scientificamerican--2020-10-12--Why So Many Americans Are Skeptical of a Coronavirus Vaccine

In the face of nearly seven million infections and 200,000 deaths , many Americans refuse to wear masks because they don ’ t feel the coronavirus is real .
Even some of those who believe the virus exists are not concerned about getting sick .
How did this happen ?
Putting political ill will aside for a moment , the conflicting messaging that persisted from February through the summer could confuse even the most diligent information seeker .
Recommendations from credible organizations swung like a pendulum .
It sounded something like this : Coronavirus is not a threat to America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any international travelers .
Don ’ t touch surfaces .
You don ’ t need a mask .
The CDC isn ’ t requiring quarantine for travelers .
Actually you do need to wear a mask , and surfaces aren ’ t as risky .
It is no surprise then that the public is split on expectations for how we need to deal and recover , both collectively and individually .
Yet even among those who consider COVID-19 a real concern , there is uneasiness around the most promising solution to the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll in mid-May , fewer than 50 percent of Americans surveyed said they would commit to getting a coronavirus vaccine whenever it becomes available .
Although self-reported behavior does not always strongly correlate with actual behavior , other polls have since revealed similar sentiments .
It is tempting for public health communicators to dismiss those who are refusers or hesitant by broadly labeling them as conspiracy theorists or misinformed skeptics who would come around if given the facts .
But mistrusting the coronavirus vaccine process—from development to trials to distribution— can not merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is not just an outcome of this moment ’ s political polarization and dangerous misinformation coming from the highest levels of leadership .
Even though vaccines have virtually eliminated the risk of many preventable diseases , there has been an increase in refusal and hesitancy over the past two decades .
Typically vaccine refusal is most prevalent in wealthy , white areas , but polls that seek to understand the pending coronavirus vaccine indicate high levels of hesitancy and refusal among marginalized communities , too .
In fact , these groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with only a quarter of Black respondents and 37 percent of Hispanic respondents in the AP-NORC poll saying they would commit to getting the vaccine whenever it is available .
Considering that Black , Hispanic and Indigenous communities are at the highest risk of infection and are overrepresented in COVID-19 deaths , this result may look like a curious discrepancy .
But it is not hard to understand these groups ’ caution and , in some cases , their downright refusal to engage with public health recommendations when one considers the historical racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems and the harm suffered at the hands of biased science .
Exploring the more nuanced questions of how science and society are intertwined is central to our editorial strategy for Dope Labs , a podcast we created in 2019 to expand the notions of scientific communication and the scientific community .
There are more than 30 million podcast episodes , yet even with this saturation , so much of the listener landscape in the U.S. overindexes on whiteness , wealth and education .
Our goal is to center those who are most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This means our episodes explore the physics and chemistry of Black Panther and the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe when there is a new film release ; highlight the effects of settler colonialism on Indigenous people and ecology at Thanksgiving ; and connect racial justice movements with the fight against carbon emissions when we discuss climate change .
In a recent episode with author Angela Saini , we focused on the history of scientific racism .
Through this lens , distrust of vaccines and scientific interventions is not without cause .
Revisit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tactic the U.S. eugenics movement used to eliminate the reproduction of those deemed “ unfit.
” These procedures targeted Black , Indigenous and Latina women , along with those labeled “ feebleminded.
” Contrary to claims by scientists who supported eugenics , the factors used to determine if a person was “ unfit ” were strongly correlated with their economic status , not their genetics .
Consider , too , the echoes of the Tuskegee syphilis study , when hundreds of African-American men with syphilis were recruited by the U.S. Public Health Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care .
Even after a viable antibiotic treatment became available in 1947 , these men were given only placebos for decades longer , just so the researchers could observe how bad the disease could get as it progressed .
It is also reasonable that people are questioning the motives of the pharmaceutical industry or wondering whether a vetted coronavirus vaccine may already exist when scientists at elite universities are making their own “ citizen vaccines ” and administering it to themselves and to their colleagues .
Meanwhile the general public waits for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to die .
Consider other conspiracy theories that have circulated about potential vaccines , such as the fear that the injection will contain surveillance microchips .
It is not so far-fetched to believe rumors that scientists will take people ’ s most private information without permission while administering care when , in 1951 , while Henrietta Lacks was receiving cancer treatment at Johns Hopkins Hospital , a tissue sample was taken without her knowledge , facilitating a significant body of research .
Medical racism is not relegated to the past .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the National Academy of Sciences USA surveyed 1.8 million births in the U.S. and found that the Black newborn mortality rate is three times higher when white doctors are delivering the child compared with Black doctors .
Although the driving mechanism is unclear , the results—especially when combined with negative personal experiences in medical settings—are enough to make people doubt that doctors treat everyone with the same standard of care .
The people and institutions responsible for designing the communication around the coronavirus vaccine have to consider this broad backdrop if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Validating the ways in which the American people , and marginalized groups in particular , have sometimes been misled , mistreated and misunderstood at the hands of “ science ” is the first step in regaining their trust .
There is no shortage of interests who seek to do harm by manipulating the public conversation and exploiting the legacy of medical racism with messages designed to invoke anger and fear .
Public health officials who want to advocate for clarity need to understand these same vulnerabilities and address them head-on rather than ignoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like in practice ?
Anthony Fauci appears to subscribe to the “ never say no ” approach to communication , stepping into less familiar media formats where the audiences—whether deemed scientific or not—already exist : Lil ’ Wayne ’ s Young Money Radio , Instagram Live with Matthew McConaughey and Khan Academy ’ s YouTube .
There is still a need for more diverse voices and unconventional storytelling approaches .
We have received feedback that Dope Labs is too casual or not really a science podcast because we refuse to use jargon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t need more content that follows the same style ; we want people to reconsider why credibility is assessed based on the presenter ’ s voice , background and tone .
Science communicators should also use intentional transparency , where they proactively guide the public through the steps of vaccine design and approval : explain efficacy and safety testing ; reassure during routine interruptions that lead to altered schedules ; and admit where the very system we rely on now has failed in the past .
Instead of speaking from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best when it validates the audience ’ s fears and concerns .
It focuses on the paths we are taking to avoid repeating previous mistakes—not as an afterthought or vague platitude but as a core part of the message .
Like many disasters , the pandemic is highlighting the weaknesses in our systems and gaps in our skill sets .
On the path to a vaccine , we can not afford to cling to barriers that exclude people—especially those who are the most skeptical .

In the face of nearly seven million infections and 200,000 deaths, many Americans refuse to wear masks because they don’t feel the coronavirus is real. Even some of those who believe the virus exists are not concerned about getting sick.
How did this happen? Putting political ill will aside for a moment, the conflicting messaging that persisted from February through the summer could confuse even the most diligent information seeker. Recommendations from credible organizations swung like a pendulum. It sounded something like this: Coronavirus is not a threat to America. The CDC is requiring quarantine for any international travelers. Don’t touch surfaces. You don’t need a mask. The CDC isn’t requiring quarantine for travelers. Actually you do need to wear a mask, and surfaces aren’t as risky.
It is no surprise then that the public is split on expectations for how we need to deal and recover, both collectively and individually. Yet even among those who consider COVID-19 a real concern, there is uneasiness around the most promising solution to the pandemic: a vaccine. In an AP-NORC poll in mid-May, fewer than 50 percent of Americans surveyed said they would commit to getting a coronavirus vaccine whenever it becomes available. Although self-reported behavior does not always strongly correlate with actual behavior, other polls have since revealed similar sentiments.
It is tempting for public health communicators to dismiss those who are refusers or hesitant by broadly labeling them as conspiracy theorists or misinformed skeptics who would come around if given the facts. But mistrusting the coronavirus vaccine process—from development to trials to distribution—cannot merely be dismissed as “antiscience” thinking. It is not just an outcome of this moment’s political polarization and dangerous misinformation coming from the highest levels of leadership.
Even though vaccines have virtually eliminated the risk of many preventable diseases, there has been an increase in refusal and hesitancy over the past two decades. Typically vaccine refusal is most prevalent in wealthy, white areas, but polls that seek to understand the pending coronavirus vaccine indicate high levels of hesitancy and refusal among marginalized communities, too. In fact, these groups appear to be the most skeptical, with only a quarter of Black respondents and 37 percent of Hispanic respondents in the AP-NORC poll saying they would commit to getting the vaccine whenever it is available. Considering that Black, Hispanic and Indigenous communities are at the highest risk of infection and are overrepresented in COVID-19 deaths, this result may look like a curious discrepancy. But it is not hard to understand these groups’ caution and, in some cases, their downright refusal to engage with public health recommendations when one considers the historical racism embedded in the fabric of the medical systems and the harm suffered at the hands of biased science.
Exploring the more nuanced questions of how science and society are intertwined is central to our editorial strategy for Dope Labs, a podcast we created in 2019 to expand the notions of scientific communication and the scientific community. There are more than 30 million podcast episodes, yet even with this saturation, so much of the listener landscape in the U.S. overindexes on whiteness, wealth and education. Our goal is to center those who are most often excluded from the science narrative. This means our episodes explore the physics and chemistry of Black Panther and the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe when there is a new film release; highlight the effects of settler colonialism on Indigenous people and ecology at Thanksgiving; and connect racial justice movements with the fight against carbon emissions when we discuss climate change.
In a recent episode with author Angela Saini, we focused on the history of scientific racism. Through this lens, distrust of vaccines and scientific interventions is not without cause. Revisit the era of involuntary sterilization, a tactic the U.S. eugenics movement used to eliminate the reproduction of those deemed “unfit.” These procedures targeted Black, Indigenous and Latina women, along with those labeled “feebleminded.” Contrary to claims by scientists who supported eugenics, the factors used to determine if a person was “unfit” were strongly correlated with their economic status, not their genetics. Consider, too, the echoes of the Tuskegee syphilis study, when hundreds of African-American men with syphilis were recruited by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1932 in exchange for free medical care. Even after a viable antibiotic treatment became available in 1947, these men were given only placebos for decades longer, just so the researchers could observe how bad the disease could get as it progressed.
It is also reasonable that people are questioning the motives of the pharmaceutical industry or wondering whether a vetted coronavirus vaccine may already exist when scientists at elite universities are making their own “citizen vaccines” and administering it to themselves and to their colleagues. Meanwhile the general public waits for an official vaccine as people working essential jobs continue to die.
Consider other conspiracy theories that have circulated about potential vaccines, such as the fear that the injection will contain surveillance microchips. It is not so far-fetched to believe rumors that scientists will take people’s most private information without permission while administering care when, in 1951, while Henrietta Lacks was receiving cancer treatment at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a tissue sample was taken without her knowledge, facilitating a significant body of research.
Medical racism is not relegated to the past. A study published in September in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA surveyed 1.8 million births in the U.S. and found that the Black newborn mortality rate is three times higher when white doctors are delivering the child compared with Black doctors. Although the driving mechanism is unclear, the results—especially when combined with negative personal experiences in medical settings—are enough to make people doubt that doctors treat everyone with the same standard of care.
The people and institutions responsible for designing the communication around the coronavirus vaccine have to consider this broad backdrop if we want to get COVID-19 under control. Validating the ways in which the American people, and marginalized groups in particular, have sometimes been misled, mistreated and misunderstood at the hands of “science” is the first step in regaining their trust. There is no shortage of interests who seek to do harm by manipulating the public conversation and exploiting the legacy of medical racism with messages designed to invoke anger and fear. Public health officials who want to advocate for clarity need to understand these same vulnerabilities and address them head-on rather than ignoring them.
But what does this look like in practice? Anthony Fauci appears to subscribe to the “never say no” approach to communication, stepping into less familiar media formats where the audiences—whether deemed scientific or not—already exist: Lil’ Wayne’s Young Money Radio, Instagram Live with Matthew McConaughey and Khan Academy’s YouTube. There is still a need for more diverse voices and unconventional storytelling approaches. We have received feedback that Dope Labs is too casual or not really a science podcast because we refuse to use jargon. But this is by design. We don’t need more content that follows the same style; we want people to reconsider why credibility is assessed based on the presenter’s voice, background and tone.
Science communicators should also use intentional transparency, where they proactively guide the public through the steps of vaccine design and approval: explain efficacy and safety testing; reassure during routine interruptions that lead to altered schedules; and admit where the very system we rely on now has failed in the past. Instead of speaking from a place of removed authority, communication works best when it validates the audience’s fears and concerns. It focuses on the paths we are taking to avoid repeating previous mistakes—not as an afterthought or vague platitude but as a core part of the message.
Like many disasters, the pandemic is highlighting the weaknesses in our systems and gaps in our skill sets. On the path to a vaccine, we cannot afford to cling to barriers that exclude people—especially those who are the most skeptical.


scientificamerican--2020-10-12--How to Get Through This Election

How to Get Through This Election

In August , Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was interviewed on the New York Times podcast The Daily , where he was asked explicitly what his company will do if President Donald Trump uses Twitter to declare himself the winner of the 2020 election before the results have been decided .
Dorsey paused , then provided a vague answer about learning lessons from the confusion that occurred in 2000 with the Florida recount and working with “ peers and civil society to really understand what ’ s going on.
” It was 88 days before the election , and my heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study misinformation and investigate online efforts to interfere with democratic processes around the world , this election feels like our Olympics .
It can be hard to remember just how different attitudes around the threat of false and misleading information were back in November 2016 , when , two days after the presidential election , Mark Zuckerberg famously claimed that it was “ crazy ” to suggest that fake news had affected the outcome .
Now a misinformation field has emerged , with new journals inspiring cross-disciplinary research , millions of dollars in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and new forms of regulation from the European Union Code of Practice of Disinformation to U.S. legislation prohibiting so-called deepfakes .
Planning for the impact of misinformation on the 2020 election has taken the form of a dizzying number of conferences , research projects and initiatives over the past four years that warned us about the effects of rumors , conspiracies and falsehoods on democracies .
Recent months were supposed to be the home stretch .
So when Dorsey failed to give a concrete answer to a question about a highly likely scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall on their face when they should have been nailing the dismount .
Every platform , newsroom , election authority and civil society group could have a detailed response plan for a number of anticipated scenarios—because we have seen them play out before .
The most common form of disinformation is that which sows doubt about the election process itself : flyers promoting the wrong election date , videos of ballot boxes that look like they have been tampered with , false claims about being able to vote online circulating on social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The low cost of creating and disseminating disinformation allows bad actors to test thousands of different ideas and concepts—they are just looking for one that could do real damage .
We have not grappled with the severity of the situation .
Social media platforms seem to have only recently recognized that this election might not end neatly on November 3 .
Nonprofits whose employees are exhausted after months of COVID-related misinformation work are still scrambling for resources .
The public has not been adequately trained to manage the onslaught of misinformation polluting their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through scenarios to practice how they will cover , say , bombshell leaks in the run-up to Election Day or after the election , when the outcome might be disputed .
In the spring of 2017 France saw # macronleaks , the release of 20,000 e-mails connected to Emmanuel Macron ’ s campaign and financial history two days before the election .
Because of a French law that prohibits media mentions of elections in the final 48 hours of the campaign , the impact was limited .
The U.S. does not have such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My e-mail inbox is full of requests from platforms to join belatedly assembled task forces and from start-ups wondering whether some technology could be quickly built to “ move the needle ” on election integrity .
There are near-daily updates to platform policies , but these amendments are not comprehensive , lack transparency and have not been independently assessed .
Ultimately the rise of misinformation , polarization and emotion-filled content is our new reality , and the biggest threat we face in this moment is voter suppression .
So rather than “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they post conspiracy theories on Facebook , start a conversation about the serious damage that rumors and falsehoods are doing to our lives , our health , our relationships and our communities .
Do not focus on the veracity of what is being posted ; use empathetic and inclusive language to ask how people are voting .
No one should be shamed for sharing misinformation because we are all susceptible to it—especially now , when our worlds have been turned upside down and many of us are operating in fight-or-flight mode .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have to help one another adapt .

In August, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was interviewed on the New York Times podcast The Daily, where he was asked explicitly what his company will do if President Donald Trump uses Twitter to declare himself the winner of the 2020 election before the results have been decided. Dorsey paused, then provided a vague answer about learning lessons from the confusion that occurred in 2000 with the Florida recount and working with “peers and civil society to really understand what’s going on.” It was 88 days before the election, and my heart sank.
For those of us who study misinformation and investigate online efforts to interfere with democratic processes around the world, this election feels like our Olympics. It can be hard to remember just how different attitudes around the threat of false and misleading information were back in November 2016, when, two days after the presidential election, Mark Zuckerberg famously claimed that it was “crazy” to suggest that fake news had affected the outcome. Now a misinformation field has emerged, with new journals inspiring cross-disciplinary research, millions of dollars in funding spent on nonprofits and start-ups, and new forms of regulation from the European Union Code of Practice of Disinformation to U.S. legislation prohibiting so-called deepfakes.
Planning for the impact of misinformation on the 2020 election has taken the form of a dizzying number of conferences, research projects and initiatives over the past four years that warned us about the effects of rumors, conspiracies and falsehoods on democracies. Recent months were supposed to be the home stretch. So when Dorsey failed to give a concrete answer to a question about a highly likely scenario, it felt like watching a teammate fall on their face when they should have been nailing the dismount.
Every platform, newsroom, election authority and civil society group could have a detailed response plan for a number of anticipated scenarios—because we have seen them play out before. The most common form of disinformation is that which sows doubt about the election process itself: flyers promoting the wrong election date, videos of ballot boxes that look like they have been tampered with, false claims about being able to vote online circulating on social media and in closed groups on WhatsApp. The low cost of creating and disseminating disinformation allows bad actors to test thousands of different ideas and concepts—they are just looking for one that could do real damage.
We have not grappled with the severity of the situation. Social media platforms seem to have only recently recognized that this election might not end neatly on November 3. Nonprofits whose employees are exhausted after months of COVID-related misinformation work are still scrambling for resources. The public has not been adequately trained to manage the onslaught of misinformation polluting their feeds. Most newsrooms have not run through scenarios to practice how they will cover, say, bombshell leaks in the run-up to Election Day or after the election, when the outcome might be disputed. In the spring of 2017 France saw #macronleaks, the release of 20,000 e-mails connected to Emmanuel Macron’s campaign and financial history two days before the election. Because of a French law that prohibits media mentions of elections in the final 48 hours of the campaign, the impact was limited. The U.S. does not have such protections.
The panic is palpable now. My e-mail inbox is full of requests from platforms to join belatedly assembled task forces and from start-ups wondering whether some technology could be quickly built to “move the needle” on election integrity. There are near-daily updates to platform policies, but these amendments are not comprehensive, lack transparency and have not been independently assessed.
Ultimately the rise of misinformation, polarization and emotion-filled content is our new reality, and the biggest threat we face in this moment is voter suppression. So rather than “muting” friends and family members when they post conspiracy theories on Facebook, start a conversation about the serious damage that rumors and falsehoods are doing to our lives, our health, our relationships and our communities. Do not focus on the veracity of what is being posted; use empathetic and inclusive language to ask how people are voting. No one should be shamed for sharing misinformation because we are all susceptible to it—especially now, when our worlds have been turned upside down and many of us are operating in fight-or-flight mode. To avoid losing ourselves in the noise, we have to help one another adapt.


Confronting Misinformation

Viral lies , overwhelming uncertainty , and leadership that amplifies falsehoods and fear : no wonder we feel anguished by @ @ @ @ @ an election season of great consequence , what would make society less vulnerable to division @

Special Report
Confronting Misinformation
Viral lies, overwhelming uncertainty, and leadership that amplifies falsehoods and fear: no wonder we feel anguished by our information environment. During an election season of great consequence, what would make society less vulnerable to division?


scientificamerican--2020-10-12--The Whitewashing of Black Genius

The Whitewashing of Black Genius

Sometimes it is the strange similarities and symmetries of unrelated historical moments that most clearly display the patterns of human experience .
Archives separated by oceans can be in dialogue with each other .
A case in point : in the National Library of Scotland and the national archives in Cuba , you can find unsettling documents detailing the skull measurements of two renowned Black leaders of the 19th century .
These peculiar archival records demonstrate the long relationship between scientific inquiry and racism .
Together , they caution against the perennial problem of societal prejudices seeping into scientific “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abolitionist orator and publisher , and Antonio Maceo , the celebrated military hero of the Cuban independence movement , are rarely if ever mentioned together .
Yet these men experienced strikingly similar scrutiny about their mixed racial ancestry .
Racist commentators asked whether these Black leaders ’ achievements were attributable to their partial “ European ” or “ white ” blood .
The primary objective of 19th-century “ racial science ” and ethnology was to stratify the human species into superior and inferior racial categories ; such ideas could then be used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks levied against these two figures , another factor is in play : the erasure of nonwhite excellence .
Douglass ’ s rhetorical mastery and Maceo ’ s courageous military exploits were testaments to Black artistry , intellect and leadership .
By suggesting their triumphs stemmed from their having partial white ancestry , white critics attempted to rob them of their status as exemplars of Black genius .
Why skulls ?
Why were some 19th-century scientists so crazy for craniums ?
Samuel George Morton , a scientist from Philadelphia , epitomized this trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with skulls from around the world ( many retrieved by grave robbers ) , was affectionately known as the “ American Golgotha.
” To Morton , skulls were the key : cranial characteristics dictated racial difference and supposedly proved Europeans were the pinnacle of human advancement .
Morton ’ s Crania Americana perpetuated the ideas of cranial racial difference that had a sprawling hold on 19th-century medical and popular thought .
Even the skulls of celebrated leaders like Douglass and Maceo did not escape racialized scrutiny .
Antonio Maceo deserved his title , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rank of major general , and fought in hundreds of military engagements against Spanish colonial authorities and refused to be slowed by the many wounds he suffered in the field .
Maceo 's parents were classified as `` pardos libres , '' meaning they were free ( not enslaved ) and mixed-race .
Given his Afro-Cuban parentage , Maceo took pride in his position as a public symbol of the potential for racial equality in Cuba .
He led multiracial militias and famously rejected the terms of the 1878 Pact of Zanjón @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abolition of slavery .
Maceo was killed in battle on December 7 , 1896 , and came to symbolize the collective struggle of a multiracial Cuban population and a national future free from past racial injustices .
In September of 1899 , his body was exhumed by Cuban authorities to reinter him at a monument in his honor .
In an act that would have been unthinkable had he been white , his bones were measured and analyzed by an anthropological commission to see if he had been more European or African , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iglesias Utset details how the examination “ combined , in a splendidly paradoxical way , the ‘ patriotic ’ motivation to glorify the memory of the independence hero with the application of techniques developed by … defenders of ‘ scientific racism.
’ ” Henry Louis Gates , Jr. describes the scene cogently : “ Imagine if Ulysses S. Grant had died during the Civil War .
And imagine if scientists then decided to cut him up like a frog in biology class to find out if his skeleton looked more English , say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The “ estudio antropológico ” began with a study of Maceo ’ s skull .
The scientists were impressed with the “ lines ” of the cranium .
They assured the reader that , although the right side of the skull was slightly larger than the left , that was common .
They noted happily that , because of its proportions , his cranium could be “ confused ” with a European ’ s .
With that line , the purpose of the charade became clear .
Maceo was being ‘ scientifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moving to the rest of the skeleton , the examiners recorded that Maceo appeared to be a man of Herculean strength , “ un hombre de una fuerza hercúlea.
” This no one doubted ; he was the Bronze Titan after all .
But then the report took another shameful turn .
The scientists described how the mixture of white and Black— “ el cruzamiento del blanco y del negro ” —created a superior individual when the European side “ predominated ” and an “ inferior ” individual when it did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with those of “ Blacks of Africa , ” “ Modern Parisians , ” and “ adult Europeans.
” The examiners divined that while Maceo ’ s skeleton resembled that of a man of African descent , his cranium was more European .
The conclusion declared that “ given the race to which he belonged and the sphere in which he nurtured and pursued his activities , Antonio Maceo can , in all rightness , be considered as a truly superior man ” ( Utset ’ s translation ) .
As this Cuban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white Cuban authorities made sure to whitewash his body , or at least his skull .
Douglass , too , had his head examined .
While giving antislavery lectures in the British Isles in 1846 , he met prominent phrenologist George Combe in Edinburgh ( phrenology is the now-debunked pseudoscience of predicting mental and intellectual capacity by measuring the shape of skull ) .
Combe wrote in his diary : “ Frederick Douglas [ s ] the self-liberated slave from Maryland U.S. breakfasted with us this morning.… The lower ridge & middle perpendicular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The head is well balanced… ” In his strange phrenological shorthand , Combe recorded all sorts of observations about Douglass ’ s head .
( Combe viewed himself as anti-slavery , and his examination did not have the same racist and political motivations of the Maceo commission .
Still , he was well acquainted with Morton and had publicized his Crania Americana in the U.K .
In his publications , Combe subscribed to the sort of natural racial hierarchies Douglass despised .
While visiting the United States in 1839 , Combe expressed disgust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the institution through his “ scientific , ” racialized lens : “ the African has been deprived of freedom and rendered ‘ property ’ … because he is by nature a tame man… .
In both [ Africans and Native Americans ] , the brain is inferior in size , particularly in the moral and intellectual regions , to that of the Anglo-Saxon race , and hence the foundation of the natural superiority of the latter over both.
” Combe ’ s journal reveals how impressed he was with Douglass .
He must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While Combe did not dwell on Douglass ’ s mixed ancestry , others did .
The orator had been born to an enslaved woman on the Eastern Shore of Maryland .
His father , he presumed , was his and his mother ’ s white owner .
As with Maceo , racists explained his oratorical power by pointing to his “ European ” or “ Anglo-Saxon ” blood .
At a public meeting in 1850 , Douglass debated a Dr. Grant who postulated that Blacks were of a different species .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doctor ’ s adherents cried out that Douglass was not a negro—he was half white—and the inference that they would draw was , that his logic and eloquence all came from his white father and none from his black mother.
” Douglass addressed such ideas in a speech entitled “ The Claims of the Negro , Ethnographically Considered , ” delivered in 1854 .
Taking direct aim at Morton , Douglass noted how Crania Americana dripped with “ contempt for negroes.
” He observed that “ an intelligent black man is always supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection with the white race .
To be intelligent is to have one ’ s negro blood ignored.
” Fascinatingly , Douglass argued “ that intellect is uniformly derived from the maternal side.
” This allowed him to credit his mother with his inherent intellectual fortitude .
In his second autobiography , he said of his mother , “ I am quite willing , and even happy , to attribute any love of letters I possess … not to my admitted Anglo-Saxon paternity , but to the native genius of my sable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s and Maceo ’ s interactions with racial science were not identical .
Yet their stories intersect in how their scrutinizers sought to decouple their exceptional achievements from the truth of their racial identities .
By doing so , white Cubans could comfortably claim Maceo , and white Americans could comfortably dismiss Douglass .
So , what does racial science reveal about society ?
Today , the strange logics of these pseudosciences have receded , but they are not altogether gone .
Racism , greed and fear of an “ other ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These stories of Douglass and Maceo challenge us to assess how our society erases Black excellence today .
To put it another way , how do predominantly white institutions claim credit for Black achievement ?
To Douglass , the question at the root of all of this “ scientific moonshine ” was “ whether the rights , privileges , and immunities enjoyed by some ought not to be shared and enjoyed by all.
” Douglass and Maceo achieved greatness in the pursuit of these universal ideals and could not be eclipsed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Sometimes it is the strange similarities and symmetries of unrelated historical moments that most clearly display the patterns of human experience. Archives separated by oceans can be in dialogue with each other. A case in point: in the National Library of Scotland and the national archives in Cuba, you can find unsettling documents detailing the skull measurements of two renowned Black leaders of the 19th century. These peculiar archival records demonstrate the long relationship between scientific inquiry and racism. Together, they caution against the perennial problem of societal prejudices seeping into scientific “progress.”
Frederick Douglass, the American abolitionist orator and publisher, and Antonio Maceo, the celebrated military hero of the Cuban independence movement, are rarely if ever mentioned together. Yet these men experienced strikingly similar scrutiny about their mixed racial ancestry. Racist commentators asked whether these Black leaders’ achievements were attributable to their partial “European” or “white” blood. The primary objective of 19th-century “racial science” and ethnology was to stratify the human species into superior and inferior racial categories; such ideas could then be used to justify racial oppression.
But in the attacks levied against these two figures, another factor is in play: the erasure of nonwhite excellence. Douglass’s rhetorical mastery and Maceo’s courageous military exploits were testaments to Black artistry, intellect and leadership. By suggesting their triumphs stemmed from their having partial white ancestry, white critics attempted to rob them of their status as exemplars of Black genius.
Why skulls? Why were some 19th-century scientists so crazy for craniums? Samuel George Morton, a scientist from Philadelphia, epitomized this trend. Morton’s office, filled with skulls from around the world (many retrieved by grave robbers), was affectionately known as the “American Golgotha.” To Morton, skulls were the key: cranial characteristics dictated racial difference and supposedly proved Europeans were the pinnacle of human advancement. Morton’s Crania Americana perpetuated the ideas of cranial racial difference that had a sprawling hold on 19th-century medical and popular thought. Even the skulls of celebrated leaders like Douglass and Maceo did not escape racialized scrutiny.
Antonio Maceo deserved his title, “the Bronze Titan.” He achieved the rank of major general, and fought in hundreds of military engagements against Spanish colonial authorities and refused to be slowed by the many wounds he suffered in the field. Maceo's parents were classified as "pardos libres," meaning they were free (not enslaved) and mixed-race. Given his Afro-Cuban parentage, Maceo took pride in his position as a public symbol of the potential for racial equality in Cuba. He led multiracial militias and famously rejected the terms of the 1878 Pact of Zanjón for not guaranteeing independence and the total abolition of slavery. Maceo was killed in battle on December 7, 1896, and came to symbolize the collective struggle of a multiracial Cuban population and a national future free from past racial injustices.
In September of 1899, his body was exhumed by Cuban authorities to reinter him at a monument in his honor. In an act that would have been unthinkable had he been white, his bones were measured and analyzed by an anthropological commission to see if he had been more European or African, more white than Black. Historian Marial Iglesias Utset details how the examination “combined, in a splendidly paradoxical way, the ‘patriotic’ motivation to glorify the memory of the independence hero with the application of techniques developed by … defenders of ‘scientific racism.’”
Henry Louis Gates, Jr. describes the scene cogently: “Imagine if Ulysses S. Grant had died during the Civil War. And imagine if scientists then decided to cut him up like a frog in biology class to find out if his skeleton looked more English, say, or Irish. This was scandalous.”
The “estudio antropológico” began with a study of Maceo’s skull. The scientists were impressed with the “lines” of the cranium. They assured the reader that, although the right side of the skull was slightly larger than the left, that was common. They noted happily that, because of its proportions, his cranium could be “confused” with a European’s. With that line, the purpose of the charade became clear. Maceo was being ‘scientifically’ refashioned into a white Cuban hero.
Moving to the rest of the skeleton, the examiners recorded that Maceo appeared to be a man of Herculean strength, “un hombre de una fuerza hercúlea.” This no one doubted; he was the Bronze Titan after all. But then the report took another shameful turn. The scientists described how the mixture of white and Black—“el cruzamiento del blanco y del negro” —created a superior individual when the European side “predominated” and an “inferior” individual when it did not.
Maceo’s measurements were compared with those of “Blacks of Africa,” “Modern Parisians,” and “adult Europeans.” The examiners divined that while Maceo’s skeleton resembled that of a man of African descent, his cranium was more European. The conclusion declared that “given the race to which he belonged and the sphere in which he nurtured and pursued his activities, Antonio Maceo can, in all rightness, be considered as a truly superior man” (Utset’s translation). As this Cuban military hero was being publicly immortalized, white Cuban authorities made sure to whitewash his body, or at least his skull.
Douglass, too, had his head examined. While giving antislavery lectures in the British Isles in 1846, he met prominent phrenologist George Combe in Edinburgh (phrenology is the now-debunked pseudoscience of predicting mental and intellectual capacity by measuring the shape of skull). Combe wrote in his diary: “Frederick Douglas[s] the self-liberated slave from Maryland U.S. breakfasted with us this morning.… The lower ridge & middle perpendicular line of the frontal lobe are large… The head is well balanced…” In his strange phrenological shorthand, Combe recorded all sorts of observations about Douglass’s head. (
Combe viewed himself as anti-slavery, and his examination did not have the same racist and political motivations of the Maceo commission. Still, he was well acquainted with Morton and had publicized his Crania Americana in the U.K. In his publications, Combe subscribed to the sort of natural racial hierarchies Douglass despised. While visiting the United States in 1839, Combe expressed disgust at American slavery, yet he viewed the institution through his “scientific,” racialized lens: “the African has been deprived of freedom and rendered ‘property’ … because he is by nature a tame man…. In both [Africans and Native Americans], the brain is inferior in size, particularly in the moral and intellectual regions, to that of the Anglo-Saxon race, and hence the foundation of the natural superiority of the latter over both.” Combe’s journal reveals how impressed he was with Douglass. He must have seen him as a racial outlier.
While Combe did not dwell on Douglass’s mixed ancestry, others did. The orator had been born to an enslaved woman on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. His father, he presumed, was his and his mother’s white owner. As with Maceo, racists explained his oratorical power by pointing to his “European” or “Anglo-Saxon” blood.
At a public meeting in 1850, Douglass debated a Dr. Grant who postulated that Blacks were of a different species. When Douglass refuted this convincingly, “the Doctor’s adherents cried out that Douglass was not a negro—he was half white—and the inference that they would draw was, that his logic and eloquence all came from his white father and none from his black mother.”
Douglass addressed such ideas in a speech entitled “The Claims of the Negro, Ethnographically Considered,” delivered in 1854. Taking direct aim at Morton, Douglass noted how Crania Americana dripped with “contempt for negroes.” He observed that “an intelligent black man is always supposed to have derived his intelligence from his connection with the white race. To be intelligent is to have one’s negro blood ignored.” Fascinatingly, Douglass argued “that intellect is uniformly derived from the maternal side.” This allowed him to credit his mother with his inherent intellectual fortitude. In his second autobiography, he said of his mother, “I am quite willing, and even happy, to attribute any love of letters I possess … not to my admitted Anglo-Saxon paternity, but to the native genius of my sable, unprotected, and uncultivated mother.”
Douglass’s and Maceo’s interactions with racial science were not identical. Yet their stories intersect in how their scrutinizers sought to decouple their exceptional achievements from the truth of their racial identities. By doing so, white Cubans could comfortably claim Maceo, and white Americans could comfortably dismiss Douglass.
So, what does racial science reveal about society? Today, the strange logics of these pseudosciences have receded, but they are not altogether gone. Racism, greed and fear of an “other” achieving greatness are still very much alive. These stories of Douglass and Maceo challenge us to assess how our society erases Black excellence today. To put it another way, how do predominantly white institutions claim credit for Black achievement?
To Douglass, the question at the root of all of this “scientific moonshine” was “whether the rights, privileges, and immunities enjoyed by some ought not to be shared and enjoyed by all.” Douglass and Maceo achieved greatness in the pursuit of these universal ideals and could not be eclipsed by those seeking to whitewash Black genius.


scientificamerican--2020-10-12--Lab-Made 'Miniproteins' Could Block the Coronavirus from Infecting Cells

While the world waits for a COVID-19 vaccine , many researchers are focused on developing effective therapeutics that can be rolled out quickly and cheaply .
Monoclonal antibodies—a potentially promising laboratory-manufactured therapy modeled on antibodies extracted from the blood of recovering patients—made headlines recently when President Trump received a not-yet-approved antibody cocktail made by the company Regeneron .
And pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly recently announced that its monoclonal antibody reduced the risk of hospitalization in 300 people who had mild or moderate symptoms of COVID-19 , in a small clinical trial .
But David Baker , a biochemist at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protein Design , and his colleagues think they can produce an even better therapy .
They have designed a synthetic peptide—a short string of amino acids , the building blocks of proteins—20 times smaller than a monoclonal antibody that is designed to bind to the infamous “ spike ” protein on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus particle .
Doing so would directly block the virus from binding to the ACE-2 receptors on human cells , functioning much like an antibody produced by an infected person ’ s immune system .
Baker and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in September in Science .
Although the study only tested these synthetic proteins in the lab , mixing viral particles with monkey cells in vitro , he says that unpublished data show they can protect mice and hamsters from SARS-CoV-2 infection .
“ We built these [ tiny proteins ] from scratch based on ‘ first principles , ’ using computers to model all the biochemical details of a theoretical protein that could stick to the virus , ” explains Baker , who was awarded a $ 3 million Breakthrough Prize earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pioneering the field of synthetic protein design .
His team used computers to digitally design more than two million candidate “ miniproteins , ” crunched the data using algorithms , sifted out 118,000 candidate genes that encode these proteins , manufactured the proteins from scratch , and tested them directly against the virus in the lab—finding that seven designs could effectively bind to and thus disable the virus .
Over the course of 3.5 billion years evolution has produced an incredible array of proteins and peptides .
In recent years biochemists have tracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create new drugs , such as Eptifibatide , an antiplatelet drug administered to prevent heart attacks whose active ingredient is extracted from the venom of the southern pygmy rattlesnake .
The Protein Data Bank , an online repository of protein sequences and educational tools , contains the amino acid sequences and full 3-D structures for more than 160,000 peptides and proteins—but the natural world contains hundreds of millions of proteins .
“ It ’ s very challenging to discover in nature a peptide that does exactly what you want it to do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biochemist at the Institute for Protein Design , but who was not involved in the Science study .
He is trying to design a bespoke peptide that would prevent SARS-CoV-2 from replicating within human cells .
“ Now we can computationally explore the possible design configurations for a peptide in order to perform the exact functions that we want.
” Every protein ’ s function depends on its structure .
Interactions between the atoms of the protein ’ s amino acids cause these chains to self-assemble in less than a second into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the chain of amino acids grows , these helices and rippled sheets stack on top of and around one another into a dizzyingly complex series of folds , and it is these folds that give proteins their shape and function .
Yet figuring out how one amino acid sequence turns into a specific fold has been a torturously difficult task , and it was only in the 1990s—with ever expanding databases of protein information—that scientists could begin to link sequence to form .
“ We can make up completely new proteins that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we now understand the nature of protein folding , ” Baker says .
“ Our ability to use computers to design ‘ de novo ’ proteins has really only come into its own in the last few years–we might not have been able to apply ourselves to COVID-19 if the pandemic had happened five years ago.
” Many organizations , including the Gates Foundation , the Open Philanthropy Foundation , and most recently , the committee of the Breakthrough Prize , have supported this work .
Although monoclonal antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 are already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miniprotein inhibitors have even greater potential to tackle the pandemic because they are 20 times smaller and thus would be cheaper to produce quickly and consistently .
Synthetic peptides show enormous potential to be scaled up at low cost to produce robust , bespoke treatments , says Sarel Fleishman of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel , who was not involved in the study .
But they are still in uncharted territory , putting them at a disadvantage in the race for a cure , he says .
“ The major advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are completely ‘ human , ’ meaning they are already compatible with our immune systems .
So they carry a lot less risk than synthetic proteins , ” he says .
Crossing regulatory hurdles will be a lot more straightforward with monoclonal antibodies , he says , because regulators will already understand what they are dealing with compared with a new and unproven technology .
Although synthetic peptides have enormous potential , we need to be cautious about being overly optimistic , adds biochemist Erik Procko of the University of Illinois , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s team , but was not part of this specific study .
“ The pharmacokinetics of miniproteins ” —the ways the human body can metabolize , absorb and excrete them— “ will be a barrier to their usefulness as drugs , ” Procko says .
“ Eli Lily ’ s antibody drug persists in the body for a month ; it will be challenging for a small designed miniprotein to match that stability in the blood.
” Baker acknowledges that both Fleishman and Procko are correct : “ our miniproteins will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinical trials as monoclonal antibodies , ” he says , “ though it is worth noting that regulatory bodies like the FDA have vast experience with all sorts of drug and therapeutic modalities.
” Both Procko and Baker note that miniproteins will very likely need to be administered directly to the lungs by inhalation .
Researchers at the University of California , San Francisco , have designed just such an aerosol formulation .
The technology , called “ AeroNabs , ” would be administered by an inhaler or nasal spray .
Roughly three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the U.C.S.F .
ones are modeled on “ nanobody ” particles found in the immune systems of animals such as llamas , and function similarly : they bind to SARS-CoV-2 ’ s “ spike ” protein and prevent it from fusing with the ACE-2 receptor on human cells .
“ Monoclonal antibodies are unlikely to reach the airway spaces of the lungs when given as an injectable drug , ” explains Aashish Manglik of U.C.S.F.
, part of the team that developed AeroNabs .
He and his colleagues described their innovation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Only 2 percent of monoclonal antibodies injected into the bloodstream tend to reach the pulmonary spaces , the regions of the lungs through which the virus gains entry in most people—but a drug delivered via aerosol would be able to reach these air sacs , and thus could serve both as a therapeutic and a prophylactic , Manglik says .
“ We see this as being useful with patients who are in the early stages of infection , or with people at high risk of becoming infected , such as frontline and healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , from a technical perspective , what Baker has been able to pull off—designing everything prospectively and not based on an existing structure in nature—is just phenomenal .
It ’ s an exciting time in protein science.
” Beat Christen of the Institute of Molecular Systems Biology in Zurich , who was not involved in Baker ’ s or Manglik ’ s research , agrees it is an exciting time .
“ Synthetic biology is progressing very fast in developing vaccines and therapeutics—in a very short time frame we have seen many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the corporate world is reacting with many spinoffs and startups that have pivoted to this field , ” he says .
With an increase in corporate interest , however , may come a decrease in public trust—as happened with genetically modified food two decades ago .
The technology was largely seen as expensive and unnecessary , driven by corporate profit motives rather than public need .
Synthetic peptides—many entirely “ unnatural ” and “ never seen before on earth ” —risk falling into the same trap .
“ But with COVID-19 , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanity , ” Christen says , “ and if synthetic biology can contribute with new solutions and new therapies , people will easily see the need for it.
” Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

While the world waits for a COVID-19 vaccine, many researchers are focused on developing effective therapeutics that can be rolled out quickly and cheaply. Monoclonal antibodies—a potentially promising laboratory-manufactured therapy modeled on antibodies extracted from the blood of recovering patients—made headlines recently when President Trump received a not-yet-approved antibody cocktail made by the company Regeneron. And pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly recently announced that its monoclonal antibody reduced the risk of hospitalization in 300 people who had mild or moderate symptoms of COVID-19, in a small clinical trial.
But David Baker, a biochemist at the University of Washington’s Institute for Protein Design, and his colleagues think they can produce an even better therapy. They have designed a synthetic peptide—a short string of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins—20 times smaller than a monoclonal antibody that is designed to bind to the infamous “spike” protein on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus particle. Doing so would directly block the virus from binding to the ACE-2 receptors on human cells, functioning much like an antibody produced by an infected person’s immune system. Baker and his colleagues described these “miniprotein inhibitors” in September in Science. Although the study only tested these synthetic proteins in the lab, mixing viral particles with monkey cells in vitro, he says that unpublished data show they can protect mice and hamsters from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“We built these [tiny proteins] from scratch based on ‘first principles,’ using computers to model all the biochemical details of a theoretical protein that could stick to the virus,” explains Baker, who was awarded a $3 million Breakthrough Prize earlier in September for his decades of work pioneering the field of synthetic protein design. His team used computers to digitally design more than two million candidate “miniproteins,” crunched the data using algorithms, sifted out 118,000 candidate genes that encode these proteins, manufactured the proteins from scratch, and tested them directly against the virus in the lab—finding that seven designs could effectively bind to and thus disable the virus.
Over the course of 3.5 billion years evolution has produced an incredible array of proteins and peptides. In recent years biochemists have tracked down and used some of these to create new drugs, such as Eptifibatide, an antiplatelet drug administered to prevent heart attacks whose active ingredient is extracted from the venom of the southern pygmy rattlesnake. The Protein Data Bank, an online repository of protein sequences and educational tools, contains the amino acid sequences and full 3-D structures for more than 160,000 peptides and proteins—but the natural world contains hundreds of millions of proteins.
“It’s very challenging to discover in nature a peptide that does exactly what you want it to do,” explains Gaurav Bhardwaj, also a biochemist at the Institute for Protein Design, but who was not involved in the Science study. He is trying to design a bespoke peptide that would prevent SARS-CoV-2 from replicating within human cells. “Now we can computationally explore the possible design configurations for a peptide in order to perform the exact functions that we want.”
Every protein’s function depends on its structure. Interactions between the atoms of the protein’s amino acids cause these chains to self-assemble in less than a second into a complex array of spirals and pleats. As the chain of amino acids grows, these helices and rippled sheets stack on top of and around one another into a dizzyingly complex series of folds, and it is these folds that give proteins their shape and function. Yet figuring out how one amino acid sequence turns into a specific fold has been a torturously difficult task, and it was only in the 1990s—with ever expanding databases of protein information—that scientists could begin to link sequence to form.
“We can make up completely new proteins that have never been seen in nature because we now understand the nature of protein folding,” Baker says. “Our ability to use computers to design ‘de novo’ proteins has really only come into its own in the last few years–we might not have been able to apply ourselves to COVID-19 if the pandemic had happened five years ago.”
Many organizations, including the Gates Foundation, the Open Philanthropy Foundation, and most recently, the committee of the Breakthrough Prize, have supported this work. Although monoclonal antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 are already in clinical trials, Baker says his miniprotein inhibitors have even greater potential to tackle the pandemic because they are 20 times smaller and thus would be cheaper to produce quickly and consistently.
Synthetic peptides show enormous potential to be scaled up at low cost to produce robust, bespoke treatments, says Sarel Fleishman of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, who was not involved in the study. But they are still in uncharted territory, putting them at a disadvantage in the race for a cure, he says. “The major advantage of monoclonal antibody treatments is that they are completely ‘human,’ meaning they are already compatible with our immune systems. So they carry a lot less risk than synthetic proteins,” he says. Crossing regulatory hurdles will be a lot more straightforward with monoclonal antibodies, he says, because regulators will already understand what they are dealing with compared with a new and unproven technology.
Although synthetic peptides have enormous potential, we need to be cautious about being overly optimistic, adds biochemist Erik Procko of the University of Illinois, who worked as a postdoctoral researcher in Baker’s team, but was not part of this specific study. “The pharmacokinetics of miniproteins”—the ways the human body can metabolize, absorb and excrete them—“will be a barrier to their usefulness as drugs,” Procko says. “Eli Lily’s antibody drug persists in the body for a month; it will be challenging for a small designed miniprotein to match that stability in the blood.”
Baker acknowledges that both Fleishman and Procko are correct: “our miniproteins will have to go through the same scrutiny of clinical trials as monoclonal antibodies,” he says, “though it is worth noting that regulatory bodies like the FDA have vast experience with all sorts of drug and therapeutic modalities.”
Both Procko and Baker note that miniproteins will very likely need to be administered directly to the lungs by inhalation. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have designed just such an aerosol formulation. The technology, called “AeroNabs,” would be administered by an inhaler or nasal spray. Roughly three times larger than Baker’s miniproteins, the U.C.S.F. ones are modeled on “nanobody” particles found in the immune systems of animals such as llamas, and function similarly: they bind to SARS-CoV-2’s “spike” protein and prevent it from fusing with the ACE-2 receptor on human cells.
“Monoclonal antibodies are unlikely to reach the airway spaces of the lungs when given as an injectable drug,” explains Aashish Manglik of U.C.S.F., part of the team that developed AeroNabs. He and his colleagues described their innovation in the preprint database bioRxiv in August. Only 2 percent of monoclonal antibodies injected into the bloodstream tend to reach the pulmonary spaces, the regions of the lungs through which the virus gains entry in most people—but a drug delivered via aerosol would be able to reach these air sacs, and thus could serve both as a therapeutic and a prophylactic, Manglik says. “We see this as being useful with patients who are in the early stages of infection, or with people at high risk of becoming infected, such as frontline and healthcare workers,” he says. “However, from a technical perspective, what Baker has been able to pull off—designing everything prospectively and not based on an existing structure in nature—is just phenomenal. It’s an exciting time in protein science.”
Beat Christen of the Institute of Molecular Systems Biology in Zurich, who was not involved in Baker’s or Manglik’s research, agrees it is an exciting time. “Synthetic biology is progressing very fast in developing vaccines and therapeutics—in a very short time frame we have seen many things pushed to the forefront, and the corporate world is reacting with many spinoffs and startups that have pivoted to this field,” he says.
With an increase in corporate interest, however, may come a decrease in public trust—as happened with genetically modified food two decades ago. The technology was largely seen as expensive and unnecessary, driven by corporate profit motives rather than public need. Synthetic peptides—many entirely “unnatural” and “never seen before on earth”—risk falling into the same trap.
“But with COVID-19, there is a clear, huge challenge facing humanity,” Christen says, “and if synthetic biology can contribute with new solutions and new therapies, people will easily see the need for it.”
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-10-12--Eight Persistent COVID-19 Myths and Why People Believe Them

○ 1 The virus was engineered in a laboratory in China .
Because the pathogen first emerged in Wuhan , China , President Donald Trump and others have claimed , without evidence , that it started in a lab there , and some conspiracy theorists believe it was engineered as a bioweapon .
Why It ’ s False : U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied the possibility that the virus was engineered in a lab , stating that “ the Intelligence Community ... concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and whose lab Trump and others have suggested was the source of COVID-19—compared the pathogen ’ s sequence with those of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them .
In response 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 .
Why People Believe It : People want a scapegoat for the immense suffering and economic fallout caused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a competitor of the U.S.—is an easy target .
Accidental lab releases of pathogens do sometimes occur , and although many scientists say this possibility is unlikely , it provides just enough legitimacy to support a narrative in which China intentionally engineered the virus to unleash it on the world .
○ 2 COVID-19 is no worse than the flu .
Since the beginning of the pandemic , Trump has lied about the disease ’ s severity , saying it is no more dangerous than seasonal influenza .
Trump himself admitted to journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in early February and late March that he knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he wanted to play down its severity .
Why It ’ s False : The precise infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is hard to measure , but epidemiologists suspect that it is far higher than that of the flu—somewhere between 0.5 and 1 percent , compared with 0.1 percent for influenza .
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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths in the country as of mid-September .
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.
” Why People Believe It : Their leaders keep saying it .
In addition to his repeated false claims that COVID-19 is no worse than the flu , Trump has also said—falsely—that the numbers of deaths from COVID-19 are exaggerated .
In fact , reported deaths from COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You don ’ t need to wear a mask .
Despite a strong consensus among public health authorities that masks limit transmission of coronavirus , many people ( the president included ) have refused to wear one .
Georgia ’ s governor Brian Kemp went so far as to sign an executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates .
He even sued Atlanta ’ s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one , although he has since dropped the lawsuit .
Nevertheless , as coronavirus cases spiked around the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were once staunch holdouts implemented mask orders .
Why It ’ s False : Masks have long been known to be an effective means of what epidemiologists call source control ( preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others ) .
A recent analysis published in the Lancet looked at more than 170 studies and found that face masks can prevent COVID-19 infection .
It has also been widely established that people can be infected with and spread COVID-19 without ever developing symptoms , which is why everyone should wear a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
Why People Believe It : Early guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent , suggesting that members of the general public did not need to wear masks unless they had symptoms of an infection .
The guidance was in part driven by a shortage of high-quality surgical and N95 masks , which the agencies said should be reserved for health care workers .
Even though face coverings are now mandated or recommended in many states , some people refuse to wear one because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their civil liberties .
○ 4 Wealthy elites are using the virus to profit from vaccines .
In a book and in the conspiracy theory film Plandemic , Judy Mikovits , who once published a high-profile but eventually retracted study on chronic fatigue syndrome , makes the unsubstantiated claim that National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates could be using their power to profit from a COVID-19 vaccine .
She also asserts without evidence that the virus came from a lab and that wearing masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excerpt from the film was widely shared by anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory group QAnon .
The video was viewed more than eight million times on YouTube , Facebook , Twitter and Instagram before it was taken down .
Why It ’ s False : There is no evidence that Fauci or Gates has benefited from the pandemic or profited from a vaccine .
In fact , Fauci has sounded alarms throughout the pandemic about the risks of the virus , and Gates has a long history of philanthropy geared toward eliminating communicable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus ’ s origin and the efficacy of masks also have no scientific support .
Why People Believe It : Wealthy or influential figures such as Gates and Fauci are often the target of conspiracy theories .
Trump has at times attacked Fauci , a member of his own coronavirus task force , calling him an “ alarmist.
” Some of the president ’ s followers may find it more palatable to believe that Fauci is exaggerating the severity of the outbreak than to acknowledge the Trump administration ’ s failure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in France suggested the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine might be effective at treating the disease , Trump and others seized on it .
The study is now widely criticized , but some people 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 , continuing to hype the drug .
In late July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19 .
The video was viewed tens of millions of times before social media companies took it down .
Why It ’ s False : Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does not protect against COVID-19 in those who are exposed .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
And in June the National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trial of the medication , stating that although it was not harmful to patients , it did not provide any benefit .
Why People Believe It : Initial reports suggested hydroxychloroquine might be a potentially promising drug , and people are most likely to believe the first things they learn about a topic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Trump has repeatedly claimed that the drug is effective , his supporters may be more likely to believe reports that confirm their views rather than those that challenge them .
○ 6 Increases in cases are the result of increased testing .
As coronavirus cases surged in the U.S. , Trump frequently claimed that the spikes were merely 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 numbers appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has increased .
Why It ’ s False : If this scenario were true , one would expect the percentage of positive tests to decrease over time .
But numerous analyses have shown the opposite .
The rate of positive tests rose in many states ( such as Arizona , Texas and Florida ) that had big outbreaks this past summer , and it decreased in states ( such as New York ) that controlled their outbreaks .
In addition , hospitalizations and deaths increased along with cases , providing more evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a true increase in cases .
Why People Believe It : There was a severe shortage of tests in the U.S. early on during the pandemic , and their availability has increased ( although actual testing remains far short of what is needed ) .
It is logical to wonder whether more cases are simply being detected—if you look only at total cases and not at the proportion of positive tests or the rates of hospitalization and death .
○ 7 Herd immunity will protect us if we let the virus spread through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , some speculated that the U.K. and Sweden were planning to let the coronavirus circulate through their populations until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people are immune to the virus that it can no longer spread .
( Both nations ’ governments have denied that this was their official strategy , but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown , and Sweden decided against widespread restrictions . )
Why It ’ s False : There is a fundamental flaw with this approach : experts estimate that roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to get COVID-19 for herd immunity to be possible .
Given the high mortality rate of the disease , letting it infect that many people could lead to millions of deaths .
That tragedy is what happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic , in which at least 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People Believe It : They want to get back to normal life , and without a widely available COVID-19 vaccine , the only way to achieve herd immunity is to let a substantial number of people get sick .
Some have speculated that we may have already achieved herd immunity , but population-based antibody studies have shown that even the hardest-hit regions are far from that threshold .
Worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine once it is available .
Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos .
In Plandemic , Mikovits falsely claims that any COVID-19 vaccine will “ kill millions ” and that other vaccines have done so .
Another conspiracy theory makes the ludicrous assertion that Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people .
Most Americans still support vaccination , but 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 .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today and that Republicans were less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats .
Why It ’ s False : Vaccines save millions of lives every year .
Before a vaccine is approved in the U.S. , it must generally undergo three phases of clinical testing to show that it is safe and effective in a large number of people .
The top COVID-19 vaccine candidates are currently being tested in large-scale trials in tens of thousands of people .
Why People Believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be cautious about the safety of any new vaccine or treatment , and the politicization of the fda under the Trump administration has raised legitimate concerns that any vaccine approval will be rushed .
Nevertheless , previous safety trials of the top vaccine candidates did not find major adverse effects ; larger trials for safety and efficacy are now underway .
Nine pharmaceutical companies developing vaccines have pledged to “ stand with science ” and not release one unless it has been shown to be safe and effective .

○ 1 The virus was engineered in a laboratory in China.
Because the pathogen first emerged in Wuhan, China, President Donald Trump and others have claimed, without evidence, that it started in a lab there, and some conspiracy theorists believe it was engineered as a bioweapon.
Why It’s False: U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied the possibility that the virus was engineered in a lab, stating that “the Intelligence Community ... concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified.” Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli—who studies bat coronaviruses and whose lab Trump and others have suggested was the source of COVID-19—compared the pathogen’s sequence with those of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them. In response 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.
Why People Believe It: People want a scapegoat for the immense suffering and economic fallout caused by COVID-19, and China—a foreign country and a competitor of the U.S.—is an easy target. Accidental lab releases of pathogens do sometimes occur, and although many scientists say this possibility is unlikely, it provides just enough legitimacy to support a narrative in which China intentionally engineered the virus to unleash it on the world.
○ 2 COVID-19 is no worse than the flu.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, Trump has lied about the disease’s severity, saying it is no more dangerous than seasonal influenza. Trump himself admitted to journalist and author Bob Woodward in recorded interviews in early February and late March that he knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu and that he wanted to play down its severity.
Why It’s False: The precise infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is hard to measure, but epidemiologists suspect that it is far higher than that of the flu—somewhere between 0.5 and 1 percent, compared with 0.1 percent for influenza. 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. In contrast, COVID-19 had caused 200,000 deaths in the country as of mid-September. 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.”
Why People Believe It: Their leaders keep saying it. In addition to his repeated false claims that COVID-19 is no worse than the flu, Trump has also said—falsely—that the numbers of deaths from COVID-19 are exaggerated. In fact, reported deaths from COVID-19 are likely an undercount.
○ 3 You don’t need to wear a mask.
Despite a strong consensus among public health authorities that masks limit transmission of coronavirus, many people (the president included) have refused to wear one. Georgia’s governor Brian Kemp went so far as to sign an executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates. He even sued Atlanta’s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one, although he has since dropped the lawsuit. Nevertheless, as coronavirus cases spiked around the U.S. during the summer, even states that were once staunch holdouts implemented mask orders.
Why It’s False: Masks have long been known to be an effective means of what epidemiologists call source control (preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others). A recent analysis published in the Lancet looked at more than 170 studies and found that face masks can prevent COVID-19 infection. It has also been widely established that people can be infected with and spread COVID-19 without ever developing symptoms, which is why everyone should wear a mask to prevent asymptomatic people from spreading the virus.
Why People Believe It: Early guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent, suggesting that members of the general public did not need to wear masks unless they had symptoms of an infection. The guidance was in part driven by a shortage of high-quality surgical and N95 masks, which the agencies said should be reserved for health care workers. Even though face coverings are now mandated or recommended in many states, some people refuse to wear one because they consider it emasculating or a violation of their civil liberties.
○ 4 Wealthy elites are using the virus to profit from vaccines.
In a book and in the conspiracy theory film Plandemic, Judy Mikovits, who once published a high-profile but eventually retracted study on chronic fatigue syndrome, makes the unsubstantiated claim that National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates could be using their power to profit from a COVID-19 vaccine. She also asserts without evidence that the virus came from a lab and that wearing masks “activates your own virus.” An excerpt from the film was widely shared by anti-vaxxers and the conspiracy theory group QAnon. The video was viewed more than eight million times on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram before it was taken down.
Why It’s False: There is no evidence that Fauci or Gates has benefited from the pandemic or profited from a vaccine. In fact, Fauci has sounded alarms throughout the pandemic about the risks of the virus, and Gates has a long history of philanthropy geared toward eliminating communicable diseases. Mikovits’s claims about the virus’s origin and the efficacy of masks also have no scientific support.
Why People Believe It: Wealthy or influential figures such as Gates and Fauci are often the target of conspiracy theories. Trump has at times attacked Fauci, a member of his own coronavirus task force, calling him an “alarmist.” Some of the president’s followers may find it more palatable to believe that Fauci is exaggerating the severity of the outbreak than to acknowledge the Trump administration’s failure to contain it.
○ 5 Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment.
When a small study in France suggested the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine might be effective at treating the disease, Trump and others seized on it. The study is now widely criticized, but some people 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, continuing to hype the drug. In late July he retweeted a video 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 that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The video was viewed tens of millions of times before social media companies took it down.
Why It’s False: Several studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does not protect against COVID-19 in those who are exposed. 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. And in June the National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trial of the medication, stating that although it was not harmful to patients, it did not provide any benefit.
Why People Believe It: Initial reports suggested hydroxychloroquine might be a potentially promising drug, and people are most likely to believe the first things they learn about a topic, a phenomenon called anchoring bias. And because Trump has repeatedly claimed that the drug is effective, his supporters may be more likely to believe reports that confirm their views rather than those that challenge them.
○ 6 Increases in cases are the result of increased testing.
As coronavirus cases surged in the U.S., Trump frequently claimed that the spikes were merely 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 numbers appear to have gone up is that testing has increased.
Why It’s False: If this scenario were true, one would expect the percentage of positive tests to decrease over time. But numerous analyses have shown the opposite. The rate of positive tests rose in many states (such as Arizona, Texas and Florida) that had big outbreaks this past summer, and it decreased in states (such as New York) that controlled their outbreaks. In addition, hospitalizations and deaths increased along with cases, providing more evidence that the national increase in positive tests reflected a true increase in cases.
Why People Believe It: There was a severe shortage of tests in the U.S. early on during the pandemic, and their availability has increased (although actual testing remains far short of what is needed). It is logical to wonder whether more cases are simply being detected—if you look only at total cases and not at the proportion of positive tests or the rates of hospitalization and death.
○ 7 Herd immunity will protect us if we let the virus spread through the population.
Early on in the pandemic, some speculated that the U.K. and Sweden were planning to let the coronavirus circulate through their populations until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people are immune to the virus that it can no longer spread. (Both nations’ governments have denied that this was their official strategy, but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown, and Sweden decided against widespread restrictions.)
Why It’s False: There is a fundamental flaw with this approach: experts estimate that roughly 60 to 70 percent of people would need to get COVID-19 for herd immunity to be possible. Given the high mortality rate of the disease, letting it infect that many people could lead to millions of deaths. That tragedy is what happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic, in which at least 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 the lack of a shutdown.
Why People Believe It: They want to get back to normal life, and without a widely available COVID-19 vaccine, the only way to achieve herd immunity is to let a substantial number of people get sick. Some have speculated that we may have already achieved herd immunity, but population-based antibody studies have shown that even the hardest-hit regions are far from that threshold.
○ 8 A COVID-19 vaccine will be unsafe.
Worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine once it is available. Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have circulated among anti-vaxxer 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. Another conspiracy theory makes the ludicrous assertion that Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people. Most Americans still support vaccination, but 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. One Gallup poll found that one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today and that Republicans were less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats.
Why It’s False: Vaccines save millions of lives every year. Before a vaccine is approved in the U.S., it must generally undergo three phases of clinical testing to show that it is safe and effective in a large number of people. The top COVID-19 vaccine candidates are currently being tested in large-scale trials in tens of thousands of people.
Why People Believe It: There is good reason to be cautious about the safety of any new vaccine or treatment, and the politicization of the fda under the Trump administration has raised legitimate concerns that any vaccine approval will be rushed. Nevertheless, previous safety trials of the top vaccine candidates did not find major adverse effects; larger trials for safety and efficacy are now underway. Nine pharmaceutical companies developing vaccines have pledged to “stand with science” and not release one unless it has been shown to be safe and effective.