plays a role, motivated reasoning goes deeper than that. Just as most of us like to think we are good-hearted human beings, people generally prefer to believe that the society they live in is desirable, fair and legitimate. “Even if society isn’t perfect, and there are things to be criticized about it, there is a preference to think that you live in a good society,” Nam says. When that preference is particularly strong, she adds, “that can lead to things like simply rationalizing or accepting long-standing inequalities or injustices.” Psychologists call the cognitive process that lets us do so “system justification.”
Nam and her colleagues set out to understand which brain areas govern the affective processes that underlie system justification. They found that the volume of gray matter in the amygdala is linked to the tendency to perceive the social system as legitimate and desirable. Their interpretation is that “this preference to system justify is related to these basic neurobiological predispositions to be alert to potential threats in your environment,” Nam says.
After the original study, Nam’s team followed a subset of the participants for three years and found that their brain structure predicted the likelihood of whether they participated in political protests during that time. “Larger amygdala volume is associated with a lower likelihood of participating in political protests,” Nam says. “That makes sense in so far as political protest is a behavior that says, ‘We’ve got to change the system.’”
Understanding the influence of partisanship on identity, even down to the level of neurons, “helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy, and even over truth,” argued psychologists Jay Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira, both then at New York University, in Trends in Cognitive Sciences in 2018. In short, we derive our identities from both our individual characteristics, such as being a parent, and our group memberships, such as being a New Yorker or an American. These affiliations serve multiple social goals: they feed our need to belong and desire for closure and predictability, and they endorse our moral values. And our brain represents them much as it does other forms of social identity.
Among other things, partisan identity clouds memory. In a 2013 study, liberals were more likely to misremember George W. Bush remaining on vacation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and conservatives were more likely to falsely recall seeing Barack Obama shaking hands with the president of Iran. Partisan identity also shapes our perceptions. When they were shown a video of a political protest in a 2012 study, liberals and conservatives were more or less likely to favor calling police depending on their interpretation of the protest’s goal. If the objective was liberal (opposing the military barring openly gay people from service), the conservatives were more likely to want the cops. The opposite was true when participants thought it was a conservative protest (opposing an abortion clinic). The more strongly we identify with a party, the more likely we are to double down on our support for it. That tendency is exacerbated by rampant political misinformation and, too often, identity wins out over accuracy.
If we understand what is at work cognitively, we might be able to intervene and try to ease some of the negative effects of partisanship. The tension between accuracy and identity probably involves a brain region called the orbitofrontal cortex, which computes the value of goals and beliefs and is strongly connected to memory, executive function and attention. If identity helps determine the value of different beliefs, it can also distort them, Van Bavel says. Appreciating that political affiliation fulfills an evolutionary need to belong suggests we should create alternative means of belonging—depoliticizing the novel coronavirus by calling on us to come together as Americans, for instance. And incentivizing the need to be accurate could increase the importance accorded that goal: paying money for accurate responses or holding people accountable for incorrect ones have been shown to be effective.
It will be nearly impossible to lessen the partisan influences before the November 3 election because the volume of political information will only increase, reminding us of our political identities daily. But here is some good news: a large 2020 study at Harvard University found that participants consistently overestimated the level of out-group negativity toward their in-group. In other words, the other side may not dislike us quite so much as we think. Inaccurate information heightened the negative bias, and (more good news) correcting inaccurate information significantly reduced it.
“The biology and neuroscience of politics might be useful in terms of what is effective at getting through to people,” Van Bavel says. “Maybe the way to interact with someone who disagrees with me politically is not to try to persuade them on the deep issue, because I might never get there. It’s more to try to understand where they’re coming from and shatter their stereotypes.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-27--Election 2020: The Stakes for Science

Election 2020: The Stakes for Science

Steve Mirsky : Election Day is November 3rd .
In this week before the election we ’ re rolling out a special series of short podcasts in which we ’ ll look at how the election could affect some major areas of science .
To set up what you ’ ll hear the rest of the week I spoke to Scientific American ’ s editor-in-chief , Laura Helmuth .
Laura Helmuth : There ’ s a lot to talk about .
The election is almost upon us , people are voting already .
And some of the biggest issues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with science and health and the environment and our future energy structure and climate change .
And it 's an urgent time to talk about these subjects .
SM : And we 're not endorsing your candidate in this case .
We are just laying out the terms of what the stakes are for these scientific areas in this election .
LH : Absolutely .
I mean , there are a lot of reasons to vote for one candidate , or for some people the other .
But really , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there will be a lot of different directions the country will go in one , one direction or the other , depending on this election .
And we just want to lay out what the stakes are .
SM : And when we say to the inevitable audience member who just does n't want to hear about politics , when they come to a science venue ?
LH : That is a good question .
And I think all of us right now , especially when there 's so much politics in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come somewhere and to think about Black Holes , or the age of the universe , or how dinosaurs evolved .
And we will continue to be talking about those things .
If politics settles down , we 'll be doing probably more of those than we have in the past few years .
But at this moment the future of the research enterprise is really on the line .
And we just think it 's important for people to know how dramatically one administration or another can influence the way that scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communicated , what the priorities are for what should be studied and how .

Full Transcript
Election Day is November 3rd. In this week before the election, we’re rolling out a special series of short podcasts in which we’ll look at how the election could affect some major areas of science. To set up what you’ll hear the rest of the week, I spoke to Scientific American’s editor in chief Laura Helmuth.
“There’s a lot to talk about. The election is almost upon us; people are voting already. And some of the biggest issues that will be decided by this election have to do with science and health and the environment and our future energy structure and climate change. And it’s an urgent time to talk about these subjects.”
And we’re not endorsing your candidate in this case. We are just laying out the terms of what the stakes are for these scientific areas in this election.
“Absolutely. I mean, there are a lot of reasons to vote for one candidate or, for some people, the other. But really, if you’re interested in scientific subjects, there will be a lot of different directions the country will go in—one direction or the other—depending on this election. And we just want to lay out what the stakes are.”
And what do we say to the inevitable audience member who just doesn’t want to hear about politics when they come to a science venue?
“That is a good question. And I think all of us right now, especially when there’s so much politics in the air, it’s really refreshing to come somewhere and to think about black holes or the age of the universe or how dinosaurs evolved. And we will continue to be talking about those things. If politics settles down, we’ll be doing probably more of those than we have in the past few years. But at this moment, the future of the research enterprise is really on the line. And we just think it’s important for people to know how dramatically one administration or another can influence the way that scientific collaboration happens, the way science is communicated, what the priorities are for what should be studied and how.”
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-10-26--Colorado Contends with Record-Setting Wildfires

DENVER—A weather drama is playing out in the forests of north-central Colorado as two record wildfires—supercharged as the result of climate change—meet the first large snowstorm of the winter .
One possible outcome is that the snowstorm dampens the two fires so the 3,500 firefighters struggling to contain them can protect surrounding areas .
Another is that the snow does little to help and the two fires merge in Rocky Mountain National Park and create a megafire in one of the West ’ s most popular recreational areas .
The two record fires—each much larger than the area of Chicago—broke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set a state record this summer for acres turned into ashes .
“ We ’ re really rewriting the record book in terms of fires this year , ” said Russ Schumacher , Colorado ’ s state climatologist , in an interview .
“ If anyone would have asked last week , we would have said it ’ s a very extreme fire season , but what ’ s happened in the last few days has taken it to another level.
” The first shock came late Wednesday when a small wildfire called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acres overnight .
Schumacher and other experts refer to it as an “ explosion ” they had never seen before .
It sent deputy sheriffs sprinting from door to door in Granby , Grand Lake , Estes Park and other small towns in the area , warning people that they needed to evacuate immediately .
Streets were soon jammed with cars .
Thousands of people were finding their way out of town in the smoky darkness .
Most of them were lucky .
But not all .
An elderly couple died after refusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Firefighters and local officials were still adding up the damage , but one of them told The Denver Post that “ a lot ” of homes have been destroyed .
Climate experts like Schumacher are trying to piece together exactly how the “ explosion ” happened , but he says the likely causes have come together over the last three years .
East Troublesome , like most wildfires , got its name from the geographic point where it started .
It is the name of a creek in the Arapaho National Forest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ railroad companies that saw their tracks washed out .
What baffled everyone was how quickly the wildfire managed to live up to its name , enlarging from 30,000 acres to 160,000 acres over two days .
“ I don ’ t think we ’ ve ever seen that before , ” said Larry Helmerick , spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center , which helps direct firefighting efforts of the federal government and agencies in Colorado and four nearby states .
When the snow began yesterday morning , East Troublesome , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contained , was in danger of merging with its larger neighbor , the Cameron Peak Fire , which was scorching a 208,663-acre swath of forests and mountains near Fort Collins .
( As a point of reference , the city of Chicago covers 149,760 acres . )
Rocky Mountain National Park was closed last week after East Troublesome neared it .
Now the question is whether 10 to 20 inches of predicted snow can help protect it .
By any measure , the sizes of Colorado ’ s new fires are stunning compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During the 1980s , according to Colorado data , a record-setting blaze was one that destroyed 15,000 acres .
According to the office of Colorado Gov .
Jared Polis ( D ) , 90 % of the two new fires are burning in national forests and other federal land .
They are both suspected of having human causes , rather than lightning .
In a news conference Friday near the fire area , Polis attributed the size of the fires to a “ hotter , drier climate.
” That squared with estimates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Philip Higuera , an associate professor who teaches fire ecology at the University of Montana .
Schumacher noted that Colorado traditionally enjoyed relatively cool summers , followed by fall rains brought by the North American monsoon .
“ In the last three years , we ’ ve had basically no monsoon rainfall , ” he said in an interview .
Meanwhile , the summers have become unusually hot , especially this year , with temperatures reaching 90 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Colorado cities .
That kind of heat , he pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , a state that has had 17 large wildfires this year .
Higuera agreed that the combination of high heat and increasing drought set the stage for Colorado ’ s spate of record-setting fires since July .
That makes forests and grasslands “ extremely sensitive to ignition , ” he said , adding that “ once the fire starts , it spreads more rapidly.
” Colorado fires usually come in August .
But the most recent fires arrived in late September and mid-October , a time when Colorado can have 60 mph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
“ When you add that , it ’ s kind of like putting a blow-dryer on the fire , ” he explained .
“ I hope this year catalyzes change in both federal policy and state land management , ” Higuera added .
“ They ’ re a wake-up call telling us that the way we ’ re living with fire is not working.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

DENVER—A weather drama is playing out in the forests of north-central Colorado as two record wildfires—supercharged as the result of climate change—meet the first large snowstorm of the winter.
One possible outcome is that the snowstorm dampens the two fires so the 3,500 firefighters struggling to contain them can protect surrounding areas.
Another is that the snow does little to help and the two fires merge in Rocky Mountain National Park and create a megafire in one of the West’s most popular recreational areas.
The two record fires—each much larger than the area of Chicago—broke out after a third fire already had set a state record this summer for acres turned into ashes.
“We’re really rewriting the record book in terms of fires this year,” said Russ Schumacher, Colorado’s state climatologist, in an interview. “If anyone would have asked last week, we would have said it’s a very extreme fire season, but what’s happened in the last few days has taken it to another level.”
The first shock came late Wednesday when a small wildfire called East Troublesome expanded by more than 100,000 acres overnight. Schumacher and other experts refer to it as an “explosion” they had never seen before.
It sent deputy sheriffs sprinting from door to door in Granby, Grand Lake, Estes Park and other small towns in the area, warning people that they needed to evacuate immediately. Streets were soon jammed with cars. Thousands of people were finding their way out of town in the smoky darkness.
Most of them were lucky. But not all. An elderly couple died after refusing to leave their home in Grand Lake. Firefighters and local officials were still adding up the damage, but one of them told The Denver Post that “a lot” of homes have been destroyed. Climate experts like Schumacher are trying to piece together exactly how the “explosion” happened, but he says the likely causes have come together over the last three years.
East Troublesome, like most wildfires, got its name from the geographic point where it started. It is the name of a creek in the Arapaho National Forest that frequently overflowed—much to the ire of railroad companies that saw their tracks washed out.
What baffled everyone was how quickly the wildfire managed to live up to its name, enlarging from 30,000 acres to 160,000 acres over two days. “I don’t think we’ve ever seen that before,” said Larry Helmerick, spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center, which helps direct firefighting efforts of the federal government and agencies in Colorado and four nearby states.
When the snow began yesterday morning, East Troublesome, by then 192,560 acres and only 10% contained, was in danger of merging with its larger neighbor, the Cameron Peak Fire, which was scorching a 208,663-acre swath of forests and mountains near Fort Collins. (As a point of reference, the city of Chicago covers 149,760 acres.)
Rocky Mountain National Park was closed last week after East Troublesome neared it. Now the question is whether 10 to 20 inches of predicted snow can help protect it.
By any measure, the sizes of Colorado’s new fires are stunning compared with those of fires in the past. During the 1980s, according to Colorado data, a record-setting blaze was one that destroyed 15,000 acres.
According to the office of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), 90% of the two new fires are burning in national forests and other federal land. They are both suspected of having human causes, rather than lightning.
In a news conference Friday near the fire area, Polis attributed the size of the fires to a “hotter, drier climate.” That squared with estimates by Schumacher and another climate change expert, Philip Higuera, an associate professor who teaches fire ecology at the University of Montana.
Schumacher noted that Colorado traditionally enjoyed relatively cool summers, followed by fall rains brought by the North American monsoon. “In the last three years, we’ve had basically no monsoon rainfall,” he said in an interview.
Meanwhile, the summers have become unusually hot, especially this year, with temperatures reaching 90 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Colorado cities. That kind of heat, he pointed out, is closer to normal for California, a state that has had 17 large wildfires this year.
Higuera agreed that the combination of high heat and increasing drought set the stage for Colorado’s spate of record-setting fires since July. That makes forests and grasslands “extremely sensitive to ignition,” he said, adding that “once the fire starts, it spreads more rapidly.”
Colorado fires usually come in August. But the most recent fires arrived in late September and mid-October, a time when Colorado can have 60 mph winds, which troubled the firefighters last week. “When you add that, it’s kind of like putting a blow-dryer on the fire,” he explained.
“I hope this year catalyzes change in both federal policy and state land management,” Higuera added. “They’re a wake-up call telling us that the way we’re living with fire is not working.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-10-26--NASA's OSIRIS-REx Is Overflowing with Asteroid Samples

NASA ’ s first-ever asteroid-sampling operation apparently went a little too well .
The agency ’ s OSIRIS-REx probe snagged so much dirt and rock from the surface of the near-Earth asteroid Bennu on Tuesday ( Oct. 20 ) that the spacecraft ’ s sampling mechanism didn ’ t close properly , allowing some of the collected material to escape into space , mission team members announced Friday ( Oct. 23 ) .
OSIRIS-REx ’ s handlers now plan to stow the collected material in the probe ’ s return capsule as soon as possible , to minimize the material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that crucial , multi-day operation on Tuesday ( Oct. 27 ) , NASA officials said .
“ Bennu continues to surprise us with great science and also [ by ] throwing a few curveballs , ” Thomas Zurbuchen , NASA ’ s associate administrator for science at the agency ’ s headquarters in Washington , said in a statement .
“ And although we may have to move more quickly to stow the sample , it ’ s not a bad problem to have , ” Zurbuchen said .
“ We are so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an abundant sample that will inspire science for decades beyond this historic moment.
” The $ 800 million OSIRIS-REx mission launched in September 2016 and arrived at Bennu in December 2018 .
The mission ’ s chief goal is to deliver at least 2.1 ounces ( 60 grams ) of pristine Bennu material to Earth .
That will happen on Sept. 24 , 2023 , when the return capsule touches down in the Utah desert .
All indications are that the probe collected more than enough material during Tuesday ’ s maneuver , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Bennu with OSIRIS-REx ’ s Touch-And-Go Sample Acquisition Mechanism ( TAGSAM ) head .
The head sank deep into Bennu , perhaps getting up to 19 inches ( 48 centimeters ) beneath the surface , mission principal investigator Dante Lauretta , of the University of Arizona , said during a news conference Friday .
And photos captured by the spacecraft show that the sampling head is jammed with material , suggesting that OSIRIS-REx snagged , at minimum , hundreds of grams of Bennu bits , Lauretta added .
But those photos also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the TAGSAM head , through gaps where small rocks prevented the sampler ’ s mylar flap from closing all the way .
The jailbreak was spurred when OSIRIS-REx moved TAGSAM around to get a look at the collected sample , Lauretta said .
He and his colleagues originally planned to weigh the sample Saturday ( Oct. 24 ) , an operation that would have involved spinning OSIRIS-REx around a bit .
But that operation would doubtless have liberated more asteroid particles , so mission team members now plan to proceed directly to sample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engine burn that would have slowed OSIRIS-REx ’ s retreat from Bennu , for the same reason . )
Skipping the weighing step is no great loss , Lauretta said .
“ The challenge that we have in front of us is due to the fact that the TAGSAM is probably really full of material , ” he said during Friday ’ s new conference .
The top priority at this point , he added , “ is to get this sample safely stowed and minimize any more loss . ''
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been lost , Lauretta said .
But he estimated that up to 10 grams of Bennu samples flew the coop as a result of the recent photography activities , and that “ grams to tens of grams ” could be lost during the stow operation .
( The escape rate seems to be quite low when Bennu stays relatively still , Lauretta said . )
If these numbers are correct , and OSIRIS-REx did indeed snag hundreds of grams of material on Tuesday , then the mission is in fine shape going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stowed immediately , Lauretta said .
The team first needs to finalize and validate an updated stowing plan that takes into account leaking asteroid particles , for example .
The mission also must secure a long , continuous block of time on NASA ’ s Deep Space Network ( DSN ) , the set of radio dishes around the globe the agency uses to communicate with its far-flung spacecraft .
Sample stowage will be an involved and time-intensive process with lots of back-and-forth between OSIRIS-REx and the ground , Lauretta explained .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy and excited about how things have gone to date , Lauretta said .
“ We couldn ’ t have performed a better sample-collection experiment , ” he said .
“ The particles are escaping because we were almost a victim of our own success here.
” OSIRIS-REx has been backing away from Bennu since Tuesday ’ s sampling maneuver and will not swoop in toward the asteroid again , Lauretta said .
Assuming the sample is stowed successfully next week , the next big milestone will come in early March , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward Earth .
That trip will be relatively uneventful , Lauretta said—until September 2023 , when the return capsule comes down to Earth ( containing an unknown amount of material ; there ’ s no good way to measure the mass once the sample has been stowed ) .
The asteroid rocks and dirt will then make their way to labs around the world , where scientists can study them for clues about the solar system ’ s early days and the role that carbon-rich space rocks like Bennu may have played in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though OSIRIS-REx ( whose name is short for “ Origins , Spectral Interpretation , Resource Identification , Security-Regolith Explorer ) is NASA ’ s first asteroid-sampling mission , it ’ s not the first one overall .
Japan ’ s Hayabusa probe returned small grains of the stony asteroid Itokawa in 2010 , and its successor , Hayabusa2 , is hauling a sample of the carbon-rich asteroid Ryugu Earthward now .
The Ryugu material will land in Australia this coming December .
Copyright 2020 Space.com , a Future company .
All rights reserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , broadcast , rewritten or redistributed .

NASA’s first-ever asteroid-sampling operation apparently went a little too well.
The agency’s OSIRIS-REx probe snagged so much dirt and rock from the surface of the near-Earth asteroid Bennu on Tuesday (Oct. 20) that the spacecraft’s sampling mechanism didn’t close properly, allowing some of the collected material to escape into space, mission team members announced Friday (Oct. 23).
OSIRIS-REx’s handlers now plan to stow the collected material in the probe’s return capsule as soon as possible, to minimize the material lost. The team hopes to begin that crucial, multi-day operation on Tuesday (Oct. 27), NASA officials said.
“Bennu continues to surprise us with great science and also [by] throwing a few curveballs,” Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA’s associate administrator for science at the agency’s headquarters in Washington, said in a statement.
“And although we may have to move more quickly to stow the sample, it’s not a bad problem to have,” Zurbuchen said. “We are so excited to see what appears to be an abundant sample that will inspire science for decades beyond this historic moment.”
The $800 million OSIRIS-REx mission launched in September 2016 and arrived at Bennu in December 2018. The mission’s chief goal is to deliver at least 2.1 ounces (60 grams) of pristine Bennu material to Earth. That will happen on Sept. 24, 2023, when the return capsule touches down in the Utah desert.
All indications are that the probe collected more than enough material during Tuesday’s maneuver, which featured a six-second-long “kiss” of Bennu with OSIRIS-REx’s Touch-And-Go Sample Acquisition Mechanism (TAGSAM) head.
The head sank deep into Bennu, perhaps getting up to 19 inches (48 centimeters) beneath the surface, mission principal investigator Dante Lauretta, of the University of Arizona, said during a news conference Friday. And photos captured by the spacecraft show that the sampling head is jammed with material, suggesting that OSIRIS-REx snagged, at minimum, hundreds of grams of Bennu bits, Lauretta added.
But those photos also revealed a cloud of particles escaping from the TAGSAM head, through gaps where small rocks prevented the sampler’s mylar flap from closing all the way. The jailbreak was spurred when OSIRIS-REx moved TAGSAM around to get a look at the collected sample, Lauretta said.
He and his colleagues originally planned to weigh the sample Saturday (Oct. 24), an operation that would have involved spinning OSIRIS-REx around a bit. But that operation would doubtless have liberated more asteroid particles, so mission team members now plan to proceed directly to sample stowage. (They also canceled an engine burn that would have slowed OSIRIS-REx’s retreat from Bennu, for the same reason.)
Skipping the weighing step is no great loss, Lauretta said.
“The challenge that we have in front of us is due to the fact that the TAGSAM is probably really full of material,” he said during Friday’s new conference. The top priority at this point, he added, “is to get this sample safely stowed and minimize any more loss."
It’s tough to quantify how much material has been lost, Lauretta said. But he estimated that up to 10 grams of Bennu samples flew the coop as a result of the recent photography activities, and that “grams to tens of grams” could be lost during the stow operation. (The escape rate seems to be quite low when Bennu stays relatively still, Lauretta said.) If these numbers are correct, and OSIRIS-REx did indeed snag hundreds of grams of material on Tuesday, then the mission is in fine shape going forward.
The samples cannot be stowed immediately, Lauretta said. The team first needs to finalize and validate an updated stowing plan that takes into account leaking asteroid particles, for example. The mission also must secure a long, continuous block of time on NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN), the set of radio dishes around the globe the agency uses to communicate with its far-flung spacecraft. Sample stowage will be an involved and time-intensive process with lots of back-and-forth between OSIRIS-REx and the ground, Lauretta explained.
These complications notwithstanding, the mission team is happy and excited about how things have gone to date, Lauretta said.
“We couldn’t have performed a better sample-collection experiment,” he said. “The particles are escaping because we were almost a victim of our own success here.”
OSIRIS-REx has been backing away from Bennu since Tuesday’s sampling maneuver and will not swoop in toward the asteroid again, Lauretta said. Assuming the sample is stowed successfully next week, the next big milestone will come in early March, when OSIRIS-REx departs Bennu and starts heading back toward Earth.
That trip will be relatively uneventful, Lauretta said—until September 2023, when the return capsule comes down to Earth (containing an unknown amount of material; there’s no good way to measure the mass once the sample has been stowed).
The asteroid rocks and dirt will then make their way to labs around the world, where scientists can study them for clues about the solar system’s early days and the role that carbon-rich space rocks like Bennu may have played in helping life get started on Earth.
Though OSIRIS-REx (whose name is short for “Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer) is NASA’s first asteroid-sampling mission, it’s not the first one overall. Japan’s Hayabusa probe returned small grains of the stony asteroid Itokawa in 2010, and its successor, Hayabusa2, is hauling a sample of the carbon-rich asteroid Ryugu Earthward now. The Ryugu material will land in Australia this coming December.
Copyright 2020 Space.com, a Future company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.