scientificamerican--2020-11-27--Moby-Dick and the Galápagos Tortoises

Moby-Dick and the Galápagos Tortoises

It ’ s 1820 , and the whaleship Essex is in the Pacific Ocean , on a voyage to hunt sperm whales and collect their oil .
The days are long , work is hard , it 's hot , land is nowhere to be seen , and food is , well , unpleasant to say the least .
For the crew of this voyage , success depends on catching , killing and extracting as much oil as possible—remember , this is 39 years before petroleum is discovered in Pennsylvania in 1859 .
The Essex is not alone , hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early to mid-19th century participated in this animal-based economy .
Not to the betterment of sperm whales , whose numbers were seriously depleted by decades of overexploitation ( today , these animals are listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List ) .
Of course , for those of you picking up , or brushing off , the quintessential classic Moby-Dick this fall , you will likely understand the rest of this story , albeit with some historical modifications .
A sperm whale of considerable proportions , the Pequod ( read , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a prophetic battle that conjures images akin to Disney 's Fantasia .
It does not end well , for the whale , Ahab or the Pequod .
Herman Melville 's 1851 novel , a dramatic , fictionalized version of events that occurred on the real-life Essex is considered a foundational piece of American literature .
But what is the truth on which that literature was constructed ?
What Melville fails to write in his 600-plus page novel is that the survivors of the Essex , the 19th-century whaling industry and the source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their success—and their lives—to Galápagos tortoises .
When the Essex ventured into the Pacific and round Cape Horn , she stopped on Floreana and Española Islands in the Galápagos .
This was all too common for whaleships during this era .
Tortoises can live long periods without food and water ; they are also large , apparently tasty and easy to transport .
Perfect food for gastronomically deprived and scurvy-ridden whalers .
Luckily , a surviving manuscript from the Essex cabin boy , Thomas Nickerson , helps describe what happened next .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : they collected 100 tortoises to consume during their long days at sea ( in addition to 180 tortoises collected from Española ) ; and a member of the crew lit the island on fire , as a prank .
The Floreana tortoise likely held on a few years more , but eventually this species went extinct , no thanks to the Essex and her crew .
Nickerson noted that when the whaleship departed , they could still see the “ blazing fire ” in the distance , and when he revisited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desolation was still visible .
While this record is disturbing and speaks to the wanton destruction earlier generations of humanity brought to the Galápagos , the true horror comes after the infamous sperm whale rammed the Essex and sent her to the depths .
The few survivors lucky enough to be in boats quickly grabbed any provisions they could from the sinking whaleship .
Most importantly , they “ saved ” a dozen Galápagos tortoises from the wreck .
Then , before descending into eventual cannibalism , the crew killed , butchered and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and blood ) available from those helpless animals .
In one meal , which Nathaniel Philbrick describes , the crew held down a tortoise , cut it open , drank its blood , then started a fire in the tortoise ’ s shell and cooked it all—including the entrails .
So , let ’ s think this through : Melville is inspired to write Moby-Dick after meeting the former Essex captain and reading survivors stories ; the survivors of the Essex owe a least a portion of their lives to the flesh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , the tortoises themselves owe nothing to the whalers who both destroyed their habitat and intensively exploited them for food .
It ’ s possible to state that if the Essex had never collected tortoises from the Galápagos , Melville would never written Moby-Dick .
It is an odd and disturbing circle of events .
I also now see why Ron Howard skipped this part in his film adaptation In the Heart of the Sea—seeing tortoises butchered and slaughtered is not very heroic or family-friendly .
In this era of animal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environment and anthropogenic climate change , when you read Moby-Dick , remember the history of the Galápagos tortoises .
More importantly , teach this history .
If we are lucky , our own species can learn from the mistakes of our ancestors and stop the industrial scale destruction of nonhuman animals .
We need to remember that the only reason we have Moby-Dick is thanks to Galápagos tortoises .
In many ways , it ’ s surprising that given the 100,000–200,000 , or more , tortoises killed during the era of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ books , stories and acclaim created from the flesh of these iconic creatures .

It’s 1820, and the whaleship Essex is in the Pacific Ocean, on a voyage to hunt sperm whales and collect their oil. The days are long, work is hard, it's hot, land is nowhere to be seen, and food is, well, unpleasant to say the least.
For the crew of this voyage, success depends on catching, killing and extracting as much oil as possible—remember, this is 39 years before petroleum is discovered in Pennsylvania in 1859. The Essex is not alone, hundreds of vessels during the late 18th and early to mid-19th century participated in this animal-based economy. Not to the betterment of sperm whales, whose numbers were seriously depleted by decades of overexploitation (today, these animals are listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List).
Of course, for those of you picking up, or brushing off, the quintessential classic Moby-Dick this fall, you will likely understand the rest of this story, albeit with some historical modifications. A sperm whale of considerable proportions, the Pequod (read, the Essex), and Captain Ahab entangle in a prophetic battle that conjures images akin to Disney's Fantasia. It does not end well, for the whale, Ahab or the Pequod.
Herman Melville's 1851 novel, a dramatic, fictionalized version of events that occurred on the real-life Essex is considered a foundational piece of American literature. But what is the truth on which that literature was constructed? What Melville fails to write in his 600-plus page novel is that the survivors of the Essex, the 19th-century whaling industry and the source of inspiration for his classic all owe their success—and their lives—to Galápagos tortoises.
When the Essex ventured into the Pacific and round Cape Horn, she stopped on Floreana and Española Islands in the Galápagos. This was all too common for whaleships during this era. Tortoises can live long periods without food and water; they are also large, apparently tasty and easy to transport. Perfect food for gastronomically deprived and scurvy-ridden whalers.
Luckily, a surviving manuscript from the Essex cabin boy, Thomas Nickerson, helps describe what happened next. On Floreana Island the crew accomplished two tasks: they collected 100 tortoises to consume during their long days at sea (in addition to 180 tortoises collected from Española); and a member of the crew lit the island on fire, as a prank. The Floreana tortoise likely held on a few years more, but eventually this species went extinct, no thanks to the Essex and her crew. Nickerson noted that when the whaleship departed, they could still see the “blazing fire” in the distance, and when he revisited the island several years later, the blackened desolation was still visible.
While this record is disturbing and speaks to the wanton destruction earlier generations of humanity brought to the Galápagos, the true horror comes after the infamous sperm whale rammed the Essex and sent her to the depths. The few survivors lucky enough to be in boats quickly grabbed any provisions they could from the sinking whaleship. Most importantly, they “saved” a dozen Galápagos tortoises from the wreck.
Then, before descending into eventual cannibalism, the crew killed, butchered and consumed every bit and piece of meat (and blood) available from those helpless animals. In one meal, which Nathaniel Philbrick describes, the crew held down a tortoise, cut it open, drank its blood, then started a fire in the tortoise’s shell and cooked it all—including the entrails.
So, let’s think this through: Melville is inspired to write Moby-Dick after meeting the former Essex captain and reading survivors stories; the survivors of the Essex owe a least a portion of their lives to the flesh of Galápagos tortoises; but at the same time, the tortoises themselves owe nothing to the whalers who both destroyed their habitat and intensively exploited them for food. It’s possible to state that if the Essex had never collected tortoises from the Galápagos, Melville would never written Moby-Dick. It is an odd and disturbing circle of events.
I also now see why Ron Howard skipped this part in his film adaptation In the Heart of the Sea—seeing tortoises butchered and slaughtered is not very heroic or family-friendly.
In this era of animal extinctions, biodiversity loss, deregulation of the environment and anthropogenic climate change, when you read Moby-Dick, remember the history of the Galápagos tortoises. More importantly, teach this history. If we are lucky, our own species can learn from the mistakes of our ancestors and stop the industrial scale destruction of nonhuman animals. We need to remember that the only reason we have Moby-Dick is thanks to Galápagos tortoises. In many ways, it’s surprising that given the 100,000–200,000, or more, tortoises killed during the era of their exploitation, there weren’t more books, stories and acclaim created from the flesh of these iconic creatures.


scientificamerican--2020-11-27--Sea Angels and Sea Butterflies Reveal Climate Change Consequences

These winged water-dwellers are sea angels , floating marine slugs that may be the “ canary in the coal mine ” for severe ocean acidification caused by modern global warming .
Sea angels and their fluttering counterparts , sea butterflies , are pteropods .
Pteropods first evolved in the early Cretaceous period , sharing the planet with dinosaurs and ammonites .
The marine slugs are ancient and remarkably resilient ; they have survived periods of major global extinctions and environmental changes , according to a study published in October 2020 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only living creature of their kind with a solid fossil record , so they are uniquely situated to help researchers determine the effects of global change on the marine environment .
Modern global warming is rapidly accelerating and creating new challenges for these creatures .
As higher concentrations of carbon dioxide build up in the ocean and the waters acidify , greater damage is occurring to marine ecosystems , including the reduction of biodiversity in coral reefs and the hampering of animals ’ metabolisms .
Changes to the current health of marine creatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their oceanic environment .
“ Although our results suggest resilience of pteropods to past ocean acidification , it is unlikely that they have ever , during their entire evolutionary history , experienced global change of the magnitude and speed that we see today , ” researchers wrote in their paper .
Science in Images is a new category of articles featuring photographs and videos from all the disciplines of science .
Click on the button below to see the full collection .

These winged water-dwellers are sea angels, floating marine slugs that may be the “canary in the coal mine” for severe ocean acidification caused by modern global warming.
Sea angels and their fluttering counterparts, sea butterflies, are pteropods. Pteropods first evolved in the early Cretaceous period, sharing the planet with dinosaurs and ammonites. The marine slugs are ancient and remarkably resilient; they have survived periods of major global extinctions and environmental changes, according to a study published in October 2020 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, they are the only living creature of their kind with a solid fossil record, so they are uniquely situated to help researchers determine the effects of global change on the marine environment.
Modern global warming is rapidly accelerating and creating new challenges for these creatures. As higher concentrations of carbon dioxide build up in the ocean and the waters acidify, greater damage is occurring to marine ecosystems, including the reduction of biodiversity in coral reefs and the hampering of animals’ metabolisms. Changes to the current health of marine creatures like pteropods indicate the growing instability of their oceanic environment.
“Although our results suggest resilience of pteropods to past ocean acidification, it is unlikely that they have ever, during their entire evolutionary history, experienced global change of the magnitude and speed that we see today,” researchers wrote in their paper.
Science in Images is a new category of articles featuring photographs and videos from all the disciplines of science. Click on the button below to see the full collection.
Science in Images


scientificamerican--2020-11-27--New Wind Turbine Blades Could be Recycled Instead of Landfilled

Researchers have developed a wind turbine blade that costs less and appears to be recyclable , two attributes that could accelerate the rapid growth of both onshore and offshore wind around the world .
The innovation may also reduce rising transportation costs because blades for taller turbines can now be as long as 262 feet , almost the length of a football field .
It may take years of further testing to make certain the recyclable blades can endure the outdoor elements for 30 years , which is the standard goal for the wind power industry , according to researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cutting the cost of future blades will be a “ big step ” in accelerating growth of wind power , said Daniel Laird , the director of NREL ’ s wind technology center , which has spent four years working on the new blade .
He noted that over the last three decades , research has helped drive down the costs of electricity made from wind turbines by 90 % .
But he added that wind power must still compete with coal , natural gas and nuclear power to keep its niche growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that a lot of progress is going to be made on the recyclability of blades in the next year or two , ” Laird said .
Not everyone is that optimistic .
The American Wind Energy Association ( AWEA ) recently released a paper suggesting that “ repurposing ” giant used blades might be a simpler alternative to recycling .
The industry group says that “ local communities ” might use them for pedestrian bridges , playground equipment and public benches .
Roofing materials is another potential use .
The AWEA report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solid waste division for Casper , Wyo.
, who was recently thrilled to receive $ 600,000 for dumping used wind turbine blades in the local landfill .
“ This is the least problematic waste in terms of environmental concerns that we ’ ve ever gotten , ” she explained to AWEA .
“ We get tires , asbestos , contaminated soil , pretty nasty stuff.
” AWEA ’ s report also noted that Vestas Wind Systems A/S , one of the world ’ s largest wind turbine manufacturers , has set a goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not easy to make a wind turbine blade .
Conventional blades require a lot of labor .
They are a sandwich composed of fiberglass , sheets of balsa wood and a chemical called an epoxy thermoset resin .
A heat oven is required to give blades the proper shape , strength , smoothness and flexibility to catch the wind and turn the turbine .
The new NREL blade uses most of these components , but bonds them together with a thermoplastic resin that can harden and set the blade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It can also be reclaimed at the end of its life by heating it into a liquid resin that can then be reused to make new blades .
That minimizes the waste problem , which became more difficult in Europe after the European Union banned old blades from being dumped in landfills .
The new resin is called Elium , and it ’ s made by Arkema Inc. , a French company with offices in King of Prussia , Pa. Arkema is working with NREL to develop the recyclable blade .
Robynne Murray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making the new blades at NREL ’ s laboratory , says they are stress-tested in the lab against conventional blades .
Among other things , the tests show that the newer blades have what is called a greater “ damping effect , ” which means they reduce wind-caused vibrations , a nuisance to people that can reduce the life of turbine structures .
“ This is still early days on the research , ” Murray noted .
“ A lot of the cost modeling will come later.
” Reprinted from Climatewire with permission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news atwww.eenews.net .

Researchers have developed a wind turbine blade that costs less and appears to be recyclable, two attributes that could accelerate the rapid growth of both onshore and offshore wind around the world.
The innovation may also reduce rising transportation costs because blades for taller turbines can now be as long as 262 feet, almost the length of a football field.
It may take years of further testing to make certain the recyclable blades can endure the outdoor elements for 30 years, which is the standard goal for the wind power industry, according to researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Cutting the cost of future blades will be a “big step” in accelerating growth of wind power, said Daniel Laird, the director of NREL’s wind technology center, which has spent four years working on the new blade.
He noted that over the last three decades, research has helped drive down the costs of electricity made from wind turbines by 90%. But he added that wind power must still compete with coal, natural gas and nuclear power to keep its niche growing in the energy business.
“I think that a lot of progress is going to be made on the recyclability of blades in the next year or two,” Laird said.
Not everyone is that optimistic. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) recently released a paper suggesting that “repurposing” giant used blades might be a simpler alternative to recycling. The industry group says that “local communities” might use them for pedestrian bridges, playground equipment and public benches. Roofing materials is another potential use.
The AWEA report quoted Cindie Langston, manager of the solid waste division for Casper, Wyo., who was recently thrilled to receive $600,000 for dumping used wind turbine blades in the local landfill.
“This is the least problematic waste in terms of environmental concerns that we’ve ever gotten,” she explained to AWEA. “We get tires, asbestos, contaminated soil, pretty nasty stuff.”
AWEA’s report also noted that Vestas Wind Systems A/S, one of the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturers, has set a goal for eliminating conventional turbine blades by 2040.
It’s not easy to make a wind turbine blade. Conventional blades require a lot of labor. They are a sandwich composed of fiberglass, sheets of balsa wood and a chemical called an epoxy thermoset resin. A heat oven is required to give blades the proper shape, strength, smoothness and flexibility to catch the wind and turn the turbine.
The new NREL blade uses most of these components, but bonds them together with a thermoplastic resin that can harden and set the blade’s shape at room temperature. It can also be reclaimed at the end of its life by heating it into a liquid resin that can then be reused to make new blades.
That minimizes the waste problem, which became more difficult in Europe after the European Union banned old blades from being dumped in landfills. The new resin is called Elium, and it’s made by Arkema Inc., a French company with offices in King of Prussia, Pa. Arkema is working with NREL to develop the recyclable blade.
Robynne Murray, a research engineer who has been making the new blades at NREL’s laboratory, says they are stress-tested in the lab against conventional blades. Among other things, the tests show that the newer blades have what is called a greater “damping effect,” which means they reduce wind-caused vibrations, a nuisance to people that can reduce the life of turbine structures.
“This is still early days on the research,” Murray noted. “A lot of the cost modeling will come later.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-11-27--Neighborhood Wealth Dramatically Impacts Home Greenhouse Gas Emissions

If U.S. home energy consumption were a country , it would rank as the world 's sixth-largest greenhouse gas emitter .
To bring housing emissions in line with international goals to limit global warming , planners must sift through variables such as local climate , building age and size , and occupant income .
A recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA provides a new nationwide analysis evaluating these factors .
The researchers fed detailed building data from 93 million homes ( gleaned from a database of U.S. tax assessor records ) into computer models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimate home emissions .
One clear result was that wealthier people 's homes in America tended to be larger and produce about 25 percent more emissions than those of low-income people .
This relation held when the researchers dug down to compare neighborhoods within very different cities such as Los Angeles and Boston ; in L.A. , for instance , some affluent neighborhoods had emissions 15 times higher than nearby low-income areas .
Study co-author Benjamin Goldstein , a researcher at the University of Michigan , was surprised by another finding : dense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions goals .
The data suggest single-family housing on small lots in certain areas , such as some in Los Angeles , could also reach international targets as carbon-free energy sources become more common .
“ Not everything needs to look like Brooklyn or Manhattan to be low energy , ” he says .
Anu Ramaswami , a Princeton University environmental engineer , who was not involved with the study , cautions that its emissions-estimating models may not capture efficiency measures taken by some homeowners .
But she says the research could set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , such studies could help officials determine how to tailor specific local building policies to best reduce emissions , such as by encouraging smaller lot sizes or alternatives to heating oil .

If U.S. home energy consumption were a country, it would rank as the world's sixth-largest greenhouse gas emitter. To bring housing emissions in line with international goals to limit global warming, planners must sift through variables such as local climate, building age and size, and occupant income.
A recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA provides a new nationwide analysis evaluating these factors. The researchers fed detailed building data from 93 million homes (gleaned from a database of U.S. tax assessor records) into computer models that accounted for local fuel sources to estimate home emissions.
Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: The Carbon Footprint of Household Energy Use in the United States,” by Benjamin Goldstein et al., in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 117, No. 32; August 11, 2020
One clear result was that wealthier people's homes in America tended to be larger and produce about 25 percent more emissions than those of low-income people. This relation held when the researchers dug down to compare neighborhoods within very different cities such as Los Angeles and Boston; in L.A., for instance, some affluent neighborhoods had emissions 15 times higher than nearby low-income areas.
Study co-author Benjamin Goldstein, a researcher at the University of Michigan, was surprised by another finding: dense apartment complexes are not essential to meet emissions goals. The data suggest single-family housing on small lots in certain areas, such as some in Los Angeles, could also reach international targets as carbon-free energy sources become more common. “Not everything needs to look like Brooklyn or Manhattan to be low energy,” he says.
Anu Ramaswami, a Princeton University environmental engineer, who was not involved with the study, cautions that its emissions-estimating models may not capture efficiency measures taken by some homeowners. But she says the research could set an example for municipality-level analyses. For example, such studies could help officials determine how to tailor specific local building policies to best reduce emissions, such as by encouraging smaller lot sizes or alternatives to heating oil.


scientificamerican--2020-11-28--The Case for 'Universal Property'

The Case for 'Universal Property'

When voters went to the polls in November , one outcome was certain : America would emerge as a nation deeply divided .
President-elect Biden ’ s pledge to “ unite and heal ” will do little to remedy this reality unless good intentions are matched by bold policies that truly bring Americans together .
Universal property—an innovative idea that goes beyond income to the economic bedrock of wealth—offers a way to move in that direction , one that could win support on both sides of the political aisle .
Americans cherish both equality and liberty .
The problem is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict , the nation is torn between those willing to sacrifice some liberty for greater equality and those willing to do the opposite .
This underlying fault line was in evidence between those who voted for Biden and those who voted for Trump .
It is also a source of ambivalence among the many Americans on both sides who value both .
The notion that equality is the enemy of liberty , and vice versa , is founded on the view that government is the ultimate guarantor of equality , and private property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balance between equality and liberty thus morphs into the balance between the state and the market .
A quintessential exposition of this line of thinking can be found in the writings of antebellum South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun .
In his Disquisition on Government , published in 1851 , Calhoun juxtaposed “ two great classes ” : one comprised of taxpayers ( including slaveholders like himself ) who fund the government , the other of “ tax-consumers ” who live on government handouts .
The 20th-century free-market avatar Ayn Rand gave Calhoun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The creator produces , ” she wrote in her 1943 novel The Fountainhead , “ the parasite loots.
” Around the same time that Calhoun was penning his Disquisition , across the Atlantic two German émigrés offered a very different notion of class struggle .
In the Communist Manifesto , Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels portrayed the working class as the true creators of wealth , and the owners of capital as parasites .
A key plank in their program for building a more egalitarian society was state ownership of “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this recipe became all too clear with the advent of Communist regimes in the 20th century .
The belief that state property would in a meaningful sense belong to all was belied by the rise of new elites , whose power like that of capitalists rested on control of property—property nominally belonging to the governments they ran .
In Russia , three decades after elite “ reformers ” in the U.S.S.R. leveraged their political status to reinvent themselves as post-communist oligarchs , wealth is distributed even more unequally than in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a vengeance .
The lesson : Neither private property nor state-owned property is sufficient to guarantee equality and liberty for all .
The first can allow economic elites to monopolize wealth and power , the second can allow political elites to do the same .
But there is an alternative type of property that can never be concentrated in the hands of an elite .
It was pioneered in , of all places , Alaska .
In 1976 , as oil production commenced on Alaska ’ s North Slope , the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entity called the Alaska Permanent Fund .
The idea was the brainchild of Republican governor Jay Hammond , who believed that Alaska ’ s oil wealth belonged to all its residents , and that all should receive equal annual dividends from its extraction .
The fund is “ permanent ” because some of the money is invested so that future generations will receive dividends too once oil production ends .
“ That money and the resources it comes from belong to all Alaskans , ” Hammond wrote , “ not to government or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ who in states like Texas own almost all the oil.
” Not surprisingly , the fund has proven enormously popular across the state ’ s political spectrum .
The record payout , more than $ 3,000 per person including a one-time rebate , came under Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 .
The Permanent Fund is neither private property nor public property in the conventional senses .
Unlike public property , the right to the revenue belongs to the people , not the government .
Unlike private property , this right can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations , or concentrated in a few hands .
It is universal property : individual , inalienable and perfectly egalitarian .
In 2001 Peter Barnes , a solar energy entrepreneur and co-founder of the Working Assets Long Distance telephone company , wrote a book called Who Owns the Sky ?
, in which he proposed to treat the atmosphere ’ s limited capacity to safely absorb carbon emissions like Alaska treats its oil : as a joint inheritance that belongs in equal measure to each and every person .
To protect this precious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ought to strictly limit the use of fossil fuels , charge prices for the carbon emissions we do permit , and recycle the revenue to the public as dividends .
Hammond , for one , found the idea intriguing .
“ Pie in the sky ?
” he mused .
“ Perhaps , but provocative.
” In his forthcoming book Ours : How Universal Property Can Transform the World , Barnes extends the possibilities for this alternative type of property beyond natural assets to include assets we have created as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutional architecture of the financial system that underpins individual prosperity .
The gifts of society and the gifts of nature would be treated as a joint inheritance belonging to all : universal property .
Those who benefit from using them would pay according to their use , and the money received from their use would be paid out equally to all .
If implemented on a significant scale , universal property would inoculate the society against extreme inequality .
It would provide an asset-based source for a universal basic income , not dependent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the sky ’ s carbon-absorption capacity would help stabilize the Earth ’ s climate by curbing emissions ; similarly , financial transaction taxes would help stabilize the economy by curbing hair-trigger speculation .
Universal property is a bold idea that does not fit neatly into old labels .
It is neither Democratic nor Republican , neither liberal nor conservative , neither socialist nor libertarian .
Or rather , it is both .
It would advance equality and liberty together .
And by bringing everyone into the same boat as co-owners , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us apart .

When voters went to the polls in November, one outcome was certain: America would emerge as a nation deeply divided. President-elect Biden’s pledge to “unite and heal” will do little to remedy this reality unless good intentions are matched by bold policies that truly bring Americans together. Universal property—an innovative idea that goes beyond income to the economic bedrock of wealth—offers a way to move in that direction, one that could win support on both sides of the political aisle.
Americans cherish both equality and liberty. The problem is that when these appear to be in conflict, the nation is torn between those willing to sacrifice some liberty for greater equality and those willing to do the opposite. This underlying fault line was in evidence between those who voted for Biden and those who voted for Trump. It is also a source of ambivalence among the many Americans on both sides who value both.
The notion that equality is the enemy of liberty, and vice versa, is founded on the view that government is the ultimate guarantor of equality, and private property the ultimate guarantor of liberty. The balance between equality and liberty thus morphs into the balance between the state and the market. A quintessential exposition of this line of thinking can be found in the writings of antebellum South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun. In his Disquisition on Government, published in 1851, Calhoun juxtaposed “two great classes”: one comprised of taxpayers (including slaveholders like himself) who fund the government, the other of “tax-consumers” who live on government handouts. The 20th-century free-market avatar Ayn Rand gave Calhoun’s classes more vivid labels: “The creator produces,” she wrote in her 1943 novel The Fountainhead, “the parasite loots.”
Around the same time that Calhoun was penning his Disquisition, across the Atlantic two German émigrés offered a very different notion of class struggle. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels portrayed the working class as the true creators of wealth, and the owners of capital as parasites. A key plank in their program for building a more egalitarian society was state ownership of “the means of production.” The shortcomings of this recipe became all too clear with the advent of Communist regimes in the 20th century. The belief that state property would in a meaningful sense belong to all was belied by the rise of new elites, whose power like that of capitalists rested on control of property—property nominally belonging to the governments they ran. In Russia, three decades after elite “reformers” in the U.S.S.R. leveraged their political status to reinvent themselves as post-communist oligarchs, wealth is distributed even more unequally than in the United States. And in China inequality has reemerged with a vengeance.
The lesson: Neither private property nor state-owned property is sufficient to guarantee equality and liberty for all. The first can allow economic elites to monopolize wealth and power, the second can allow political elites to do the same. But there is an alternative type of property that can never be concentrated in the hands of an elite. It was pioneered in, of all places, Alaska.
In 1976, as oil production commenced on Alaska’s North Slope, the state amended its constitution to create a new entity called the Alaska Permanent Fund. The idea was the brainchild of Republican governor Jay Hammond, who believed that Alaska’s oil wealth belonged to all its residents, and that all should receive equal annual dividends from its extraction. The fund is “permanent” because some of the money is invested so that future generations will receive dividends too once oil production ends. “That money and the resources it comes from belong to all Alaskans,” Hammond wrote, “not to government or to a few ‘J.R. Ewings’ who in states like Texas own almost all the oil.” Not surprisingly, the fund has proven enormously popular across the state’s political spectrum. The record payout, more than $3,000 per person including a one-time rebate, came under Governor Sarah Palin in 2008.
The Permanent Fund is neither private property nor public property in the conventional senses. Unlike public property, the right to the revenue belongs to the people, not the government. Unlike private property, this right cannot be bought or sold, owned by corporations, or concentrated in a few hands. It is universal property: individual, inalienable and perfectly egalitarian.
In 2001 Peter Barnes, a solar energy entrepreneur and co-founder of the Working Assets Long Distance telephone company, wrote a book called Who Owns the Sky?, in which he proposed to treat the atmosphere’s limited capacity to safely absorb carbon emissions like Alaska treats its oil: as a joint inheritance that belongs in equal measure to each and every person. To protect this precious inheritance for future generations, Barnes argued that we ought to strictly limit the use of fossil fuels, charge prices for the carbon emissions we do permit, and recycle the revenue to the public as dividends. Hammond, for one, found the idea intriguing. “Pie in the sky?” he mused. “Perhaps, but provocative.”
In his forthcoming book Ours: How Universal Property Can Transform the World, Barnes extends the possibilities for this alternative type of property beyond natural assets to include assets we have created as a society, such as the legal and institutional architecture of the financial system that underpins individual prosperity. The gifts of society and the gifts of nature would be treated as a joint inheritance belonging to all: universal property. Those who benefit from using them would pay according to their use, and the money received from their use would be paid out equally to all.
If implemented on a significant scale, universal property would inoculate the society against extreme inequality. It would provide an asset-based source for a universal basic income, not dependent on redistributive taxation. Charging for use of the sky’s carbon-absorption capacity would help stabilize the Earth’s climate by curbing emissions; similarly, financial transaction taxes would help stabilize the economy by curbing hair-trigger speculation.
Universal property is a bold idea that does not fit neatly into old labels. It is neither Democratic nor Republican, neither liberal nor conservative, neither socialist nor libertarian. Or rather, it is both. It would advance equality and liberty together. And by bringing everyone into the same boat as co-owners, it could help bridge the divides that keep us apart.


Noah's Spaceship

There are many existential threats to life on Earth : a global pandemic even more deadly than COVID-19 , a runaway greenhouse effect similar to what happened on Venus but with our own finger on the trigger ; an impact by a giant asteroid bigger than the one that killed the dinosaurs ; explosions of nearby stars in the form of supernovae or gamma-ray bursts ; or the inevitable brightening of the sun within a billion years , which would boil all the oceans on Earth .
These catastrophes bring to mind the need to preserve the precious diversity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biblical story about Noah ’ s Ark .
An exchange about these threats with a Harvard colleague , Stephen Greenblatt , inspired me to ponder what a modern Noah ’ s Ark might look like .
The rumination was reinvigorated by my participation in a televised debate on the question : “ Is the space race good for humanity ?
” The other debaters were mostly concerned about the military risks from a space race between China and the U.S .
But I argued that military threats are limited to the two-dimensional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exploration of space is mostly engaged with the third dimension , extending far away from the Earth ’ s surface .
There would be no military threats to Earth as a result of settling on Mars or embarking on a trip to other stars , simply because these destinations are very distant .
For example , a civilization on the nearest habitable exoplanet , Proxima Centauri b , will not know the upshot of the 2016 presidential elections until the beginning of February 2021 , because radio signals take 4.244 years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The current space race is driven by national pride and commercial interests in the same spirit that oceans were explored in the 15th and 16th centuries .
If ships had been forbidden from leaving Europe for trade purposes just because of the military threat that navies might pose , the Americas would have never been colonized through a race between Portugal and Spain , followed by the Dutch Republic , England , France and Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries .
The only way to discover “ new worlds ” like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new territories , with associated risks .
Space travel extends beyond the boundaries of nations .
It is financially driven by the global economy , aiming to improve communication and navigation , to monitor weather patterns and climate change , to settle on the moon or Mars , to tour space , to mine asteroids , to deflect Earth-crossing objects and to remove artificial space debris .
Free competition among commercial sector players , like SpaceX or Blue Origin , would only benefit humanity in the long term .
A colleague from Cambridge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate prompt with implicit irony : “ Good question ... .
I ’ m very focused on merely terrestrial matters , for obvious reasons , ” to which I replied : “ In the long run , we will all have to leave Earth because it will not be habitable.
” There is no doubt in my mind that space is our ultimate destiny because conditions will inevitably deteriorate on Earth .
This was one of those rare circumstances under which an astronomer might end up sounding more pragmatic in the long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there anything more practical and urgent than Noah ’ s ambition of saving life from extinction ?
Currently , all our “ eggs ” are in one basket : Earth .
A future incarnation of Noah ’ s Ark would lift off the surface of the Earth and sail into space .
The biblical story details an Ark with dimensions of 150 by 25 by 15 meters on a side—coincidentally similar ( but with no meaningful relation ) to the inferred scales of the first interstellar object detected in the solar system , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not need to carry samples of all forms of terrestrial life .
There is no reason to build a huge craft that will carry humans , elephants , whales , birds and so on .
Thanks to modern science and technology , the craft could be small—a CubeSat containing an advanced computer system with artificial intelligence that stores the complete DNA information of all species on Earth and is supplemented by a 3-D printer that can manufacture the seeds of life when desired .
This platform could park at a safe location @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it comfortably warm and contains the raw materials for the chemistry of life .
As the sun expands in its final stages of life , the platform can maneuver to the proper habitable distance from it .
We already sent so-called “ Golden Records ” out into interstellar space on the Voyager probes launched in 1977 .
The records included sounds and images that portray the diversity of life and culture on Earth , as a “ message in a bottle ” to another intelligent civilization without knowing where such a civilization might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever be received .
A more technologically sophisticated Ark would instead be able to lay our “ eggs ” in many baskets .
The interesting follow-up question is whether life on Earth started this way , in which case our historical roots began with another civilization that no archaeological dig on Earth could reveal .
Instead , as descendants of directed panspermia from space , we could search for our ancestors only by engaging in space archaeology .

There are many existential threats to life on Earth: a global pandemic even more deadly than COVID-19, a runaway greenhouse effect similar to what happened on Venus but with our own finger on the trigger; an impact by a giant asteroid bigger than the one that killed the dinosaurs; explosions of nearby stars in the form of supernovae or gamma-ray bursts; or the inevitable brightening of the sun within a billion years, which would boil all the oceans on Earth.
These catastrophes bring to mind the need to preserve the precious diversity of terrestrial life, in the spirit of the biblical story about Noah’s Ark. An exchange about these threats with a Harvard colleague, Stephen Greenblatt, inspired me to ponder what a modern Noah’s Ark might look like.
The rumination was reinvigorated by my participation in a televised debate on the question: “Is the space race good for humanity?” The other debaters were mostly concerned about the military risks from a space race between China and the U.S. But I argued that military threats are limited to the two-dimensional surface on which we live, whereas the exploration of space is mostly engaged with the third dimension, extending far away from the Earth’s surface. There would be no military threats to Earth as a result of settling on Mars or embarking on a trip to other stars, simply because these destinations are very distant.
For example, a civilization on the nearest habitable exoplanet, Proxima Centauri b, will not know the upshot of the 2016 presidential elections until the beginning of February 2021, because radio signals take 4.244 years to get there at the speed of light. The current space race is driven by national pride and commercial interests in the same spirit that oceans were explored in the 15th and 16th centuries. If ships had been forbidden from leaving Europe for trade purposes just because of the military threat that navies might pose, the Americas would have never been colonized through a race between Portugal and Spain, followed by the Dutch Republic, England, France and Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The only way to discover “new worlds” like the Americas is through the exploration of new territories, with associated risks. Space travel extends beyond the boundaries of nations. It is financially driven by the global economy, aiming to improve communication and navigation, to monitor weather patterns and climate change, to settle on the moon or Mars, to tour space, to mine asteroids, to deflect Earth-crossing objects and to remove artificial space debris. Free competition among commercial sector players, like SpaceX or Blue Origin, would only benefit humanity in the long term.
A colleague from Cambridge University, Jeremy Butterfield, reacted to the debate prompt with implicit irony: “Good question.... I’m very focused on merely terrestrial matters, for obvious reasons,” to which I replied: “In the long run, we will all have to leave Earth because it will not be habitable.” There is no doubt in my mind that space is our ultimate destiny because conditions will inevitably deteriorate on Earth. This was one of those rare circumstances under which an astronomer might end up sounding more pragmatic in the long run than a down-to-Earth advocate. Is there anything more practical and urgent than Noah’s ambition of saving life from extinction?
Currently, all our “eggs” are in one basket: Earth. A future incarnation of Noah’s Ark would lift off the surface of the Earth and sail into space. The biblical story details an Ark with dimensions of 150 by 25 by 15 meters on a side—coincidentally similar (but with no meaningful relation) to the inferred scales of the first interstellar object detected in the solar system, `Oumuamua.
Noah’s spacecraft does not need to carry samples of all forms of terrestrial life. There is no reason to build a huge craft that will carry humans, elephants, whales, birds and so on. Thanks to modern science and technology, the craft could be small—a CubeSat containing an advanced computer system with artificial intelligence that stores the complete DNA information of all species on Earth and is supplemented by a 3-D printer that can manufacture the seeds of life when desired. This platform could park at a safe location that receives enough solar heat to keep it comfortably warm and contains the raw materials for the chemistry of life. As the sun expands in its final stages of life, the platform can maneuver to the proper habitable distance from it.
We already sent so-called “Golden Records” out into interstellar space on the Voyager probes launched in 1977. The records included sounds and images that portray the diversity of life and culture on Earth, as a “message in a bottle” to another intelligent civilization without knowing where such a civilization might b, or whether our message will ever be received. A more technologically sophisticated Ark would instead be able to lay our “eggs” in many baskets.
The interesting follow-up question is whether life on Earth started this way, in which case our historical roots began with another civilization that no archaeological dig on Earth could reveal. Instead, as descendants of directed panspermia from space, we could search for our ancestors only by engaging in space archaeology.


scientificamerican--2020-11-30--The COVID Science Wars

The COVID Science Wars

When Max von Pettenkofer shot himself to death in 1901 , he left behind a storied career as a hygienist and bitter opponent of Robert Koch , the German physician and microbiologist who discovered the cholera bacillus , Vibrio cholerae .
Von Pettenkofer , the founder of the Institute of Hygiene in Munich , disputed Koch ’ s germ theory of disease , which held that a germ is both necessary and sufficient to cause illness .
Von Pettenkofer asserted that germs could only cause disease in the presence of a “ local ” or environmental factor .
The battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bitter divide over the question of the infectivity of cholera .
Koch and his fellow contagionists maintained that the bacterium was spread through the water .
Von Pettenkofer and his localists believed that cholera was inhaled as a miasma , which arose from earth contaminated by sewage .
Anxious to prove his theory that germs alone don ’ t account for disease , and in the midst of one of the deadliest cholera pandemics of the 1800s , Von Pettenkofer , asked Koch to send him live cholera germs .
Koch complied with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Von Pettenkofer swallowed the vial ’ s contents before witnesses .
Several days later he reported that not only did he not die , he suffered no lasting effects .
Von Pettenkofer would be proven tragically wrong about cholera ’ s route of transmission when the city of Hamburg decided not to filter the city ’ s water , leading to nearly 9,000 deaths .
Only a handful of residents died in nearby Altona , which filtered its water through sand .
But while von Pettenkofer was wrong about how cholera was transmitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone is often insufficient to account for infection , disease and death .
As Paul de Kruif wrote in his famous 1926 book Microbe Hunters , “ Murderous germs are everywhere , sneaking into all of us , yet they are able to assassinate only some of us.
” Over the years , Koch ’ s postulates regarding infection would undergo several modifications , as it became clear that pathogens need a vulnerable host in order to cause serious harm , as von Pettenkofer predicted .
His theories would also influence our understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health .
All of this history should sound uncomfortably familiar to anyone who has been following the course of COVID-19 ’ s murderous path through different populations and locations and the bitter debates about how to stop it .
As in the cholera wars of the 1890s , different theories about the spread of COVID-19 and methods for reducing the death rate have been marked not only by by scientific conflicts , but also by an increasing distrustful public , political upheavals and even riots .
The debates over COVID-19 and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different sides have failed to perceive the possibility that they might not have the whole story , may hold vitally important lessons for President-elect Biden ’ s COVID-19 task force .
Hardened positions , which leave little room for uncertainty and nuance , undermine public trust as various assertions prove wrong .
In today ’ s COVID-19 wars , the global scientific divide leans heavily in favor of active , and sometimes even draconian , public health interventions , including widespread locking down of nonessential business , mandating masks , restricting travel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some doctors , scientists and public health officials are questioning the wisdom of this approach in the face of massive unknowns about their efficacy and in light of the clear and growing evidence that such measures may not be working in some cases , and may also be causing net harm .
As people are thrown out of work as a direct result of lockdowns , and as more and more families find themselves unable to cover their rent or food , there have been sharp increases in domestic violence , homelessness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides of the COVID-19 war are illustrated by two documents , the John Snow Memorandum and the Great Barrington Declaration , which were posted online in October .
The former represents the majoritarian position , which supports strict measures to limit human contacts and movements across the board .
In the U.S. , this approach has included shutting down public gatherings , restricting hotels and numerous small businesses such as restaurants and shops , and throwing millions of Americans out of work .
The Great Barrington Declaration , the minority view , advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and healthier individuals to continue life , work and going to school , while aiming more protective measures at the most vulnerable to the virus—the elderly , the institutionalized and other high-risk individuals .
This approach has been employed most fully in Sweden .
Advocates on both sides have dug in , hurling dismissive and vitriolic attacks at individuals in the other camp .
These attacks have caused serious reputational harm in some cases and led at least a few scientists to self-censor and avoid publishing data that could inform efforts to dampen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its remedies .
The first reported instance of intimidation occurred in China in December 2019 , when Li Wenliang , an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital , warned of a new infectious outbreak , and urged his colleagues to take protective measures .
According to an accounting of the events , Li was “ censured by hospital leaders and summoned to the Public Security Bureau in Wuhan , where he was forced to sign a statement in which he was accused of spreading false rumors and disturbing the public order.
” Li would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the U.S. , John Ioannidis , an epidemiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford University , was subjected to attacks , not at the hands of public officials , but his fellow scientists .
Ioannidis has authored some of the most cited journal articles in medical history and was praised in a 2010 article in The Atlanticas possibly “ one of the most influential scientists alive.
” Yet he was pilloried when he published an opinion essay expressing concerns that we lacked data on the efficacy of draconian responses to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that such measures could cause their own harms .
We read some of the obscene and defamatory e-mails that were sent to Ioannidis and his administrators and colleagues at Stanford .
Numerous misleading claims were advanced in the press , including the charge that he had a financial conflict of interest related to a study of the prevalence of COVID-19 that he co-authored .
But a fact-finding review by an external legal firm determined that Ioannidis did not have a financial conflict .
Ioannidis would come under more fire when he published an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 was far lower than initially reported .
Later , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published similarly low rates ( which varied by age group , time and location ) and the World Health Organization published updated research by Ioannidis showing a low overall infection fatality rate .
[ See sidebar : The Ioannidis Affair : A Tale of Major Scientific Overreaction . ]
In Sweden , where the minority view of the Great Barrington Declaration has been put into practice , several doctors report being bullied and their jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s approach .
In another case , Lonni Besanon , a French postdoctoral fellow at Linkping University , in Sweden , received multiple death threats after he made comments about Didier Raoult , the French researcher who claimed that hydroxychloroquine was effective for the treatment of COVID-19 Besanon said Raoult violated editorial standards for a peer-reviewed research article that was published one day after submission and that Raoult ’ s team had editorial conflicts of interest .
Raoult ’ s work would soon be shown to be shoddy and possibly fraudulent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ led at least some scientists to self-censor , for fear their contrarian positions would leave them open to reputational damage that could potentially threaten their careers .
One epidemiologist told us the environment was “ too toxic ” to talk to us , even anonymously .
The British journalist Laurie Clarke reported similar difficulties when she tried to interview epidemiologists who questioned the majoritarian views regarding population-based lockdowns .
One expert told her via e-mail that “ putting your head above the parapet is a dangerous thing to do at the moment ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise their heads , publication bias can further reinforce group think .
Stefan Baral , an epidemiologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health , reports that a letter he wrote about the potential harms of population-wide lockdowns was rejected from more than 10 scientific journals and 6 newspapers in April .
Baral , a highly published public health expert , said that the rejections could be , in his words , “ because there was nothing useful in there.
” But , he adds , “ it was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not get a piece placed anywhere .
” The effects of public health interventions can be very difficult to assess , so evidence gleaned from the few instances of randomized controlled trials of such interventions become particularly important .
Yet the highly anticipated results of the only randomized controlled trial of mask wearing and COVID-19 infection went unpublished for months .
Researchers , anxious to learn of the results , contacted Thomas Lars Benfield , a lead investigator on the study of 6,000 community-dwelling residents in Denmark , about the delay in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be published , “ As soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.
” The paper finally appeared , after a five-month delay , on November 18 in the Annals of Internal Medicine .
It showed no clear benefit from mask wearing in the community setting .
In an accompanying editorial , the editors recommended mask wearing while noting that any benefit is likely to be “ small , ” and adding , “ With fierce resistance to mask recommendations by leaders and the public in some locales , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these results , which could easily be misused by those opposed to mask recommendations ?
We think not .
More irresponsible would be to not publish the results of carefully designed research because the findings were not as favorable or definitive as some may have hoped.
” In yet another instance , a research article reporting data on the benefits and harms of lockdowns based on epidemiologic data from Sweden and other countries sat for two months at one of the top four medical journals before being rejected .
The importance of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it reviews the utility of an empowerment approach relying on recommendations in Sweden as compared to a norm of police-enforced mandates .
One might be tempted to think the delay resulted from the article lacking scientific merit .
However , it will be published by the Annals of Epidemiology and readers will be able to judge for themselves.In light of episodes like these , a toxic environment , self-censoring and publication bias combine to explain the dearth of skeptical or heterodox findings and views regarding ways to control COVID-19 .
The net effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been the creation and maintenance of “ groupthink ” —a problem that carries its own deadly consequences .
There is little doubt that as the world faces second and third waves of COVID-19 , public health measures such as the various forms of lockdown can both save lives and cause deaths .
Now , with news of vaccines released by Moderna and by Pfizer and Germany ’ s BioNTech , President-elect Biden ’ s COVID task force would do well to avoid making hurried assumptions about either vaccines or other public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the data and address concerns about research rigor and transparency .
And no matter how effective a vaccine may be , rolling it out is projected to take many months , a situation that could be exacerbated by the considerable vaccine resistance among members of the public .
That means there will still be a need for reasonable and effective public health measures for many months to come .
An exhausted public is now fed up with conflicting messaging from the Trump White House and public health experts , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are becoming increasingly resistant to the prospect of more public health measures that restrict their lives .
Silencing any science-based viewpoint that would lift some of the most oppressive aspects of controlling the spread of the virus could leave the public even more resistant to public health measures .
The new administration will also need public health messaging that helps people understand the evidence and reasoning behind it .
Fortunately , some doctors and researchers are engaging in respectful dialogue .
In October , a group of researchers with divergent views participated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The debate was the brainchild of Colleen Hanrahan , assistant scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health .
Hanrahan laughs as she recalls how she rounded up the participants , saying she told the experts that Johns Hopkins wanted a non-confrontational conversation , and she expected it to be “ slightly more civil than the first presidential debate.
” Sponsored by Johns Hopkins University , the debate participants represented viewpoints aligned with both the John Snow Memorandum and the Great Barrington Declaration .
It was notable not only for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of agreement that emerged regarding lockdowns .
Audience members were thrilled and submitted comments like this one : “ If only our current culture encouraged reasonable evidence-based and scholarly discussion like this .
The issue is nuanced and requires careful balance of all considerations , and you ca n't have that with closed minds , short attention spans , and personal insults being hurled .
THANK YOU !
” The experts discussed everything from herd immunity to contact tracing , testing and isolation , as well as risk-based protections versus geographic lockdowns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdowns , all agreed that they should and could be avoided in many cases .
Another area of agreement : the measure of successful interventions can ’ t rest solely on the number of deaths from COVID-19 .
The downstream harms of lockdowns must be included in the benefit-to-harm calculus .
It is critical that Biden ’ s task force avoid creating a majoritarian echo chamber and instead continues the approach pursued by the experts who convened for the Johns Hopkins debate .
Only by entertaining a broader , scientifically informed view of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 control be acceptable to a deeply divided public .

When Max von Pettenkofer shot himself to death in 1901, he left behind a storied career as a hygienist and bitter opponent of Robert Koch, the German physician and microbiologist who discovered the cholera bacillus, Vibrio cholerae. Von Pettenkofer, the founder of the Institute of Hygiene in Munich, disputed Koch’s germ theory of disease, which held that a germ is both necessary and sufficient to cause illness. Von Pettenkofer asserted that germs could only cause disease in the presence of a “local” or environmental factor.
The battle between the two men exploded into a bitter divide over the question of the infectivity of cholera. Koch and his fellow contagionists maintained that the bacterium was spread through the water. Von Pettenkofer and his localists believed that cholera was inhaled as a miasma, which arose from earth contaminated by sewage. Anxious to prove his theory that germs alone don’t account for disease, and in the midst of one of the deadliest cholera pandemics of the 1800s, Von Pettenkofer, asked Koch to send him live cholera germs. Koch complied with a vial swarming with cholera bacilli. Von Pettenkofer swallowed the vial’s contents before witnesses. Several days later he reported that not only did he not die, he suffered no lasting effects.
Von Pettenkofer would be proven tragically wrong about cholera’s route of transmission when the city of Hamburg decided not to filter the city’s water, leading to nearly 9,000 deaths. Only a handful of residents died in nearby Altona, which filtered its water through sand. But while von Pettenkofer was wrong about how cholera was transmitted, he was right that a germ alone is often insufficient to account for infection, disease and death. As Paul de Kruif wrote in his famous 1926 book Microbe Hunters, “Murderous germs are everywhere, sneaking into all of us, yet they are able to assassinate only some of us.” Over the years, Koch’s postulates regarding infection would undergo several modifications, as it became clear that pathogens need a vulnerable host in order to cause serious harm, as von Pettenkofer predicted. His theories would also influence our understanding of the importance of environmental factors to public health.
All of this history should sound uncomfortably familiar to anyone who has been following the course of COVID-19’s murderous path through different populations and locations and the bitter debates about how to stop it. As in the cholera wars of the 1890s, different theories about the spread of COVID-19 and methods for reducing the death rate have been marked not only by by scientific conflicts, but also by an increasing distrustful public, political upheavals and even riots. The debates over COVID-19 and the arguments of the past, in which different sides have failed to perceive the possibility that they might not have the whole story, may hold vitally important lessons for President-elect Biden’s COVID-19 task force. Hardened positions, which leave little room for uncertainty and nuance, undermine public trust as various assertions prove wrong.
In today’s COVID-19 wars, the global scientific divide leans heavily in favor of active, and sometimes even draconian, public health interventions, including widespread locking down of nonessential business, mandating masks, restricting travel and imposing quarantines. On the other side, some doctors, scientists and public health officials are questioning the wisdom of this approach in the face of massive unknowns about their efficacy and in light of the clear and growing evidence that such measures may not be working in some cases, and may also be causing net harm. As people are thrown out of work as a direct result of lockdowns, and as more and more families find themselves unable to cover their rent or food, there have been sharp increases in domestic violence, homelessness and illegal drug use.
The two sides of the COVID-19 war are illustrated by two documents, the John Snow Memorandum and the Great Barrington Declaration, which were posted online in October. The former represents the majoritarian position, which supports strict measures to limit human contacts and movements across the board. In the U.S., this approach has included shutting down public gatherings, restricting hotels and numerous small businesses such as restaurants and shops, and throwing millions of Americans out of work. The Great Barrington Declaration, the minority view, advocates “focused protection,” allowing younger and healthier individuals to continue life, work and going to school, while aiming more protective measures at the most vulnerable to the virus—the elderly, the institutionalized and other high-risk individuals. This approach has been employed most fully in Sweden.
Advocates on both sides have dug in, hurling dismissive and vitriolic attacks at individuals in the other camp. These attacks have caused serious reputational harm in some cases and led at least a few scientists to self-censor and avoid publishing data that could inform efforts to dampen death rates from both the virus and its remedies.
The first reported instance of intimidation occurred in China in December 2019, when Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital, warned of a new infectious outbreak, and urged his colleagues to take protective measures. According to an accounting of the events, Li was “censured by hospital leaders and summoned to the Public Security Bureau in Wuhan, where he was forced to sign a statement in which he was accused of spreading false rumors and disturbing the public order.” Li would die on February 7, of COVID-19.
In the U.S., John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford University, was subjected to attacks, not at the hands of public officials, but his fellow scientists. Ioannidis has authored some of the most cited journal articles in medical history and was praised in a 2010 article in The Atlanticas possibly “one of the most influential scientists alive.” Yet he was pilloried when he published an opinion essay expressing concerns that we lacked data on the efficacy of draconian responses to the outbreak, such as lockdowns, and that such measures could cause their own harms. We read some of the obscene and defamatory e-mails that were sent to Ioannidis and his administrators and colleagues at Stanford. Numerous misleading claims were advanced in the press, including the charge that he had a financial conflict of interest related to a study of the prevalence of COVID-19 that he co-authored. But a fact-finding review by an external legal firm determined that Ioannidis did not have a financial conflict. Ioannidis would come under more fire when he published an analysis showing that the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was far lower than initially reported. Later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published similarly low rates (which varied by age group, time and location) and the World Health Organization published updated research by Ioannidis showing a low overall infection fatality rate.
In Sweden, where the minority view of the Great Barrington Declaration has been put into practice, several doctors report being bullied and their jobs threatened for speaking out against their country’s approach. In another case, Lonni Besançon, a French postdoctoral fellow at Linköping University, in Sweden, received multiple death threats after he made comments about Didier Raoult, the French researcher who claimed that hydroxychloroquine was effective for the treatment of COVID-19 Besançon said Raoult violated editorial standards for a peer-reviewed research article that was published one day after submission and that Raoult’s team had editorial conflicts of interest . Raoult’s work would soon be shown to be shoddy and possibly fraudulent.
These attacks and others like them have led at least some scientists to self-censor, for fear their contrarian positions would leave them open to reputational damage that could potentially threaten their careers. One epidemiologist told us the environment was “too toxic” to talk to us, even anonymously. The British journalist Laurie Clarke reported similar difficulties when she tried to interview epidemiologists who questioned the majoritarian views regarding population-based lockdowns. One expert told her via e-mail that “putting your head above the parapet is a dangerous thing to do at the moment”.
Even when experts are willing to raise their heads, publication bias can further reinforce group think. Stefan Baral, an epidemiologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health, reports that a letter he wrote about the potential harms of population-wide lockdowns was rejected from more than 10 scientific journals and 6 newspapers in April. Baral, a highly published public health expert, said that the rejections could be, in his words, “because there was nothing useful in there.” But, he adds, “it was the first time in my career that I could not get a piece placed anywhere .”
The effects of public health interventions can be very difficult to assess, so evidence gleaned from the few instances of randomized controlled trials of such interventions become particularly important. Yet the highly anticipated results of the only randomized controlled trial of mask wearing and COVID-19 infection went unpublished for months. Researchers, anxious to learn of the results, contacted Thomas Lars Benfield, a lead investigator on the study of 6,000 community-dwelling residents in Denmark, about the delay in publication. Benfield responded that the results would be published, “As soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.” The paper finally appeared, after a five-month delay, on November 18 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It showed no clear benefit from mask wearing in the community setting. In an accompanying editorial, the editors recommended mask wearing while noting that any benefit is likely to be “small,” and adding, “With fierce resistance to mask recommendations by leaders and the public in some locales, is it irresponsible for Annals to publish these results, which could easily be misused by those opposed to mask recommendations? We think not. More irresponsible would be to not publish the results of carefully designed research because the findings were not as favorable or definitive as some may have hoped.”
In yet another instance, a research article reporting data on the benefits and harms of lockdowns based on epidemiologic data from Sweden and other countries sat for two months at one of the top four medical journals before being rejected . The importance of this article can’t be overstated; it reviews the utility of an empowerment approach relying on recommendations in Sweden as compared to a norm of police-enforced mandates. One might be tempted to think the delay resulted from the article lacking scientific merit. However, it will be published by the Annals of Epidemiology and readers will be able to judge for themselves.In light of episodes like these, a toxic environment, self-censoring and publication bias combine to explain the dearth of skeptical or heterodox findings and views regarding ways to control COVID-19.
The net effect of academic bullying and ad hominem attacks has been the creation and maintenance of “groupthink”—a problem that carries its own deadly consequences. There is little doubt that as the world faces second and third waves of COVID-19, public health measures such as the various forms of lockdown can both save lives and cause deaths. Now, with news of vaccines released by Moderna and by Pfizer and Germany’s BioNTech, President-elect Biden’s COVID task force would do well to avoid making hurried assumptions about either vaccines or other public health measures. The task force should review all the data and address concerns about research rigor and transparency. And no matter how effective a vaccine may be, rolling it out is projected to take many months, a situation that could be exacerbated by the considerable vaccine resistance among members of the public.
That means there will still be a need for reasonable and effective public health measures for many months to come. An exhausted public is now fed up with conflicting messaging from the Trump White House and public health experts, as well as isolation and loss of income. People are becoming increasingly resistant to the prospect of more public health measures that restrict their lives. Silencing any science-based viewpoint that would lift some of the most oppressive aspects of controlling the spread of the virus could leave the public even more resistant to public health measures. The new administration will also need public health messaging that helps people understand the evidence and reasoning behind it.
Fortunately, some doctors and researchers are engaging in respectful dialogue. In October, a group of researchers with divergent views participated in a virtual debate between seemingly warring sides. The debate was the brainchild of Colleen Hanrahan, assistant scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Hanrahan laughs as she recalls how she rounded up the participants, saying she told the experts that Johns Hopkins wanted a non-confrontational conversation, and she expected it to be “slightly more civil than the first presidential debate.”
Sponsored by Johns Hopkins University, the debate participants represented viewpoints aligned with both the John Snow Memorandum and the Great Barrington Declaration. It was notable not only for its civility, but also for the areas of agreement that emerged regarding lockdowns. Audience members were thrilled and submitted comments like this one: “If only our current culture encouraged reasonable evidence-based and scholarly discussion like this. The issue is nuanced and requires careful balance of all considerations, and you can't have that with closed minds, short attention spans, and personal insults being hurled. THANK YOU!”
The experts discussed everything from herd immunity to contact tracing, testing and isolation, as well as risk-based protections versus geographic lockdowns. While differences remained about how to focus lockdowns, all agreed that they should and could be avoided in many cases. Another area of agreement: the measure of successful interventions can’t rest solely on the number of deaths from COVID-19. The downstream harms of lockdowns must be included in the benefit-to-harm calculus.
It is critical that Biden’s task force avoid creating a majoritarian echo chamber and instead continues the approach pursued by the experts who convened for the Johns Hopkins debate. Only by entertaining a broader, scientifically informed view of what might work will the next phase of COVID-19 control be acceptable to a deeply divided public.
Clarification added after publication: the authors have collaborated in the past with both John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad, who are discussed in this essay and in the accompanying sidebar.


scientificamerican--2020-11-30--Take This Quiz to See If You Are a Face 'Super-Recognizer'

Some people are truly exceptional at recognizing faces .
Once they have seen a person , they can often remember the individual ’ s face decades later .
Even if the person spotted was a youngster at the time and has meanwhile become a grown woman , or a man with a full beard , they can still make the ID .
Psychologists from Australia ’ s University of New South Wales ( UNSW ) have been looking for these “ super-recognizers ” for years , using a specially designed online test .
On a typical face-recognition test , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UNSW group went a step further and created a particularly difficult test on which most test-takers will score between 50 and 60 percent but a super-recognizer will reach 70 percent .
The highest score ever was 97 percent , and no one has ever achieved a perfect score , the researchers reported in PLOS One .
They estimate that they have identified about 2,000 super-recognizers among the 50,000 people who have taken the online test since 2017 .
“ What we have learned from analyzing this test is that while all super-recognizers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are better than others , ” says James Dunn , a psychologist at UNSW and lead author of the study .
“ We hope that with more people completing the test we can find the ‘ Einstein of face recognition , ’ that special extraordinary individual who is the best of the best.
” Other researchers in face recognition have also weighed in .
“ This is an excellent advance in the field of super-recognition research , and it provides a powerful new tool for the identification of individuals with superior face identification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lecturer in psychology at the school of psychological sciences and health , University of Strathclyde , Glasgow , who was not involved in the study .
“ I have no doubt that this test will be very useful in identifying people with extraordinary face perception abilities , which will prove useful not just for our understanding of human face recognition ability , but also for appointing people to face-specific roles within various professions ( jobs that require identifying people ) , ” says Kay Ritchie , a senior lecturer in cognitive psychology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , England , who also was not involved in the study .
In the study , Dunn and colleagues describe people who have taken the UNSW test and who had an inkling that they were better than others at facial recognition .
The online test , which takes about 20 minutes to complete , then revealed whether that talent was really exceptional .
For instance , one woman named Jessica knew she was better at recognizing faces than her husband .
But it was only when the UNSW team contacted her that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of things suddenly made sense in my life , ” she told the researchers .
Super-recognizers often learn to conceal their ability , the scientists write .
A woman named Sallie told the team she has to pretend she has never seen a person she remembers well , for fear of giving the impression that she is a stalker .
The researchers hope to recruit super-recognizers to examine , among other things , how the brain processes faces .
To do this , high-level test performers may be invited to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their results are really well above average .
These exceptional individuals appear to have an innate ability that can not be achieved through training .
An ascertained super-recognizer may be in demand from a range of institutions that have an interest in reidentifying people—from police to intelligence agencies to casinos .

Some people are truly exceptional at recognizing faces. Once they have seen a person, they can often remember the individual’s face decades later. Even if the person spotted was a youngster at the time and has meanwhile become a grown woman, or a man with a full beard, they can still make the ID.
Psychologists from Australia’s University of New South Wales (UNSW) have been looking for these “super-recognizers” for years, using a specially designed online test.
On a typical face-recognition test, a super-recognizer will score 100 percent. But the UNSW group went a step further and created a particularly difficult test on which most test-takers will score between 50 and 60 percent but a super-recognizer will reach 70 percent. The highest score ever was 97 percent, and no one has ever achieved a perfect score, the researchers reported in PLOS One. They estimate that they have identified about 2,000 super-recognizers among the 50,000 people who have taken the online test since 2017.
“What we have learned from analyzing this test is that while all super-recognizers are exceptional at face recognition, some are better than others,” says James Dunn, a psychologist at UNSW and lead author of the study. “We hope that with more people completing the test we can find the ‘Einstein of face recognition,’ that special extraordinary individual who is the best of the best.”
Other researchers in face recognition have also weighed in. “This is an excellent advance in the field of super-recognition research, and it provides a powerful new tool for the identification of individuals with superior face identification ability,” says David Robertson, a lecturer in psychology at the school of psychological sciences and health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, who was not involved in the study.
“I have no doubt that this test will be very useful in identifying people with extraordinary face perception abilities, which will prove useful not just for our understanding of human face recognition ability, but also for appointing people to face-specific roles within various professions (jobs that require identifying people),” says Kay Ritchie, a senior lecturer in cognitive psychology at the University of Lincoln in Lincoln, England, who also was not involved in the study.
In the study, Dunn and colleagues describe people who have taken the UNSW test and who had an inkling that they were better than others at facial recognition. The online test, which takes about 20 minutes to complete, then revealed whether that talent was really exceptional. For instance, one woman named Jessica knew she was better at recognizing faces than her husband. But it was only when the UNSW team contacted her that she found out how much better.“Then a lot of things suddenly made sense in my life,” she told the researchers.
Super-recognizers often learn to conceal their ability, the scientists write. A woman named Sallie told the team she has to pretend she has never seen a person she remembers well, for fear of giving the impression that she is a stalker.
The researchers hope to recruit super-recognizers to examine, among other things, how the brain processes faces. To do this, high-level test performers may be invited to the lab to undergo further testing to confirm that their results are really well above average.
These exceptional individuals appear to have an innate ability that cannot be achieved through training. An ascertained super-recognizer may be in demand from a range of institutions that have an interest in reidentifying people—from police to intelligence agencies to casinos.


scientificamerican--2020-11-30--Undersea Earthquakes Reveal Sound Warming Info

To us humans , climate change feels like something that ’ s happening to the atmosphere .
But most of the action is actually at sea—about 90 percent of the heat that gets trapped by greenhouse gases is absorbed by the ocean .
“ So it ’ s really important to track that energy in the climate system and track the warming of the ocean.
” Of course , the ocean is really big , and taking its temperature is hard .
Satellites give information about the surface , and scientists have launched drifting devices that measure conditions in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still struggle to collect data from the deep ocean , and to detect the long-term trends underlying day-to-day variations in temperature .
Now , however , scientists have developed a new technique that allows them to measure temperature changes across entire ocean basins .
The idea dates back to the 1970s , when researchers first proposed using sound waves to study ocean warming—because the speed of sound through water depends on the physical properties of that water , which are related to temperature .
“ And roughly , if we warm up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sound speed change—it would be four meters per second .
And this is a very sensitive change.
” Wenbo Wu , a seismologist also at Caltech , who led the study .
That one degree he mentioned is a Celsius degree .
Researchers originally proposed using artificial sound sources , but that notion got nixed because of concerns about the impacts on marine animals .
In the new study , however , Wu , Callies and their colleagues show they can use the sounds produced by earthquakes instead .
In an earthquake , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn into sound waves that get picked up by seismometers and underwater microphones .
The researchers looked at the travel times of these sound waves for 2,000 pairs of earthquakes that occurred in the East Indian Ocean between 2005 and 2016 .
Each earthquake pair happened in the same place but at different times , allowing the researchers to measure how much the sound waves sped up .
The analysis revealed that the waves traveled a few tenths of a second faster in more recent quakes than in older ones—a difference that translates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Celsius per decade .
Four one-hundredths of a degree may not sound like a lot , but it represents a huge amount of heat—considering it ’ s the change in a body of water almost 2,000 miles wide and several miles deep .
The warming is also substantially higher than the rate reported in previous studies , although Callies says not to put too much stock in those discrepancies .
“ We don ’ t know whether that is the general finding—whether that only occurs here in this region at this time—or whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other regions as well .
We just don ’ t have the data yet.
” The study is in the journal Science .
[ Wenbo Wu et al , Seismic ocean thermometry ] Callies and Wu say that this approach may even enable scientists to gauge historical temperature changes by studying data from much older earthquakes .
In other words , you could say that the method is sound .

Full Transcript
To us humans, climate change feels like something that’s happening to the atmosphere. But most of the action is actually at sea—about 90 percent of the heat that gets trapped by greenhouse gases is absorbed by the ocean.
“So it’s really important to track that energy in the climate system and track the warming of the ocean.”
Jörn Callies, an oceanographer at Caltech.
Of course, the ocean is really big, and taking its temperature is hard. Satellites give information about the surface, and scientists have launched drifting devices that measure conditions in the upper mile of water. But researchers still struggle to collect data from the deep ocean, and to detect the long-term trends underlying day-to-day variations in temperature.
Now, however, scientists have developed a new technique that allows them to measure temperature changes across entire ocean basins. The idea dates back to the 1970s, when researchers first proposed using sound waves to study ocean warming—because the speed of sound through water depends on the physical properties of that water, which are related to temperature.
“And roughly, if we warm up the ocean temperature by one degree, the sound speed change—it would be four meters per second. And this is a very sensitive change.”
Wenbo Wu, a seismologist also at Caltech, who led the study. That one degree he mentioned is a Celsius degree.
Researchers originally proposed using artificial sound sources, but that notion got nixed because of concerns about the impacts on marine animals. In the new study, however, Wu, Callies and their colleagues show they can use the sounds produced by earthquakes instead.
In an earthquake, some vibrations bounce off the seafloor and turn into sound waves that get picked up by seismometers and underwater microphones.
The researchers looked at the travel times of these sound waves for 2,000 pairs of earthquakes that occurred in the East Indian Ocean between 2005 and 2016. Each earthquake pair happened in the same place but at different times, allowing the researchers to measure how much the sound waves sped up.
The analysis revealed that the waves traveled a few tenths of a second faster in more recent quakes than in older ones—a difference that translates to a warming trend of 0.04 degrees Celsius per decade.
Four one-hundredths of a degree may not sound like a lot, but it represents a huge amount of heat—considering it’s the change in a body of water almost 2,000 miles wide and several miles deep.
The warming is also substantially higher than the rate reported in previous studies, although Callies says not to put too much stock in those discrepancies.
“We don’t know whether that is the general finding—whether that only occurs here in this region at this time—or whether that is something we’ll find in other regions as well. We just don’t have the data yet.”
The study is in the journal Science. [Wenbo Wu et al, Seismic ocean thermometry]
Callies and Wu say that this approach may even enable scientists to gauge historical temperature changes by studying data from much older earthquakes. In other words, you could say that the method is sound.
—Julia Rosen
(The above text is a transcript of this podcast)


scientificamerican--2020-11-30--Metal-Breathing Bacteria Synthesize High-Tech Material

Scientists have known for more than a century that some bacteria can breathe anaerobically , or without oxygen , but only in recent decades have researchers started exploiting this property to fabricate useful materials .
Now electrical engineers have found a way to use such bacteria to manufacture an up-and-coming two-dimensional material called molybdenum disulfide ( MoS ) , which can form a sheet just a few atoms thick and holds promise for future electronics .
The new finding , published in Biointerphases , could help avoid a daunting synthesis process that requires a harsh environment .
“ Graphene is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Shayla Sawyer , an electrical engineer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a senior author of the paper .
But MoS is “ different in that it brings a new ‘ skill.
’ ” Graphene and MoS are both strong and flexible , and they are useful for building futuristic sensors and energy-harvesting systems .
Graphene is an electrical conductor , however , whereas MoS is a semiconductor—a substance whose conductivity can be manipulated by outside stimulation , such as light .
MoS is “ also a little bit more chemically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compound 's surface can easily be altered to help capture microbes , for example .
But it is difficult to synthesize ; the process can involve temperatures of 200 to 500 degrees Celsius and a crushing 10 times atmospheric pressure , says Zhi Li , a materials engineer at the University of Alberta , who was not involved in the study .
To circumvent this problem , Sawyer and her colleagues devised a new synthesis technique by capitalizing on Shewanella oneidensis 's anaerobic respiration .
When this bacterium breathes air , it eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an anaerobic environment , the same organism can transfer electrons to particular metal compounds instead , says James Dylan Rees , a bioelectrical engineer at Rensselaer and the paper 's first author .
After “ some trial and error ” to determine the best metal compounds to use , Rees says , the team placed them with the bacteria in a mostly airless bottle .
The bacteria then delivered their electrons to the compounds during respiration , creating MoS nanoparticles as a by-product over the course of two weeks .
Li says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sustainable way to make MoS at room temperature .
If it is to be used reliably in electrical devices such as sensors and batteries , however , he notes that it is important to be able to control the uniformity of the material 's repeating pattern of atoms .
Sawyer says her team still needs to work on this aspect of the process—a challenging task when dealing with living bacteria .
But the future for synthesizing materials using bacteria is bright , she adds : “ We 're just really scratching the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Scientists have known for more than a century that some bacteria can breathe anaerobically, or without oxygen, but only in recent decades have researchers started exploiting this property to fabricate useful materials. Now electrical engineers have found a way to use such bacteria to manufacture an up-and-coming two-dimensional material called molybdenum disulfide (MoS 2 ), which can form a sheet just a few atoms thick and holds promise for future electronics. The new finding, published in Biointerphases, could help avoid a daunting synthesis process that requires a harsh environment.
“Graphene is the breakout superstar of the two-dimensional materials,” says Shayla Sawyer, an electrical engineer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a senior author of the paper. But MoS 2 is “different in that it brings a new ‘skill.’” Graphene and MoS 2 are both strong and flexible, and they are useful for building futuristic sensors and energy-harvesting systems. Graphene is an electrical conductor, however, whereas MoS 2 is a semiconductor—a substance whose conductivity can be manipulated by outside stimulation, such as light.
MoS 2 is “also a little bit more chemically versatile,” Sawyer says. The compound's surface can easily be altered to help capture microbes, for example. But it is difficult to synthesize; the process can involve temperatures of 200 to 500 degrees Celsius and a crushing 10 times atmospheric pressure, says Zhi Li, a materials engineer at the University of Alberta, who was not involved in the study.
To circumvent this problem, Sawyer and her colleagues devised a new synthesis technique by capitalizing on Shewanella oneidensis's anaerobic respiration. When this bacterium breathes air, it eventually transfers electrons to oxygen atoms. But in an anaerobic environment, the same organism can transfer electrons to particular metal compounds instead, says James Dylan Rees, a bioelectrical engineer at Rensselaer and the paper's first author. After “some trial and error” to determine the best metal compounds to use, Rees says, the team placed them with the bacteria in a mostly airless bottle. The bacteria then delivered their electrons to the compounds during respiration, creating MoS 2 nanoparticles as a by-product over the course of two weeks.
Li says he likes how the new method suggests a sustainable way to make MoS 2 at room temperature. If it is to be used reliably in electrical devices such as sensors and batteries, however, he notes that it is important to be able to control the uniformity of the material's repeating pattern of atoms. Sawyer says her team still needs to work on this aspect of the process—a challenging task when dealing with living bacteria.
But the future for synthesizing materials using bacteria is bright, she adds: “We're just really scratching the surface of what's possible.”