scientificamerican--2020-10-06--Nine COVID-19 Myths That Just Won't Go Away

As the world continues to battle the coronavirus , it is also fighting a different sort of epidemic : misinformation .
This “ infodemic ” is just as harmful as COVID-19 itself , leading people to downplay the severity of the disease and ignore public health advice in favor of unproved treatments or “ cures.
” A recent survey by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup found that four in five Americans say the online spread of misinformation is the biggest problem facing the media .
Even with widely available evidence to the contrary , beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the most insidious falsehoods about the pandemic , and why they are wrong .
Myth 1 : The novel coronavirus was engineered in a lab in China .
Because the pathogen first emerged and began infecting people in Wuhan , China , President Donald Trump has claimed—without evidence—that it started in a laboratory there .
Some conspiracy theorists have even speculated it was engineered as a bioweapon , although U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied this possibility , stating that the intelligence community “ concurs with the wide scientific consensus that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetically modified.
” No credible evidence has emerged to support an accidental lab release either .
As Scientific American reported earlier this year , Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli—who studies bat coronaviruses and whose laboratory Trump and others had suggested was COVID-19 ’ s source—compared the pathogen ’ s sequence against that of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them .
Zhengli also explained in detail why her lab could not have been the source of the virus in a lengthy response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an independent , international investigation into how the virus originated , China has invited researchers from the World Health Organization to discuss the scope of such a mission .
But the evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not created in a lab .
Myth 2 : Wealthy elites intentionally spread the virus to win power and profit .
In a video from a conspiracy theory film entitled Plandemic and a book she co-authored , a woman named Judy Mikovits , who once published a high-profile , now retracted study on chronic fatigue syndrome , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates , suggesting they have used their power to profit from disease .
Science and the Web site PolitiFact have fact-checked some of the film ’ s claims , many of which appear elsewhere in this article .
The video was widely shared by anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory group QAnon .
It garnered more than eight million views on YouTube , Facebook , Twitter and Instagram before it was taken down because of its false statements .
Yet the large number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreads perniciously .
Myth 3 : COVID-19 is no worse than the flu .
Starting in the early days of the pandemic , Trump repeatedly claimed that the disease is not more dangerous than seasonal influenza .
But on September 9 the Washington Post published recordings of Trump telling journalist and author Bob Woodward—in interviews in early February and late March—that the president knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he wanted to play down its severity .
Although COVID-19 ’ s exact mortality rate is hard to pin down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than that of the flu .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the latter causes roughly 12,000 to 61,000 deaths per year in the U.S. By contrast , COVID-19 has caused more than 191,000 deaths in the country as of this writing .
* Many people also have partial immunity to the flu because of vaccination or prior infection , whereas most of the world has not yet encountered COVID-19 .
So no , coronavirus is not “ just the flu.
” Myth 4 : You don ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent , there is now a strong consensus among public health authorities—supported by numerous studies—that wearing a face covering can limit the transmission of the coronavirus through small exhaled droplets .
Masks have long been known as an effective means of source control ( preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others ) , but the early guidance was based , in part , on the fact that there was a shortage of high-quality “ N95 ” and surgical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face masks can be an effective alternative .
But despite the evidence , many people still refuse to wear one , considering it a violation of civil liberties or emasculating .
Georgia ’ s governor Brian Kemp went so far as to sign an executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates .
And he sued Atlanta ’ s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one , although he has now dropped the lawsuit .
But as coronavirus cases have spiked around the U.S. in recent months , even states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask orders .
Myth 5 : Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment .
When a small , now widely criticized study in France suggested the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine might be effective at treating the disease , Trump and others seized on it and have continued to tout the medication despite growing evidence that it does not benefit COVID-19 patients .
In a tweet , Trump called the hydroxychloroquine treatment “ one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine , ” and he has mentioned it repeatedly in his public coronavirus briefings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued an emergency use authorization for the drug , but the agency later warned against its use because of the risk of heart problems and ultimately revoked its authorization .
Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does not protect against COVID-19 in those who are exposed .
And in June the National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trial of the medication , stating that while it was not harmful to patients , it did not provide any benefit .
Yet Trump continues to hype the drug .
Just a few weeks ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of times before social media companies took it down—featuring Stella Immanuel , a Houston , Tex.–based physician ( who has made questionable assertions in the past , including that doctors had used alien DNA in treatments and that demons cause certain medical conditions by having sex with people in their dreams ) claiming hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19 .
Myth 6 : The Black Lives Matter protests led to increased transmission .
When thousands of people started taking to the streets in late May and June to protest the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Americans , some people questioned whether the mass gatherings would cause a spike in coronavirus cases .
But despite the concerns of Republicans such as Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio that the demonstrations pose as big a risk as going to church or the gym , such a marked increase from the protests has not been observed .
A white paper analysis of protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities by the National Bureau of Economic Research found no evidence that they led to more COVID-19 cases or deaths .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may actually have stayed home more than they would have otherwise .
The fact that the demonstrations happened outdoors , where the risk of transmission is much lower , and that many protesters wore masks likely prevented superspreading events .
Meanwhile , as states have reopened , there has been a notable increase in cases tied to bars and restaurants , as well as other indoor environments—likely because of the risk of airborne spread .
Myth 7 : Spikes in cases are because of increased testing .
As coronavirus cases began surging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , Trump has frequently claimed that these spikes are merely to the result of more people being tested .
He has tweeted that “ without testing ... we would be showing almost no cases ” and has said in interviews that the reason they appear to have gone up is because of increased testing .
If that scenario were true , we would expect the percentage of positive tests to go down .
But numerous analyses have shown the opposite .
The rate has risen in many states with big outbreaks ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , while it has decreased in those that have controlled their outbreaks ( such as New York ) , indicating that the national increase in positive tests reflects a true increase in cases .
Myth 8 : We can achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread through the population .
Early on in the pandemic , some speculated that the polices chosen by the U.K. and Sweden gave the impression that they planned on letting the virus circulate through their population until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it from spreading to others .
( Both nations ’ governments have denied that this idea was their official strategy , but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown , and Sweden had decided against widespread restrictions . )
There is a fundamental flaw with this approach , however : Experts estimate that roughly 60 to 70 percent of people would need to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity .
And given the relatively high mortality rate of the disease , letting it infect that many individuals could lead to millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic , in which roughly 50 million people are thought to have perished .
The U.K. ’ s COVID-19 death rate is among the world ’ s highest .
Sweden , for its part , has had significantly more deaths than neighboring countries , and its economy has suffered , despite not shutting down .
It is likely that many lives could have been saved if these countries had acted sooner .
Myth 9 : Any vaccine will be unsafe and a bigger risk than getting COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the disease , worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get one once it is available .
Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have circulated among anti-vax groups and in viral videos .
In Plandemic , Mikovits falsely claims that any COVID-19 vaccine will “ kill millions ” and that other vaccines have done so ( in fact , vaccines save millions of lives each year ) .
Another conspiracy theory asserts that Bill Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people ; Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not supported by evidence .
Most Americans still support vaccination , yet the few voices of opposition have been growing .
A recent study observed that although clusters of anti-vaxxers on Facebook are smaller than pro-vaccination groups , they are more heavily interconnected with clusters of undecided people .
A recent Gallup poll found that one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today , with Republicans being less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats .
There is good reason to be cautious about the safety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for prudence is why the top contenders are currently conducting large-scale clinical trials in tens of thousands of people to determine safety and efficacy .
If one or more of them pass muster , it will be critical for people to get vaccinated to save lives—including , perhaps , their own .
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .
*Editor 's Note ( 9/10/20 ) : This paragraph has been updated in light of a report in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bob Woodward in recorded interviews from February and March that he knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he had intentionally downplayed the threat .

As the world continues to battle the coronavirus, it is also fighting a different sort of epidemic: misinformation. This “infodemic” is just as harmful as COVID-19 itself, leading people to downplay the severity of the disease and ignore public health advice in favor of unproved treatments or “cures.” A recent survey by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and Gallup found that four in five Americans say the online spread of misinformation is the biggest problem facing the media. Even with widely available evidence to the contrary, beliefs are hard to change. Here are some of the most insidious falsehoods about the pandemic, and why they are wrong.
Myth 1: The novel coronavirus was engineered in a lab in China. Because the pathogen first emerged and began infecting people in Wuhan, China, President Donald Trump has claimed—without evidence—that it started in a laboratory there. Some conspiracy theorists have even speculated it was engineered as a bioweapon, although U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied this possibility, stating that the intelligence community “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.” No credible evidence has emerged to support an accidental lab release either. As Scientific American reported earlier this year, Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli—who studies bat coronaviruses and whose laboratory Trump and others had suggested was COVID-19’s source—compared the pathogen’s sequence against that of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them. Zhengli also explained in detail why her lab could not have been the source of the virus in a lengthy response in Science. In reaction to calls for an independent, international investigation into how the virus originated, China has invited researchers from the World Health Organization to discuss the scope of such a mission. But the evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not created in a lab.
Myth 2: Wealthy elites intentionally spread the virus to win power and profit. In a video from a conspiracy theory film entitled Plandemic and a book she co-authored, a woman named Judy Mikovits, who once published a high-profile, now retracted study on chronic fatigue syndrome, makes unsubstantiated claims about National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, suggesting they have used their power to profit from disease. Science and the Web site PolitiFact have fact-checked some of the film’s claims, many of which appear elsewhere in this article. The video was widely shared by anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory group QAnon. It garnered more than eight million views on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram before it was taken down because of its false statements. Yet the large number of people who watched it suggests misinformation spreads perniciously.
Myth 3: COVID-19 is no worse than the flu. Starting in the early days of the pandemic, Trump repeatedly claimed that the disease is not more dangerous than seasonal influenza. But on September 9 the Washington Post published recordings of Trump telling journalist and author Bob Woodward—in interviews in early February and late March—that the president knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he wanted to play down its severity. Although COVID-19’s exact mortality rate is hard to pin down, epidemiologists suspect it is far higher than that of the flu. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the latter causes roughly 12,000 to 61,000 deaths per year in the U.S. By contrast, COVID-19 has caused more than 191,000 deaths in the country as of this writing.*
Many people also have partial immunity to the flu because of vaccination or prior infection, whereas most of the world has not yet encountered COVID-19. So no, coronavirus is not “just the flu.”
Myth 4: You don’t need to wear a mask. Although early guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent, there is now a strong consensus among public health authorities—supported by numerous studies—that wearing a face covering can limit the transmission of the coronavirus through small exhaled droplets. Masks have long been known as an effective means of source control (preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others), but the early guidance was based, in part, on the fact that there was a shortage of high-quality “N95” and surgical masks. We now know that cloth face masks can be an effective alternative. But despite the evidence, many people still refuse to wear one, considering it a violation of civil liberties or emasculating. Georgia’s governor Brian Kemp went so far as to sign an executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates. And he sued Atlanta’s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one, although he has now dropped the lawsuit. But as coronavirus cases have spiked around the U.S. in recent months, even states that were once staunch holdouts have now implemented mask orders.
Myth 5: Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment. When a small, now widely criticized study in France suggested the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine might be effective at treating the disease, Trump and others seized on it and have continued to tout the medication despite growing evidence that it does not benefit COVID-19 patients. In a tweet, Trump called the hydroxychloroquine treatment “one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,” and he has mentioned it repeatedly in his public coronavirus briefings. The Food and Drug Administration initially issued an emergency use authorization for the drug, but the agency later warned against its use because of the risk of heart problems and ultimately revoked its authorization. Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does not protect against COVID-19 in those who are exposed. And in June the National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trial of the medication, stating that while it was not harmful to patients, it did not provide any benefit. Yet Trump continues to hype the drug. Just a few weeks ago, he retweeted a video—viewed tens of millions of times before social media companies took it down—featuring Stella Immanuel, a Houston, Tex.–based physician (who has made questionable assertions in the past, including that doctors had used alien DNA in treatments and that demons cause certain medical conditions by having sex with people in their dreams) claiming hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Myth 6: The Black Lives Matter protests led to increased transmission. When thousands of people started taking to the streets in late May and June to protest the police killing of George Floyd and violence against Black Americans, some people questioned whether the mass gatherings would cause a spike in coronavirus cases. But despite the concerns of Republicans such as Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio that the demonstrations pose as big a risk as going to church or the gym, such a marked increase from the protests has not been observed. A white paper analysis of protests in 315 of the largest U.S. cities by the National Bureau of Economic Research found no evidence that they led to more COVID-19 cases or deaths. And those who did not attend the protests may actually have stayed home more than they would have otherwise. The fact that the demonstrations happened outdoors, where the risk of transmission is much lower, and that many protesters wore masks likely prevented superspreading events. Meanwhile, as states have reopened, there has been a notable increase in cases tied to bars and restaurants, as well as other indoor environments—likely because of the risk of airborne spread.
Myth 7: Spikes in cases are because of increased testing. As coronavirus cases began surging in many parts of the U.S. in recent months, Trump has frequently claimed that these spikes are merely to the result of more people being tested. He has tweeted that “without testing ... we would be showing almost no cases” and has said in interviews that the reason they appear to have gone up is because of increased testing. If that scenario were true, we would expect the percentage of positive tests to go down. But numerous analyses have shown the opposite. The rate has risen in many states with big outbreaks (such as Arizona, Texas and Florida), while it has decreased in those that have controlled their outbreaks (such as New York), indicating that the national increase in positive tests reflects a true increase in cases.
Myth 8: We can achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread through the population. Early on in the pandemic, some speculated that the polices chosen by the U.K. and Sweden gave the impression that they planned on letting the virus circulate through their population until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people are immune to the virus to prevent it from spreading to others. (Both nations’ governments have denied that this idea was their official strategy, but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown, and Sweden had decided against widespread restrictions.) There is a fundamental flaw with this approach, however: Experts estimate that roughly 60 to 70 percent of people would need to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. And given the relatively high mortality rate of the disease, letting it infect that many individuals could lead to millions of deaths. That tragedy is what happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic, in which roughly 50 million people are thought to have perished. The U.K.’s COVID-19 death rate is among the world’s highest. Sweden, for its part, has had significantly more deaths than neighboring countries, and its economy has suffered, despite not shutting down. It is likely that many lives could have been saved if these countries had acted sooner.
Myth 9: Any vaccine will be unsafe and a bigger risk than getting COVID-19. As scientists race to develop a vaccine against the disease, worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get one once it is available. Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have circulated among anti-vax groups and in viral videos. In Plandemic, Mikovits falsely claims that any COVID-19 vaccine will “kill millions” and that other vaccines have done so (in fact, vaccines save millions of lives each year). Another conspiracy theory asserts that Bill Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people; Gates has denied the claim, which is not supported by evidence. Most Americans still support vaccination, yet the few voices of opposition have been growing. A recent study observed that although clusters of anti-vaxxers on Facebook are smaller than pro-vaccination groups, they are more heavily interconnected with clusters of undecided people. A recent Gallup poll found that one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today, with Republicans being less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats. There is good reason to be cautious about the safety of a new vaccine, but that need for prudence is why the top contenders are currently conducting large-scale clinical trials in tens of thousands of people to determine safety and efficacy. If one or more of them pass muster, it will be critical for people to get vaccinated to save lives—including, perhaps, their own.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.
*Editor's Note (9/10/20): This paragraph has been updated in light of a report in the Washington Post that Donald Trump told journalist Bob Woodward in recorded interviews from February and March that he knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he had intentionally downplayed the threat.


21st-Century Gaslighting

Untruths come in many shapes and sizes .
All are antithetical to science , but the most flagrant variety—gaslighting , in which someone denies the reality that other people are experiencing—has become a greater threat than ever .
Throughout a year of tragedy and strife , including the coronavirus pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protests , we ’ ve seen leaders and other public figures force people to doubt their experiences and thoughts .
These manipulators don ’ t just ignore data and evidence ; they deny their very existence .
How do we navigate what philosopher Kathleen Higgins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no longer even an expectation that politicians or pundits will be honest ?
This issue , we hope , will serve in some measure as an antidote to the poison of gaslighting and other forms of mendacity .
Never has it been more important to understand the science of deception and what can be done to combat it .
For starters , human perception is inherently subjective .
We may believe that we are thinking in an open-minded way , but most people latch onto ideas that reinforce their own preconceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literally seeing new solutions .
Such ingrained implicit bias has served us well in the course of evolution , but in the modern era it more often than not leads us astray .
Nowhere are our failings at objective reasoning more exploitable than on social media .
Facebook and other platforms enable the spread of misinformation that sows social unrest—in particular , meme culture has been shown to propagate lies and increase polarization .
We users are the unwitting vectors of this threat .
( Watch our short documentary on the making of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a close look into another way that technology enables deceit . )
Malicious foreign agents invade those same platforms , and hackers could go further and tamper with vulnerable voting systems in this country , endangering the very processes of democracy .
Civic life suffers because of these malevolent forces .
Turmoil , anxiety and a sense that society is in jeopardy make people susceptible to conspiracy theories and the kind of polarization where winning an argument is more important than understanding opponents ’ viewpoints .
Although the human mind comes equipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it doesn ’ t mean we have to give in to ignorance and bias .
Douglas T. Kenrick and his co-authors offer simple interventions that can make us more open-minded , scientific thinkers .
In fact , scientists can look to philosophy to aid in some self-examination about how much , in the hands of subjective creatures , the tools of science can ultimately discover .
The common theme in many of these seemingly abysmal examinations of the state of our societal affairs is a heartening bright spot .
By just being aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can protect ourselves from disinformation and gaslighting .
We don ’ t have to agree , but at least we ’ ll be anchored in what is real and what is not .

Untruths come in many shapes and sizes. All are antithetical to science, but the most flagrant variety—gaslighting, in which someone denies the reality that other people are experiencing—has become a greater threat than ever. Throughout a year of tragedy and strife, including the coronavirus pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protests, we’ve seen leaders and other public figures force people to doubt their experiences and thoughts. These manipulators don’t just ignore data and evidence; they deny their very existence.
How do we navigate what philosopher Kathleen Higgins describes as the post-truth era, where there is no longer even an expectation that politicians or pundits will be honest? This issue, we hope, will serve in some measure as an antidote to the poison of gaslighting and other forms of mendacity. Never has it been more important to understand the science of deception and what can be done to combat it.
For starters, human perception is inherently subjective. We may believe that we are thinking in an open-minded way, but most people latch onto ideas that reinforce their own preconceived beliefs—even if doing so prevents them from literally seeing new solutions. Such ingrained implicit bias has served us well in the course of evolution, but in the modern era it more often than not leads us astray.
Nowhere are our failings at objective reasoning more exploitable than on social media. Facebook and other platforms enable the spread of misinformation that sows social unrest—in particular, meme culture has been shown to propagate lies and increase polarization. We users are the unwitting vectors of this threat. (Watch our short documentary on the making of a deepfake video at https://bit.ly/3itSiek for a close look into another way that technology enables deceit.)
Malicious foreign agents invade those same platforms, and hackers could go further and tamper with vulnerable voting systems in this country, endangering the very processes of democracy. Civic life suffers because of these malevolent forces. Turmoil, anxiety and a sense that society is in jeopardy make people susceptible to conspiracy theories and the kind of polarization where winning an argument is more important than understanding opponents’ viewpoints.
Although the human mind comes equipped with built-in obstacles to objective thinking, it doesn’t mean we have to give in to ignorance and bias. Douglas T. Kenrick and his co-authors offer simple interventions that can make us more open-minded, scientific thinkers. In fact, scientists can look to philosophy to aid in some self-examination about how much, in the hands of subjective creatures, the tools of science can ultimately discover.
The common theme in many of these seemingly abysmal examinations of the state of our societal affairs is a heartening bright spot. By just being aware of how we perceive information, we can protect ourselves from disinformation and gaslighting. We don’t have to agree, but at least we’ll be anchored in what is real and what is not.


scientificamerican--2020-10-06--Black Hole Scientists Win Nobel Prize in Physics

This year ’ s Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their work on black holes .
British cosmologist Roger Penrose will receive half of the prize , with the remaining half split between German astrophysicist Reinhard Genzel and American astrophysicist Andrea Ghez .
Ghez is only the fourth woman in history to receive the venerable physics prize .
“ This year ’ s prize is about the darkest secrets of the universe , ” said Göran K. Hansson , secretary-general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences , at a press event .
The academy recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity , ” Hansson added , while Ghez and Genzel were awarded “ for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the center of our galaxy.
” Black holes are regions of space in which the force of gravity is so strong that not even light can escape .
To create one , said Ulf Danielsson , a physicist on the Nobel Committee for Physics , at the event , “ you ’ d need to compress the sun into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squeeze the Earth down to the size of a pea.
” At the heart of every black hole would lie a “ singularity , ” a point at which gravity squeezes matter to infinite density , shrouded by an “ event horizon ” beyond which anything falling in could not return to the wider outside universe .
Although scientists had speculated about their existence for centuries , it was unclear whether such extreme objects could occur in reality .
Even Albert Einstein—whose general theory of relativity forms the modern basis for understanding black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Penrose , a physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking and is now a professor emeritus at the University of Oxford , mathematically “ showed that black holes might really exist , forming in a stable and robust process ” consistent with Einstein ’ s theories , David Haviland , a physicist at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and chair of the committee for the physics prize , told reporters .
“ Penrose and Hawking proved that , for stars of a certain type , black holes are a pretty much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Sabine Hossenfelder , a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany .
“ Prior to this groundbreaking work , most physicists thought that black holes were merely mathematical curiosities which appear in general relativity but that they would not exist in reality .
Instead it turned out that black holes are hard to avoid in stellar collapse and that the universe should be full of them ... .
The story of the discovery of black holes demonstrates vividly how powerful pure mathematics can be in the quest to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work did not stop at proving their possibility under general relativity , notes Avi Loeb , an astrophysicist at Harvard University and director of its Black Hole Initiative .
Penrose also showed how to extract energy from spinning black holes—the so-called Penrose process , which may play an important role in powering quasars , the ultraluminous objects linked to voracious black holes in the cores of distant ancient galaxies .
And Penrose ’ s “ cosmic censorship hypothesis , ” Loeb says , “ saves our ability to predict the future throughout the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated with black holes , where Einstein ’ s theory breaks down ... .
Just as in Las Vegas , ‘ whatever happens inside the event horizon , stays inside the event horizon.
’ ” While Penrose , Hawking and other theorists were codifying the physical foundations of black holes , observational astronomers were searching for and studying these exotic objects in ever-greater detail .
A breakthrough discovery began to emerge in the 1990s .
Genzel—director of infrared astronomy at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching , Germany—and Ghez—a professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles—were each helming an independent research team using powerful infrared telescopes augmented with adaptive optics to peer into the dust-shrouded heart of the Milky Way .
There both teams witnessed stars swarming around a mysterious central dark source , an unseen object that the stars ’ motions suggested must contain the mass of four million suns .
“ There is no other explanation than a supermassive black hole , ” Danielsson said .
Subsequent observations , chiefly from the Hubble Space Telescope , have revealed that such scale-tipping black holes lurk in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the observable universe .
This observation hints that these objects , far from being mere astrophysical arcana , are perhaps the universe ’ s most crucial building blocks for large-scale cosmic structures .
“ Science is so important , and presenting the reality of our physical world is critical to us as human beings , ” Ghez said in an interview with reporters after learning of her award .
“ We have no idea what ’ s inside black holes ... .
They really represent the breakdown of our understanding of the laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the intrigue—we still don ’ t know.
” Genzel ’ s and Ghez ’ s teams continue to make new discoveries about the Milky Way ’ s central supermassive black hole , dubbed Sagittarius A* , such as knots of superheated gas that flare to brilliance as they spiral into oblivion .
New facilities , including the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory ( LIGO ) and the Virgo interferometer , are studying merging pairs of black holes by detecting their emissions of ripples in spacetime called gravitational waves .
And ongoing radio observations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such investigations of another supermassive object in the nearby galaxy M87 made by the globe-spanning Event Horizon Telescope ( EHT ) , are generating revolutionary close-up images of these cosmic monsters .
“ All of these breakthrough techniques bring us closer than we have ever come to the edge of the unknown , offering novel ways to study the most mysterious objects in the cosmos and to test our most fundamental theories , ” says Sheperd Doeleman , founding director for the EHT .
“ The results of the past several years have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never have formulated before .
But more importantly , they allow us to dream big .
The work celebrated today by the Nobel Prizes is transformative , and the future for black holes , as they say , is bright !
” “ This is not just an old adventure coming to its triumphant conclusion , ” Danielsson said .
“ It ’ s a new one beginning .
As we probe ever closer to the horizons of the black holes , nature might have new surprises in store.
” Editor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been updated after posting to include comments from Sabine Hossenfelder , Avi Loeb , and Sheperd Doeleman .

This year’s Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their work on black holes. British cosmologist Roger Penrose will receive half of the prize, with the remaining half split between German astrophysicist Reinhard Genzel and American astrophysicist Andrea Ghez. Ghez is only the fourth woman in history to receive the venerable physics prize.
“This year’s prize is about the darkest secrets of the universe,” said Göran K. Hansson, secretary-general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, at a press event. The academy recognized Penrose for his “discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity,” Hansson added, while Ghez and Genzel were awarded “for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the center of our galaxy.”
Black holes are regions of space in which the force of gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. To create one, said Ulf Danielsson, a physicist on the Nobel Committee for Physics, at the event, “you’d need to compress the sun into a region only a few kilometers across—or to squeeze the Earth down to the size of a pea.” At the heart of every black hole would lie a “singularity,” a point at which gravity squeezes matter to infinite density, shrouded by an “event horizon” beyond which anything falling in could not return to the wider outside universe. Although scientists had speculated about their existence for centuries, it was unclear whether such extreme objects could occur in reality. Even Albert Einstein—whose general theory of relativity forms the modern basis for understanding black holes—doubted their existence.
But in 1965 Penrose, a physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking and is now a professor emeritus at the University of Oxford, mathematically “showed that black holes might really exist, forming in a stable and robust process” consistent with Einstein’s theories, David Haviland, a physicist at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and chair of the committee for the physics prize, told reporters.
“Penrose and Hawking proved that, for stars of a certain type, black holes are a pretty much unavoidable outcome of stellar collapse,” says Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. “Prior to this groundbreaking work, most physicists thought that black holes were merely mathematical curiosities which appear in general relativity but that they would not exist in reality. Instead it turned out that black holes are hard to avoid in stellar collapse and that the universe should be full of them.... The story of the discovery of black holes demonstrates vividly how powerful pure mathematics can be in the quest to understand nature.”
Penrose’s black-hole work did not stop at proving their possibility under general relativity, notes Avi Loeb, an astrophysicist at Harvard University and director of its Black Hole Initiative. Penrose also showed how to extract energy from spinning black holes—the so-called Penrose process, which may play an important role in powering quasars, the ultraluminous objects linked to voracious black holes in the cores of distant ancient galaxies. And Penrose’s “cosmic censorship hypothesis,” Loeb says, “saves our ability to predict the future throughout the universe from the pathology of the singularities associated with black holes, where Einstein’s theory breaks down.... Just as in Las Vegas, ‘whatever happens inside the event horizon, stays inside the event horizon.’”
While Penrose, Hawking and other theorists were codifying the physical foundations of black holes, observational astronomers were searching for and studying these exotic objects in ever-greater detail.
A breakthrough discovery began to emerge in the 1990s. Genzel—director of infrared astronomy at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany—and Ghez—a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles—were each helming an independent research team using powerful infrared telescopes augmented with adaptive optics to peer into the dust-shrouded heart of the Milky Way. There both teams witnessed stars swarming around a mysterious central dark source, an unseen object that the stars’ motions suggested must contain the mass of four million suns. “There is no other explanation than a supermassive black hole,” Danielsson said.
Subsequent observations, chiefly from the Hubble Space Telescope, have revealed that such scale-tipping black holes lurk in the centers of most every large galaxy in the observable universe. This observation hints that these objects, far from being mere astrophysical arcana, are perhaps the universe’s most crucial building blocks for large-scale cosmic structures.
“Science is so important, and presenting the reality of our physical world is critical to us as human beings,” Ghez said in an interview with reporters after learning of her award. “We have no idea what’s inside black holes.... They really represent the breakdown of our understanding of the laws of physics. That’s part of the intrigue—we still don’t know.”
Genzel’s and Ghez’s teams continue to make new discoveries about the Milky Way’s central supermassive black hole, dubbed Sagittarius A*, such as knots of superheated gas that flare to brilliance as they spiral into oblivion. New facilities, including the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) and the Virgo interferometer, are studying merging pairs of black holes by detecting their emissions of ripples in spacetime called gravitational waves. And ongoing radio observations of Sagittarius A*, as well as such investigations of another supermassive object in the nearby galaxy M87 made by the globe-spanning Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), are generating revolutionary close-up images of these cosmic monsters.
“All of these breakthrough techniques bring us closer than we have ever come to the edge of the unknown, offering novel ways to study the most mysterious objects in the cosmos and to test our most fundamental theories,” says Sheperd Doeleman, founding director for the EHT. “The results of the past several years have allowed us to ask questions we could never have formulated before. But more importantly, they allow us to dream big. The work celebrated today by the Nobel Prizes is transformative, and the future for black holes, as they say, is bright!”
“This is not just an old adventure coming to its triumphant conclusion,” Danielsson said. “It’s a new one beginning. As we probe ever closer to the horizons of the black holes, nature might have new surprises in store.”
Editor’s Note (10/6/20): This story has been updated after posting to include comments from Sabine Hossenfelder, Avi Loeb, and Sheperd Doeleman.


scientificamerican--2020-10-06--Rare Fossil Reveals Cicada Entombed in Opal

A bug trapped in a precious gem could offer new clues in the hunt for ancient life on Earth and Mars .
The opal , pulled from rock in Indonesia and nicknamed “ Beverly , ” contains the shell of a tiny cicada nymph .
In June in Scientific Reports , researchers explained how it likely formed .
Other opal fossils have been found among silica-containing rocks that form near geysers , says Boris Chauviré , a geologist at Grenoble Alpes University in France .
Hot water dissolves these rocks ; when the resulting silica-rich fluid cools , it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spaces left by decayed organisms or trapping creatures ' bodies .
But this fossil comes from soil made by volcanic rocks eroding , and it is the first animal found entombed in opal that formed this way .
Knowing this can happen , Chauviré says , suggests new places to look for ancient life .
This kind of opal formation is in fact more common than the hydrothermal process , but it is slower and thus considered less likely to preserve traces of life .
But the team found a layer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exoskeleton ; the researchers ' analysis suggests that the substance crystallized on the shell while it was buried in soil and exposed to silica-carrying water , preserving its structure before the surrounding liquid eventually formed opal .
“ This is the first time I 've seen this type of preservation , ” says Frances Westall , a geologist and astrobiologist at CNRS in Orléans , France , who was not involved in the study .
She says the viability of this process—somewhat analogous to more common cases of insects preserved in amber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibilities for finding evidence of ancient life .
“ The early Earth was a volcanic environment like Indonesia , ” she says .
“ And so was early Mars.
” “ Now we know that all kinds of silica can contain this kind of fossil or biomolecules , ” Chauviré says .
Opal fossils that formed in volcanic settings such as early Earth or early Mars could reveal ancient underground critters that are not typically preserved in sedimentary rock or amber , he adds : “ The future Jurassic Park can be with @ @ @ @ @

A bug trapped in a precious gem could offer new clues in the hunt for ancient life on Earth and Mars. The opal, pulled from rock in Indonesia and nicknamed “Beverly,” contains the shell of a tiny cicada nymph. In June in Scientific Reports, researchers explained how it likely formed.
Other opal fossils have been found among silica-containing rocks that form near geysers, says Boris Chauviré, a geologist at Grenoble Alpes University in France. Hot water dissolves these rocks; when the resulting silica-rich fluid cools, it can harden to form the shimmery gem—sometimes filling in spaces left by decayed organisms or trapping creatures' bodies. But this fossil comes from soil made by volcanic rocks eroding, and it is the first animal found entombed in opal that formed this way. Knowing this can happen, Chauviré says, suggests new places to look for ancient life.
Source: “Arthropod Entombment in Weathering-Formed Opal: New Horizons for Recording Life in Rocks,” by Boris Chauviré et al., in Scientific Reports, Vol. 10, Article No. 10575; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67412-9
This kind of opal formation is in fact more common than the hydrothermal process, but it is slower and thus considered less likely to preserve traces of life. But the team found a layer of zeolite, a silica-rich mineral, coating the exoskeleton; the researchers' analysis suggests that the substance crystallized on the shell while it was buried in soil and exposed to silica-carrying water, preserving its structure before the surrounding liquid eventually formed opal.
“This is the first time I've seen this type of preservation,” says Frances Westall, a geologist and astrobiologist at CNRS in Orléans, France, who was not involved in the study. She says the viability of this process—somewhat analogous to more common cases of insects preserved in amber, a fossilized tree resin—opens up more possibilities for finding evidence of ancient life. “The early Earth was a volcanic environment like Indonesia,” she says. “And so was early Mars.”
“Now we know that all kinds of silica can contain this kind of fossil or biomolecules,” Chauviré says. Opal fossils that formed in volcanic settings such as early Earth or early Mars could reveal ancient underground critters that are not typically preserved in sedimentary rock or amber, he adds: “The future Jurassic Park can be with opal, maybe.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-07--Big Tech, Out-of-Control Capitalism and the End of Civilization

My girlfriend , “ Emily , ” is always telling me I have to read this or watch that .
I usually resist .
I have my own obsessions to indulge , like quantum mechanics .
What ’ s annoying is that her recommendations , when I grudgingly comply with them , often turn out to be sound .
This happened with two of Emily ’ s recent picks .
One is The Social Dilemma , a documentary on Netflix .
It sounded boring—another expose of the perils of social media .
Ho hum , old news .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an in-depth look at how big tech companies , by amassing more and more data on us , are getting better and better at manipulating us , with devastating results .
The film has several strands .
One envisions , with actors , how social media hurt an American family .
A teenage girl , stung by a casual online remark about her ears , sinks into depression , while her older brother tumbles into the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories .
The film also depicts evil AI algorithms , played by three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuring that the teenage boy remains addicted to his smartphone .
These dramatizations were a little hokey .
The most compelling , and disturbing , component of the documentary consists of interviews with tech insiders worried about what they have wrought .
Actually , “ worried ” is too bland a word .
These veterans of Google , Facebook , Twitter and other companies are freaking out .
Some think digital technologies , unregulated , might destroy civilization .
Google , et .
al .
equip legions of brilliant engineers with vast databases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products as addictive as possible—that is , to maximize the time we spend staring at a screen .
The designers of these devices find them irresistible , too .
Tim Kendall , former head of monetization for Facebook , recalls that after spending all day trying to boost his firm ’ s profits , he went home to his wife and kids and could not stay off his phone .
“ Knowing what was going on behind the curtain , I still wasn ’ t able to control my usage.
” The more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more the companies learn about us , the more money they make from advertising—commercial and political—tailored to our fears and desires .
And once they deduce what news and ( mis ) information we like , or might like , online sites feed us more of it , confirming our biases .
If you begin a search on , say , climate change , Google may suggest different results depending on what it knows about you and others where you live , according to a former Google designer .
This data-driven pandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devices .
It has also contributed to the proliferation of fake news and conspiracy theories and to social schisms in the U.S. and elsewhere .
We end up living in parallel universes with radically different views of global warming , race , gender , immigration , crime , abortion and COVID-19 .
Some techies believed , initially , that they were creating a better world .
“ Our entire motivation was ‘ Can we spread positivity and love in the world ?
’ , ” says Justin Rosenstein , who helped design Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The possibility that “ teens would be getting depressed when they don ’ t have enough likes , or it could be leading to political polarization , was nowhere on our radar.
” Yes , digital technologies yield vast benefits .
During the pandemic I keep in touch with friends and family via e-mail and Zoom , and I teach my classes online .
I can do research for this article—rewatching Social Dilemma and looking up reviews on my laptop—right here in my apartment .
When I tire of brooding over the downside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Community and Arrested Development .
“ Our digital era is a blend of “ utopia and dystopia , ” says Tristan Harris , who left Google to cofound The Center for Humane Technology ( a phrase that sounds increasingly oxymoronic ) .
“ I can hit a button on my phone and a car shows up in 30 seconds and I can go exactly where I need to go .
That is magic.
” But Harris fears tech ’ s ill effects are outweighing its benefits .
“ If we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ or even that there is such a thing as truth , we ’ re toast.
” One pundit insists that newspapers , radio and television didn ’ t destroy civilization , and neither will smart phones .
Another retorts that smart phones are far more addictive than previous information technologies .
When many of us wake up in the morning , he notes , the only question is whether we check our phones before we pee or while we pee .
And modern methods of surveillance and persuasion make those employed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Toward the end of the film , Social Dilemma identifies capitalism as the ultimate cause of the ills wrought by big tech .
Rosenstein , the Facebook designer , notes that capitalism promotes “ short-term thinking based on this religion of profit at all costs.
” This approach , which views nature as something to be mined , literally and metaphorically , for monetary gain , has given us climate change and other environmental threats .
The successful big-tech firms have figured out how to mine our attention .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Rosenstein says , “ if we ’ re staring at a screen , staring at an ad , then if we ’ re spending our time living our life in a rich way.
” Rosenstein and others say the government must regulate tech firms to limit the harm they do ; the companies can not be trusted to regulate themselves .
Shoshana Zuboff , a psychologist at Harvard Business School , contends that companies should not be free to gather and sell information on customers without their consent .
“ These markets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they should be outlawed , ” she says .
“ This is not a radical proposal .
There are other markets that we outlaw .
We outlaw markets in human organs .
We outlaw markets in human slaves.
” These calls for reform bring me to Emily ’ s other recommendation , an infamous 50-year-old essay , “ The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits , ” by economist Milton Friedman .
The New York Times , which printed the essay in 1970 , just republished it along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essay had a huge impact on economics as well as business and politics .
As the Times puts it , Friedman ’ s “ libertarian economics influenced presidents and inspired ‘ greed is good.
’ ” Friedman ’ s manifesto is crediting with catalyzing the swerve of the U.S. and other western democracies toward free-wheeling capitalism , which governments encouraged with lower taxes .
Friedman rebuked calls for corporations to seek social goals , such as “ eliminating discrimination , avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for these goals , Friedman asserted , are “ preaching pure and unadulterated socialism ” and “ undermining the basis of a free society.
” Note Friedman ’ s equation of freedom with corporate freedom .
It is government ’ s job , Friedman argued , to impose rules on businesses that promote general welfare , but such restrictions should be minimal .
By freely pursuing profits in competition with each other , with minimal government interference , businesses produce goods , services and jobs that benefit all of society .
So Friedman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We are now reaping the consequences of Friedman ’ s vision in the form of industries that pursue profits regardless of the social costs .
These include big pharma , which foists drugs on us that often make us sicker ; big oil , which has thwarted efforts to counteract global warming ; and now big tech , which represents the apotheosis of Friedman ’ s ideology .
Economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz comments in the Times that the fallacies of Friedman ’ s ideology are more obvious than ever .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook users spread “ wanton disinformation ” if “ it increases his bottom line ?
Friedman would say yes .
Economic theory , common sense and historical experience suggest otherwise.
” Friedman ’ s rhetorical style reminds me of Marx .
Both men exude supreme confidence in their judgments , the kind of confidence that inspires zealotry in devotees .
Marx predicted that capitalism , by elevating profit above all other values , would inevitably bring about its own destruction .
Friedman said capitalism would give us unbounded freedom and prosperity .
Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Near the end of Social Dilemma , an interviewer asks tech-visionary-turned-critic Jaron Lanier to peer into our future .
“ If we go down the current status quo , ” Lanier replies , “ for let ’ s say another 20 years , we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance .
We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change .
We probably degrade the world ’ s democracies , so they fall into some bizarre autocratic dysfunction .
We probably ruin the global economy .
We probably ” —he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asked what he fears most , Kendall , the former Facebook executive , replies , “ In the shortest time horizon ?
Civil war.
” Give capitalism its due .
As I acknowledge in a recent book , capitalism has boosted longevity and prosperity over the last two centuries .
But our fanatical commitment to Friedman-style capitalism has burdened us with acute inequality , dysfunctional health care , surging climate change and vicious political polarization .
Meanwhile we keep robotically swiping our smart phones as things fall apart .
I try to resist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but alarmism feels like realism lately .
Oh , and Emily , thanks a lot for those recommendations .
Does Optimism on Climate Change Make You Pro-Trump ?
See also “ A Pretty Good Utopia ” ( profile of economist Deirdre McCloskey in my free online book Mind-Body Problems )

My girlfriend, “Emily,” is always telling me I have to read this or watch that. I usually resist. I have my own obsessions to indulge, like quantum mechanics. What’s annoying is that her recommendations, when I grudgingly comply with them, often turn out to be sound.
This happened with two of Emily’s recent picks. One is The Social Dilemma, a documentary on Netflix. It sounded boring—another expose of the perils of social media. Ho hum, old news. But the film gripped me. It’s an in-depth look at how big tech companies, by amassing more and more data on us, are getting better and better at manipulating us, with devastating results.
The film has several strands. One envisions, with actors, how social media hurt an American family. A teenage girl, stung by a casual online remark about her ears, sinks into depression, while her older brother tumbles into the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. The film also depicts evil AI algorithms, played by three versions of a single creepy actor, ensuring that the teenage boy remains addicted to his smartphone.
These dramatizations were a little hokey. The most compelling, and disturbing, component of the documentary consists of interviews with tech insiders worried about what they have wrought. Actually, “worried” is too bland a word. These veterans of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other companies are freaking out. Some think digital technologies, unregulated, might destroy civilization.
Google, et. al. equip legions of brilliant engineers with vast databases and powerful AI programs to make their products as addictive as possible—that is, to maximize the time we spend staring at a screen. The designers of these devices find them irresistible, too. Tim Kendall, former head of monetization for Facebook, recalls that after spending all day trying to boost his firm’s profits, he went home to his wife and kids and could not stay off his phone. “Knowing what was going on behind the curtain, I still wasn’t able to control my usage.”
The more time we spend on our screens, the more the companies learn about us, the more money they make from advertising—commercial and political—tailored to our fears and desires. And once they deduce what news and (mis)information we like, or might like, online sites feed us more of it, confirming our biases. If you begin a search on, say, climate change, Google may suggest different results depending on what it knows about you and others where you live, according to a former Google designer.
This data-driven pandering not only keeps us glued to our devices. It has also contributed to the proliferation of fake news and conspiracy theories and to social schisms in the U.S. and elsewhere. We end up living in parallel universes with radically different views of global warming, race, gender, immigration, crime, abortion and COVID-19.
Some techies believed, initially, that they were creating a better world. “Our entire motivation was ‘Can we spread positivity and love in the world?’,” says Justin Rosenstein, who helped design Facebook’s “like” button. The possibility that “teens would be getting depressed when they don’t have enough likes, or it could be leading to political polarization, was nowhere on our radar.”
Yes, digital technologies yield vast benefits. During the pandemic I keep in touch with friends and family via e-mail and Zoom, and I teach my classes online. I can do research for this article—rewatching Social Dilemma and looking up reviews on my laptop—right here in my apartment. When I tire of brooding over the downside of tech, I can binge on Community and Arrested Development.
“Our digital era is a blend of “utopia and dystopia,” says Tristan Harris, who left Google to cofound The Center for Humane Technology (a phrase that sounds increasingly oxymoronic). “I can hit a button on my phone and a car shows up in 30 seconds and I can go exactly where I need to go. That is magic.” But Harris fears tech’s ill effects are outweighing its benefits. “If we don’t agree on truth,” he says, “or even that there is such a thing as truth, we’re toast.”
One pundit insists that newspapers, radio and television didn’t destroy civilization, and neither will smart phones. Another retorts that smart phones are far more addictive than previous information technologies. When many of us wake up in the morning, he notes, the only question is whether we check our phones before we pee or while we pee. And modern methods of surveillance and persuasion make those employed in the predigital era look laughably crude.
Toward the end of the film, Social Dilemma identifies capitalism as the ultimate cause of the ills wrought by big tech. Rosenstein, the Facebook designer, notes that capitalism promotes “short-term thinking based on this religion of profit at all costs.” This approach, which views nature as something to be mined, literally and metaphorically, for monetary gain, has given us climate change and other environmental threats.
The successful big-tech firms have figured out how to mine our attention. “We’re more profitable to a corporation,” Rosenstein says, “if we’re staring at a screen, staring at an ad, then if we’re spending our time living our life in a rich way.” Rosenstein and others say the government must regulate tech firms to limit the harm they do; the companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.
Shoshana Zuboff, a psychologist at Harvard Business School, contends that companies should not be free to gather and sell information on customers without their consent. “These markets undermine democracy and they undermine freedom, and they should be outlawed,” she says. “This is not a radical proposal. There are other markets that we outlaw. We outlaw markets in human organs. We outlaw markets in human slaves.”
These calls for reform bring me to Emily’s other recommendation, an infamous 50-year-old essay, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” by economist Milton Friedman. The New York Times, which printed the essay in 1970, just republished it along with commentary from scholars and businessfolk.
The essay had a huge impact on economics as well as business and politics. As the Times puts it, Friedman’s “libertarian economics influenced presidents and inspired ‘greed is good.’” Friedman’s manifesto is crediting with catalyzing the swerve of the U.S. and other western democracies toward free-wheeling capitalism, which governments encouraged with lower taxes.
Friedman rebuked calls for corporations to seek social goals, such as “eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers.” Those who express support for these goals, Friedman asserted, are “preaching pure and unadulterated socialism” and “undermining the basis of a free society.” Note Friedman’s equation of freedom with corporate freedom.
It is government’s job, Friedman argued, to impose rules on businesses that promote general welfare, but such restrictions should be minimal. By freely pursuing profits in competition with each other, with minimal government interference, businesses produce goods, services and jobs that benefit all of society. So Friedman and his many free-market acolytes have claimed.
We are now reaping the consequences of Friedman’s vision in the form of industries that pursue profits regardless of the social costs. These include big pharma, which foists drugs on us that often make us sicker; big oil, which has thwarted efforts to counteract global warming; and now big tech, which represents the apotheosis of Friedman’s ideology.
Economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz comments in the Times that the fallacies of Friedman’s ideology are more obvious than ever. Stiglitz asks: Should Mark Zuckerberg let Facebook users spread “wanton disinformation” if “it increases his bottom line? Friedman would say yes. Economic theory, common sense and historical experience suggest otherwise.”
Friedman’s rhetorical style reminds me of Marx. Both men exude supreme confidence in their judgments, the kind of confidence that inspires zealotry in devotees. Marx predicted that capitalism, by elevating profit above all other values, would inevitably bring about its own destruction. Friedman said capitalism would give us unbounded freedom and prosperity. Right now, Marx is looking more prescient.
Near the end of Social Dilemma, an interviewer asks tech-visionary-turned-critic Jaron Lanier to peer into our future. “If we go down the current status quo,” Lanier replies, “for let’s say another 20 years, we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world’s democracies, so they fall into some bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy. We probably”—he shrugs—“don’t survive.” Asked what he fears most, Kendall, the former Facebook executive, replies, “In the shortest time horizon? Civil war.”
Give capitalism its due. As I acknowledge in a recent book, capitalism has boosted longevity and prosperity over the last two centuries. But our fanatical commitment to Friedman-style capitalism has burdened us with acute inequality, dysfunctional health care, surging climate change and vicious political polarization. Meanwhile we keep robotically swiping our smart phones as things fall apart.
I try to resist alarmism, as a general rule, but alarmism feels like realism lately.
Oh, and Emily, thanks a lot for those recommendations.
Further Reading:
Revolt against the Rich
The Coronavirus and Right-Wing Postmodernism
Does Optimism on Climate Change Make You Pro-Trump?
Did Thomas Kuhn Help Elect Donald Trump?
See also “A Pretty Good Utopia” (profile of economist Deirdre McCloskey in my free online book Mind-Body Problems)


scientificamerican--2020-10-07--Faraway Magma Reservoirs Complicate Volcano Monitoring

Magma—the molten rock that nourishes volcanoes—can lurk in underground pockets surprisingly far from where it emerges , new research shows .
This means the instruments placed on a volcano 's flanks might fail to pick up signs of moving magma that can signal an impending eruption .
University of Oregon volcanologist Allan Lerner and his colleagues focused on 56 volcanoes in subduction zones ( geologically active areas where one tectonic plate is diving under another ) on five continents for a new paper , published in July in Geophysical Research Letters .
Compiling volcano data from other studies , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's magma reservoir and compared it with the estimated center of the volcano 's aboveground portion .
The reservoirs had been found through processes such as measuring the earth 's surface moving up or down and tracing how the planet 's crust conducts electricity .
The researchers calculated that roughly one third of volcanoes were more than four kilometers away from their magma reservoirs .
Five volcanoes , including two in Japan , two in Indonesia and one in Mexico , had offsets of more than 10 kilometers .
“ It was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long-standing tenet of volcanology is that magma reservoirs are located directly underneath volcanoes .
Offset magma reservoirs have been reported before , but the researchers say their investigation is the first to focus on an ensemble of volcanoes .
Thanks to their large sample size , Lerner and his collaborators were also able to demonstrate correlations .
They showed that smaller volcanoes tended to be farther from their magma reservoirs than larger volcanoes .
This makes sense , the team suggests , because geologic structures such as fault lines essentially create an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large quantities of magma that feed big volcanoes carry enough heat to blow straight through such natural boundaries , but the smaller reservoirs associated with smaller volcanoes must forge convoluted paths to the surface .
“ In small volcanoes , the magma that ascends is kind of at the mercy of preexisting crustal structures , ” Lerner says .
These results have implications for how volcanoes are monitored .
Researchers usually aim to place ground-based instruments on or near a volcano , says Diana Roman , a volcanologist at the Carnegie Institution for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the research .
But this new study indicates that such a strategy might not be best .
“ This tells us we should be looking farther afield , especially for volcanoes with relatively small edifices , ” Roman says .
Studying more volcanoes , including those not in subduction zones , would be valuable to see if these same trends persist , Lerner says : “ A very clear next direction would be to expand this study to look at volcanoes in other tectonic settings .
”

Magma—the molten rock that nourishes volcanoes—can lurk in underground pockets surprisingly far from where it emerges, new research shows. This means the instruments placed on a volcano's flanks might fail to pick up signs of moving magma that can signal an impending eruption.
University of Oregon volcanologist Allan Lerner and his colleagues focused on 56 volcanoes in subduction zones (geologically active areas where one tectonic plate is diving under another) on five continents for a new paper, published in July in Geophysical Research Letters. Compiling volcano data from other studies, the team estimated the center of each volcano's magma reservoir and compared it with the estimated center of the volcano's aboveground portion. The reservoirs had been found through processes such as measuring the earth's surface moving up or down and tracing how the planet's crust conducts electricity.
The researchers calculated that roughly one third of volcanoes were more than four kilometers away from their magma reservoirs. Five volcanoes, including two in Japan, two in Indonesia and one in Mexico, had offsets of more than 10 kilometers. “It was a surprise,” Lerner says, because a long-standing tenet of volcanology is that magma reservoirs are located directly underneath volcanoes.
Offset magma reservoirs have been reported before, but the researchers say their investigation is the first to focus on an ensemble of volcanoes. Thanks to their large sample size, Lerner and his collaborators were also able to demonstrate correlations. They showed that smaller volcanoes tended to be farther from their magma reservoirs than larger volcanoes. This makes sense, the team suggests, because geologic structures such as fault lines essentially create an underground obstacle course for magma. The large quantities of magma that feed big volcanoes carry enough heat to blow straight through such natural boundaries, but the smaller reservoirs associated with smaller volcanoes must forge convoluted paths to the surface. “In small volcanoes, the magma that ascends is kind of at the mercy of preexisting crustal structures,” Lerner says.
These results have implications for how volcanoes are monitored. Researchers usually aim to place ground-based instruments on or near a volcano, says Diana Roman, a volcanologist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, who was not involved in the research. But this new study indicates that such a strategy might not be best. “This tells us we should be looking farther afield, especially for volcanoes with relatively small edifices,” Roman says.
Studying more volcanoes, including those not in subduction zones, would be valuable to see if these same trends persist, Lerner says: “A very clear next direction would be to expand this study to look at volcanoes in other tectonic settings.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-07--Nobel Prize in Chemistry Goes to Discovery of 'Genetic Scissors' Called CRISPR/Cas9

This year ’ s Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded for the discovery of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system , which has enabled scientists—for the first time—to make precise changes in the long stretches of DNA that make up the code of life for many organisms , including people .
The prize was shared by Emmanuelle Charpentier , director of the Berlin-based Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens , and Jennifer A. Doudna , a professor and biochemist at the University of California at Berkeley .
The scientists will split the prize money of 10 million Swedish kornor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars .
This CRISPR tool , often described as precise genetic scissors , has been used by plant researchers to develop crops that withstand pests and drought .
In medicine , the method is involved in clinical trials of new cancer therapies , and researchers are trying to use it to cure certain inherited diseases .
“ It is being used all over science , ” says Claes Gustafsson , chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry .
This is the first time the chemistry Nobel has gone to two women .
Charpentier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ I ’ m very happy this prize goes to two women .
I hope it provides a positive message for young girls , young women , who wish to follow the path of science .
”

This year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded for the discovery of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system, which has—for the first time—enabled scientists to make precise changes in the long stretches of DNA that make up the code of life for many organisms, including people. The prize was shared by Emmanuelle Charpentier, a microbiologist and director of the Berlin-based Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens, and Jennifer A. Doudna, a professor and biochemist at the University of California, Berkeley. The scientists will split the prize money of 10 million Swedish kronor, or a little more than $1.1 million.
This CRISPR tool, often described as “genetic scissors,” has been used by plant researchers to develop crops that withstand pests and drought, and it could transform agriculture. In medicine, the method is involved in clinical trials of new cancer therapies. And researchers are trying to employ it to cure certain inherited diseases. “It is being used all over science,” says Claes Gustafsson, chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.
Nearly a decade ago Charpentier discovered a previously unknown molecule, tracrRNA, in bacteria. She learned that this molecule was part of an immune system in the microbes that helps them fight off viruses by cleaving viral DNA. The mechanism the microbes use to do so is called CRISPR. At about the same time, Doudna was mapping the cas proteins, a series of enzymes associated with CRISPR that snip apart DNA at specific spots. The two scientists began collaborating in 2011, after meeting at a conference in Puerto Rico where they went to a café in San Juan and talked about the overlap in their work. They succeeded in making these genetic scissors in a laboratory, and in reprogramming them to cut DNA at whatever spot the scientists selected.
This is the first time the chemistry Nobel has gone to two women. Charpentier, reached by phone this morning, said, “I’m very happy this prize goes to two women. I hope it provides a positive message for young girls, young women, who wish to follow the path of science.” Doudna, speaking at a press conference earlier today, echoed that thought. “I’m delighted to inspire the next generation, if possible,” she said.
Luis Echegoyen, president of the American Chemical Society, notes that “for a long time women have been nominated, but few have obtained the prize.” The Nobels began in 1901, and there were only five female winners in chemistry before Charpentier and Doudna. This disparity reflected a bias against women rather than the quality of their science, Echegoyen says. Times may be changing, however: Frances Arnold of the California Institute of Technology won the chemistry award in 2018 for her work on directed evolution.
CRISPR “is very selective, very exquisite chemistry,” Echegoyen says. “Knowing the chemistry behind things allows you to control the biology. And it lets you understand the different functions of genes. Charpentier and Doudna were absolutely at the core of this discovery.” A third scientist, Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, has also claimed major credit for work on CRISPR’s discovery and use. And the dispute is currently being waged in legal battles over U.S. patents. But the Nobel committee did not mention Zhang and focused solely on Charpentier and Doudna. The duo has been on a prizewinning streak: During the past five years, the two won a Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, a Wolf Prize in Medicine and a Kavli Prize in Nanoscience (that last award was shared with Virginijus Šikšnys, a biochemist who worked on CRISPR independently.) They were also named Japan Prize winners.
The Nobel chemistry committee felt that Charpentier and Doudna’s work, though relatively recent, “had already benefited humankind greatly,” said committee member Pernilla Wittung Stafshede during today’s announcement. There are already many dozens of applications. Angela Zhou, an information scientist at CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service), a division of the American Chemical Society that tracks discoveries and technologies in that field through mentions in journals and patents, says a few of them stand out. CRISPR, she says, has been used to “modify immune cells to make them more effective at destroying cancer cells and to remove the HIV virus when it has integrated itself into the human genome. And CRISPR-based drugs are being developed to treat heart disease, blood disorders and blindness.”
In her press conference, Doudna said that it is relatively easy to get the genome editing molecules into eye cells and blood cells, so genetic eye diseases and blood illnesses such as sickle cell disease are most amenable to CRISPR-based therapies. “Further out, it can be used on neurodegenerative diseases, where there is a great need,” she said. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the technology is being used to develop diagnostic tests to detect the novel coronavirus. Charpentier also noted that CRISPR is now being employed in basic research on the virus to search for molecules that help the pathogen replicate.
The use of CRISPR has generated significant controversy in addition to plaudits, Doudna acknowledged. Scientists have utilized the technique to edit genes in human sperm and egg cells. And a researcher in China used gene editing on viable human embryos, creating a storm of condemnation and worry about babies “designed” to have particular qualities. “It’s important to have responsible use of this technology in the future,” said Doudna, who has been involved in scientific groups that have crafted ethical guidelines. She supports making careful changes to sperm and egg cells for therapeutic purposes—to prevent inherited diseases—but opposes employing CRISPR or related techniques for human enhancement.
Both scientists said they were not expecting to hear from Sweden this morning. Charpentier, calling in to the Nobel announcement, acknowledged that her name and Doudna’s had surfaced as potential winners in recent years. “It was mentioned to me a number of times, perhaps more than I would like,” she said. Still, she noted, she had not thought this would be her year. “When I got the call this morning I was very emotional. I was surprised,” Charpentier said. But “it’s real now.”
Editor’s Note (10/7/20): This article has been updated after posting to include comments from Luis Echegoyen, Pernilla Wittung Stafshede and Jennifer A. Doudna.


scientificamerican--2020-10-07--Blue Whale Song Timing Reveals Time to Go

During the summer , blue whales in the Northeastern Pacific spend their days feeding on massive amounts of tiny plankton called krill .
In fact , krill is all they eat .
“ It really is remarkable that such a small animal is able to sustain the largest life form that 's ever existed on this planet.
” “ And to maintain themselves at that body size , they have pretty extreme feeding habits.
” A blue whale consumes many tons of krill every day .
Eating keeps the ocean giants occupied during daylight hours , when they dive hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congregate in dense swarms .
But at night when their prey disperse , the whales start to sing .
The song you just heard was sped up 10 times .
“ Which brings the sound up more into human hearing range.
” Speeding up the song enables researchers to more easily study whales ' deep and resonant songs , which can be heard by other whales across vast distances in the ocean .
“ It 's very likely that song in blue whales is related to some sort of reproductive function , whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off other males.
” Since 2015 , the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute has been recording the songs of blue whales with an underwater microphone attached to the seafloor .
“ 24/7 , 365 days a year , giving an audio feed of all of the sounds being produced in and around Monterey Bay.
” When Oestreich and his team analyzed the blue whales ' singing behavior across seasons , they noticed an unusual pattern .
As summer gave way to fall and winter , the whales changed when they sang .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than during the nighttime.
” To learn more , the scientists tagged individual whales to keep tabs on both their feeding and singing behavior .
As summer krill concentrations wane , the whales begin a long southward migration to their breeding grounds off the coast of Mexico and Central America .
“ Once they start migrating , feeding at depth is n't really a part of the equation anymore .
So , they switch their primary time of song production to the daytime.
” Knowing when to leave is crucial .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this transition from feeding to migration be synched with other things happening in their habitats.
” The researchers think the seasonal change in singing patterns signals the start of migration .
Which means : “ We 're now able to determine when the population has switched from feeding to migration.
” The study is in the journal Current Biology .
[ William K. Oestreich , et al.
, Animal-Borne Metrics Enable Acoustic Detection of Blue Whale Migration ] .
The blue whale song recording is courtesy of John Ryan and the Monterey Bay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endangered , but being able to monitor what they 're up to in real time could be a boon to conservation efforts—if we 're willing to listen .

Full Transcript
During the summer, blue whales in the Northeastern Pacific spend their days feeding on massive amounts of tiny plankton called krill. In fact, krill is all they eat.
“It really is remarkable that such a small animal is able to sustain the largest life form that’s ever existed on this planet.”
Stanford University marine ecologist Will Oestreich.
“And to maintain themselves at that body size, they have pretty extreme feeding habits.”
A blue whale consumes many tons of krill every day. Eating keeps the ocean giants occupied during daylight hours, when they dive hundreds of feet below the surface, where krill congregate in dense swarms. But at night, when their prey disperse, the whales start to sing.
“And they’ll sing for 10, 12 hours straight.”
The song you just heard was sped up 10 times.
“Which brings the sound up more into human hearing range.”
Speeding up the song enables researchers to more easily study whales’ deep and resonant songs, which can be heard by other whales across vast distances in the ocean.
“It’s very likely that song in blue whales is related to some sort of reproductive function, whether that’s attracting a mate or warding off other males.”
Since 2015, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute has been recording the songs of blue whales with an underwater microphone attached to the seafloor.
“24/7, 365 days a year, giving an audio feed of all of the sounds being produced in and around Monterey Bay.”
When Oestreich and his team analyzed the blue whales’ singing behavior across seasons, they noticed an unusual pattern. As summer gave way to fall and winter, the whales changed when they sang.
“There was more song during the daytime than during the nighttime.”
To learn more, the scientists tagged individual whales to keep tabs on both their feeding and singing behavior. As summer krill concentrations wane, the whales begin a long southward migration to their breeding grounds off the coast of Mexico and Central America.
“Once they start migrating, feeding at depth isn’t really a part of the equation anymore. So they switch their primary time of song production to the daytime.”
Knowing when to leave is crucial.
“It’s really critical that the timing of this transition from feeding to migration be synched with other things happening in their habitats.”
The researchers think the seasonal change in singing patterns signals the start of migration, which means ...
“We’re now able to determine when the population has switched from feeding to migration.”
The study is in the journal Current Biology. [William K. Oestreich et al., Animal-borne metrics enable acoustic detection of blue whale migration]. The blue whale song recording is courtesy of John Ryan and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.
Blue whales are endangered, but being able to monitor what they’re up to in real time could be a boon to conservation efforts—if we’re willing to listen.
—Susanne Bard
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-10-07--New Tinnitus Treatment Alleviates Annoying Ringing in the Ears

Tinnitus , the perception of phantom noises in the absence of actual sound , affects millions of people around the world .
According to one recent assessment , approximately one in 10 adults in the U.S. experiences tinnitus—and in nearly a quarter of these individuals , symptoms last for more than 15 years .
Those with tinnitus can also experience complications such as difficulty focusing , fatigue , anxiety and an overall reduction in the quality of life .
Psychological interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy can help lessen the distress , but to date , no drug or medical device @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition .
Now researchers have inched closer to making a treatment for tinnitus a reality .
According to a new study , published today in Science Translational Medicine , a noninvasive device that applies a technique known as bimodal neuromodulation , combining sounds with zaps to the tongue , may be an effective way to provide relief to tinnitus patients .
According to study co-author Hubert Lim , an associate professor of biomedical engineering and otolaryngology at the University of Minnesota , this treatment targets a subset of brain cells that are firing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and animals , Lim ’ s team and others previously reported that electrically stimulating touch-sensitive neurons in the tongue or face can activate neurons in the auditory system .
Pairing these zaps with sounds appears to rewire brain circuits associated with tinnitus .
The technique developed by Lim and his colleagues is designed to promote the activation of brain circuits in response to many different sounds to drown out phantom noise .
“ The idea is that eventually your brain gets sensitive to many different things , ” Lim explains .
“ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tinnitus neurons but only by elevating the other neurons.
” Another group led by Susan Shore , a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Michigan , developed a similar device with a different approach : instead of increasing sensitivity to a broad spectrum of sounds , the team ’ s method pairs a sound that matches the phantom one heard by patients with a specifically timed electrical pulse to the head or neck .
In a 2018 study that included 20 people with tinnitus , Shore ’ s team reported that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and intrusiveness of the subjects ’ tinnitus .
“ You can think of it as two ways to treat tinnitus , ” Lim says .
“ One is you can try to find [ the tinnitus cells ] and shut them down .
Our approach is to make everything in the auditory system much more hyperactive to everything but the tinnitus.
” To examine the efficacy and safety of their device , Lim and his colleagues conducted a randomized , double-blinded exploratory study with 326 adults who had chronic tinnitus at two sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland and the Tinnitus Center at the University of Regensburg in Germany .
Participants were instructed to use the device for 60 minutes daily for 12 weeks .
They were divided into three groups—each of which received slightly different treatments that varied by the type of sound used , the timing of electrical pulses , and the delay between the sound and the stimulation .
The study was funded by Neuromod Devices , a Dublin-based company , where Lim is chief scientific officer , that is developing and selling the bimodal neuromodulation device @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participants completed the 12-week regimen .
Afterward , approximately 81 percent of treatment-compliant participants exhibited improvement in psychosocial variables such as the ability to concentrate or sleep , along with lower levels of anxiety and frustration and better quality of life .
In around 77 percent of the group , this improvement persisted a year later .
Also , 66 percent of participants reported feeling that they had benefited from the device .
There were no significant differences in these measures among the three groups .
“ The study is very thorough and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an audiologist at the University of Iowa , who was not involved in the new study .
“ Given that , at this point , there is no pill or no surgery available for tinnitus , this work is very important.
” He adds that the investigation had some notable shortcomings , however .
The most concerning was the lack of a control condition in which some participants would not receive any therapeutic stimulation to rule out placebo effects .
Another limitation was that the authors did not report whether the subjects experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceptions of the phantom sounds .
“ You have tinnitus , and you have your reactions to tinnitus .
Those are two different things , ” Tyler says .
“ If you 're going to try and decrease the tinnitus , then you should be measuring the tinnitus.
” According to Lim , his group chose to focus on how the study participants reacted to tinnitus because patients ’ auditory perceptions may vary , depending on how they are affected by the condition .
The team did , however , measure perceptual changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a subsequent paper .
“ I was impressed with the improvements measured in the patients , ” says Rilana Cima , a psychologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands , who was not involved in this research but is currently collaborating with some of the co-authors on another study .
Although the approach seems promising , it would be useful to see whether a group unaffiliated with the company developing the device would be able to replicate these results , she adds .
“ I would advise , before we start producing these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first.
” Neuromod ’ s bimodal neuromodulation device is currently available through physicians in Ireland and Germany for prices from €2,500 to €2,750 ( around $ 2,900 to $ 3,200 ) .
According to Lim , the company is also seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration to make the treatment available in the U.S. His group also plans further experiments to examine the mechanism underlying its effectiveness .
“ At this stage , we can say that bimodal stimulation is changing things in the brain , ” Lim says .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imaging [ in humans ] and animal experiments to really figure out what has changed in the brain .
”

Tinnitus, the perception of phantom noises in the absence of actual sound, affects millions of people around the world. According to one recent assessment, approximately one in 10 adults in the U.S. experiences tinnitus—and in nearly a quarter of these individuals, symptoms last for more than 15 years. Those with tinnitus can also experience complications such as difficulty focusing, fatigue, anxiety and an overall reduction in the quality of life.
Psychological interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy can help lessen the distress, but to date, no drug or medical device has been shown to reliably improve this condition. Now researchers have inched closer to making a treatment for tinnitus a reality. According to a new study, published today in Science Translational Medicine, a noninvasive device that applies a technique known as bimodal neuromodulation, combining sounds with zaps to the tongue, may be an effective way to provide relief to tinnitus patients.
According to study co-author Hubert Lim, an associate professor of biomedical engineering and otolaryngology at the University of Minnesota, this treatment targets a subset of brain cells that are firing abnormally. Through studies in both humans and animals, Lim’s team and others previously reported that electrically stimulating touch-sensitive neurons in the tongue or face can activate neurons in the auditory system. Pairing these zaps with sounds appears to rewire brain circuits associated with tinnitus.
Neuromodulation device to alleviate tinnitus delivers sounds while an electrode array stimulates the tongue. Credit: From “Bimodal Neuromodulation Combining Sound and Tongue Stimulation Reduces Tinnitus Symptoms in a Large Randomized Clinical Study,” by Brendan Conlon et al., in Science Translational Medicine. Published online October 7, 2020
The technique developed by Lim and his colleagues is designed to promote the activation of brain circuits in response to many different sounds to drown out phantom noise. “The idea is that eventually your brain gets sensitive to many different things,” Lim explains. “In a way, you have suppressed the tinnitus neurons but only by elevating the other neurons.” Another group led by Susan Shore, a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Michigan, developed a similar device with a different approach: instead of increasing sensitivity to a broad spectrum of sounds, the team’s method pairs a sound that matches the phantom one heard by patients with a specifically timed electrical pulse to the head or neck. In a 2018 study that included 20 people with tinnitus, Shore’s team reported that this technique was effective in reducing the loudness and intrusiveness of the subjects’ tinnitus. “You can think of it as two ways to treat tinnitus,” Lim says. “One is you can try to find [the tinnitus cells] and shut them down. Our approach is to make everything in the auditory system much more hyperactive to everything but the tinnitus.”
To examine the efficacy and safety of their device, Lim and his colleagues conducted a randomized, double-blinded exploratory study with 326 adults who had chronic tinnitus at two sites: St. James’s Hospital in Ireland and the Tinnitus Center at the University of Regensburg in Germany. Participants were instructed to use the device for 60 minutes daily for 12 weeks. They were divided into three groups—each of which received slightly different treatments that varied by the type of sound used, the timing of electrical pulses, and the delay between the sound and the stimulation. The study was funded by Neuromod Devices, a Dublin-based company, where Lim is chief scientific officer, that is developing and selling the bimodal neuromodulation device.
Results showed that 84 percent of participants completed the 12-week regimen. Afterward, approximately 81 percent of treatment-compliant participants exhibited improvement in psychosocial variables such as the ability to concentrate or sleep, along with lower levels of anxiety and frustration and better quality of life. In around 77 percent of the group, this improvement persisted a year later. Also, 66 percent of participants reported feeling that they had benefited from the device. There were no significant differences in these measures among the three groups.
“The study is very thorough and comprehensive,” says Richard Tyler, an audiologist at the University of Iowa, who was not involved in the new study. “Given that, at this point, there is no pill or no surgery available for tinnitus, this work is very important.” He adds that the investigation had some notable shortcomings, however. The most concerning was the lack of a control condition in which some participants would not receive any therapeutic stimulation to rule out placebo effects. Another limitation was that the authors did not report whether the subjects experienced a reduction in tinnitus—actual changes in the perceptions of the phantom sounds. “You have tinnitus, and you have your reactions to tinnitus. Those are two different things,” Tyler says. “If you're going to try and decrease the tinnitus, then you should be measuring the tinnitus.”
According to Lim, his group chose to focus on how the study participants reacted to tinnitus because patients’ auditory perceptions may vary, depending on how they are affected by the condition. The team did, however, measure perceptual changes and plans to present those findings in a subsequent paper.
“I was impressed with the improvements measured in the patients,” says Rilana Cima, a psychologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, who was not involved in this research but is currently collaborating with some of the co-authors on another study. Although the approach seems promising, it would be useful to see whether a group unaffiliated with the company developing the device would be able to replicate these results, she adds. “I would advise, before we start producing these things en masse, to do that first.”
Neuromod’s bimodal neuromodulation device is currently available through physicians in Ireland and Germany for prices from €2,500 to €2,750 (around $2,900 to $3,200). According to Lim, the company is also seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration to make the treatment available in the U.S. His group also plans further experiments to examine the mechanism underlying its effectiveness. “At this stage, we can say that bimodal stimulation is changing things in the brain,” Lim says. “The next step is to do brain imaging [in humans] and animal experiments to really figure out what has changed in the brain.”