scientificamerican--2020-10-07--Exxon's Internal Plans Reveal Rising CO2 Emissions

In a presentation to investors early that year , the CEO of America ’ s most prominent oil company outlined a strategy to double Exxon ’ s earnings by 2025 .
It called for a massive increase in drilling : 25 new projects capable of boosting production by about 1 million barrels a day .
The drilling binge promised to be lucrative .
Exxon ’ s financial presentations estimated earnings would jump 35 % with a modest oil price of $ 40 a barrel .
That figure would soar 135 % if oil hit $ 60 .
Unmentioned was what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the planet .
But internal documents obtained by Bloomberg News show the company had a precise estimate of the climate costs .
The oil giant forecast that annual emissions from its operations would increase from 122 million metric tons in 2017 to 143 million metric tons in 2025 , according to Bloomberg .
The increase of 21 million tons is the equivalent of building roughly five new coal plants every year .
Yet even that estimate understates the true climate cost .
Exxon ’ s projections only covered the emissions associated with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated with consumers burning the company ’ s oil .
“ It is the equivalent of not wearing the mask in public , ” said Paula DiPerna , a special adviser at CDP , a nonprofit that tracks corporate emissions .
“ I wouldn ’ t say it ’ s such a surprise , but it is very disappointing to see a company of this size go against the tide of history and thumb its nose at the science.
” The Bloomberg report shines a spotlight on Exxon at a time when its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost investments in renewables and slash carbon emissions .
The gulf has been building slowly for years .
By the time Woods announced Exxon ’ s new drilling plan in 2018 , BP PLC had already acquired the solar developer Lightsource Renewable Energy and Royal Dutch Shell PLC had outlined a plan to cut the carbon intensity of its products in half by 2050 .
Those divisions have only grown recently .
BP and Shell are now among a host of European oil giants committing to net-zero emissions by midcentury .
BP has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil production 40 % over the next decade .
Shell is reportedly mulling a similar move .
Exxon , by contrast , has showed little appetite for overhauling its business .
Woods has dismissed the green ambitions of Exxon ’ s European rivals .
The company ’ s investment presentations regularly predict global energy demand will grow as more people around the world join the middle class .
And it has steadily increased its production targets in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico .
As part of Woods ’ 2018 strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Permian production fivefold to 600,000 barrels a day in 2025 .
In 2019 , the company revised that goal upward to 1 million barrels a day by 2024 .
The coronavirus pandemic has complicated Exxon ’ s plans—but only slightly .
The company has cut its capital spending 30 % to $ 23 billion because of COVID-19 and the resulting economic downturn , but oil has continued to flow from the Permian .
In July , company executives said they anticipated production from the basin will be 345,000 barrels a day this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections at the beginning of the year but still a 70,000-barrel increase over 2019 levels .
Production will likely start to fall in 2021 if the company does not resume a more robust drilling plan .
Casey Norton , an Exxon spokesman , did not contest the accuracy of Bloomberg ’ s emissions figures .
Instead , he challenged the outlet ’ s description of the numbers , saying they represented a projection of future greenhouse gas levels rather than a plan to increase emissions .
Exxon is on track to cut methane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of this year , he said .
“ The emissions projection you cite is an early assessment that does not include additional mitigation and abatement measures that would have been considered as the next step in the process , ” Norton said in a statement .
“ The same planning document illustrates how we have been successful in mitigating emissions in the past .
As demand returns and capital investments resume , our growth plans will continue to include meaningful emission mitigation efforts.
” Exxon reported emissions from its operations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly less than what Nigeria emitted that year .
That is roughly unchanged from the 123 million tons the company reported in 2009 .
Exxon officials noted those emission figures have remained unchanged even as the company has boosted production .
Oil and gas production accounted for 58 million tons in 2018 , or roughly 47 % of Exxon ’ s total emissions output .
The company ’ s refining and chemicals divisions accounted for 42 million and 24 million tons , respectively .
Analysts said the figures show Exxon has improved the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they noted the amount of CO pumped into the atmosphere is ultimately the metric that matters most to the planet .
“ By focusing on the emissions of extraction , we are nibbling around the edges of plans to produce more and burn more oil , ” said Rob Jackson , a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University .
“ A company can improve carbon intensity but have emission go up if they produce more oil and gas .
That is what we ’ re seeing here.
” He added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re doing is not enough to reduce emissions , and that ’ s not even including Scope 3 emissions.
” Scope 3 emissions encompass greenhouse gases produced by consumers , who burn oil in cars , trucks and airplanes .
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

Darren Woods entered 2018 with big plans for Exxon Mobil Corp.
In a presentation to investors early that year, the CEO of America’s most prominent oil company outlined a strategy to double Exxon’s earnings by 2025. It called for a massive increase in drilling: 25 new projects capable of boosting production by about 1 million barrels a day.
The drilling binge promised to be lucrative. Exxon’s financial presentations estimated earnings would jump 35% with a modest oil price of $40 a barrel. That figure would soar 135% if oil hit $60.
Unmentioned was what Exxon’s drilling boom meant for the planet. But internal documents obtained by Bloomberg News show the company had a precise estimate of the climate costs.
The oil giant forecast that annual emissions from its operations would increase from 122 million metric tons in 2017 to 143 million metric tons in 2025, according to Bloomberg.
The increase of 21 million tons is the equivalent of building roughly five new coal plants every year. Yet even that estimate understates the true climate cost. Exxon’s projections only covered the emissions associated with its operations. It did not include emissions associated with consumers burning the company’s oil.
“It is the equivalent of not wearing the mask in public,” said Paula DiPerna, a special adviser at CDP, a nonprofit that tracks corporate emissions. “I wouldn’t say it’s such a surprise, but it is very disappointing to see a company of this size go against the tide of history and thumb its nose at the science.”
The Bloomberg report shines a spotlight on Exxon at a time when its large European rivals are announcing plans to boost investments in renewables and slash carbon emissions. The gulf has been building slowly for years. By the time Woods announced Exxon’s new drilling plan in 2018, BP PLC had already acquired the solar developer Lightsource Renewable Energy and Royal Dutch Shell PLC had outlined a plan to cut the carbon intensity of its products in half by 2050.
Those divisions have only grown recently.
BP and Shell are now among a host of European oil giants committing to net-zero emissions by midcentury. BP has gone further still, pledging to cut oil production 40% over the next decade. Shell is reportedly mulling a similar move.
Exxon, by contrast, has showed little appetite for overhauling its business. Woods has dismissed the green ambitions of Exxon’s European rivals. The company’s investment presentations regularly predict global energy demand will grow as more people around the world join the middle class. And it has steadily increased its production targets in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico.
As part of Woods’ 2018 strategy, Exxon outlined a goal to boost Permian production fivefold to 600,000 barrels a day in 2025. In 2019, the company revised that goal upward to 1 million barrels a day by 2024.
The coronavirus pandemic has complicated Exxon’s plans—but only slightly.
The company has cut its capital spending 30% to $23 billion because of COVID-19 and the resulting economic downturn, but oil has continued to flow from the Permian. In July, company executives said they anticipated production from the basin will be 345,000 barrels a day this year, slightly below the company’s projections at the beginning of the year but still a 70,000-barrel increase over 2019 levels. Production will likely start to fall in 2021 if the company does not resume a more robust drilling plan.
Casey Norton, an Exxon spokesman, did not contest the accuracy of Bloomberg’s emissions figures. Instead, he challenged the outlet’s description of the numbers, saying they represented a projection of future greenhouse gas levels rather than a plan to increase emissions. Exxon is on track to cut methane emissions 15% of 2016 levels by the end of this year, he said.
“The emissions projection you cite is an early assessment that does not include additional mitigation and abatement measures that would have been considered as the next step in the process,” Norton said in a statement. “The same planning document illustrates how we have been successful in mitigating emissions in the past. As demand returns and capital investments resume, our growth plans will continue to include meaningful emission mitigation efforts.”
Exxon reported emissions from its operations of 124 million tons in 2018, or slightly less than what Nigeria emitted that year. That is roughly unchanged from the 123 million tons the company reported in 2009. Exxon officials noted those emission figures have remained unchanged even as the company has boosted production.
Oil and gas production accounted for 58 million tons in 2018, or roughly 47% of Exxon’s total emissions output. The company’s refining and chemicals divisions accounted for 42 million and 24 million tons, respectively.
Analysts said the figures show Exxon has improved the carbon intensity of its operations. Still, they noted the amount of CO 2 pumped into the atmosphere is ultimately the metric that matters most to the planet.
“By focusing on the emissions of extraction, we are nibbling around the edges of plans to produce more and burn more oil,” said Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University. “A company can improve carbon intensity but have emission go up if they produce more oil and gas. That is what we’re seeing here.”
He added, “Clearly, Exxon understands what they’re doing is not enough to reduce emissions, and that’s not even including Scope 3 emissions.”
Scope 3 emissions encompass greenhouse gases produced by consumers, who burn oil in cars, trucks and airplanes.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-10-07--How 'Superspreading' Events Drive Most COVID-19 Spread

Editor ’ s Note ( 10/7/20 ) : This story is being republished in light of the growing number of people at the White House who have tested positive for the novel coronavirus—many of whom may have been infected at a ceremony for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that was held in the Rose Garden a little more than a week ago .
In late February about 175 executives from around the world came to the biotechnology company Biogen ’ s leadership conference in Boston .
Over two days , attendees shook hands , talked among themselves and shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new coronavirus .
Several people at the event were unknowingly infected with the microbe that causes COVID-19 , and it quickly spread among others there , who then brought it home .
At least 99 people ended up sick in Massachusetts alone .
Around the same time , the coronavirus was spreading among more than 100 people who went to a funeral in Albany , Ga. sparking an outbreak that soon led to the surrounding rural county posting one of the nation ’ s highest cumulative incidences of COVID-19 .
The next month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 52 people during a two-and-a-half-hour choir practice in Washington State .
Two people died .
In Arkansas , an infected pastor and his wife passed the virus on to more than 30 attendees at church events over the course of a few days , leading to at least three deaths .
And these new cases spread to 26 more people , at least one of whom died .
As scientists have learned more about COVID-19 , it has become clear that so-called superspreader incidents—in which one person infects a disproportionate number of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission of the virus that causes the disease .
The Boston conference and the funeral in Georgia were among several superspreader events that played “ a notable role in the early U.S. spread of COVID-19 , ” according to a report by Anne Schuchat , principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
In fact , research on actual cases , as well as models of the pandemic , indicate that between 10 and 20 percent of infected people are responsible for 80 percent of the coronavirus ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ superspreader events could go a long way toward stopping COVID-19 , says Samuel Scarpino , a network scientist who studies infectious disease at Northeastern University .
Scientists have identified factors that catalyze such events , including large crowd sizes , close contact between people and confined spaces with poor ventilation .
Current evidence suggests that it is mostly circumstances such as these , rather than the biology of specific individuals , that sets the stage for extreme spreading of the novel coronavirus .
When describing how the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads , epidemiologists not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that one individual infects but also employ another key value called the dispersion factor , or “ k. ” This number describes how much a disease clusters .
A small k generally means that a relatively small number of cases are responsible for transmissions , while a larger k indicates that transmissions are more evenly spread .
In Hong Kong , researchers calculated that in more than 1,000 COVID-19 cases they examined , the value for k was 0.45 .
That value was higher than that of SARS or MERS—two previous viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of the 1918 flu pandemic .
In other words , SARS-CoV-2 ’ s transmission is not as reliant on superspreading as SARS and MERS were but is far more dependent on it than influenza , Scarpino says .
The novel coronavirus seems to primarily spread via respiratory droplets produced by an infected individual during coughing , sneezing , talking or breathing .
The next person becomes infected by inhaling these droplets into his or her lungs or by getting them in the nose or mouth .
If people got sick right away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay at home in bed , giving them few opportunities to transmit the virus .
Instead individuals with COVID-19 are contagious before they have symptoms , says Lauren Ancel Meyers , executive director of the University of Texas at Austin COVID-19 Modeling Consortium .
The CDC estimates that about 40 percent of transmissions occur before the infected person has any symptoms and that symptoms take an average of six days to begin .
That time gives an infected individual a long window to come into contact with other people—and to perhaps get into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have identified several factors that make it easier for superspreading to happen .
Some of them are environmental .
For instance , poorly ventilated indoor areas seem especially conducive to the virus ’ s spread .
A preliminary analysis of 110 COVID-19 cases in Japan found that the odds of transmitting the pathogen in a closed environment was more than 18 times greater than in an open-air space .
And the authors concluded that confined spaces could promote superspreader events .
( The study has not yet been peer-reviewed . )
Another preliminary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , examined clusters of COVID-19 cases and found that nearly all of them were indoor or indoor-outdoor settings .
The largest clusters were found in indoor spaces such as nursing homes , churches , food-processing plants , schools , shopping areas , worker dormitories , prisons and ships .
Unsurprisingly , another thing these superspreader venues have in common is that they are places where large numbers of people congregate .
The more individuals you pile into one place , the greater the opportunity for the coronavirus to infect many people at once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ max out at five people , it will be very hard to have a superspreading event , ” she adds .
But as a group ’ s size increases , so does the risk of transmitting the virus to a wider cluster .
A large group size also increases the chance that someone present will be infectious .
Time matters too .
The longer a group stays in contact , the greater the likelihood that the virus will spread among them .
Exactly how much time someone needs to pick it up remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a special pathogens expert at NYC Health + Hospitals .
She adds that the benchmark used for risk assessment in her contact-tracing work is 10 minutes of contact with an infectious person , though the CDC uses 15 minutes as a guideline .
Essential workers such as grocery store checkers and nursing home employees interact with large groups by necessity and work in situations primed for superpreading .
Meyers says that if we want to contain COVID-19 , we will have to find ways to protect them and make their workplaces less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are doing matters , too , because some activities seem to make it easier to spread respiratory gunk .
We have all seen droplets go flying when someone coughs or sneezes .
But even when you talk , you emit a “ tremendous amount ” of particles , says University of California , Davis , chemical engineer William Ristenpart .
“ Nobody thinks about them , but they ’ re there , ” he says .
Ristenpart ’ s team has found that speech emits more particles than normal breathing .
And emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Singing emits even more particles , which may partially explain the superspreader event at the Washington State choir practice .
Breathing hard during exercise might also help the spread of COVID-19 .
Fitness dance classes held in small rooms with up to 22 students at a time were linked to 65 cases of the disease in South Korea .
But yoga classes at one of the same facilities were not linked to any clusters .
A study of COVID-19 clusters in Japan found cases connected to exercising in gyms , karaoke parties , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bars , providing further evidence that these activities may aid transmission .
Ristenpart and his colleagues have not yet confirmed that the particle-emission changes they saw affect transmission of the novel coronavirus .
Their study did not measure SARS-CoV-2 itself .
But the airborne particles are presumably important carriers of viral particles .
The scientists also have found intriguing evidence that a small subset of people may behave as “ speech superemitters ” —individuals who consistently broadcast an order of magnitude more respiratory particles than their peers .
“ It is very difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a superemitter ahead of time , ” he says .
“ One of the superemitters was a very petite young woman .
And I was a bigger , bulkier guy and was not a superemitter.
” The evidence about superspreading activities has led researchers to believe they are responsible for much of the new coronavirus ’ s transmission .
“ All of the data I ’ m seeing so far suggest that if you tamp down the superspreader events , the growth rate of the infections stops very , very quickly , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seattle that there were at least a couple of introductions that did not lead to new cases ” —implying that the virus can fade out if it is denied circumstances for spreading .
But in the U.S.—where there have been nearly 2.16 million cases and more than 117,000 deaths—those situations may be on the rise .
States are reopening businesses and activities , which means more people are coming in contact with one another in larger groups .
So minimizing conditions that allow superspreading events to happen will be crucial for keeping COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials have advised people to avoid situations with the three C ’ s : closed spaces with poor ventilation , crowded spaces and close-contact settings .
A virus ’ s ability to infect is not entirely a property of that pathogen , says Cristopher Moore , a computer scientist at the Santa Fe Institute who models virus-spreading events .
“ It ’ s a property of how the virus and human society interact , ” he notes , and that ’ s something we have the power to change .
Read more about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

Editor’s Note (10/7/20): This story is being republished in light of the growing number of people at the White House who have tested positive for the novel coronavirus—many of whom may have been infected at a ceremony for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that was held in the Rose Garden a little more than a week ago.
In late February about 175 executives from around the world came to the biotechnology company Biogen’s leadership conference in Boston. Over two days, attendees shook hands, talked among themselves and shared meals. Also in attendance: the new coronavirus. Several people at the event were unknowingly infected with the microbe that causes COVID-19, and it quickly spread among others there, who then brought it home. At least 99 people ended up sick in Massachusetts alone.
Around the same time, the coronavirus was spreading among more than 100 people who went to a funeral in Albany, Ga. sparking an outbreak that soon led to the surrounding rural county posting one of the nation’s highest cumulative incidences of COVID-19. The next month a single individual with the disease infected 52 people during a two-and-a-half-hour choir practice in Washington State. Two people died. In Arkansas, an infected pastor and his wife passed the virus on to more than 30 attendees at church events over the course of a few days, leading to at least three deaths. And these new cases spread to 26 more people, at least one of whom died.
As scientists have learned more about COVID-19, it has become clear that so-called superspreader incidents—in which one person infects a disproportionate number of other individuals—have played an oversized role in the transmission of the virus that causes the disease. The Boston conference and the funeral in Georgia were among several superspreader events that played “a notable role in the early U.S. spread of COVID-19,” according to a report by Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, research on actual cases, as well as models of the pandemic, indicate that between 10 and 20 percent of infected people are responsible for 80 percent of the coronavirus’s spread.
These numbers mean that preventing superspreader events could go a long way toward stopping COVID-19, says Samuel Scarpino, a network scientist who studies infectious disease at Northeastern University. Scientists have identified factors that catalyze such events, including large crowd sizes, close contact between people and confined spaces with poor ventilation. Current evidence suggests that it is mostly circumstances such as these, rather than the biology of specific individuals, that sets the stage for extreme spreading of the novel coronavirus.
When describing how the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads, epidemiologists not only use the average number of other people that one individual infects but also employ another key value called the dispersion factor, or “k.” This number describes how much a disease clusters. A small k generally means that a relatively small number of cases are responsible for transmissions, while a larger k indicates that transmissions are more evenly spread. In Hong Kong, researchers calculated that in more than 1,000 COVID-19 cases they examined, the value for k was 0.45. That value was higher than that of SARS or MERS—two previous viral outbreaks that featured superspreading—but much lower than that of the 1918 flu pandemic. In other words, SARS-CoV-2’s transmission is not as reliant on superspreading as SARS and MERS were but is far more dependent on it than influenza, Scarpino says.
The novel coronavirus seems to primarily spread via respiratory droplets produced by an infected individual during coughing, sneezing, talking or breathing. The next person becomes infected by inhaling these droplets into his or her lungs or by getting them in the nose or mouth. If people got sick right away after they were infected, they might stay at home in bed, giving them few opportunities to transmit the virus. Instead individuals with COVID-19 are contagious before they have symptoms, says Lauren Ancel Meyers, executive director of the University of Texas at Austin COVID-19 Modeling Consortium. The CDC estimates that about 40 percent of transmissions occur before the infected person has any symptoms and that symptoms take an average of six days to begin. That time gives an infected individual a long window to come into contact with other people—and to perhaps get into a situation ripe for superspreading.
Researchers have identified several factors that make it easier for superspreading to happen. Some of them are environmental. For instance, poorly ventilated indoor areas seem especially conducive to the virus’s spread. A preliminary analysis of 110 COVID-19 cases in Japan found that the odds of transmitting the pathogen in a closed environment was more than 18 times greater than in an open-air space. And the authors concluded that confined spaces could promote superspreader events. (The study has not yet been peer-reviewed.) Another preliminary preprint study, by researchers in London, examined clusters of COVID-19 cases and found that nearly all of them were indoor or indoor-outdoor settings. The largest clusters were found in indoor spaces such as nursing homes, churches, food-processing plants, schools, shopping areas, worker dormitories, prisons and ships.
Unsurprisingly, another thing these superspreader venues have in common is that they are places where large numbers of people congregate. The more individuals you pile into one place, the greater the opportunity for the coronavirus to infect many people at once, Meyers says. “If you max out at five people, it will be very hard to have a superspreading event,” she adds. But as a group’s size increases, so does the risk of transmitting the virus to a wider cluster. A large group size also increases the chance that someone present will be infectious.
Time matters too. The longer a group stays in contact, the greater the likelihood that the virus will spread among them. Exactly how much time someone needs to pick it up remains an unanswered question, says Syra Madad, a special pathogens expert at NYC Health + Hospitals. She adds that the benchmark used for risk assessment in her contact-tracing work is 10 minutes of contact with an infectious person, though the CDC uses 15 minutes as a guideline. Essential workers such as grocery store checkers and nursing home employees interact with large groups by necessity and work in situations primed for superpreading. Meyers says that if we want to contain COVID-19, we will have to find ways to protect them and make their workplaces less favorable to such events.
What people are doing matters, too, because some activities seem to make it easier to spread respiratory gunk. We have all seen droplets go flying when someone coughs or sneezes. But even when you talk, you emit a “tremendous amount” of particles, says University of California, Davis, chemical engineer William Ristenpart. “Nobody thinks about them, but they’re there,” he says. Ristenpart’s team has found that speech emits more particles than normal breathing. And emissions also increase as people speak louder. Singing emits even more particles, which may partially explain the superspreader event at the Washington State choir practice. Breathing hard during exercise might also help the spread of COVID-19. Fitness dance classes held in small rooms with up to 22 students at a time were linked to 65 cases of the disease in South Korea. But yoga classes at one of the same facilities were not linked to any clusters. A study of COVID-19 clusters in Japan found cases connected to exercising in gyms, karaoke parties, cheering at clubs and holding conversations in bars, providing further evidence that these activities may aid transmission.
Ristenpart and his colleagues have not yet confirmed that the particle-emission changes they saw affect transmission of the novel coronavirus. Their study did not measure SARS-CoV-2 itself. But the airborne particles are presumably important carriers of viral particles. The scientists also have found intriguing evidence that a small subset of people may behave as “speech superemitters”—individuals who consistently broadcast an order of magnitude more respiratory particles than their peers. “It is very difficult to identify who is going to be a superemitter ahead of time,” he says. “One of the superemitters was a very petite young woman. And I was a bigger, bulkier guy and was not a superemitter.”
The evidence about superspreading activities has led researchers to believe they are responsible for much of the new coronavirus’s transmission. “All of the data I’m seeing so far suggest that if you tamp down the superspreader events, the growth rate of the infections stops very, very quickly,” Scarpino says. “We saw in Seattle that there were at least a couple of introductions that did not lead to new cases”—implying that the virus can fade out if it is denied circumstances for spreading.
But in the U.S.—where there have been nearly 2.16 million cases and more than 117,000 deaths—those situations may be on the rise. States are reopening businesses and activities, which means more people are coming in contact with one another in larger groups. So minimizing conditions that allow superspreading events to happen will be crucial for keeping COVID-19 in check. In Japan, health officials have advised people to avoid situations with the three C’s: closed spaces with poor ventilation, crowded spaces and close-contact settings. A virus’s ability to infect is not entirely a property of that pathogen, says Cristopher Moore, a computer scientist at the Santa Fe Institute who models virus-spreading events. “It’s a property of how the virus and human society interact,” he notes, and that’s something we have the power to change.
Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.


scientificamerican--2020-10-07--Trump's Illness and the Need for a Reset on U.S. Coronavirus Policy

COVID-19 surged across the U.S. South in July and August , becoming the newest epicenter of the pandemic .
During the summer of 2020 , more than 20 percent of the entire world ’ s new COVID-19 cases occurred in the southern states led by Florida , Georgia , Louisiana , Texas and Arizona .
Reasons for the summer rise in cases have been debated , but for me it was relatively straightforward : the White House Coronavirus Task Force insisted that the individual states lead and chart their own COVID-19 destiny , while the federal government would back them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a failed strategy from day one .
Individual states lacked the expertise to contain the virus , and they needed the smoke screen of the Department of Health and Human Services for the governors to justify unpopular measures for virus containment Despite a southern summer peak of COVID-19 , there was still a chance to quell the epidemic .
By launching a new national containment strategy across the U.S. , we could have dramatically reduced virus transmission for the remainder of the year .
In July , the number of new cases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England and other northern states , even though far more work was required in the South .
Possibly , in some metro areas in Texas , Florida and Arizona , we might have needed to implement shutdowns similar to what New York City endured in March and April .
But the bottom line was that with hard work , we could have contained this virus and reached a level low enough to open schools or colleges with peace of mind .
Unfortunately , my proposed “ October 1 plan ” went nowhere .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ House and its Coronavirus Task Force showed little interest .
There was no new federal action .
We are now seeing the consequences of refusing to implement a national plan or roadmap .
A third peak of COVID-19 may be underway in the Upper Midwest , especially in Wisconsin and North and South Dakota .
I am worried that a fall surge will be devastating , with an increase in the new cases from 30,000 per day to 40,000 and rising thereafter .
The case fatality rates might also rise .
In March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 in New York City rose to levels comparable to those in Western Europe—a fact that I attributed to the large numbers of patients overwhelming the city health system .
However , newer preliminary information suggests that mortality rises in colder climates possibly as a result of higher virus transmission linked to large numbers of people indoors or virus survival in the cold .
Now , our president was hospitalized with COVID-19 following a large outbreak in the White House Rose Garden where many participants refused to wear masks in a ceremony nominating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
The specter of an ailing U.S. president and a White House in disarray is yet another shock to the American people .
I am hopeful that President Trump will make a full recovery , but also that the White House fully recognizes the dangers of COVID-19 .
Indeed , without receiving experimental therapies Trump might not have survived his illness .
Could this awareness reset the nation ?
Until now , the White House has minimized the public health consequences of COVID-19 , while dismissing the urgencies of masks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contain COVID-19 and with resolve and commitment , it is possible for the president to charge his task force with halting COVID-19 transmission , or to delegate this mission to the CDC .
Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election , for the duration of 2020 a reinvigorated U.S. president and White House have the capacity and means to chart a new course for the nation , making COVID-19 interruption a national priority .
I ’ m not optimistic , but I remain eternally hopeful .
The Institute for Health Metrics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 360,000 Americans will die by the close of 2020 , roughly 150,000 more than the current death toll .
But it does not have to be this way .
An “ autumn reset ” promoting the use of masks , contact tracing and social distancing could still save 100,000 lives .
This must be our highest national priority .

COVID-19 surged across the U.S. South in July and August, becoming the newest epicenter of the pandemic. During the summer of 2020, more than 20 percent of the entire world’s new COVID-19 cases occurred in the southern states led by Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas and Arizona.
Reasons for the summer rise in cases have been debated, but for me it was relatively straightforward: the White House Coronavirus Task Force insisted that the individual states lead and chart their own COVID-19 destiny, while the federal government would back them up with manufacturing support. This was a failed strategy from day one. Individual states lacked the expertise to contain the virus, and they needed the smoke screen of the Department of Health and Human Services for the governors to justify unpopular measures for virus containment
Despite a southern summer peak of COVID-19, there was still a chance to quell the epidemic. By launching a new national containment strategy across the U.S., we could have dramatically reduced virus transmission for the remainder of the year. In July, the number of new cases of COVID-19 was already way down in New England and other northern states, even though far more work was required in the South. Possibly, in some metro areas in Texas, Florida and Arizona, we might have needed to implement shutdowns similar to what New York City endured in March and April. But the bottom line was that with hard work, we could have contained this virus and reached a level low enough to open schools or colleges with peace of mind.
Unfortunately, my proposed “October 1 plan” went nowhere. Despite some media attention, the White House and its Coronavirus Task Force showed little interest. There was no new federal action.
We are now seeing the consequences of refusing to implement a national plan or roadmap. A third peak of COVID-19 may be underway in the Upper Midwest, especially in Wisconsin and North and South Dakota. I am worried that a fall surge will be devastating, with an increase in the new cases from 30,000 per day to 40,000 and rising thereafter. The case fatality rates might also rise. In March and April, the mortality rate of COVID-19 in New York City rose to levels comparable to those in Western Europe—a fact that I attributed to the large numbers of patients overwhelming the city health system. However, newer preliminary information suggests that mortality rises in colder climates possibly as a result of higher virus transmission linked to large numbers of people indoors or virus survival in the cold.
Now, our president was hospitalized with COVID-19 following a large outbreak in the White House Rose Garden where many participants refused to wear masks in a ceremony nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. The specter of an ailing U.S. president and a White House in disarray is yet another shock to the American people.
I am hopeful that President Trump will make a full recovery, but also that the White House fully recognizes the dangers of COVID-19. Indeed, without receiving experimental therapies Trump might not have survived his illness. Could this awareness reset the nation? Until now, the White House has minimized the public health consequences of COVID-19, while dismissing the urgencies of masks and other measures
It is never too late to contain COVID-19 and with resolve and commitment, it is possible for the president to charge his task force with halting COVID-19 transmission, or to delegate this mission to the CDC. Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, for the duration of 2020 a reinvigorated U.S. president and White House have the capacity and means to chart a new course for the nation, making COVID-19 interruption a national priority. I’m not optimistic, but I remain eternally hopeful.
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation currently projects that more than 360,000 Americans will die by the close of 2020, roughly 150,000 more than the current death toll. But it does not have to be this way. An “autumn reset” promoting the use of masks, contact tracing and social distancing could still save 100,000 lives. This must be our highest national priority.


scientificamerican--2020-10-07--How Trump Exemplifies Our Ableist Culture

It was a grotesque sight : the president of the United States preening from the White House balcony , his mask pulled defiantly off his face , able to infect anyone around him with the novel coronavirus .
He had just been released from Walter Reed hospital , after he ’ d tweeted that we shouldn ’ t “ be afraid of COVID ” or “ let it dominate your life ” —as if it hadn ’ t already killed more than 200,000 people in the United States alone , including a dear friend of mine .
The coming narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the president was virtue-signaling that he was a strong man who had beat a terrible disease .
He hadn ’ t let COVID-19 win—he ’ d crushed it .
He was dancing on the graves of people who had let themselves die because they were weak .
Like gloating Jair Bolsonaro after he ’ d defeated the virus on Brazil ’ s COVID-19 battlefield , President Donald J. Trump was now a COVID survivor—and if he could be , so could you .
If you encountered the coronavirus , had “ good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong enough , Trump seemed to be saying , you wouldn ’ t have to be like the one million sad , weak losers around the globe who let the virus beat them .
As with many exceptionally American phenomena , though , Trump is just the most crude and obvious example ; he can not be blamed for inventing the conflation of strength with wellness as a virtue .
Long before this particular megalomaniac occupied the Oval Office , the pejorative framing of illness as some kind of moral failing has permeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When someone dies of cancer , we often say they “ lost their battle ” or “ fight , ” as if they were a soldier in a war or George Foreman getting knocked out by Muhammad Ali .
If someone goes into cancer remission , we often not only say that they beat cancer , we publicly congratulate them as if they have pulled off something virtuous that those who died of it were too lame to succeed .
We laud people who “ overcome ” their disabilities and deride people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic has taught us that we need mutual aid and interdependence .
This ableist culture that glorifies `` beating '' and `` getting over '' sickness has ushered in the grotesque carnival we are witnessing now in the White House .
This framing is patriarchal , masculinist and transphobic , in that “ being a man ” means sucking it up and beating disease , acting “ like a girl ” means letting sickness get you down—while both of these gendered tropes reinforce a harmful gender binary .
And it is ableist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and productive are simply considered to be superior to sick people .
Similar to how racism privileges certain races over others , ableism privileges people with certain abilities over disabled people ; the framing that sick people are worthy of derision while strong people are worthy of adulation built the architecture for Trump ’ s triumphant return .
When Senator Kelly Loeffler tweeted a Wrestlemania parody video of Trump seeming to tackle the coronavirus , it was ridiculous and , sadly , not very different from the ways we are encouraged to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sickness to the mat , bro !
Crush that cancer , crush that cancer , bro !
Language frames how we think and act , and ableism has long permeated our language in ways that make certain populations seem disposable .
With rare exceptions—such as in Alice Wong ’ s excellent new edited anthology Disability Visibility : First-Person Stories from the 21st Century ( Vintage Books ) —disabled people ’ s words aren ’ t centered in mainstream publishing .
As a professor on the faculty of schools of journalism and medicine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much ableist and militaristic language is casually used by abled journalists and doctors .
How casually we will use militaristic language for convalescence , when what is needed is gentle care .
The single word that encapsulates these problems is lame .
While lame is clinically defined as a body part with impaired mobility , “ That ’ s so lame ” is tossed about as a pejorative constantly—because what could be more disgusting and useless than legs that can ’ t walk ?
At least once a week , I DM journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend , there ’ s no need to conflate ‘ lame ’ with poor character or quality .
It ’ s like saying something is ‘ gay ’ or ‘ ghetto ’ to mean it ’ s bad.
” Almost always , writers get it .
But I ’ ve also been appalled to see that media scolds like NPR ombud Kelly McBride , Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan and Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal have used lame as a pejorative in their writing ; because ableism is such a seamless part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s hardly even remarkable to white , able-bodied journalists or their employers .
“ I initially resisted the moniker cancer survivor because I didn ’ t want an identity built on the backs of those people who didn ’ t survive ” anthropologist S. Lochlan Jain wrote in Malignant : How Cancer Becomes Us .
I became aware of how global a problem the survivor-as-winner/victim-as-loser paradigm was when , as a columnist for the Guardian , I published a 2016 essay about how my sister had been tortured before her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 years she lived with cancer , people would tell my sister that if she just drank juice , or tried this or that herb , or had a positive attitude , she could beat her cancer ; this implied that she was letting her sickness happen to her because she was weak and not trying hard enough .
I received responses to that column from around the world .
On almost every continent , people wrote to me that they they or someone they loved had been made to feel like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their disease .
They ’ d been made to feel that they deserved what they got because they were weak .
Trump is an extreme form of the pernicious viciousness of ableism , which extends across international borders .
And people of goodwill should be angry at him for driving the United States—quite literally , as author Patrick Blanchfield notes—towards what Blanchfield predicted years ago as a kind of family annihilation .
Yet as with the coronavirus catastrophe in general , if we want to avoid more Trump ( or more leaders like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to accept that Trump is a symptom of larger forces in the U.S. And in this case , that means ridding ourselves not just of Trump ’ s garish ableism , but of the ableist thought and language and politics that allowed him to become president—a grotesque philosophy partially upheld by a liberalism that says winners beat sickness and deadbeats lose their battles .

It was a grotesque sight: the president of the United States preening from the White House balcony, his mask pulled defiantly off his face, able to infect anyone around him with the novel coronavirus. He had just been released from Walter Reed hospital, after he’d tweeted that we shouldn’t “be afraid of COVID” or “let it dominate your life”—as if it hadn’t already killed more than 200,000 people in the United States alone, including a dear friend of mine.
The coming narrative was depressing, predictable and sadly bipartisan: the president was virtue-signaling that he was a strong man who had beat a terrible disease. He hadn’t let COVID-19 win—he’d crushed it. He was dancing on the graves of people who had let themselves die because they were weak. Like gloating Jair Bolsonaro after he’d defeated the virus on Brazil’s COVID-19 battlefield, President Donald J. Trump was now a COVID survivor—and if he could be, so could you. If you encountered the coronavirus, had “good genes,” and were just plain strong enough, Trump seemed to be saying, you wouldn’t have to be like the one million sad, weak losers around the globe who let the virus beat them.
As with many exceptionally American phenomena, though, Trump is just the most crude and obvious example; he cannot be blamed for inventing the conflation of strength with wellness as a virtue. Long before this particular megalomaniac occupied the Oval Office, the pejorative framing of illness as some kind of moral failing has permeated the U.S. across time and party lines. When someone dies of cancer, we often say they “lost their battle” or “fight,” as if they were a soldier in a war or George Foreman getting knocked out by Muhammad Ali. If someone goes into cancer remission, we often not only say that they beat cancer, we publicly congratulate them as if they have pulled off something virtuous that those who died of it were too lame to succeed.
We laud people who “overcome” their disabilities and deride people who live with them, even as this pandemic has taught us that we need mutual aid and interdependence. This ableist culture that glorifies "beating" and "getting over" sickness has ushered in the grotesque carnival we are witnessing now in the White House.
This framing is patriarchal, masculinist and transphobic, in that “being a man” means sucking it up and beating disease, acting “like a girl” means letting sickness get you down—while both of these gendered tropes reinforce a harmful gender binary. And it is ableist, in that people who are healthy and productive are simply considered to be superior to sick people. Similar to how racism privileges certain races over others, ableism privileges people with certain abilities over disabled people; the framing that sick people are worthy of derision while strong people are worthy of adulation built the architecture for Trump’s triumphant return. When Senator Kelly Loeffler tweeted a Wrestlemania parody video of Trump seeming to tackle the coronavirus, it was ridiculous and, sadly, not very different from the ways we are encouraged to think of how sick people ought to bodyslam sickness to the mat, bro! Crush that cancer, crush that cancer, bro!
Language frames how we think and act, and ableism has long permeated our language in ways that make certain populations seem disposable. With rare exceptions—such as in Alice Wong’s excellent new edited anthology Disability Visibility: First-Person Stories from the 21st Century (Vintage Books)—disabled people’s words aren’t centered in mainstream publishing. As a professor on the faculty of schools of journalism and medicine, I am fascinated and dismayed by how much ableist and militaristic language is casually used by abled journalists and doctors. How casually we will use militaristic language for convalescence, when what is needed is gentle care.
The single word that encapsulates these problems is lame. While lame is clinically defined as a body part with impaired mobility, “That’s so lame” is tossed about as a pejorative constantly—because what could be more disgusting and useless than legs that can’t walk? At least once a week, I DM journalists on Twitter to explain, “Hey friend, there’s no need to conflate ‘lame’ with poor character or quality. It’s like saying something is ‘gay’ or ‘ghetto’ to mean it’s bad.” Almost always, writers get it. But I’ve also been appalled to see that media scolds like NPR ombud Kelly McBride, Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan and Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal have used lame as a pejorative in their writing; because ableism is such a seamless part of our culture, language and liberal media, it’s hardly even remarkable to white, able-bodied journalists or their employers.
“I initially resisted the moniker cancer survivor because I didn’t want an identity built on the backs of those people who didn’t survive” anthropologist S. Lochlan Jain wrote in Malignant: How Cancer Becomes Us. I became aware of how global a problem the survivor-as-winner/victim-as-loser paradigm was when, as a columnist for the Guardian, I published a 2016 essay about how my sister had been tortured before her death by other people. For the 15 years she lived with cancer, people would tell my sister that if she just drank juice, or tried this or that herb, or had a positive attitude, she could beat her cancer; this implied that she was letting her sickness happen to her because she was weak and not trying hard enough. I received responses to that column from around the world. On almost every continent, people wrote to me that they they or someone they loved had been made to feel like a loser because they couldn’t beat their disease. They’d been made to feel that they deserved what they got because they were weak.
Trump is an extreme form of the pernicious viciousness of ableism, which extends across international borders. And people of goodwill should be angry at him for driving the United States—quite literally, as author Patrick Blanchfield notes—towards what Blanchfield predicted years ago as a kind of family annihilation. Yet as with the coronavirus catastrophe in general, if we want to avoid more Trump (or more leaders like him) and more pandemics, we need to accept that Trump is a symptom of larger forces in the U.S. And in this case, that means ridding ourselves not just of Trump’s garish ableism, but of the ableist thought and language and politics that allowed him to become president—a grotesque philosophy partially upheld by a liberalism that says winners beat sickness and deadbeats lose their battles.


scientificamerican--2020-10-08--COVID-19 Is Now the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.

“ It affects virtually nobody , ” President Donald Trump said of the novel coronavirus on September 21—a few hours before U.S. deaths from COVID-19 exceeded 200,000 and less than two weeks before he tested positive .
Unlike the president , the numbers don ’ t lie .
The human toll underlying that milestone figure is a number about as big as the population of Salt Lake City or Birmingham , Ala.—and greater than the deaths in any U.S. conflict except for the Civil War and World War II .
The figures speak for themselves , and Scientific American takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the third biggest cause of deaths in the week of March 30 to April 4 , trailing heart disease and cancer .
It killed more people than stroke , chronic lower respiratory disease , Alzheimer ’ s , diabetes , kidney disease or influenza .
In that week , close to 10,000 people died of the illness caused by the coronavirus .
The flu , which Trump and others have invoked when discussing COVID-19 , led to 1,870 deaths ( a figure that includes pneumonia ) over the same time frame .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-April , when COVID-19 cases became the leading cause of death .
The disease returned to the third deadliest spot in the week of May 4 to 9 , and has stayed there since .
This profile of loss can be broadened further to measure excess deaths above typical mortality rates .
Provisional death counts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that more people died every month from March to August this year than during the same period in the past 20 years .
( The statistics include deaths from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causes such as a lack of medical care as hospitals became overwhelmed . )
COVID-19 marks at least a temporary setback for epidemiology .
The share of Americans who died in the first eight months of this year was greater than that of any year going back to 1970—a year that paradoxically turned out to be a good one for public health .
In 1970 President Richard Nixon signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act , put his signature on a bill to ban television and radio cigarette ads and sent to Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protection Agency .
Maybe such actions can serve as precedents in years ahead when policymakers convene to plan for the inevitability of future pandemics .

“It affects virtually nobody,” President Donald Trump said of the novel coronavirus on September 21—a few hours before U.S. deaths from COVID-19 exceeded 200,000 and less than two weeks before he tested positive. Unlike the president, the numbers don’t lie. The human toll underlying that milestone figure is a number about as big as the population of Salt Lake City or Birmingham, Ala.—and greater than the deaths in any U.S. conflict except for the Civil War and World War II.
The figures speak for themselves, and Scientific American takes a deeper look here. COVID-19 became the third biggest cause of deaths in the week of March 30 to April 4, trailing heart disease and cancer. It killed more people than stroke, chronic lower respiratory disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, kidney disease or influenza. In that week, close to 10,000 people died of the illness caused by the coronavirus. The flu, which Trump and others have invoked when discussing COVID-19, led to 1,870 deaths (a figure that includes pneumonia) over the same time frame. A spike in the week-by-week accounting came in mid-April, when COVID-19 cases became the leading cause of death. The disease returned to the third deadliest spot in the week of May 4 to 9 and has stayed there since.
This profile of loss can be broadened further to measure excess deaths above typical mortality rates. Provisional death counts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that more people died every month from March to August this year than during the same period in the past 20 years. (The statistics include deaths from both the virus and upticks for other causes such as a lack of medical care as hospitals became overwhelmed.)
COVID-19 marks at least a temporary setback for epidemiology. The share of Americans who died in the first eight months of this year was greater than that of any year going back to 1970—a year that paradoxically turned out to be a good one for public health. In 1970 President Richard Nixon signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, put his signature on a bill to ban television and radio cigarette ads, and sent to Congress a plan for setting up the Environmental Protection Agency. Maybe such actions can serve as precedents in years ahead when policy makers convene to plan for the inevitability of future pandemics.
Credit: Youyou Zhou; Sources: U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Center for Health Statistics
Credit: Youyou Zhou; Sources: U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Center for Health Statistics


scientificamerican--2020-10-08--That Thoroughly-Used-Up Kind of Life

That Thoroughly-Used-Up Kind of Life

Is there anything more American than the pursuit of happiness ?
Not merely written into the Declaration of Independence , it seems to be one of the more important metrics by which we measure our progress through life .
In 2016 I remember reading a fascinating article on Vox.com by Ruth Whippman , a British writer , who made an intriguing observation after having lived in both countries .
Americans ’ obsession with being happy , and our many efforts to achieve it , she wrote , was in fact making us miserable .
Some interesting research backs up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the less happy you are .
In this issue ’ s cover story , Scott Barry Kaufman explores how a psychologically rich life , not necessarily a happy one , might yield a higher return on investment , so to speak .
If emotional growth is of value to you , a wide range of feelings , challenges and experiences—even bad ones—might give you the good life you ’ ve been seeking ( see “ In Defense of the Psychologically Rich Life ” ) .
This is a comforting concept during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it reminds me of a quote from journalist Hunter S. Thompson : “ Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body , but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke , thoroughly used up , totally worn out , and loudly proclaiming “ ‘ Wow !
What a Ride !
’ ”

Is there anything more American than the pursuit of happiness? Not merely written into the Declaration of Independence, it seems to be one of the more important metrics by which we measure our progress through life. In 2016 I remember reading a fascinating article on Vox.com by Ruth Whippman, a British writer, who made an intriguing observation after having lived in both countries. Americans’ obsession with being happy, and our many efforts to achieve it, she wrote, was in fact making us miserable. Some interesting research backs up the idea that the more you value happiness, the less happy you are.
In this issue’s cover story, Scott Barry Kaufman explores how a psychologically rich life, not necessarily a happy one, might yield a higher return on investment, so to speak. If emotional growth is of value to you, a wide range of feelings, challenges and experiences—even bad ones—might give you the good life you’ve been seeking (see “In Defense of the Psychologically Rich Life”). This is a comforting concept during a time of so much challenge and uncertainty. And it reminds me of a quote from journalist Hunter S. Thompson: “Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “ ‘Wow! What a Ride!’ ”


scientificamerican--2020-10-08--How Andrea Ghez Won the Nobel for an Experiment Nobody Thought Would Work

Standing in my office 25 years ago was an unknown , newly minted astronomer with a half-smile on her face .
She had come with an outrageous request—really a demand—that my team modify our exhaustively tested software to make one of our most important and in-demand scientific instruments do something it had never been designed for , and risk breaking it .
All to carry out an experiment that was basically a waste of time and couldn ’ t be done—to prove that a massive black hole lurked at the center of our Milky Way .
My initial “ no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stronger expression ) gradually gave way in the face of her cheerful but unwavering determination .
It was my first encounter with a force of nature , Andrea Ghez , one of three winners of this year ’ s Nobel Prize in Physics , for her work on providing the conclusive experimental evidence of a supermassive black hole with the mass of four million suns residing at the center of the Milky Way galaxy .
That determination and the willingness to take calculated risks has always characterized Andrea .
For 25 years she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of our own local supermassive black hole .
It is remarkable that an entire field of study has grown up in the intervening quarter century , of searching for and finding evidence of these monsters thought to lie at the heart of every large galaxy .
And Andrea is without question one of the great pioneers in this search .
Andrea ’ s co-prizewinner Reinhard Genzel has been involved in the same research from the outset—and it is the work of these two teams , each led by a formidable intellect and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hemispheres that has brought astronomy to this remarkable result—the confirmation of another of the predictions of Einstein ’ s more than century-old theory of general relativity .
As in so many fields of science , the competition has been intense , sometimes brutal , but out of this has been forged an unshakable result that has been tested and retested over a quarter century .
And at the heart of the competition , two colleagues , great astronomers each , whose work has been as much defined by the science as by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suited to this exact scientific endeavor .
Andrea did her work at the W.M .
Keck Observatory ’ s twin telescopes on Maunakea , Hawai ’ i , in the calm and clear air almost 14,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean .
She started using the very first instrument commissioned on Keck Observatory ’ s Near Infrared Camera ( NIRC ) , now gracing the lobby at our headquarters .
NIRC was never designed to do what Andrea needed—an ultrafast readout of images and then a restacking of the result to remove the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But she was not to be denied—and we made the changes .
And it worked !
It was supremely hard and time-consuming to make sense of the data , but Andrea persisted .
Out of that effort came the first evidence—not just hints—of stars orbiting the black hole .
It was a fantastic result , but a long way from full confirmation .
At around that time , a new technology , adaptive optics ( AO ) , was being installed on telescopes worldwide .
Keck Observatory was the first of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results were electrifying .
No surprise : Andrea immediately switched to using AO for her work .
She always pushed for more performance and more capability—and the scientists and engineers at Keck Observatory and in our community of instrument builders responded .
This push for more and more , and the scientific rewards that followed , is what helped make AO the immensely powerful tool it is today .
Andrea is fond of pointing out that one of the reasons for her success has been this tight and rapid loop between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who respond to the challenge .
In a way reminiscent of the tight synergy between mathematics and physics , science questions beget new technology and new technology begets new science .
Andrea has always been in the forefront of this virtuous cycle , an enthusiastic proponent of “ we can do more.
” Andrea is a great scientist ; not only does she do the science , she molds events to make it possible .
In addition to doing research , she has created the UCLA Galactic Center Group to coordinate research and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cohort of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows with her passion and thrill of the chase .
It is no exaggeration to say that Andrea has personally inspired aspiring scientists everywhere , and she serves as a role model for what ability , grit and commitment can accomplish .
Today , Andrea sits at the pinnacle of scientific recognition for her achievements .
But as she would be the very first to acknowledge , this triumph represents the combined efforts of so many .
From the theoretical predictions of the peerless Albert Einstein , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build the amazingly complex machines we call simply “ telescopes , ” to the siting at the best locations on Earth for this research , to those who conceive of and build the instrumentation and run the operations , to the science teams that do the research—all of it essential , the product of the work of thousands .
But in the end , one person had the idea for the research .
One person had the chutzpah to propose it and one person had the determination , tenacity and focus to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said it was a waste of time .
That person is my friend and longtime colleague , the one who refused to take “ no ” for an answer , and who probably doesn ’ t even have it in her vocabulary : Andrea Ghez , winner of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics .

Standing in my office 25 years ago was an unknown, newly minted astronomer with a half-smile on her face. She had come with an outrageous request—really a demand—that my team modify our exhaustively tested software to make one of our most important and in-demand scientific instruments do something it had never been designed for and risk breaking it. All to carry out an experiment that was basically a waste of time and couldn’t be done—to prove that a massive black hole lurked at the center of our Milky Way.
My initial “no way” (perhaps I used a stronger expression) gradually gave way in the face of her cheerful but unwavering determination. It was my first encounter with a force of nature, Andrea Ghez, one of three winners of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics, for her work on providing the conclusive experimental evidence of a supermassive black hole with the mass of four million suns residing at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
That determination and the willingness to take calculated risks have always characterized Andrea. For 25 years she has focused almost exclusively on Sagittarius A*—the name of our own local supermassive black hole. It is remarkable that an entire field of study has grown up in the intervening quarter century—of searching for and finding evidence of these monsters thought to lie at the heart of every large galaxy. And Andrea is without question one of the great pioneers in this search.
Andrea’s co-prizewinner Reinhard Genzel has been involved in the same research from the outset, and it is the work of their two teams—each led by a formidable intellect and using two different observatories in two different hemispheres—that has brought astronomy to this remarkable result: the confirmation of another of the predictions of Einstein’s more than century-old theory of general relativity.
As in so many fields of science, the competition has been intense, sometimes brutal, but out of this has been forged an unshakable result that has been tested and retested over a quarter century. And at the heart of the competition are two colleagues, great astronomers each, whose work has been as much defined by the science as by the availability of telescopes and instrumentation almost perfectly suited to this exact scientific endeavor.
Andrea did her work at the W. M. Keck Observatory’s twin telescopes on Maunakea, Hawai’i, in the calm and clear air almost 14,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean. She started using the very first instrument commissioned on Keck Observatory’s Near Infrared Camera (NIRC), now gracing the lobby at our headquarters. NIRC was never designed to do what Andrea needed—an ultrafast readout of images and then a restacking of the result to remove the effects of the atmosphere’s turbulence. But she was not to be denied—and we made the changes. And it worked! It was supremely hard and time-consuming to make sense of the data, but Andrea persisted.
Out of that effort came the first evidence—not just hints—of stars orbiting the black hole. It was a fantastic result but a long way from full confirmation. Around that time a new technology, adaptive optics (AO), was being installed on telescopes worldwide. Keck Observatory was the first of the most powerful observatories to be so equipped—and the results were electrifying. No surprise: Andrea immediately switched to using AO for her work. She always pushed for more performance and more capability—and the scientists and engineers at Keck Observatory and in our community of instrument builders responded. This push for more and more, and the scientific rewards that followed, is what helped make AO the immensely powerful tool it is today.
Andrea is fond of pointing out that one of the reasons for her success has been this tight and rapid loop between the needs of the astronomers and the engineers who respond to the challenge. In a way reminiscent of the tight synergy between mathematics and physics, science questions beget new technology, and new technology begets new science. Andrea has always been at the forefront of this virtuous cycle, an enthusiastic proponent of “we can do more.”
Andrea is a great scientist; not only does she do the science, she molds events to make it possible. In addition to doing research, she has created the UCLA Galactic Center Group to coordinate research and technical developments. And she imbued a cohort of grad students and postdoc fellows with her passion and the thrill of the chase. It is no exaggeration to say that Andrea has personally inspired aspiring scientists everywhere, and she serves as a role model for what ability, grit and commitment can accomplish.
Today Andrea sits at the pinnacle of scientific recognition for her achievements. But as she would be the very first to acknowledge, this triumph represents the combined efforts of so many. From the theoretical predictions of the peerless Albert Einstein, to those who had the vision to build the amazingly complex machines we call simply “telescopes,” to the people who created sites at the best locations on Earth for this research, to those who conceive of and build the instrumentation and run the operations, to the science teams that do the research—all of it essential, the product of the work of thousands.
But in the end, one person had the idea for the research. One person had the chutzpah to propose it, and one person had the determination, tenacity and focus to make it happen, undeterred by all who said it was a waste of time. That person is my friend and longtime colleague, the one who refused to take “no” for an answer and who probably doesn’t even have it in her vocabulary: Andrea Ghez, winner of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics.