scientificamerican--2020-11-14--The Empty Half of the Glass May Also Be Full

Finding an ant in the kitchen often triggers my sense of alarm , because for any ant I see there must be many more out of view .
The same applies to many aspects of life , occasionally with greater consequences .
Take scientific breakthroughs as an example .
The 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in part for the first discovery of a Jupiterlike planet close to a sunlike star by Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz in 1995 .
Searching for such a planet was proposed by Otto Struve in 1952 , but it took four decades for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search for another planetary system so different from our own was worth the precious telescope time it would consume .
Similarly , the revolutionary theory of continental drift advanced by Alfred Wegener in 1912 , was rejected by mainstream geologists for four decades and only became popular after the mechanism of plate tectonics was recognized .
In biology , the rules of genetic heredity formulated by Gregor Mendel in 1866 were ignored by the scientific community , rediscovered by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns three decades later , and eventually explained by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century after Mendel ’ s work .
Such examples are often used to support the notion that the scientific method works and that the truth eventually prevails .
But these success stories reflect a selection bias .
For every case that barely made it to a successful end , there must have been many that never came to our attention since their value was never recognized .
Bearing in mind the “ ants in the kitchen ” metaphor , there must have been many scientific innovations that were suppressed , and their originators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their time .
That these breakthroughs never came to fruition constitutes a net loss to humanity .
This lesson also reverberates throughout the professional life of scientists , including my own .
My eventual focus on astrophysics was enabled by John Bahcall , who chose to offer an untrained foreigner like myself a five-year fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton .
His generosity paid it forward three decades later—when I hired the brilliant , unrecognized scientist Manasvi Lingam as my postdoctoral fellow .
My collaboration with Manasvi over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a forthcoming textbook .
A similar but more extreme example involves the career of the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan , who produced groundbreaking theorems after being plucked out of obscurity based on the recognition of his raw talent by Godfrey Hardy of Cambridge University .
There must be many Ramanujans in developing countries , who lack an opportunity to realize their talents .
The same applies to artists and their creative work .
Vincent van Gogh was considered a madman and a failure throughout his life , but his reputation changed to that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ style were incorporated by expressionists several decades after his suicide in 1890 at age 37 .
Today , van Gogh ’ s paintings are among the most expensive ever to have sold .
The writer Samuel Beckett did not get his first novel published and so he shelved it .
The novel was eventually published in 1992 , three years after Beckett ’ s death and 23 years after he was awarded the 1969 Nobel Prize in literature .
In an even more unusual example , the extraordinary novelist Franz Kafka instructed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writings after his death at age 40 .
If Brod had followed the instructions , Kafka ’ s remarkable writings would have been lost forever .
How many works of art and literary treasures were lost this way from our collective memory ?
Darwinian selection based on the principle of short-term popularity does not necessarily favor the most significant human creations for the long run .
Rather than assuming that our evaluation system functioned well in selecting the worthiest products of our civilization , historians of arts and sciences should dig into past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recognizing “ unborn babies ” and hearing their muted messages from our past should convince us to do better in the future .
Most importantly , we should not use social media to bully those who are different among us but rather celebrate the innovation they bring .
Constructive debates can nowadays be recorded online at a relatively low cost .
During these turbulent times of polarization , it is crucial to cultivate tolerance to diversity of ideas .
We must learn to listen and explain why we disagree , especially on matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate arbitrator for disputes .
“ The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently , ” wrote the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his 1881 book titled The Dawn of Day .
The lesson from our troubled past is simple .
We should nurture those who think creatively and use merit instead of the number of “ likes ” on Twitter to gauge the value of their insights .
Private and federal funding agencies should establish scholarships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and adverse socioeconomic backgrounds .
If we will not get our act together , advanced alien civilizations in search of intelligent life in the cosmos might downgrade us as not particularly intelligent and worthy of their attention .
From their perspective , we might be a form of life as primitive and common in the cosmos as ants are in a kitchen .
Through better behavior , it is in our power to exclude this possible explanation for not hearing from them—the so-called Fermi paradox .

Finding an ant in the kitchen often triggers my sense of alarm, because for any ant I see there must be many more out of view. The same applies to many aspects of life, occasionally with greater consequences.
Take scientific breakthroughs as an example. The 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in part for the first discovery of a Jupiterlike planet close to a sunlike star by Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz in 1995. Searching for such a planet was proposed by Otto Struve in 1952, but it took four decades for mainstream astronomers to agree that a risky search for another planetary system so different from our own was worth the precious telescope time it would consume.
Similarly, the revolutionary theory of continental drift advanced by Alfred Wegener in 1912, was rejected by mainstream geologists for four decades and only became popular after the mechanism of plate tectonics was recognized. In biology, the rules of genetic heredity formulated by Gregor Mendel in 1866 were ignored by the scientific community, rediscovered by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns three decades later, and eventually explained by the molecular chemistry of DNA almost a century after Mendel’s work.
Such examples are often used to support the notion that the scientific method works and that the truth eventually prevails. But these success stories reflect a selection bias. For every case that barely made it to a successful end, there must have been many that never came to our attention since their value was never recognized. Bearing in mind the “ants in the kitchen” metaphor, there must have been many scientific innovations that were suppressed, and their originators bullied, because they were ahead of their time. That these breakthroughs never came to fruition constitutes a net loss to humanity.
This lesson also reverberates throughout the professional life of scientists, including my own. My eventual focus on astrophysics was enabled by John Bahcall, who chose to offer an untrained foreigner like myself a five-year fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. His generosity paid it forward three decades later—when I hired the brilliant, unrecognized scientist Manasvi Lingam as my postdoctoral fellow. My collaboration with Manasvi over the past four years blossomed into 35 papers and a forthcoming textbook. A similar but more extreme example involves the career of the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, who produced groundbreaking theorems after being plucked out of obscurity based on the recognition of his raw talent by Godfrey Hardy of Cambridge University. There must be many Ramanujans in developing countries, who lack an opportunity to realize their talents.
The same applies to artists and their creative work. Vincent van Gogh was considered a madman and a failure throughout his life, but his reputation changed to that of misunderstood genius when elements of his painting style were incorporated by expressionists several decades after his suicide in 1890 at age 37. Today, van Gogh’s paintings are among the most expensive ever to have sold. The writer Samuel Beckett did not get his first novel published and so he shelved it.
The novel was eventually published in 1992, three years after Beckett’s death and 23 years after he was awarded the 1969 Nobel Prize in literature. In an even more unusual example, the extraordinary novelist Franz Kafka instructed his friend Max Brod to burn his literary writings after his death at age 40. If Brod had followed the instructions, Kafka’s remarkable writings would have been lost forever. How many works of art and literary treasures were lost this way from our collective memory?
Darwinian selection based on the principle of short-term popularity does not necessarily favor the most significant human creations for the long run. Rather than assuming that our evaluation system functioned well in selecting the worthiest products of our civilization, historians of arts and sciences should dig into past records in search for lost treasures.
Recognizing “unborn babies” and hearing their muted messages from our past should convince us to do better in the future. Most importantly, we should not use social media to bully those who are different among us but rather celebrate the innovation they bring. Constructive debates can nowadays be recorded online at a relatively low cost.
During these turbulent times of polarization, it is crucial to cultivate tolerance to diversity of ideas. We must learn to listen and explain why we disagree, especially on matters of science where evidence serves as the ultimate arbitrator for disputes. “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently,” wrote the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his 1881 book titled The Dawn of Day.
The lesson from our troubled past is simple. We should nurture those who think creatively and use merit instead of the number of “likes” on Twitter to gauge the value of their insights. Private and federal funding agencies should establish scholarships to support brilliant individuals with insufficient education and adverse socioeconomic backgrounds. If we will not get our act together, advanced alien civilizations in search of intelligent life in the cosmos might downgrade us as not particularly intelligent and worthy of their attention. From their perspective, we might be a form of life as primitive and common in the cosmos as ants are in a kitchen. Through better behavior, it is in our power to exclude this possible explanation for not hearing from them—the so-called Fermi paradox.


scientificamerican--2020-11-16--COVID Vaccine Excitement Builds as Moderna Reports Positive Result

They say good news comes in threes .
For the third time in a week , a coronavirus vaccine developer has reported preliminary results suggesting its vaccine is highly effective .
Today , biotech company Moderna in Cambridge , Massachusetts , reported that its RNA-based vaccine was more than 94 % effective at preventing COVID-19 , based on an analysis of 95 cases in its ongoing phase III efficacy trial .
But scientists say that the press-released results share a few more details than last week ’ s positive announcements from Pfizer and BioNtech , which are together working on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian developers behind the controversial ‘ Sputnik V ’ vaccine .
Moderna released figures suggesting that its vaccine was likely to prevent severe COVID-19 infections , something that was not clear from the other developers ’ announcements .
“ We need to see the peer-reviewed data , but by any standards , this looks like more very good news , ” says Daniel Altmann , an immunologist at Imperial College London .
“ The results of this trial are truly striking , ” says Anthony Fauci , the director of US National Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Maryland , the vaccine ’ s co-developer .
Fauci says he told reporters several months ago that he would be satisfied with a vaccine that was 70 % or 75 % effective , and that one that prevented 95 % of cases would be “ aspirational ” .
“ Well our aspirations have been met and that is very good news , ” he adds .
Moderna was one of the first developers to announce that it was working on a COVID-19 vaccine and to move testing to clinical trials in humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructions for cells to produce a modified form of the coronavirus spike protein , the immune system ’ s key target against coronaviruses .
It began a phase III trial that has enrolled roughly 30,000 people on 27 July .
That trial continues .
But an analysis conducted on 15 November by an independent data safety committee found that 95 participants in the trial had developed COVID-19 .
Of these , 90 were in the group that received a placebo injection and 5 received the vaccine , which equates to an efficacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a greater than 90 % efficacy on the basis of 94 cases , whereas Sputnik V ’ s 92 % efficacy was measured with only 20 COVID-19 cases recorded .
But the Moderna vaccine ’ s final efficacy might drop once the trial is completed—although probably not by much , says Stephen Evans , a statistical epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine .
The interim data suggests that the efficacy could be as low as about 86 % , because of statistical uncertainty , he says .
“ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine have notably more efficacy than most scientists would have expected.
” Moderna also presented some evidence that their vaccine protects against severe cases of COVID-19—something that Pfizer/BioNtech and Sputnik ’ s press releases did not mention .
The Moderna interim analysis found a total of 11 severe cases in the trial ’ s placebo arm , and none in the vaccine arm , according to the press release .
That ’ s a good sign , says Evans , but hardly surprising given the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine starts to get to that kind of efficacy , then there isn ’ t a lot of room for severe cases in there , ” he says .
In its guidelines for emergency approval of COVID vaccines , the US Food and Drug Administration has said that efficacy trials should include at least 5 severe cases in the placebo group to gain approval .
As with the other vaccines , uncertainties remain .
It is not clear how long the vaccine ’ s protective effects last ; whether it can block @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the vaccine works as well in higher-risk groups such as older adults .
The company reported that , of the 95 cases , 15 were in people over 65 , but it didn ’ t indicate in which arm of the trial these participants were .
A key question will be how many of the five infections among vaccinated individuals occurred in people over 65 , says Evans , which could indicate whether the vaccine is less effective in that group , compared to others .
He thinks that ’ s unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participants generate a strong immune response to the vaccine .
In the press release , Moderna said “ Preliminary analysis suggests a broadly consistent safety and efficacy profile across all evaluated subgroups.
” Researchers were also buoyed by Moderna ’ s announcement that its vaccine remains stable in conventional refrigerators for a month and an ordinary freezer for six months ; Pfizer ’ s vaccine must be stored at –70C before delivery , which means it could be difficult to distribute to parts of the world that do not have such infrastructure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ plus , ” says Altmann .
“ We ’ ve always said that we need a number of vaccines ready and that the devil will be in the detail.
” This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 16 2020 .

They say good news comes in threes. For the third time in a week, a coronavirus vaccine developer has reported preliminary results suggesting its vaccine is highly effective.
Today, biotech company Moderna in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that its RNA-based vaccine was more than 94% effective at preventing COVID-19, based on an analysis of 95 cases in its ongoing phase III efficacy trial.
But scientists say that the press-released results share a few more details than last week’s positive announcements from Pfizer and BioNtech, which are together working on a rival RNA vaccine, and from Russian developers behind the controversial ‘Sputnik V’ vaccine. Moderna released figures suggesting that its vaccine was likely to prevent severe COVID-19 infections, something that was not clear from the other developers’ announcements.
“We need to see the peer-reviewed data, but by any standards, this looks like more very good news,” says Daniel Altmann, an immunologist at Imperial College London.
“The results of this trial are truly striking,” says Anthony Fauci, the director of US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease in Bethesda, Maryland, the vaccine’s co-developer. Fauci says he told reporters several months ago that he would be satisfied with a vaccine that was 70% or 75% effective, and that one that prevented 95% of cases would be “aspirational”. “Well our aspirations have been met and that is very good news,” he adds.
Genetic instructions
Moderna was one of the first developers to announce that it was working on a COVID-19 vaccine and to move testing to clinical trials in humans. Its vaccine is comprised of RNA instructions for cells to produce a modified form of the coronavirus spike protein, the immune system’s key target against coronaviruses. It began a phase III trial that has enrolled roughly 30,000 people on 27 July.
That trial continues. But an analysis conducted on 15 November by an independent data safety committee found that 95 participants in the trial had developed COVID-19. Of these, 90 were in the group that received a placebo injection and 5 received the vaccine, which equates to an efficacy of 94.5%. Pfizer and BioNtech reported a greater than 90% efficacy on the basis of 94 cases, whereas Sputnik V’s 92% efficacy was measured with only 20 COVID-19 cases recorded.
But the Moderna vaccine’s final efficacy might drop once the trial is completed—although probably not by much, says Stephen Evans, a statistical epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The interim data suggests that the efficacy could be as low as about 86%, because of statistical uncertainty, he says. “What it is saying to me is that both the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine have notably more efficacy than most scientists would have expected.”
Moderna also presented some evidence that their vaccine protects against severe cases of COVID-19—something that Pfizer/BioNtech and Sputnik’s press releases did not mention. The Moderna interim analysis found a total of 11 severe cases in the trial’s placebo arm, and none in the vaccine arm, according to the press release. That’s a good sign, says Evans, but hardly surprising given the vaccine’s high effectiveness. “If a vaccine starts to get to that kind of efficacy, then there isn’t a lot of room for severe cases in there,” he says.
In its guidelines for emergency approval of COVID vaccines, the US Food and Drug Administration has said that efficacy trials should include at least 5 severe cases in the placebo group to gain approval.
Open questions
As with the other vaccines, uncertainties remain. It is not clear how long the vaccine’s protective effects last; whether it can block people from transmitting the virus; or whether the vaccine works as well in higher-risk groups such as older adults. The company reported that, of the 95 cases, 15 were in people over 65, but it didn’t indicate in which arm of the trial these participants were.
A key question will be how many of the five infections among vaccinated individuals occurred in people over 65, says Evans, which could indicate whether the vaccine is less effective in that group, compared to others. He thinks that’s unlikely, based on data showing that older participants generate a strong immune response to the vaccine. In the press release, Moderna said “Preliminary analysis suggests a broadly consistent safety and efficacy profile across all evaluated subgroups.”
Researchers were also buoyed by Moderna’s announcement that its vaccine remains stable in conventional refrigerators for a month and an ordinary freezer for six months; Pfizer’s vaccine must be stored at –70C before delivery, which means it could be difficult to distribute to parts of the world that do not have such infrastructure.
That’s “a really big plus,” says Altmann. “We’ve always said that we need a number of vaccines ready and that the devil will be in the detail.”
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 16 2020.


scientificamerican--2020-11-16--Ten Steps That Can Restore Scientific Integrity in Government

In May 2020 , a scientist named Rick Bright , who was leading the COVID-19 vaccine development at the Department of Health and Human Services , filed a whistleblower complaint , alleging that he had faced retaliation for raising alarms about shortages of critical supplies and the president ’ s promotion of potentially dangerous and unproven drug remedies for the virus .
In October , he resigned , stating that he could no longer work for an administration that ignored scientific expertise , overruled public health guidance , and disrespected career scientists .
His case now adds to the list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has failed our nation ’ s scientists , especially in recent years .
Indeed , the Trump administration has censored , manipulated and hindered science at unprecedented rates .
Recent disregard of the federal scientific enterprise has hampered our abilities to effectively respond to the crises that need scientific expertise the most , like the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change , as well as other pressing issues like regulation of toxic chemicals , workplace safety and wildlife conservation .
At the same time , the vast majority of Americans trust scientists—so why don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And why don ’ t our policies reflect that ?
One major reason is that our legal system has not caught up amidst the deepening politicization of science , so federal agency scientists like Bright have extremely limited options to protect scientific integrity from political manipulation .
In particular , federal scientific integrity policies—designed to ensure that science informs policy decisions and is free from inappropriate political , ideological , financial , or other undue influence—are imperfect .
Despite progress across agencies in the last decade , many agency policies are still missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These scientific integrity policies are largely products of the Obama administration , building upon earlier policies that prohibited plagiarism , data manipulation and other forms of research misconduct .
Designed to prevent against abuses seen in previous administrations , both Republican and Democrat , these policies represent a substantial stride forward , but there are still major holes .
The last few years have illustrated that much more needs to be done to guarantee that federal scientific integrity can be protected even under tremendous political pressures .
Below are 10 recommendations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific integrity protections across agencies .
The recommendations span from revising the policies themselves to strengthening other aspects of government .
• Clearly prohibit political interference and censorship .
Unfortunately , a number of agency policies focus only on “ traditional ” areas of misconduct , such as plagiarism and data fraud , and do not even address censorship or other political interference .
For example , the Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) and National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) are missing these critical provisions—which means that even the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncontested .
If ever it was clear why protecting CDC and NIH science and scientists protects the public , surely it is the federal pandemic response .
• Similarly , protect scientists ’ communication rights .
Scientists must have clear rights to speak directly to journalists and members of the public , including correcting agency communications that reference their work .
Agencies vary widely in the sorts of communication rights that scientists have , which can lead to disastrous results—such as when the Trump administration successfully prevented scientists at the CDC ( where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking about the looming COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020 .
Preventing scientists from speaking directly to the public not only muzzles scientists but prevents the public from making informed decisions about their health and safety .
• Acknowledge that attempts to violate scientific integrity , even if ultimately not fruitful , are still violations .
In one notable case , attempts to censor a climate report at the National Parks Service were found to be perfectly within the scientific integrity policy because the report was ultimately published intact .
Meanwhile , the scientist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valiantly for publication—was terminated from her position .
Imagine if attempted murder were not a crime , and only “ successful ” murders were prosecuted .
• Protect federal scientists ’ right to provide information to Congress and other lawmakers .
There have been multiple examples of scientists involved in public health , climate change and environmental toxicology being prevented from providing information to Congress or being pressured to alter their testimony on important scientific topics .
Our lawmakers need to hear from scientific experts , unaltered .
• Commit to incorporating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unfortunately , there are many examples , at the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies , where decisions completely ignored scientific findings .
Agencies must recognize that ensuring the agency ’ s credibility and effectiveness are an essential part of guaranteeing the science used in agency decision-making is robust and trustworthy .
• Elevate agency scientific integrity policies to have the full force of law , which could be done by passing the pending House Scientific Integrity Act .
This act codifies many of the basic elements needed in an effective agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that scientists have the right to appeal decisions regarding scientific integrity violations .
These measures help guarantee that agency policies are actually enforced .
• Publicly release anonymized information about scientific integrity complaints and their resolutions at every agency .
Many agencies currently do not publish even basic information about scientific integrity complaints , which makes it impossible to see the extent of any scientific integrity issues or even if the policies are working .
Providing a window into how agencies have resolved prior complaints is critical for understanding how the policy works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Institute an intra-agency workforce , potentially under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy , to coordinate scientific integrity efforts across agencies , foster discussion of policy improvements , and standardize criteria for policies across agencies .
• Strengthen whistleblower protections : explicitly extend whistleblower laws to apply to scientific integrity complaints , expand whistleblower rights for scientific contractors and grantees , and reinstate quorum on the Merit Systems Protection Board ( the main body that evaluates whistleblower complaints , which has been without the necessary quorum since January 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists who speak up about scientific integrity violations no longer need to fear for their jobs .
• Ensure that policies cover all actors who will be dealing with science , including political appointees , public affairs departments and scientific advisory committee members .
Unfortunately , many policies currently are unclear about who is covered , or exempt certain categories of workers—for example , it is not clear to what extent contractors are governed by the scientific integrity policy at the Department of Energy .
Fixing these inconsistencies would remove confusion and loopholes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific integrity is part of everyone ’ s job .
When asked about what went wrong with the U.S. pandemic response , Bright recently said : “ The career staff and scientists were in place .
They were battle tested .
They knew their role .
They knew the plan .
And they were prepared to act .
They put on their uniform to respond to this pandemic and then there was nowhere to go.
” To ensure that scientists can do their job protecting the public in the next crisis , whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the climate crisis , we can and must ensure scientists ’ voices and work are shielded from political forces .
Our lives and the nation ’ s future depend on it .

In May 2020, a scientist named Rick Bright, who was leading the COVID-19 vaccine development at the Department of Health and Human Services, filed a whistleblower complaint, alleging that he had faced retaliation for raising alarms about shortages of critical supplies and the president’s promotion of potentially dangerous and unproven drug remedies for the virus. In October, he resigned, stating that he could no longer work for an administration that ignored scientific expertise, overruled public health guidance, and disrespected career scientists. His case now adds to the list of examples where federal scientific integrity infrastructure has failed our nation’s scientists, especially in recent years.
Indeed, the Trump administration has censored, manipulated and hindered science at unprecedented rates. Recent disregard of the federal scientific enterprise has hampered our abilities to effectively respond to the crises that need scientific expertise the most, like the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, as well as other pressing issues like regulation of toxic chemicals, workplace safety and wildlife conservation.
At the same time, the vast majority of Americans trust scientists—so why don’t we act like it? And why don’t our policies reflect that?
One major reason is that our legal system has not caught up amidst the deepening politicization of science, so federal agency scientists like Bright have extremely limited options to protect scientific integrity from political manipulation. In particular, federal scientific integrity policies—designed to ensure that science informs policy decisions and is free from inappropriate political, ideological, financial, or other undue influence—are imperfect. Despite progress across agencies in the last decade, many agency policies are still missing key provisions and suffer from uneven enforcement.
These scientific integrity policies are largely products of the Obama administration, building upon earlier policies that prohibited plagiarism, data manipulation and other forms of research misconduct. Designed to prevent against abuses seen in previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, these policies represent a substantial stride forward, but there are still major holes. The last few years have illustrated that much more needs to be done to guarantee that federal scientific integrity can be protected even under tremendous political pressures.
Below are 10 recommendations for the Biden administration that would dramatically improve scientific integrity protections across agencies. The recommendations span from revising the policies themselves to strengthening other aspects of government.
Clearly prohibit political interference and censorship. Unfortunately, a number of agency policies focus only on “traditional” areas of misconduct, such as plagiarism and data fraud, and do not even address censorship or other political interference. For example, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) are missing these critical provisions—which means that even the most blatant efforts to undermine science can go uncontested. If ever it was clear why protecting CDC and NIH science and scientists protects the public, surely it is the federal pandemic response. Similarly, protect scientists’ communication rights. Scientists must have clear rights to speak directly to journalists and members of the public, including correcting agency communications that reference their work. Agencies vary widely in the sorts of communication rights that scientists have, which can lead to disastrous results—such as when the Trump administration successfully prevented scientists at the CDC (where scientists have weak communication rights) from speaking about the looming COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020. Preventing scientists from speaking directly to the public not only muzzles scientists but prevents the public from making informed decisions about their health and safety. Acknowledge that attempts to violate scientific integrity, even if ultimately not fruitful, are still violations. In one notable case, attempts to censor a climate report at the National Parks Service were found to be perfectly within the scientific integrity policy because the report was ultimately published intact. Meanwhile, the scientist who authored the study—and who had fought valiantly for publication—was terminated from her position. Imagine if attempted murder were not a crime, and only “successful” murders were prosecuted. Protect federal scientists’ right to provide information to Congress and other lawmakers. There have been multiple examples of scientists involved in public health, climate change and environmental toxicology being prevented from providing information to Congress or being pressured to alter their testimony on important scientific topics. Our lawmakers need to hear from scientific experts, unaltered. Commit to incorporating the best science as part of agency decisions. Unfortunately, there are many examples, at the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, where decisions completely ignored scientific findings. Agencies must recognize that ensuring the agency’s credibility and effectiveness are an essential part of guaranteeing the science used in agency decision-making is robust and trustworthy. Elevate agency scientific integrity policies to have the full force of law, which could be done by passing the pending House Scientific Integrity Act. This act codifies many of the basic elements needed in an effective agency scientific integrity policy, including making clear that scientists have the right to appeal decisions regarding scientific integrity violations. These measures help guarantee that agency policies are actually enforced. Publicly release anonymized information about scientific integrity complaints and their resolutions at every agency. Many agencies currently do not publish even basic information about scientific integrity complaints, which makes it impossible to see the extent of any scientific integrity issues or even if the policies are working. Providing a window into how agencies have resolved prior complaints is critical for understanding how the policy works and ensuring that application is fair. Institute an intra-agency workforce, potentially under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to coordinate scientific integrity efforts across agencies, foster discussion of policy improvements, and standardize criteria for policies across agencies. Strengthen whistleblower protections: explicitly extend whistleblower laws to apply to scientific integrity complaints, expand whistleblower rights for scientific contractors and grantees, and reinstate quorum on the Merit Systems Protection Board (the main body that evaluates whistleblower complaints, which has been without the necessary quorum since January 2017). Doing so would ensure that scientists who speak up about scientific integrity violations no longer need to fear for their jobs. Ensure that policies cover all actors who will be dealing with science, including political appointees, public affairs departments and scientific advisory committee members. Unfortunately, many policies currently are unclear about who is covered, or exempt certain categories of workers—for example, it is not clear to what extent contractors are governed by the scientific integrity policy at the Department of Energy. Fixing these inconsistencies would remove confusion and loopholes, and would make clear that protecting scientific integrity is part of everyone’s job.
When asked about what went wrong with the U.S. pandemic response, Bright recently said: “The career staff and scientists were in place. They were battle tested. They knew their role. They knew the plan. And they were prepared to act. They put on their uniform to respond to this pandemic and then there was nowhere to go.” To ensure that scientists can do their job protecting the public in the next crisis, whether it be a pandemic, an earthquake or the climate crisis, we can and must ensure scientists’ voices and work are shielded from political forces. Our lives and the nation’s future depend on it.


scientificamerican--2020-11-16--Scientists Failed to Use Common Sense Early in the Pandemic

As a scientist and historian of science , I get asked a lot by friends and family to comment on scientific questions .
Are vaccines safe ?
Is red meat bad for you ?
How much time do we have left to fix climate change ?
Many of these matters are not nearly as complicated as they have sometimes been made out to be .
Vaccination is broadly safe for most people ; eating large amounts of red meat is associated with higher rates of death from a number of cancers ; and scientists think we have about a decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control and avoid the worst consequences .
Lately nearly all the questions involve COVID-19—particularly the matter of masks .
The argument for wearing them is pretty straightforward : viruses are spread in droplets , which are expelled when an infected person talks , shouts , sings or just breathes .
A properly constructed and fitted mask can prevent the spread of those droplets and therefore the spread of the virus .
That is why surgeons have been routinely wearing medical-grade masks since the 1960s ( and many doctors and nurses wore cloth masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also why in many parts of Asia , people routinely wear masks in public .
A flimsy or poorly fitting face covering may not be much use , but—barring the risk of generating a false sense of security—it is unlikely to do harm .
So it stands to reason that , when in public , most people should wear masks .
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention summarizes : “ Masks are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air ... .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people confused ?
One reason is that we have been getting conflicting messages .
In April the World Health Organization told the general public not to mask , while the CDC told us we should .
In June the WHO adjusted its guidance to say that the general public should wear nonmedical masks where there was widespread community transmission and physical distancing was difficult .
Meanwhile CDC director Robert R. Redfield declared that “ cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government guidance around the globe varies from masks only for sick people to masks mandatory for all .
Why the contradictory messaging ?
In particular , why did the WHO say in April not to wear masks ?
At the time , there was a severe shortage of personal protective equipment ; the WHO evidently feared that ordinary people would rush out to buy masks , denying them to medical personnel .
According to one report , officials were also concerned that widespread masking would lead to a false sense of security , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as handwashing and self-isolation .
If the WHO had simply said this , there would have been a lot less confusion .
But apparently there was another problem .
At the time , no direct evidence existed regarding community spread of this particular virus , and most previous studies were done in clinical settings .
The WHO put it this way : “ There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask ( whether medical or other types ) by healthy persons in the wider community setting , including universal community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with respiratory viruses , including COVID-19.
” This is a common pattern in science : conflating the absence of evidence with evidence of absence .
It arises from the scientific norm of assuming a default hypothesis of no effect and placing burden of proof of those asserting an affirmative claim .
Usually this makes sense : we do not want to overturn established science on the basis of an assertion or speculation .
But when public health and safety are at stake , this standard becomes priggish .
If we have evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm—there is little excuse for not recommending it .
And when there is a mechanistic reason to think it might help , the lack of clinical trials should not be a barrier to acting on mechanistic knowledge .
One epidemiologist offered some common sense : “ Randomized trials do n't support a big effect of face masks , but there is the mechanistic plausibility for face masks to work ... .
So why not consider it ?
” In nearly all areas of science , our evidence is imperfect or incomplete , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what we know .

As a scientist and historian of science, I get asked a lot by friends and family to comment on scientific questions. Are vaccines safe? Is red meat bad for you? How much time do we have left to fix climate change? Many of these matters are not nearly as complicated as they have sometimes been made out to be. Vaccination is broadly safe for most people; eating large amounts of red meat is associated with higher rates of death from a number of cancers; and scientists think we have about a decade left to get greenhouse gas emissions under control and avoid the worst consequences.
Lately nearly all the questions involve COVID-19—particularly the matter of masks. The argument for wearing them is pretty straightforward: viruses are spread in droplets, which are expelled when an infected person talks, shouts, sings or just breathes. A properly constructed and fitted mask can prevent the spread of those droplets and therefore the spread of the virus. That is why surgeons have been routinely wearing medical-grade masks since the 1960s (and many doctors and nurses wore cloth masks long before then). It is also why in many parts of Asia, people routinely wear masks in public. A flimsy or poorly fitting face covering may not be much use, but—barring the risk of generating a false sense of security—it is unlikely to do harm. So it stands to reason that, when in public, most people should wear masks. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention summarizes: “Masks are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air.... This is called source control.”
So why are people confused? One reason is that we have been getting conflicting messages. In April the World Health Organization told the general public not to mask, while the CDC told us we should. In June the WHO adjusted its guidance to say that the general public should wear nonmedical masks where there was widespread community transmission and physical distancing was difficult. Meanwhile CDC director Robert R. Redfield declared that “cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus—particularly when used universally.” Today government guidance around the globe varies from masks only for sick people to masks mandatory for all.
Why the contradictory messaging? In particular, why did the WHO say in April not to wear masks? At the time, there was a severe shortage of personal protective equipment; the WHO evidently feared that ordinary people would rush out to buy masks, denying them to medical personnel. According to one report, officials were also concerned that widespread masking would lead to a false sense of security, leading people to ignore other safety measures, such as handwashing and self-isolation.
If the WHO had simply said this, there would have been a lot less confusion. But apparently there was another problem. At the time, no direct evidence existed regarding community spread of this particular virus, and most previous studies were done in clinical settings. The WHO put it this way: “There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
This is a common pattern in science: conflating the absence of evidence with evidence of absence. It arises from the scientific norm of assuming a default hypothesis of no effect and placing burden of proof of those asserting an affirmative claim. Usually this makes sense: we do not want to overturn established science on the basis of an assertion or speculation. But when public health and safety are at stake, this standard becomes priggish. If we have evidence that something may help—and is unlikely to do harm—there is little excuse for not recommending it. And when there is a mechanistic reason to think it might help, the lack of clinical trials should not be a barrier to acting on mechanistic knowledge. One epidemiologist offered some common sense: “Randomized trials don't support a big effect of face masks, but there is the mechanistic plausibility for face masks to work.... So why not consider it?”
In nearly all areas of science, our evidence is imperfect or incomplete, but this is no excuse not to act on what we know.


scientificamerican--2020-11-16--We Need More Scientists in the U.S. Diplomatic Corps

Ben Franklin might have been on the short list for a Nobel Prize if there had been such a thing during his lifetime .
The amazing breadth of his contributions stand out even today , ranging from his work on the science of electricity and the wave theory of light to demography , meteorology , physical oceanography and even behavioral science .
But Franklin was also the ambassador to France at a crucial time for the United States : his reputation as a scientist galvanized his popularity in Europe , which allowed him to secure France ’ s support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may seem like a footnote in the long tradition of our nation ’ s diplomatic corps , where expertise traditionally stems from studies of place , history and economics .
But Franklin ’ s example is a good reminder that we need scientists for today ’ s challenges in diplomacy and development , and not just because of their expertise ; we need them because their skills , networks and ways of thinking about problems all represent the best of what America can offer the world .
The prominence of American science , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stage is undisputed .
Over the past 75 years , our academic institutions , most innovative companies and public at large have all benefitted from sustained and directed investment by the federal government .
The vision of what the government could undertake , when the risks were too great for any other entity , was informed by a post–World War II mindset about the role of science in American life .
Since that time , taxpayer dollars have supported a broad portfolio of basic research that has undergirded long-term American prosperity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airplanes , to the internet , to genomics , weather satellites , vaccines and so much else .
Today the challenges to continuing this leadership are both internal and external .
While discretionary federal funding for basic science has flatlined for a generation , emerging challenges from outside our borders have become more complex , cutting across boundaries , and confronting us within .
Whether it ’ s pandemics , nonproliferation , energy , food security or the consequences of climate change , the challenges have become transboundary and increasingly transgenerational—and blind to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new , and potentially impact our foreign policy , national security and future economic growth .
Traditional diplomacy related to territory and place .
It was organized by sovereign nation-states with borders and limits that were clearly defined .
Those coming into the foreign service , especially in the U.S. , came from fields like history , economics and political science , forming the bread and butter of the foreign policy schools .
These backgrounds help with the standard set of diplomatic responsibilities for engaging with host country officials , but they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just listen to scientists .
Bringing scientists to the front lines of solving our most pressing , complex problems is a necessary step for diversifying and improving the composition of our foreign affairs and foreign assistance institutions .
The good news is that the U.S. has an untapped reservoir of talent with its next generation of scientific workforce .
America ’ s newest scientists have high-level technical expertise , creative problem-solving abilities and a facility with communicating complex ideas .
The best of the nation ’ s scientists have the soft skills and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for public diplomacy , and the U.S. will need diplomats with an abundance of these assets .
Moreover , the credibility of the next generation of American scientists will be invaluable on the world ’ s stage : even though global opinion of the U.S. has reached record lows , U.S. science and ingenuity are deeply respected even when the U.S. is not .
Even with a richness of talent , we still need more opportunities for integrating scientists on the front lines of U.S. embassies and missions abroad .
Programs such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout the State Department and USAID for pressing problems in diplomacy and development .
Scaling up this type of program would have a real impact on global diplomacy and development .
At USAID , the Partners for Enhanced Engagement for Research have built hundreds of collaborative research programs to date , in conjunction with American scientific agencies , aimed at building long-term engagements and connections across the global scientific community .
Science diplomacy works because science is a distributed , global enterprise with products that can be replicated and verified , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scaffolding for our official relationships to thrive by providing trust , transparency and engagement that are otherwise hard to achieve .
Many foreign scientists trained in the U.S. climb to leadership roles in their home countries .
Engaging over science can relieve underlying stresses that lead to unproductive behavior , form bridges over divisions in geography , religion , culture and language , and meet real needs for other countries—especially when emerging threats fail to respect political boundaries .
Finally , as global connections intertwine economies , science diplomacy can create avenues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own economic growth .
Science provides us a way forward through the global crises we are facing , and it also gives our country a way to put its best foot forward ; after all , many values that scientists share , such as respect for evidence , transparency and self-correction are also American values .
Given the protracted challenges on the horizon for U.S. foreign policy , the science community represents a vast , untapped asset that should be woven into discussion of who can be a diplomat .
Scientists themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; their patience for playing long games , their creativity , entrepreneurism and grasp of the complexity of the world are necessary attributes to advance the American experiment .
And as visible products of a long-term national investment , scientists should be among the many to meet the needs of the moment .

Benjamin Franklin might have been on the short list for a Nobel Prize if there had been such a thing during his lifetime. The amazing breadth of his contributions stands out even today: he worked in areas ranging from the science of electricity to the wave theory of light to demography, meteorology, physical oceanography and even behavioral science. Franklin was also the first U.S. ambassador to France. His reputation as a scientist galvanized his popularity in Europe and helped him secure France's support for the fledgling nation.
Franklin's example is a reminder that we need scientists for today's challenges in diplomacy and development and not just because of their expertise—we need them because their skills, networks and ways of thinking about problems represent the best of what America can offer the world.
Over the past 75 years our academic institutions, the majority of our most innovative companies and the public at large have benefited from sustained and directed investment in research by the federal government. The vision of what the government could undertake when the risks were too great for any other entity was informed by a post–World War II mindset about the role of science in American life. Since the 1940s taxpayer dollars have supported a broad portfolio of basic research that has undergirded long-term American prosperity and security, including faster and more efficient airplanes, the Internet, genomics, weather satellites, vaccines, and so much more.
As a result, the U.S. has an untapped reservoir of talent to bring to its international relations. America's scientists have high-level technical expertise and creative problem-solving abilities. The best of them have a facility for communicating complex ideas and social networks that are important for public diplomacy, and the U.S. will need diplomats with an abundance of these assets. Moreover, the credibility of the upcoming generation of American scientists will be invaluable on the world stage: even though international opinion of the country has reached record lows, U.S. science and ingenuity are still deeply respected.
Even with a richness of talent, we still need more opportunities to integrate scientists into the front lines of U.S. embassies and missions abroad. Programs such as the fellowships offered by the American Association for the Advancement of Science can place postdoctoral scientists throughout the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to address pressing problems in diplomacy and development. Scaling up this type of program would have a significant impact in these areas. At USAID, the Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research have built hundreds of collaborative programs to date, in conjunction with American scientific agencies, aimed at building long-term engagements and connections across the wider scientific community.
Science-focused diplomacy works because science is a distributed, global enterprise with products that can be replicated and verified and that can inspire. It can create the scaffolding that allows our official relationships to thrive by providing trust, transparency and engagement that would otherwise be hard to achieve. Many foreign scientists trained in the U.S. climb to leadership roles in their home countries. Engaging through science can form bridges over divisions in geography, religion, culture and language, and it can help other countries meet real needs—especially when emerging threats fail to respect political boundaries. Finally, as global connections make national economies increasingly intertwined, science diplomacy can create avenues that sustain competitiveness and promote economic growth in the U.S.
Given the protracted challenges on the horizon for U.S. foreign policy, science provides a path through the planetwide crises we are facing, and it also gives our country a way to put its best foot forward. After all, many of the values that scientists share are also historic American values.


scientificamerican--2020-11-16--Vision and Breathing May Be the Secrets to Surviving 2020

We are living through an inarguably challenging time .
The U.S. has been facing its highest daily COVID-19 case counts yet .
Uncertainty and division continue to dog the aftermath of the presidential election .
And we are heading into a long , cold winter , when socializing outdoors will be less of an option .
We are a nation and a world under stress .
But Andrew Huberman , a neuroscientist at Stanford University who studies the visual system , sees matters a bit differently .
Stress , he says , is not just about the content of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeing .
It is about how our eyes and breathing change in response to the world and the cascades of events that follow .
And both of these bodily processes also offer us easy and accessible releases from stress .
Huberman ’ s assertions are based on both established and emerging science .
He has spent the past 20 years unraveling the inner workings of the visual system .
In 2018 , for example , his lab reported its discovery of brain pathways connected with fear and paralysis that respond specifically to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing body of research makes the case that altering our breathing can alter our brain .
In 2017 Mark Krasnow of Stanford University , Jack Feldman of the University of California , Los Angeles , and their colleagues identified a tight link between neurons responsible for controlling breathing and the region of the brain responsible for arousal and panic .
This growing understanding of how vision and breathing directly affect the brain—rather than the more nebulous categories of the mind and feelings—can come in handy as we continue to face mounting challenges around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our own lives .
Scientific American spoke with Huberman about how it all works .
[ An edited transcript of the interview follows . ]
Stress is one position along the continuum of what we call autonomic arousal .
At one end of this continuum would be somebody in a coma .
At the very other end of that continuum is a full-blown panic attack : heart racing , pupils dilating , hyperventilating .
In between , we have lower levels of stress , [ and the states of being ] alert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Stress is generally a high level of autonomic arousal .
It was designed to be a generic response to mobilize the body .
Sometimes that ’ s well matched to the demands of life .
If you need to run and catch your train , you want all the things that go along with stress to go pursue that train .
But if the stress response is spontaneous or excessive , it can start to feel pathological .
What is stress ’ s relationship to vision ?
When you see something exciting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit card charge—heart rate increases ; breathing increases .
One of the most powerful changes is with vision .
The pupils dilate , and there ’ s a change in the position of the lens in the eye .
Your visual system goes into the equivalent of portrait mode on a smartphone .
Your field of vision narrows .
You see one thing in sharper relief , and everything else becomes blurry .
Your eyeballs rotate just slightly toward your nose , which sets your depth of field and focus on a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ancient mechanism by which stress controls the visual field .
How does this visual mode affect the body ?
This focal vision activates the sympathetic nervous system .
All the neurons from your neck to the top of your pelvis get activated at once and deploy a bunch of transmitters and chemicals that make you feel agitated and want to move .
Why is the visual field so connected to this brain state ?
Something that most people don ’ t appreciate is that the eyes are actually two pieces of brain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they are brain .
During development , the eyes are part of the embryonic forebrain .
Your eyes get extruded from the skull during the first trimester , and then they reconnect to the rest of the brain .
So they ’ re part of the central nervous system .
Having the eyes outside the skull orients the organism to the time of day .
But it also means that you ’ ve got two pieces of brain that can register events in the environment at a distance in order to adjust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the brain and body .
It would be terrible if we had to wait until things were in contact with us before we could prepare to react to them .
Is there a visual mode associated with calmness that can change our stress levels ?
Yes : panoramic vision , or optic flow .
When [ you ] look at a horizon or at a broad vista , you don ’ t look at one thing for very long .
If you keep your head still , you can dilate your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the periphery—above , below and to the sides of you .
That mode of vision releases a mechanism in the brain stem involved in vigilance and arousal .
One can actually turn off the stress response by changing the way that we are viewing our environment , regardless of what ’ s in that environment .
You are also researching breathing as a way to regulate autonomic arousal .
Yes .
Vision and breathing are , without question , the fastest and most obvious ways to control autonomic arousal .
The way we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongly .
Data show that during sleep and claustrophobic states , people and animals generate what are called “ physiological sighs , ” double inhales followed by exhales .
Children also do this when they are sobbing .
A physiological sigh , two or three times , is the fastest way that we are aware of to bring the level of autonomic arousal back down to baseline .
Why does this breathing pattern work to reduce stress ?
Our lungs consist of tons of tiny little sacs of air , millions of sacs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these little sacs collapse .
They deflate like a balloon .
Physiological sighs cause the sacs to reinflate .
Carbon dioxide is the trigger for breathing : We don ’ t breathe because we need oxygen .
We breathe because carbon dioxide levels get too high .
Physiological sighs offload the maximum amount of carbon dioxide .
How are you studying the link between breathing and stress ?
David Spiegel , associate chair of psychiatry at Stanford , and I are currently leading a study of breathing in which 125 participants have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sleep duration , heart rate variability and heart rate .
The participants are divided into four groups of different breathing modalities : meditation for five minutes a day ; repeated physiological sighs ; box breathing ( equal durations of inhale , hold , exhale , hold , repeated for five minutes ) ; and deliberate hyperventilation repeated a few times .
We want to see which patterns of breathing most rapidly reduce the stress response .
We ’ re analyzing the data now .
How are breathing and the brain connected ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the only organ in the body that is skeletal muscle designed for voluntary movement .
You can immediately take control of the diaphragm .
So breathing represents a bridge between the conscious and unconscious control of the body .
When you inhale , the diaphragm moves down , and the heart gets a little bigger because it has more space .
Blood flows a little more slowly through the heart under that condition .
So the heart then signals to the brain , and the brain says , “ Oh , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” So if you want to increase your heart rate , you inhale more than you exhale .
The opposite is also true .
Every time you exhale , you ’ re slowing down the heart rate .
So with vision and breathing , you are looking at physiological processes that are automatic but that we can also control .
Yes .
If I make you stressed , you ’ ll perspire .
But you wouldn ’ t say , “ I ’ m going to make myself sweat , and therefore I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t control your heart rate directly .
You can ’ t control your adrenals with your mind .
But you can control your diaphragm , which means you control your breathing , which means you control your heart rate , which means you control your alertness .
You can control your vision , which thereby controls your level of alertness , your level of stress and your level of calmness .
Vision and breathing are essential as levers or entry points to autonomic arousal because they are available for conscious control at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here .
And read coverage from our international network of magazines here .

We are living through an inarguably challenging time. Earlier this year the U.S. faced its highest daily COVID-19 case counts yet. Uncertainty and division continue to dog the aftermath of the presidential election. We are a nation and a world under stress.
But Andrew Huberman, a neuroscientist at Stanford University who studies the visual system, sees matters a bit differently. Stress, he says, is not just about the content of what we are reading or the images we are seeing. It is about how our eyes and breathing change in response to the world, as well as the cascades of events that follow. Both these bodily processes also offer us easy and accessible releases from stress.
Huberman’s assertions are based on both established and emerging science. He has spent the past 20 years unraveling the inner workings of the visual system. In 2018, for example, his laboratory reported its discovery of brain pathways connected with fear and paralysis that respond specifically to visual threats. And a small but growing body of research makes the case that altering our breathing can alter our brain. In 2017 Mark Krasnow of Stanford, Jack Feldman of the University of California, Los Angeles, and their colleagues identified a tight link between neurons responsible for controlling breathing and the region of the brain responsible for arousal and panic.
This growing understanding of how vision and breathing directly affect the brain—rather than the more nebulous categories of the mind and feelings—can come in handy as we continue to face mounting challenges around the globe, across the U.S. and in our own lives. Scientific American spoke with Huberman about how it all works.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
What is stress?
Stress is one position along the continuum of what we call autonomic arousal. At one end of this continuum would be somebody in a coma. At the very other end of that continuum is a full-blown panic attack: heart racing, pupils dilating, hyperventilating. In between we have lower levels of stress [and the states of being] alert and focused, sleepy and asleep. Stress is generally a high level of autonomic arousal. It was designed to be a generic response to mobilize the body.
Sometimes that’s well matched to the demands of life. If you need to run and catch your train, you want all the things that go along with stress to go pursue that train. But if the stress response is spontaneous or excessive, it can start to feel pathological.
What is stress’s relationship to vision?
When you see something exciting or stressful—a news headline, a fraudulent credit-card charge—heart rate increases; breathing increases. One of the most powerful changes is with vision. The pupils dilate, and there’s a change in the position of the lens in the eye. Your visual system goes into the equivalent of portrait mode on a smartphone. Your field of vision narrows. You see one thing in sharper relief, and everything else becomes blurry. Your eyeballs rotate just slightly toward your nose, which sets your depth of field and focus on a single location. This is a primitive and ancient mechanism by which stress controls the visual field.
How does this visual mode affect the body?
This focal vision activates the sympathetic nervous system. All the neurons from your neck to the top of your pelvis get activated at once and deploy a bunch of transmitters and chemicals that make you feel agitated and want to move.
Why is the visual field so connected to this brain state?
Something that most people don’t appreciate is that the eyes are actually two pieces of brain. They are not connected to the brain; they are brain. During development, the eyes are part of the embryonic forebrain. Your eyes get extruded from the skull during the first trimester, and then they reconnect to the rest of the brain. So they’re part of the central nervous system.
Having the eyes outside the skull orients the organism to the time of day. But it also means that you’ve got two pieces of brain that can register events in the environment at a distance in order to adjust the overall state of alertness in the rest of the brain and body. It would be terrible if we had to wait until things were in contact with us before we could prepare to react to them.
Is there a visual mode associated with calmness that can change our stress levels?
Yes: panoramic vision, or optic flow. When [you] look at a horizon or at a broad vista, you don’t look at one thing for very long. If you keep your head still, you can dilate your gaze so you can see far into the periphery—above, below and to the sides of you. That mode of vision releases a mechanism in the brain stem involved in vigilance and arousal.
We can actually turn off the stress response by changing the way that we are viewing our environment, regardless of what’s in that environment.
You are also researching breathing as a way to regulate autonomic arousal.
Yes. Vision and breathing are, without question, the fastest and most obvious ways to control autonomic arousal. The way we breathe impacts our states of stress very strongly.
Data show that during sleep and claustrophobic states, people and animals generate what are called physiological sighs—double inhalations followed by exhalations. Children also do this when they are sobbing. A physiological sigh, two or three times, is the fastest way that we are aware of to bring the level of autonomic arousal back down to baseline.
Why does this breathing pattern work to reduce stress?
Our lungs consist of tons of tiny little sacs of air—millions of sacs of air. As we get stressed, these little sacs collapse. They deflate like a balloon. Physiological sighs cause the sacs to reinflate. Carbon dioxide is the trigger for breathing: We don’t breathe because we need oxygen. We breathe because carbon dioxide levels get too high. Physiological sighs offload the maximum amount of carbon dioxide.
How are you studying the link between breathing and stress?
David Spiegel, associate chair of psychiatry at Stanford, and I are leading a study of breathing in which 125 participants have been wearing wrist monitors that measure breathing, sleep duration, heart rate variability and heart rate. The participants are divided into four groups of different breathing modalities: meditation for five minutes a day; repeated physiological sighs; box breathing (equal durations of “inhale, hold, exhale, hold,” repeated for five minutes); and deliberate hyperventilation repeated a few times. We want to see which patterns of breathing most rapidly reduce the stress response. We’re analyzing the data now.
How are breathing and the brain connected?
The relationship is anchored through the diaphragm, the only organ in the body that is skeletal muscle designed for voluntary movement. You can immediately take control of the diaphragm. So breathing represents a bridge between the conscious and unconscious control of the body.
When you inhale, the diaphragm moves down, and the heart gets a little bigger because it has more space. Blood flows a little more slowly through the heart under that condition. So the heart then signals to the brain, and the brain says, “Oh, we’d better speed up the heart.” So if you want to increase your heart rate, you inhale more than you exhale. The opposite is also true. Every time you exhale, you’re slowing down the heart rate.
So with vision and breathing, you are looking at physiological processes that are automatic but that we can also control.
Yes. If I make you stressed, you’ll perspire. But you wouldn’t say, “I’m going to make myself sweat, and therefore I’ll be stressed.” You can’t control your heart rate directly. You can’t control your adrenals with your mind. But you can control your diaphragm, which means you control your breathing, which means you control your heart rate, which means you control your alertness. You can control your vision, which thereby controls your level of alertness, your level of stress and your level of calmness.
Vision and breathing are essential as levers or entry points to autonomic arousal because they are available for conscious control at any point.


scientificamerican--2020-11-15--Virtual Reality and the COVID Mental Health Crisis

I am being challenged daily .
As a frontline doctor , I find that the COVID-19 pandemic has not only tested my clinical abilities but also strained my capacity to bear witness to grievous suffering .
This suffering extends well beyond the physical distress of hospitalized patients battling the virus .
The pandemic has also spawned a mental health crisis beyond anything I have seen in 25 years of caring for patients .
The statistics are overwhelming : CDC research indicates that 31 percent of Americans have reported anxiety and depression during the pandemic , and 11 percent have considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health clinicians existed before COVID-19 .
Now , health care organizations must decide how to rapidly scale and deploy behavioral health care to a geographically widespread and increasingly isolated populace .
There is no time to wait for expansion of the mental health workforce .
Doctors are now turning to an unlikely solution : virtual reality ( VR ) .
When most people think of VR , they think of a gaming technology—a toy for pent-up teens to play first-person shooter games in their parents ’ basement .
But for decades , scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the surprising health benefits of VR for ailments ranging from severe pain , to PTSD , to substance use , to existential anxiety .
Over 5,000 studies reveal that VR has an uncanny ability to diminish pain , steady nerves , and boost mental health—and best of all , it can be administered at home without a trained clinician .
VR works by creating a sense of psychological presence .
When VR scientists speak of presence , they mean the technology has a unique ability to convey a sense of just “ being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
It might be relaxing by the ocean or soaring in a hang glider or swimming with dolphins without leaving their couch .
VR can even cause people to think and feel like another person altogether .
For example , using a headset can enable people with depression to assume the body of Sigmund Freud and engage in self-counseling through his persona , allow people with eating disorders to experience life by way of a healthy avatar , and teleport people outside their own body so that they may gain new insights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of these cases , if the VR is any good , the user feels transported to a new virtual environment and temporarily accepts it as reality .
When used in the right way , at the right time and with the right patient , these virtual journeys can change mind and body for the better , all from the comfort of home .
Until recently , VR technology has been too expensive , unreliable and unwieldy for doctors to prescribe home-based virtual therapeutics .
Now that ’ s all changed , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the mental health crisis of COVID-19 .
In the past five years , multinational companies , including Facebook , Google , HP and others , have invested billions of dollars into developing and expanding the VR industry .
As a result , explosive advances have been made in delivering low-cost , portable and high-quality VR to the masses .
We have now reached an inflection point where the technology is cheap enough , its quality good enough and the science voluminous enough to think seriously about leveraging VR to improve mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lab at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles , and others like it , has been on a journey to study whether and how VR can improve mental health .
We created one of the largest medical VR programs in the world and have now treated several thousand patients with immersive therapeutics .
In my book , VRx , I reveal how our team is using VR in the emergency department for helping patients with panic attacks , treating women in labor who are seeking to avoid an epidural , and managing patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research on how VR can treat irritable bowel syndrome , support stroke rehabilitation , steady tremors , manage schizophrenia and engage patients with dementia .
But it was the COVID-19 pandemic more than anything that has pushed us to move VR outside the walls of the hospital and into the community .
Now , with the help of research funding from the National Institutes of Health , our team is shipping VR headsets directly to patients where they can receive mind-body treatments in vibrant , three-dimensional worlds—all in the privacy of their home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit .
Instead of prescribing another pill through a traditional in-person session , we might recommend a virtual beach vacation at home to ease aches and pains , or prescribe a course of cognitive behavioral therapy for people suffering from anxiety or depression .
In one program , called EaseVR , patients with chronic pain learn to control their mind and body through VR biofeedback therapy in a whimsical forest of glowing trees beside a shimmering lake .
As the patient breathes in and out in sync with beating drums , the microphone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses the input to drive a metaphorical visual narrative , allowing the user to breathe life into a dying tree or cause the sky to brighten a lustrous shade of blue .
Virtual trees expand and contract in rhythm with breathing , like a huge arboreal lung exchanging air in sync with the patients ’ body .
Evidence shows this type of therapy not only helps in the short term , but can also alleviate pain , anxiety and depression well after the immediate treatment is over .
VR does all this by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We can imagine being somewhere fantastical and healing .
We can practice being the person we want to become .
We can see ourselves from beyond and regard ourselves in a new light .
We can empathize with ourselves and with others .
We can confront our inner voice .
We can transform our minds drastically and immediately , and when effective , forge healthy cognitions that last long after the headsets are removed .
VR is not just for gamers anymore .
It is a new type of mental health treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are hard .

I am being challenged daily. As a frontline doctor, I find that the COVID-19 pandemic has not only tested my clinical abilities but also strained my capacity to bear witness to grievous suffering. This suffering extends well beyond the physical distress of hospitalized patients battling the virus. The pandemic has also spawned a mental health crisis beyond anything I have seen in 25 years of caring for patients. The statistics are overwhelming: CDC research indicates that 31 percent of Americans have reported anxiety and depression during the pandemic, and 11 percent have considered suicide. A national shortage in mental health clinicians existed before COVID-19. Now, health care organizations must decide how to rapidly scale and deploy behavioral health care to a geographically widespread and increasingly isolated populace. There is no time to wait for expansion of the mental health workforce.
Doctors are now turning to an unlikely solution: virtual reality (VR). When most people think of VR, they think of a gaming technology—a toy for pent-up teens to play first-person shooter games in their parents’ basement. But for decades, scientists around the world have been quietly discovering the surprising health benefits of VR for ailments ranging from severe pain, to PTSD, to substance use, to existential anxiety. Over 5,000 studies reveal that VR has an uncanny ability to diminish pain, steady nerves, and boost mental health—and best of all, it can be administered at home without a trained clinician.
VR works by creating a sense of psychological presence. When VR scientists speak of presence, they mean the technology has a unique ability to convey a sense of just “being there,” wherever there happens to be. It might be relaxing by the ocean or soaring in a hang glider or swimming with dolphins without leaving their couch. VR can even cause people to think and feel like another person altogether. For example, using a headset can enable people with depression to assume the body of Sigmund Freud and engage in self-counseling through his persona, allow people with eating disorders to experience life by way of a healthy avatar, and teleport people outside their own body so that they may gain new insights about the nature of dying. In all of these cases, if the VR is any good, the user feels transported to a new virtual environment and temporarily accepts it as reality. When used in the right way, at the right time and with the right patient, these virtual journeys can change mind and body for the better, all from the comfort of home.
Until recently, VR technology has been too expensive, unreliable and unwieldy for doctors to prescribe home-based virtual therapeutics. Now that’s all changed, and the timing couldn’t be better given the mental health crisis of COVID-19. In the past five years, multinational companies, including Facebook, Google, HP and others, have invested billions of dollars into developing and expanding the VR industry. As a result, explosive advances have been made in delivering low-cost, portable and high-quality VR to the masses. We have now reached an inflection point where the technology is cheap enough, its quality good enough and the science voluminous enough to think seriously about leveraging VR to improve mental health at scale with home-based treatments.
My lab at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and others like it, has been on a journey to study whether and how VR can improve mental health. We created one of the largest medical VR programs in the world and have now treated several thousand patients with immersive therapeutics. In my book, VRx, I reveal how our team is using VR in the emergency department for helping patients with panic attacks, treating women in labor who are seeking to avoid an epidural, and managing patients with painful injuries. I discuss the research on how VR can treat irritable bowel syndrome, support stroke rehabilitation, steady tremors, manage schizophrenia and engage patients with dementia.
But it was the COVID-19 pandemic more than anything that has pushed us to move VR outside the walls of the hospital and into the community. Now, with the help of research funding from the National Institutes of Health, our team is shipping VR headsets directly to patients where they can receive mind-body treatments in vibrant, three-dimensional worlds—all in the privacy of their home and without the need for a live visit. Instead of prescribing another pill through a traditional in-person session, we might recommend a virtual beach vacation at home to ease aches and pains, or prescribe a course of cognitive behavioral therapy for people suffering from anxiety or depression.
In one program, called EaseVR, patients with chronic pain learn to control their mind and body through VR biofeedback therapy in a whimsical forest of glowing trees beside a shimmering lake. As the patient breathes in and out in sync with beating drums, the microphone in the headset detects the respirations and uses the input to drive a metaphorical visual narrative, allowing the user to breathe life into a dying tree or cause the sky to brighten a lustrous shade of blue. Virtual trees expand and contract in rhythm with breathing, like a huge arboreal lung exchanging air in sync with the patients’ body. Evidence shows this type of therapy not only helps in the short term, but can also alleviate pain, anxiety and depression well after the immediate treatment is over.
VR does all this by radically changing our perspective of the world. We can imagine being somewhere fantastical and healing. We can practice being the person we want to become. We can see ourselves from beyond and regard ourselves in a new light. We can empathize with ourselves and with others. We can confront our inner voice. We can transform our minds drastically and immediately, and when effective, forge healthy cognitions that last long after the headsets are removed.
VR is not just for gamers anymore. It is a new type of mental health treatment that can make things easier when times are hard.


scientificamerican--2020-11-13--Coronavirus News Roundup: November 7-November 13

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter , “ Smart , useful , science stuff about COVID-19.
” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox , sign up here .
You probably heard about Pfizer and BioNTech 's announcement on Monday ( 11/9/20 ) that early results of their large-scale Phase 3 human study of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 show that it has a whopping 90 percent effectiveness .
The results have not yet been published or scrutinized by outside experts , but no one anticipated such a positive result and many scientists are excited ( although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , director of the University of Minnesota ’ s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy , in Matthew Herper ’ s 11/9/20 story at STAT ) .
In an 11/11/20 episode of health-care policy wonk Andy Slavitt ’ s “ In the Bubble ” podcast , cardiologist Dr. Eric Topol of Scripps Research Translational Institute said that the Pfizer/BioNTech announcement bodes well for Moderna 's vaccine candidate , which relies in similar genetic technology .
This approach involves injections of synthetic messenger-RNA ( mRNA ) that `` cause the body to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune system then recognizes the virus and learns to attack , ” Herper writes .
With such a high level of protection , herd immunity could be achieved more quickly than previously expected , Topol said .
Many reports forecast that doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine ( and possibly Moderna ’ s too ) could start to be administered to health care workers and people at very high-risk for severe COVID-19 , on an emergency authorization basis , before the end of the year , Topol said .
He also noted that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a newly discovered pathogenic virus to a vaccine against it within merely the space of one year .
This Twitter thread by Dr. Bob Wachter at the University of California , San Francisco , provides some accessible details of what the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine news means and what ’ s next , including the fact that the group likely won ’ t apply for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration until later this month , by which time more safety data is expected .
Here ’ s an excellent in-depth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and developments that led to genetic technology using mRNA .
The story focuses on the 2010 founding of Moderna by Harvard Medical School stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi , biomedical engineer and inventor Robert Langer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , venture capitalist Noubar Afeyan , and an unnamed Harvard researcher .
This technology is so new that any approval of an mRNA vaccine would be a first .
By Damian Garde at STAT and Jonathan Salesman at the Boston Globe ( 11/10/20 ) .
Findings published 11/5/20 in Nature on SARS-CoV-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that children are infectious for fewer days than adults are and that children clear the virus faster than adults do , reports Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times ( 11/5/20 ) .
Strangely , the reason seems to be that children ’ s immune response to the virus is more limited and weaker than adult ’ s response is .
“ A weaker immune response in children may paradoxically indicate that they vanquish the virus before it has a chance to wreak havoc on the body , ” Mandavilli writes .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronaviruses and children : Gina Kolata at The New York Times reports on a paper published 11/6/20 in Science finding that children are more likely to have antibodies to cold-causing coronaviruses than are adults , and some of these antibodies also protect against the new coronavirus ( SARS-CoV-2 ) .
Children ’ s propensity to come down with common colds may “ flood ” their systems “ almost continuously ” with antibodies to cold-causing coronaviruses , Kolata writes , leaving their immune systems with so-called memory cells that can easily mount attacks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as many colds ; and even when they do , they might lose this immune memory over time , says a Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital geneticist quoted in the story .
On top of that , the new coronavirus “ may interfere with the activation of the memory cells able to respond to the infection , ” the story states ( 11/10/20 ) .
Cellphone data in 10 U.S. cities this spring suggest that efforts to reduce the occupancy of indoor venues is effective at reducing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11/10/20 study in Nature covered by Benedict Carey at The New York Times on the same day .
“ Restaurants , gyms , cafes and other crowded indoor venues accounted for some 8 in 10 new infections in the early months ” of what is now a pandemic , Carey writes .
Restaurants were about four times riskier places to catch the virus than were gyms and cafes , Carey reports : The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has updated its SARS-CoV-2 guidance for the public to state that wearing a face mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , reports Maria Godoy at NPR ( 11/11/20 ) .
The change is based on recent studies , including one of 124 households in Beijing in which the risk of transmission dropped nearly 80 percent when everyone living together wore a face mask “ indoors as a precaution before they knew anyone who lived there was sick , ” as Godoy reported 6/21/20 .
In another study , infected passengers on a long airplane flight did not transmit the virus to other passengers “ when mask wearing was strictly enforced , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Using your mental health benefits : A hero ’ s journey , ” by Caitlin Kunkel and Erica Lies , for McSweeney ’ s .

The items below are highlights from the free newsletter, “Smart, useful, science stuff about COVID-19.” To receive newsletter issues daily in your inbox, sign up here.
You probably heard about Pfizer and BioNTech's announcement on Monday (11/9/20) that early results of their large-scale Phase 3 human study of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 show that it has a whopping 90 percent effectiveness. The results have not yet been published or scrutinized by outside experts, but no one anticipated such a positive result and many scientists are excited (although note cautious reaction of Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, in Matthew Herper’s 11/9/20 story at STAT).
In an 11/11/20 episode of health-care policy wonk Andy Slavitt’s “In the Bubble” podcast, cardiologist Dr. Eric Topol of Scripps Research Translational Institute said that the Pfizer/BioNTech announcement bodes well for Moderna's vaccine candidate, which relies in similar genetic technology. This approach involves injections of synthetic messenger-RNA (mRNA) that "cause the body to create a protein from the virus; the immune system then recognizes the virus and learns to attack,” Herper writes. With such a high level of protection, herd immunity could be achieved more quickly than previously expected, Topol said. Many reports forecast that doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (and possibly Moderna’s too) could start to be administered to health care workers and people at very high-risk for severe COVID-19, on an emergency authorization basis, before the end of the year, Topol said. He also noted that it’s remarkable to go from sequencing a newly discovered pathogenic virus to a vaccine against it within merely the space of one year.
This Twitter thread by Dr. Bob Wachter at the University of California, San Francisco, provides some accessible details of what the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine news means and what’s next, including the fact that the group likely won’t apply for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration until later this month, by which time more safety data is expected.
Here’s an excellent in-depth story on the sequence of recent discoveries and developments that led to genetic technology using mRNA. The story focuses on the 2010 founding of Moderna by Harvard Medical School stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi, biomedical engineer and inventor Robert Langer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, venture capitalist Noubar Afeyan, and an unnamed Harvard researcher. This technology is so new that any approval of an mRNA vaccine would be a first. By Damian Garde at STAT and Jonathan Salesman at the Boston Globe (11/10/20).
Findings published 11/5/20 in Nature on SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children and in adults suggest that children are infectious for fewer days than adults are and that children clear the virus faster than adults do, reports Apoorva Mandavilli at The New York Times (11/5/20). Strangely, the reason seems to be that children’s immune response to the virus is more limited and weaker than adult’s response is. “A weaker immune response in children may paradoxically indicate that they vanquish the virus before it has a chance to wreak havoc on the body,” Mandavilli writes.
And here’s another intriguing insight into coronaviruses and children: Gina Kolata at The New York Times reports on a paper published 11/6/20 in Science finding that children are more likely to have antibodies to cold-causing coronaviruses than are adults, and some of these antibodies also protect against the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Children’s propensity to come down with common colds may “flood” their systems “almost continuously” with antibodies to cold-causing coronaviruses, Kolata writes, leaving their immune systems with so-called memory cells that can easily mount attacks on re-infections. Adults don’t get as many colds; and even when they do, they might lose this immune memory over time, says a Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital geneticist quoted in the story. On top of that, the new coronavirus “may interfere with the activation of the memory cells able to respond to the infection,” the story states (11/10/20).
Cellphone data in 10 U.S. cities this spring suggest that efforts to reduce the occupancy of indoor venues is effective at reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, according to an 11/10/20 study in Nature covered by Benedict Carey at The New York Times on the same day. “Restaurants, gyms, cafes and other crowded indoor venues accounted for some 8 in 10 new infections in the early months” of what is now a pandemic, Carey writes. Restaurants were about four times riskier places to catch the virus than were gyms and cafes, Carey reports:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has updated its SARS-CoV-2 guidance for the public to state that wearing a face mask protects the wearer, not just other people, reports Maria Godoy at NPR (11/11/20). The change is based on recent studies, including one of 124 households in Beijing in which the risk of transmission dropped nearly 80 percent when everyone living together wore a face mask “indoors as a precaution before they knew anyone who lived there was sick,” as Godoy reported 6/21/20. In another study, infected passengers on a long airplane flight did not transmit the virus to other passengers “when mask wearing was strictly enforced,” Godoy reports.
You might enjoy, “Using your mental health benefits: A hero’s journey,” by Caitlin Kunkel and Erica Lies, for McSweeney’s.