Tag: Science and Technology

  • Richard L. Garwin, a Creator of the Hydrogen Bomb, Dies at 97

    Richard L. Garwin, a Creator of the Hydrogen Bomb, Dies at 97

    [ad_1]

    Richard L. Garwin, an architect of America’s hydrogen bomb, who shaped defense policies for postwar governments and laid the groundwork for insights into the structure of the universe as well as for computer marvels like touch-screen monitors, died on Tuesday at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. He was 97.

    His death was confirmed by his son Thomas.

    A polymathic physicist and geopolitical thinker, Dr. Garwin was only 23 when he built the world’s first fusion bomb. He later became a science adviser to many presidents, designed Pentagon weapons and satellite reconnaissance systems, argued for a Soviet-American balance of nuclear terror as the best bet for surviving the Cold War, and championed verifiable nuclear arms control agreements.

    While his mentor, the Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi, called him “the only true genius I have ever met,” Dr. Garwin was not the father of the hydrogen bomb. The Hungarian-born physicist Edward Teller and the Polish mathematician Stanislaw Ulam, who developed theories for a bomb, may have greater claims to that sobriquet.

    In 1951-52, however, Dr. Garwin, at the time an instructor at the University of Chicago and just a summer consultant at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, designed the actual bomb, using the Teller-Ulam ideas. An experimental device code-named Ivy Mike, it was shipped to the Western Pacific and tested on an atoll in the Marshall Islands.

    Intended only to prove the fusion concept, the device did not even resemble a bomb. It weighed 82 tons, was undeliverable by airplane and looked like a gigantic thermos bottle. Soviet scientists, who did not test a comparable device until 1955, derisively called it a thermonuclear installation.

    But at the Enewetak Atoll on Nov. 1, 1952, it spoke: An all-but-unimaginable fusion of atoms set off a vast, instant flash of blinding light, soundless to distant observers, and a fireball two miles wide with a force 700 times greater than the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Its mushroom cloud soared 25 miles and expanded to 100 miles across.

    Because secrecy shrouded the development of America’s thermonuclear weapons programs, Dr. Garwin’s role in creating the first hydrogen bomb was virtually unknown for decades outside a small circle of government defense and intelligence officials. It was Dr. Teller, whose name had long been associated with the bomb, who first publicly credited him.

    “The shot was fired almost precisely according to Garwin’s design,” Dr. Teller said in a 1981 statement that acknowledged the crucial role of the young prodigy. Still, that belated recognition got little notice, and Dr. Garwin long remained unknown publicly.

    Compared with later thermonuclear weapons, Dr. Garwin’s bomb was crude. Its raw power nonetheless recalled films of the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico in 1945, and the appalled reaction of its creator, J. Robert Oppenheimer, reflecting upon the sacred Hindu text of the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

    For Dr. Garwin, it was something less.

    “I never felt that building the hydrogen bomb was the most important thing in the world, or even in my life at the time,” he told Esquire magazine in 1984. Asked about any feelings of guilt, he said: “I think it would be a better world if the hydrogen bomb had never existed. But I knew the bombs would be used for deterrence.”

    Although the first hydrogen bomb was constructed to his specifications, Dr. Garwin was not even present to witness its detonation at Enewetak. “I’ve never seen a nuclear explosion,” he said in an interview for this obituary in 2018. “I didn’t want to take the time.”

    After his success on the hydrogen bomb project, Dr. Garwin said, he found himself at a crossroads in 1952. He could return to the University of Chicago, where he had earned his doctorate under Fermi and was now an assistant professor, with the promise of life at one of the nation’s most prestigious academic institutions.

    Or he could accept a far more flexible job at the International Business Machines Corporation. It offered a faculty appointment and use of the Thomas J. Watson Laboratory at Columbia University, with wide freedom to pursue his research interests. It would also let him continue to work as a government consultant at Los Alamos and in Washington.

    He chose the I.B.M. deal, and it lasted for four decades, until his retirement.

    For I.B.M., Dr. Garwin worked on an endless stream of pure and applied research projects that yielded an astonishing array of patents, scientific papers and technological advances in computers, communications and medicine. His work was crucial in developing magnetic resonance imaging, high-speed laser printers and later touch-screen monitors.

    A dedicated maverick, Dr. Garwin worked hard for decades to advance the hunt for gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein had predicted. In 2015, the costly detectors he backed were able to successfully observe the ripples, opening a new window on the universe.

    Meantime, Dr. Garwin continued to work for the government, consulting on national defense issues. As an expert on weapons of mass destruction, he helped select priority Soviet targets and led studies on land, sea and air warfare involving nuclear-armed submarines, military and civilian aircraft, and satellite reconnaissance and communication systems. Much of his work continued to be secret, and he remained largely unknown to the public.

    He became an adviser to such Presidents as Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He also became known as a voice against President Ronald Reagan’s proposals for a space-based missile system, popularly called Star Wars, to defend the nation against nuclear attack. It was never built.

    One of Dr. Garwin’s celebrated battles had nothing to do with national defense. In 1970, as a member of Nixon’s science advisory board, he ran afoul of the president’s support for development of the supersonic transport plane. He concluded that the SST would be expensive, noisy, bad for the environment and a commercial dud. Congress dropped its funding. Britain and France subsidized the development of their own SST, the Concorde, but Dr. Garwin’s predictions proved largely correct, and interest faded.

    A small, professorial man with thinning flyaway hair and a gentle voice more suited to college lectures than a congressional hot seat, Dr. Garwin became an almost legendary figure in the defense establishment, giving speeches, writing articles and testifying before lawmakers on what he called misguided Pentagon choices.

    Some of his feuds with the military were bitter and long-running. They included fights over the B-1 bomber, the Trident nuclear submarine and the MX missile system, a network of mobile, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles that were among the most lethal weapons in history. All eventually joined America’s vast arsenal.

    While Dr. Garwin was frustrated by such setbacks, he pressed ahead. His core message was that America should maintain a strategic balance of nuclear power with the Soviet Union. He opposed any weapon or policy that threatened to upset that balance, because, he said, it kept the Russians in check. He liked to say that Moscow was more interested in live Russians than dead Americans.

    Dr. Garwin supported reductions of nuclear arsenals, including the 1979 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II), negotiated by President Carter and Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet premier. But Dr. Garwin insisted that mutually assured destruction was the key to keeping the peace.

    In 2021, he joined 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, who signed an appeal asking President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to pledge that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. Their letter also called for an end to the American practice of giving the president sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons; a curb on that authority, they said, would be “an important safeguard against a possible future president who is unstable or who orders a reckless attack.”

    The ideas were politically delicate, and Mr. Biden made no such pledge.

    Dr. Garwin told Quest magazine in 1981, “The only thing nuclear weapons are good for, and have ever been good for, is massive destruction, and by that threat deterring nuclear attack: If you slap me, I’ll clobber you.”

    Richard Lawrence Garwin was born in Cleveland on April 19, 1928, the older of two sons of Robert and Leona (Schwartz) Garwin. His father was a teacher of electronics at a technical high school during the day and a projectionist in a movie theater at night. His mother was a legal secretary. At an early age, Richard, called Dick, showed remarkable intelligence and technical ability. By 5, he was repairing family appliances.

    He and his brother, Edward, attended public schools in Cleveland. Dick graduated at 16 from Cleveland Heights High School in 1944 and earned a bachelor’s degree in physics in 1947 from what is now Case Western Reserve University.

    In 1947, he married Lois Levy. She died in 2018. In addition to his son Thomas, he is survived by another son, Jeffrey; a daughter, Laura; five grandchildren; and one great-grandchild.

    Under Fermi’s tutelage at the University of Chicago, Dr. Garwin earned a master’s degree in 1948 and a doctorate in 1949, scoring the highest marks on doctoral exams ever recorded by the university. He then joined the faculty, but at Fermi’s urging spent his summers at the Los Alamos lab, where his H-bomb work unfolded.

    After retiring in 1993, Dr. Garwin chaired the State Department’s Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board until 2001. He served in 1998 on the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.

    Dr. Garwin’s home in Scarsdale is not far from his longtime base at the I.B.M. Watson Labs, which had moved in 1970 from Columbia University to Yorktown Heights, in Westchester County.

    He held faculty appointments at Harvard and Cornell as well as Columbia. He held 47 patents, wrote some 500 scientific research papers and wrote many books, including “Nuclear Weapons and World Politics” (1977, with David C. Gompert and Michael Mandelbaum), and “Megawatts and Megatons: A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age?” (2001, with Georges Charpak).

    He was the subject of a biography, “True Genius: The Life and Work of Richard Garwin, the Most Influential Scientist You’ve Never Heard Of” (2017), by Joel N. Shurkin.

    His many honors included the 2002 National Medal of Science, the nation’s highest award for science and engineering achievements, given by President George W. Bush, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award, bestowed by President Barack Obama in 2016.

    “Ever since he was a Cleveland kid tinkering with his father’s movie projectors, he’s never met a problem he didn’t want to solve,” Mr. Obama said in a lighthearted introduction at the White House. “Reconnaissance satellites, the M.R.I., GPS technology, the touch-screen — all bear his fingerprints. He even patented a mussel washer for shellfish — that I haven’t used. The other stuff I have.”

    William J. Broad and Ash Wu contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musk’s never been more powerful so why are Tesla shares tanking? | Automotive Industry News

    Musk’s never been more powerful so why are Tesla shares tanking? | Automotive Industry News

    [ad_1]

    The “bromance” between United States President Donald Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk was on full display on Tuesday when the White House South Lawn was transformed into a miniature Tesla showroom.

    Musk lined up Tesla cars to showcase the electric car producer’s latest innovations while Trump promised to brand anyone vandalising a Tesla car a “domestic terrorist” following reports of a spate of vandalism and arson attacks on Tesla cars across the country.

    Trump, known for his strong stance on domestic manufacturing and business leadership, has given Musk a prominent role in his new administration as leader of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which claims to have uncovered “billions and billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse” in the US federal government – claims for which Musk and Trump have yet to show significant evidence.

    Meanwhile, Tesla shares, which are listed on the NASDAQ, are floundering. On Monday this week, they plummeted by 15 percent to end the day at $215 – the worst day for the stock since 2020 and its lowest level since Trump won the presidential election in November. The shares bounced back a little after Tuesday’s presidential plug for Tesla cars to $231.83 in the morning, before levelling out at about $235 by the end of the day. On Friday, the shares were were due to open at around $240.

    Tesla stock has been in freefall since its heady highs of more than $435 in mid-December, 2024. So why is the car manufacturer doing so poorly when its owner appears to be flying high at the White House?

    How Tesla's shares are tanking
    (Al Jazeera)

    Why is Tesla’s share price falling?

    Despite performing well following the November presidential election in the US, Tesla’s stock was volatile during 2024 overall and has declined sharply since the start of this year. Robert Scott, a specialist in international economics and trade policy, said a fall in the share price was inevitable due to its “extreme overvaluation”.

    “Tesla’s stock was highly overvalued, with one of the highest price-to-earnings ratios ever recorded,” Scott told Al Jazeera. This means the price of the stock was very high compared with the profits the company was generating. “This indicates that the stock price was inflated relative to market fundamentals.”

    William Lee, chief economist at the Milken Institute, said the fall in the share price has come about as a result of delays to the launch of new Tesla products.

    “The new refresh for the Tesla Model Y continues to be delayed, and more importantly, no new models have been introduced,” Lee said.

    What has happened to sales of Tesla vehicles?

    There has been a marked decrease in sales in Europe and elsewhere. According to data from Business Insider, the business trade news outlet, in February, sales were 76 percent lower in Germany than they were the previous year even though overall sales of electric vehicles were 31 percent higher. Sales in Germany also fell in January following Musk’s endorsement of the far-right AfD party. In Norway, Denmark and Sweden, sales fell 40 percent year on year in February and dropped by 26 percent in France. The company has also been suffering from organised boycott campaigns in the United Kingdom and Portugal.

    Further east, Tesla sales plummeted by nearly 50 percent, year on year, in China in February and by a massive 71 percent in Australia.

    The main reason for these falls in sales is increased competition from traditional automakers as well as new, up-and-coming electric vehicle companies, particularly in China, where automaker BYD reported a 90 percent rise in sales in February.

    China is Tesla’s second-largest market but government policies there are increasingly favouring domestic manufacturers.

    Tesla has repeatedly cut vehicle prices in a bid to maintain demand in countries including the US and China. While this strategy has helped to boost short-term sales, experts say, it has also reduced overall earnings, raising concerns among investors about long-term profitability.

    According to Lee, another major issue weighing on investors’ minds is Tesla’s failure to deliver innovations in self-driving technology and other key areas such as robotics.

    “Investors are looking for progress on self-driving, which keeps getting put off, and other disappointments in robotics weigh on investor sentiment,” he said.

    Without new models or major technological advancements, Tesla is struggling to maintain its reputation as an industry leader, which has further contributed to its stock decline, he added.

    How will Musk be personally affected by all this?

    Elon Musk also owns several other companies and ventures across various industries, including X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, which he bought for $44bn in 2022.

    However, his personal wealth is closely tied to Tesla’s stock price.

    The acquisition of Twitter has become a financial burden, especially as advertisers pull back from it following Musk’s endorsement of various right-wing parties in Europe and his use of X to broadcast his pro-Trump stance. The billionaire was a major financial supporter of Trump’s presidential campaign last year, spending more than $250m while making personal appearances on Trump’s behalf.

    His political activities have caused anger among some in the US, culminating in protests and arson attacks at Tesla dealerships, factories and charging stations. There has been a spate of attacks on Tesla vehicles around Europe as well, including in Germany where many vehicles have had their tyres slashed.

    Musk’s activities at DOGE could make him a target for more ire, experts say.

    DOGE’s moves to scale back the federal government budget and cut thousands of jobs will likely “push the economy closer to a recession,” according to Scott. “A recession will hit highly leveraged stocks like Tesla particularly hard.”

    Musk’s political activities have prompted concerns among investors, too, Lee said.

    “Musk’s active participation in the US government is viewed as a distraction from his ability to drive his companies to produce the innovations that he has promised on time,” he said.

    How will Trump’s trade policies affect Tesla?

    While President Trump does not have a direct role in Tesla’s current struggles, his policies, ongoing economic decisions and perceived influence over Musk could have significant implications for the company, experts say.

    For instance, Trump has historically opposed subsidies for electric vehicle producers and emissions regulations which ultimately benefit companies like Tesla.

    Trump has also imposed sweeping tariffs on countries including China – which Tesla still heavily relies on for exports. The continuing trade war with China could disrupt Tesla’s supply chain and reduce its competitiveness in a crucial market.

    “Trump’s tariffs are causing other countries to impose countervailing tariffs on US exports. This will hurt Tesla sales abroad,” Scott said.

    Trump’s efforts to reverse clean energy policies from the Biden administration could also further weaken demand for electric vehicles, including Teslas, Scott added.

    What else is holding Tesla back?

    Beyond Tesla’s financial challenges, Musk’s expanding portfolio of businesses has raised concerns with investors about his ability to effectively lead the company.

    Scott also pointed to Musk’s involvement in Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency project, something he has no prior experience with before he first tweeted about it in 2020, triggering a 20 percent rise in the value of the cryptocoin created by software engineers in 2013. In April 2021, Musk tweeted about Dogecoin again, causing a 100 percent jump in its value. Then in December that year, Musk announced that he would accept Dogecoin as payment for Tesla merchandise. Since then, Musk has been facing a $258bn lawsuit filed in New York in 2022 alleging he artificially inflated the price of Dogecoin through his social media influence.

    “Musk’s increased demands on his attention, as he attempts to run both DOGE and his other businesses, means that some of them may suffer simply from lack of his attention,” Scott said.

    Musk’s increasingly right-wing political stance may also have affected Tesla’s brand perception. Many of the vehicle’s owners tend to be environmentally conscious consumers who support sustainable energy initiatives and are not natural Trump supporters, experts say.

    According to Lee, Musk appears to be making a deliberate choice to engage in US government affairs at the expense of Tesla’s performance.

    “While he is trying to be patriotic and do good for the country, his investors and companies are being sacrificed for the good of the future of the United States,” Lee said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Her Discovery Wasn’t Alien Life, but Science Has Never Been the Same

    Her Discovery Wasn’t Alien Life, but Science Has Never Been the Same

    [ad_1]

    With TV cameras pointed at her, Felisa Wolfe-Simon began speaking at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 2, 2010.

    “I’ve discovered — I’ve led a team that has discovered — something that I’ve been thinking about for many years,” Dr. Wolfe-Simon said. She was at that time a visiting researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey, speaking to a sizable audience of journalists and bloggers, two of them wearing tinfoil hats, and hordes of streamers online.

    Days before, NASA had teased “an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.” Speculation that NASA had discovered some kind of alien life bred exponentially across nascent social media platforms.

    Dr. Wolfe-Simon had, unfortunately, not found aliens, nor had she ever said she did. But she had found a terrestrial organism that was behaving unlike any life form known on Earth.

    The creature came from the mud of Mono Lake, a body of water near Yosemite National Park that is nearly three times as salty as the Pacific Ocean. The lake has the pH level of glass cleaner and, most importantly for her team’s discovery, is full of toxic arsenic.

    All known living things use six major chemical elements to keep their bodies churning. One is phosphorus. But from Mono Lake, Dr. Wolfe-Simon’s team said they had isolated an organism that could replace phosphorus with arsenic.

    “I’d like to introduce to you today the bacterium GFAJ-1,” she proclaimed. A picture of magnified black and white cylinders appeared on the screen.

    “We’ve cracked open the door to what’s possible for life elsewhere in the universe,” Dr. Wolfe-Simon said. “And that’s profound.”

    “It sounds to me like you’re going to need to go out and find a new textbook to teach all those students about what elements are used to build life,” said another panelist, Mary Voytek, director of NASA’s astrobiology program, a funder of the discovery.

    “I don’t know about a whole new textbook,” said James Elser, a professor at Arizona State University, also on the panel. “But certainly some paragraphs and sentences are going to have to be rewritten.”

    Dr. Wolfe-Simon piped in.

    “Give me some time, Jim,” she said. “I’m at the beginning of my career.”

    Dr. Wolfe-Simon did not change fundamental biology, but her announcement pointed to a change in how science would be conducted. Researchers trekked down from the ivory tower to have disputes and discussions in the digital open on blogs and in social media. Information flowed under the hashtag #arseniclife, shaking up traditional methods of evaluating truth and rigor in research.

    The saga highlighted the internet’s possibilities for open discourse and real-time peer review. But it also revealed the perils of the medium, as Dr. Wolfe-Simon faced sustained personal attacks. She hasn’t really been part of scientific society since.

    During those ensuing years, critics have persistently called for her paper’s retraction. And now, more than a decade later, that retraction is being pursued by the prominent journal that published her team’s work. They continue to defend the work’s integrity.

    At the same time, Dr. Wolfe-Simon is resurfacing with new experiments that ask fundamental questions about how, exactly, life works — and if the answers are different from what’s in today’s textbooks.


    Dr. Wolfe-Simon had been thinking for years about life that might substitute arsenic for phosphorus before she went out in search of it. In 2009, among limestone turrets and buzzing flies, she plunged clear plastic tubes into Mono’s mud, gathering samples.

    She eventually isolated GFAJ-1, which her 11 co-authors agreed could incorporate arsenic into the molecules that make up its biology — proteins, fats and nucleic acids, which include DNA.

    She and her team submitted their paper to Science, the journal that has published such major discoveries as a sequence of the human genome and evidence of ancient water on Mars.

    Editors then sent the manuscript out for peer review, in which outside experts evaluate and poke holes in a paper. The analysis that came back was positive, enthusiastic, as the science journalist Dan Vergano reported in USA Today after he received the records from NASA under a Freedom of Information Act request.

    NASA was also enthusiastic.

    “Back then, we used to have something called a murder board,” said Dr. Voytek, where people assessed the rigor of unpublished scientific results.

    At the #arseniclife murder board, the team decided to move forward, even though they were aware of some fuzziness in the results. “We understood that this wasn’t conclusive,” Dr. Voytek said. “We understood it was suggestive.” They thought the uncertainty might inspire future investigation.

    Soon after came NASA’s ET news release and the flashy news conference.

    Holden Thorp, the current editor in chief of Science said the journal’s editors weren’t aware of NASA’s framing. “The use of the word ‘extraterrestrial’ was not something we picked up until it had already gotten away from us,” he said.

    And get away it did.

    The hype around the paper soon made Dr. Wolfe-Simon, as we say today, the internet’s main character. After the announcement, she delivered a TED Talk, sat for an interview with the magazine Glamour and was one of the Time100.

    For a couple of days after the news conference, the response was positive. But then blogs run by scientific researchers called attention to methodological concerns with the work and brought doubt to the conclusions.

    There was too much contaminating phosphorus in the samples, some said. Other critiques noted that when the team put the bacterium’s DNA in water, the arsenic they said was present should, chemically, have fallen apart.

    In the past, such critiques would have appeared in journal papers published months later. Normally, says Gunver Lystbaek Vestergaard, a science journalist who studied the #arseniclife saga as a visiting scholar at Cornell University, the frank discussions leading to those articles would have happened behind closed doors.

    With #arseniclife, they propagated through blogs and Twitter, outpacing the usual speed of science. The public watched science play out as a process, complete with arguments and conflicting interpretations, rather than existing as a set of settled facts.

    Anyone could see scientists, from their personal accounts, questioning the quality of research published in one of the world’s most esteemed journals. The events pulled power from the scientific clergy and put it in the hands of congregants.

    And they were being taken seriously. One critic who poked holes in the finding on her blog later published a peer-reviewed response in Science.

    “We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Dr. Vestergaard, who studied #arseniclife for her forthcoming book “Our Living Universe.”

    Soon, prominent science journalists picked up on the controversy. News coverage shifted, highlighting the critiques of #arseniclife, and of Dr. Wolfe-Simon. Some science journalists did serious reporting on the controversy, but less rigorous write-ups followed. “There’s a lot of just copy-pasting and referencing each other’s work without doing any independent research,” Dr. Vestergaard said.

    “The whole media frame just changed over a day or two,” Dr. Vestergaard added.

    This upending of scientific evaluation hasn’t translated to large-scale changes in formal peer review, but it does endure online: For instance, in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists cached papers online and let the crowd do peer reviewing.

    That had cons — high-profile but incorrect results making headlines — and pros, like merging general and scientific audiences. The public got “access to research material of immense topical interest,” according to an analysis in The Lancet.

    But the traditional, private process had long made scientists feel safe, giving them an ability to shape narratives about emerging science. Once it was gone, so was the neat boundary. “The formal communication lines in science lost control,” said Linda Billings, a communications consultant who worked with NASA on the 2010 announcement. “And I don’t think they’ve properly regained that control.”

    Some experts say this was probably a good change: If public institutions — or scientists doing the work — could fully control a story, science could become propaganda. Journalists, other scientists and the public, they say, ought to be able to ingest and interpret results independently.

    But the #arseniclife team wasn’t ready to embrace that openness at that time. Dr. Wolfe-Simon’s adviser and co-author, Ron Oremland of the United States Geological Survey, told the group to respond to critiques in peer-reviewed journals, shutting down what many saw as productive, open debate.

    “This was not an effective strategy in this case given the ‘viral’ nature of the response,” said Thomas Kulp, another of the study’s authors and an Earth science professor at Binghamton University.

    The quiet didn’t sit well in the blogosphere, nor did Dr. Wolfe-Simon’s brief moment of scientific celebrity.

    Critique soon became attack, and attack often became personal — focusing, for instance, on Dr. Wolfe-Simon’s appearance, including her dyed hair.

    “It was this wave that happened every week,” she said of the negative publicity that resulted.

    “It was just awful,” she recalled. “It was really, really awful.”

    Dr. Thorp, who wasn’t editor in chief of Science at the time, said not enough had been done to defend Dr. Wolfe-Simon against online vitriol.

    “I think there’s probably more that Science could have done, by speaking out against that and by also moving more quickly and with greater transparency,” he said. Bruce Alberts, who led Science from 2008 to 2013, declined to comment.

    Although there were benefits to the open discussion, Ariel Anbar, a professor at the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and an author on the paper, said the outcome of the #arseniclife debate had also revealed the Internet’s drawbacks.

    “It’s a culture that moves fast but breaks people,” he said.


    Dr. Wolfe-Simon left Dr. Oremland’s lab soon after the paper was published. She briefly found a new base at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

    It was difficult that her co-workers knew her from the internet. And soon, Dr. Wolfe-Simon said, she couldn’t get grants or publish papers; she couldn’t adjust to the toxic waters. “I became radioactive,” she said.

    And so, after her time as main character was over, Dr. Wolfe-Simon pivoted: Trained as an oboist, she started a music performance master’s degree in 2013 while pregnant with the first of her two children.

    Music has been her steadying bass throughout her exile. She performs professionally and teaches part-time. Her basement, stuffed with sheet music, held a guest room for visiting musicians, a music studio and a station dedicated to handmaking oboe reeds, a woody collection tagged and organized just as lab equipment would be.

    She took jobs like organizing science seminars for Mills College in Oakland, helping biotech startups and working in bakeries. She referred to that as “industrial microbiology.”

    “When you do manual labor, people are less likely to look at you on the internet,” she said.

    Usually, professional consequences so severe are reserved for those who fabricate data or commit fraud, which no one has alleged with #arseniclife. Why, then, were the repercussions so resounding for Dr. Wolfe-Simon?

    Some said that being a woman in science, at an early stage of her career, had led to harsher treatment. As Dr. Wolfe-Simon describes it: “I’m little. I’m enthusiastic. I present my science as if I were a man.”

    She also defended the discovery against scientific consensus. Some see that as an unwillingness to change a conclusion in the face of new information. Dr. Wolfe-Simon would say that information is wrong.

    Adherence to contested conclusions has not been a disqualifier for others.

    In 1996, David McKay, a NASA scientist, and colleagues published a paper positing that features on a meteorite from Mars could be evidence of alien life, including fossils of microbes. The result led to an announcement by President Bill Clinton at the White House, followed by much controversy in the field of astrobiology. Dr. McKay’s career thrived thereafter, and the scientific arguments spurred the field of astrobiology forward.

    But the #arseniclife debate happened when the internet was much faster and more public. And with Dr. Wolfe-Simon serving as the face of the discovery — something she wanted — the consequences when that went poorly were high.

    “The internet never forgets,” Mr. Vergano said.


    To this day, Dr. Wolfe-Simon defends the work, noting that she wishes the team had saved less data for a second paper. The team published a response to critiques in Science, and Dr. Wolfe-Simon disputes failed replications of their findings. Other co-authors say they also stand by the integrity of the original work.

    But the editors of Science have signaled that they no longer support the research or its conclusions.

    “We feel the best thing to do would be to retract the paper,” Dr. Thorp said.

    The journal notified Dr. Wolfe-Simon and her co-authors about that feeling soon after a reporter with The New York Times requested an interview in late October. Discussions regarding a retraction are ongoing.

    Dr. Thorp says Science can’t justify the idea that #arseniclife is arsenic life, and he says that the original peer reviewers didn’t have the right expertise in biochemistry to evaluate the paper.

    “In 2012, it was much more common that papers would only be retracted if there was misconduct or if the authors requested it,” he said. A dozen years later, Dr. Thorp says norms have evolved, and journal editors can retract papers when they believe the findings are unreliable.

    Steve Benner of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution thinks the process initially functioned as it should have.

    “Science published several papers arguing interpretations different from what Felisa made,” he said. “The community now has the information needed to draw a conclusion.”


    The controversy is resurfacing as Dr. Wolfe-Simon is poking back into scientific civilization. She is interested in science that seeks patterns in nature. “‘What is life?” she said. “What is it made of? How does it work?” In 2024, she received funding through a NASA workshop for a project that questions assumptions about how living things produce energy.

    Dr. Wolfe-Simon is pursuing her ideas in lab space at a research facility in Oakland. On an October morning, streaky purple hair standing out, Dr. Wolfe-Simon showed her sample tubes, scrounged from surplus supplies, in drawers labeled with pink tape on which her name is written. A heart hovered over the “I” in “Felisa.”

    Dr. Wolfe-Simon is investigating magnetotactic bacteria — organisms that create magnetic crystals inside their bodies and respond to north-south pushes and pulls.

    “And you’re like, ‘Well, that’s an interesting party trick,’” she explained. “‘Why?’”

    The prevailing thinking is that magnetism helps the bugs navigate to areas with their preferred level of oxygen.

    Dr. Wolfe-Simon wonders if there is a different explanation.

    Perhaps, she said, they use a magnetic field to generate current, and use that current to generate energy. Right now, scientists know of two kinds of organisms: those that get energy from chemical reactions, and those that get it from light. If living beings could also keep themselves alive using magnetism, that would add new ideas about how life works.

    “Could this be something in plain sight?” she wondered.

    Dr. Wolfe-Simon grabbed a magnet and a sample of mud she pulled out of the Berkeley Marina and prepared a slide.

    Soon, through the eyepiece of a microscope, Dr. Wolfe-Simon could see tiny beings wiggling as they followed her magnet, as if on command. “They’re so cute,” she said.

    She’s excited to dip back in to science’s muddy waters. “I think that I have other contributions,” she said.

    And now, she said, she’s coming at the experiments from a different place: In 2010, she was trying to solidify and advance her place in the scientific world. “Today,” she said, “I have nothing to lose.”

    If she made an unconventional discovery about magnetic life, she wouldn’t pursue a flashy journal that would impose a heavy hand in publication and press, she said. She would aim for more independence and try to provide agar for others’ follow-up work.

    “I’m focused solely on doing good science for its own sake,” she said. “That freedom allows me to engage more directly with journalists and others without feeling constrained by the arbitrary rules and norms that failed me in the past.”

    She has faith in science as an endeavor, she said.

    Even when the structures upholding that endeavor — and the humans who built them — aren’t as ideal as they are in the pages of textbooks.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US proposes restrictions for investments in Chinese tech, AI | Trade War News

    US proposes restrictions for investments in Chinese tech, AI | Trade War News

    [ad_1]

    Draft rule would prohibit US investors from funding AI systems in China that could be used for weapons targeting, other military uses.

    The United States Department of the Treasury has fleshed out a proposed rule that would restrict and monitor US investments in China for artificial intelligence, computer chips and quantum computing.

    The fleshed-out draft rule, issued on Friday, stems from President Joe Biden’s August executive order regarding the access that “countries of concern” have to American dollars to fund advanced technologies that could enhance those nations’ military, intelligence, surveillance and cyber-capabilities. The order identified China, Hong Kong and Macau as countries of concern.

    The Biden administration has sought to stymie the development of technologies by China, the world’s second largest economy, that could give it a military edge or enable it to dominate emerging sectors such as electric vehicles (EVs).

    In addition to the proposed rule, Biden, a Democrat, has also placed a stiff tariff on Chinese EVs, an issue with political implications as Biden and his Republican presidential opponent Donald Trump are both trying to show voters who can best stand up to China, a geopolitical rival and major trading partner.

    The proposed rule outlines the required information that US citizens and permanent residents must provide when engaging in transactions in this area as well as what would be considered a violation of the restrictions.

    It specifically would prohibit American investors from funding AI systems in China that could be used for weapons targeting, combat and location tracking, among other military applications, according to a senior Treasury official who previewed the rule for reporters on the condition of anonymity.

    The US Treasury is seeking comment on the proposal through August 4 and after that is expected to issue a final rule.

    Biden administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, have insisted they have no interest in “decoupling” from China – however, tensions between the two nations have increased in recent years.

    After the US military in February 2023 shot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon off the US East Coast after it traversed sensitive military sites across North America, China threatened repercussions.

    Since then, incidents between the two nations based on national security concerns have regularly occurred.

    For instance, Biden in May issued an order blocking a Chinese-backed cryptocurrency mining firm from owning land near a Wyoming nuclear missile base, calling its proximity to the base a “national security risk”.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why does NASA want a time zone on the moon? | Space News

    Why does NASA want a time zone on the moon? | Space News

    [ad_1]

    NASA has been tasked with determining a standard time zone for the moon, but it’s more complicated than you might think.

    The United States government has tasked its space agency, NASA, with establishing a standard time zone for the moon, which will be known as Coordinated Lunar Time (CLT).

    In a memo issued on April 2, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) stated: “Federal agencies will develop celestial time standardisation with an initial focus on the lunar surface and missions operating in Cislunar space [the area within the moon’s orbit], with sufficient traceability to support missions to other celestial bodies.” “Traceability” means that CLT can be kept in sync with time zones on Earth.

    The memo outlined the following features for the new CLT:

    • Traceability to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC – a compromise for both English and French speakers);
    • Accuracy sufficient to support precision navigation and science;
    • Resilience to loss of contact with Earth (meaning CLT can operate independently of Earth); and
    • Scalability to space environments beyond the Earth-moon system (meaning other space stations beyond the moon would be able to use CLT as well).

    Don’t expect your favourite time zone and calendar apps to have CLT as an option yet; NASA has until the end of 2026 to establish CLT.

    Why does the moon need its own time zone?

    In layman’s terms, we need a reliable “lunar time” earth-syncing system because lower gravity on the moon causes time to move slightly faster there than on Earth – by just 58.7 microseconds (there are 1 million microseconds in a single second) faster within every 24 Earth hours.

    This is not science fiction, even though it is a main feature of Hollywood blockbusters such as Interstellar. Known as “gravitational time dilation”, the passage of time is impacted by gravity.

    Although small, these time discrepancies can cause issues with syncing satellites and space stations in lunar orbit.

    An unnamed OSTP official told Reuters: “Imagine if the world wasn’t syncing their clocks to the same time – how disruptive that might be and how challenging everyday things become.”

    How would we tell time on the moon?

    Earth uses UTC or Coordinated Universal Time to sync time zones around the world. UTC is determined by more than 400 atomic clocks that are maintained in national “time laboratories” in about 30 countries around the world. An atomic clock uses the vibrations of atoms to achieve extreme precision in keeping track of time.

    Similar atomic clocks would be placed on the moon to get an accurate time reading.

    Atomic clock
    The inner workings of a US atomic clock that keeps time with record-breaking accuracy [File: Nate Phillips/NIST]

    Known as Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT), this precision-timing system allows communications systems to measure and keep accurate timing. The Ordnance Survey, the British organisation that has been producing maps since 1791, explains that PNT has three core elements:

    • Positioning – the ability to precisely determine one’s location and orientation, predominantly two dimensionally on a printed map, although three-dimensional orientation can be determined when required.
    • Navigation – the ability to determine both the current and desired position (either relative or absolute), and apply corrections to course, orientation and speed to reach a desired position from anywhere in the world, from sub-surface (below the Earth’s surface) to surface, and from surface to space.
    • Timing – the ability to maintain accurate and precise time from anywhere in the world.

    Does NASA have plans for time zones in other parts of outer space?

    Although there has been no mention of time zones on other planets, in 2019, NASA’s Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC) mission tested an atomic clock to improve spacecraft navigation in deep space. The DSAC mission, on SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, was launched on June 22, 2019. The rocket tested the atomic clock in Earth’s orbit for one year.

    Typically, spacecraft keep accurate time by bouncing signals to atomic clocks on Earth and then the signal is sent back to the spacecraft. In this mission, the on-board atomic clock was tested to keep precise time without relying on this two-way communication between the spacecraft and the atomic clocks on Earth. The accuracy of the timing is tied to getting accurate positioning, while helping the spacecraft reach the intended location in space successfully.

    As NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the centre for robotic exploration of the solar system, explains: “A two-way system that sends a signal from Earth to a spacecraft, back to Earth and then to the spacecraft again would take an average of 40 minutes. Imagine if the GPS on your phone took 40 minutes to calculate your position. You might miss your turn or be several exits down the highway before it caught up with you. If humans travel to the Red Planet [Mars], it would be better if the system was one-way, allowing the explorers to immediately determine their current position rather than waiting for that information to come back from Earth.”

    The mission successfully ended in 2021, with the on-board atomic clock maintaining the correct timing and navigational positioning.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Are Chinese electric vehicles taking over the world? | Explainer News

    Are Chinese electric vehicles taking over the world? | Explainer News

    [ad_1]

    Western car makers, already bruised by the scramble among themselves for a share of the electric vehicle (EV) market, are facing a much more fearsome foe – China and its aggressive investment into the sector.

    Tesla, perhaps the best-known of the EV manufacturers in Western markets, saw first-quarter sales down by 20 percent this year, compared with the same period in 2023, and its share price has slumped by more than 25 percent since the beginning of this year.

    According to experts, this is at least partially due to the emergence of a much more competitive landscape, with Xiaomi, originally a smartphone manufacturer which is has its headquarters in Beijing, launching its first EV – the SU7 – just a few weeks ago.

    Xiaomi SU7
    Consumers view Xiaomi’s new SU7 at the Xiaomi Electric Vehicle Flagship Store on April 2, 2024, in Beijing, China [VCG/VCG via Getty Images]

    The competition from Chinese manufacturers has forced Western EV makers to sit up and take notice.

    On a call with analysts in January this year, Tesla boss Elon Musk stated: “Our observation is, generally, that the Chinese car companies are the most competitive car companies in the world.”

    “I think they will have significant success outside of China,” he added.

    This was quite a change in tone from 2011 when he was asked about competition from BYD (Build Your Dream), China’s largest EV car manufacturer, on Bloomberg TV, and laughed in response. When asked by former Bloomberg anchor Betty Liu, “Why do you laugh?”, Musk mockingly replied: “Have you seen their cars? You don’t see them at all as a competitor. I don’t think they have a great product.”

    Chinese EVs already make up 60 percent of worldwide sales, according to International Energy Agency, a Paris-based energy consultant. Tesla and BYD have been battling it out for market share for the last couple of years.

    According to market research firm TrendForce’s February 2024 report, Chinese manufacturers already hold three of the top five spots for global market share – with BYD at 17 percent, GAC Aion at 5.2 percent and SAIC-GM-Wuling at 4.9 percent. Tesla is clinging on to the top spot with a market share of 19.9 percent while German manufacturer Volkswagen is in the fifth spot with a market share of 4.6 percent. By comparison, Chinese manufacturers were responsible for just 0.1 percent of global EV sales in 2012 – just 12 years ago.

    How do Chinese EVs compare in terms of safety?

    According to 12365Auto, a Chinese website that monitors car quality using a system which counts the number of faults per 10,000 vehicles sold to quantify customer satisfaction, Tesla cars remain at the top and third spots (for different models of car) for the least amount of faults. However, the percentage difference in faults between Tesla and other Chinese EVs is marginal.

    Are Chinese EVs much cheaper than Tesla et al?

    Currently, some Chinese EV models are available to car consumers in Europe but not in the United States. The nearest country to the US where Chinese EVs are sold is Mexico – and they are somewhat cheaper.

    The Dolphin Mini from Chinese manufacturer BYD costs $21,000 to buy in Mexico. The cheapest US equivalent, by comparison, would be the Nissan Leaf at $29,000 or the Chevrolet Bolt at about $27,000. In China, however, the Dolphin Mini costs just 69,800 yuan ($9,640) because of the competition from other Chinese manufacturers.

    The price of a BYD Yuan Plus (sold as the Atto 3 outside of China), starts at 119,800 yuan ($16,550) both inside and outside China. While it can’t match those prices, Tesla is already pricing itself to compete with Chinese cars within China. Tesla’s Model Y, for example, starts at 258,900 yuan ($35,766) in China. In the US, it goes for $44,990.

    The Xoaimi SU7 costs 215,900 yuan ($29,825) to buy in China – it is not yet available to buy outside the country. Tesla’s Model 3, by comparison, starts at $38,990 in the US.

    Tesla 3
    The Upgraded Tesla Model 3 on sale on October 12, 2023, in Hong Kong, China [Vernon Yuen/NurPhoto via Getty Images]

    Why are Chinese EVs so competitive?

    The Chinese government heavily subsidises its EV sector, including offering large tax breaks for both consumers and manufacturers.

    According to Adamas Intelligence, a Canadian independent research and advisory firm: “From 2024, Chinese buyers would not have to pay tax on a full electric vehicle that has a driving range of at least 200km (124 miles) per charge.”

    In June last year, China introduced a 520 billion yuan ($71.8bn) package of sales tax breaks, to be rolled out over four years. Sales tax will be exempted for EVS up to a maximum of 30,000 yuan ($4,144) this year with a maximum tax exemption of 15,000 yuan ($2,072) in 2026 and 2027.

    According to the Kiel Institute, a German think tank that offers consultation to China, the Chinese government has also granted subsidies to BYD worth at least $3.7bn to give the company, which recently reported a 42 percent decrease in EV deliveries compared with the fourth quarter of 2023, a much-needed boost.

    Chinese EVs also tend to be cheaper than Western-made cars partly because much of the manufacturing process involved in producing car batteries is carried out by Chinese companies. Although the largest cobalt mine is in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Africa, Chinese companies process the cobalt in those mines. In addition, China owns the third largest lithium mine in the world – in Yajiang, Southwest China’s Sichuan province. Both lithium and cobalt are essential raw materials needed to make the batteries that power EVs.

    BYD
    (L-R) A Han EV electric sedan, a Dolphin all-electric subcompact hatchback, a Yuan Plus all-electric small SUV, a Song Plus DM-i SUV and a Destroyer 05 compact sedan are on display at BYD’s new manufacturing base on June 30, 2022, in Changfeng County, Hefei City, Anhui province of China [VCG via Getty Images]

    How are Western countries facing down the competition?

    Western car manufacturers also receive some tax breaks from their governments for producing EVs.

    The US Inflation Reduction Act, for example, which was signed into law in 2022, allows consumers to receive tax credits against purchases of new and used EVs, ranging from $3,750 to $7,500.

    These tax credits are almost double and triple what is available to Chinese consumers but strict guidelines issued by the US Department of the Treasury in January of this year decreased the number of available EVs which qualify for these tax credits from 43 to just 19 vehicles manufactured by Ford, Telsa, GM, Hyundai, Kia, Volkswagen and Chrysler (with limitations to certain models).

    The US government is also considering more extreme measures to blunt the momentum of Chinese EVs encroaching on the US car market, however.

    In a bid to protect the US auto market, President Joe Biden’s administration is under pressure to increase import tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. In a letter to the administration, Senators Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, stated: “Allowing heavily subsidised Chinese vehicles to enter the US marketplace would endanger American automotive manufacturing.”

    During Donald Trump’s presidency, his administration slapped an additional 25 percent tariff on Chinese cars. The US already applies a 2.5 percent “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) levy to all car imports. This would bring the total tariff to 27.5 percent for Chinese cars. In a March 2024 rally in Dayton, Ohio, former president and Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump threatened even higher tariffs for Chinese cars being manufactured in Mexico.

    “Those big monster car manufacturing plants you are building in Mexico right now and you think you are going to get that – not hire Americans and you’re going to sell the car to us, no,” Trump continued. “We are going to put a 100 percent tariff on every car that comes across the lot.”

    The European Union levies a 10 percent tariff on all imported cars. This could open the door for more Chinese EVs in Europe because the current tariffs are lower than US tariffs.

    However, during a roundtable meeting with Chinese companies in Paris last week, the European Commission raised the question of whether China’s EV market unfairly benefits from subsidies amid discussion about whether the EU should impose new tariffs on car manufacturers, including car manufacturers from China.

    China’s Commerce Minister Wang Wentao rejected the notion that Chinese subsidies were unfair: “China’s electric vehicle companies rely on continuous technological innovation, perfect production and supply chain system and full market competition for rapid development, not relying on subsidies to gain competitive advantage.”

    Are there security concerns about Chinese technology?

    Last month, the US Department of Commerce said it is considering a probe into whether Chinese cars pose a national security risk.

    In February, President Biden said in a statement addressing national security risks to the US auto industry: “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security.”

    He added: “Connected vehicles from China could collect sensitive data about our citizens and our infrastructure and send this data back to the People’s Republic of China. These vehicles could be remotely accessed or disabled. China imposes restrictions on American autos and other foreign autos operating in China.”

    What does the future hold for EVs?

    US EVs are not just facing competition from Chinese manufacturers. Costs still pose an obstacle to the wider adoption of EVs by consumers and petrol cars are still cheaper.

    However, the raw materials to produce electric car batteries, such as nickel, lithium and cobalt, are becoming cheaper to mine. According to a March report from Goldman Sachs titled Electric Vehicles: What’s Next VII: Confronting Greenflation, the cost of battery packs account for 30 percent of total EV manufacturing costs. “We estimate that reductions in battery costs will bring this proportion down to a steady 15-20% percent during 2030-2040,” the report said.

    Growth in the EV market is not just limited to the US, Europe and China. India has seen substantial growth in its EV market. According to the Federation of Automobile Dealers Associations (FADA), which is based in Delhi, between April 2023 and March 2024, the Indian EV car market saw a 91 percent year-over-year increase in car sales to 1.5 million last year. By comparison, the US sold 1.8 million and China sold eight million. Furthermore, Indian-made EVs are being exported. Stellantis, formed by a merger between Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and French PSA Group, recently launched EV exports from India under the Citroen brand. This week, the first 500 Citroen e-C3 models, which were manufactured in India, were shipped to Indonesia.

    EVs are expected to rise in popularity. Research shows they are more environmentally friendly than their petrol counterparts, making these vehicles increasingly attractive to consumers. In a guide to electric vehicles, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states: “Some studies have shown that making a typical electric vehicle (EV) can create more carbon pollution than making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with manufacturing, charging and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs associated with a gasoline car.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Are snakebites rising in South Asia — and what’s responsible? | Health News

    Are snakebites rising in South Asia — and what’s responsible? | Health News

    [ad_1]

    In 1950, Roald Dahl wrote a short story titled Poison. The tale, set in colonial India and often found in deckle-edged children’s anthologies, tells a riveting story about racism.

    In the story, a striped snake called a common krait slithers on the stomach of one of the main characters. The journey to save the character from the krait’s bite brings the plot to a panicky crescendo, to reveal that the poison was racism all along.

    The krait possibly worked as an excellent metaphor because the fear of poisonous snakes is very real and pervasive in India, among other South Asian countries including Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

    Hence, snakes have slithered their way into folklore, pop culture and media, but incidents of venomous bites may also be rising.

    The World Health Organization estimates that 5.4 million people worldwide are bitten by snakes each year – half of those by venomous snakes, causing 100,000 deaths.

    Snakebites in South Asia contribute to almost 70 percent of these deaths. Research from India alone indicates that 58,000 deaths result from about one million cases of snakebite envenoming there each year, the WHO said. Worryingly, this is likely to rise. A 2018 study from the University of Kelaniya in Sri Lanka also concluded that climate change is likely to increase the number of snakebites.

    The WHO announced last year that it is stepping up its work to prevent snakebites in South Asia, which it describes as a “biodiversity hotspot for venomous snakes, and is also home to some of the world’s most densely packed agrarian communities”.

    Where do snakebites occur most frequently in South Asia?

    Data about snakebites in South Asia is patchy, a fact which prompted the WHO to add snakebite poisoning to its list of neglected tropical diseases in June 2017.

    No official data has been available from Pakistan since 2007, when 40,000 snakebites occurred, killing 8,200 people, according to the WHO.

    Nepal’s official Ministry of Health and Population does not have official data for snakebite deaths, either. However, a study carried out by doctors in Nepal showed that 40,000 people are bitten by snakes every year there, too, of whom about 3,000 die.

    The WHO estimated that 33,000 snakebites in Sri Lanka between 2012 and 2013 had resulted in 400 deaths.

    It is thought that these numbers are severely underreported, however, due to the lack of research into snakebites in South Asia. “Because they’re underreported, it’s thought to be maybe not as large of an issue,” said Rmaah Memon, a resident physician at Harvard Affiliated Emergency Medicine Residency at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

    Furthermore, as the study from the University of Kelaniya suggests, snakebites in Sri Lanka may already be increasing. That study carried out climate change projections and estimated that the annual snakebite burden could increase by 31.3 percent over the next 25 to 50 years.

    Common Krait
    The common krait, one of the ‘big four’ snakes in India [Shutterstock]

    Which snakes are the most common?

    Common species of snakes found in Pakistan and India include the big four: the common krait, Russell’s viper, saw-scaled viper and the Indian viper (naja naja).

    Other species include the king cobra, which averages 3-3.6 metres in length but can grow as large as 5.4 metres. It is found in northern India and also in Nepal alongside the banded and common kraits, green pit vipers, checkered keelbacks and the Nepal kukri snake.

    In Sri Lanka, species of Russell’s viper and the common krait are found, as well as the Indian python.

    King Cobra
    The king cobra can be found in northern India and Nepal [Shutterstock]

    How dangerous are snakebites?

    Of the 5.4 million snakebites which occur each year, 1.8 to 2.7 million result in “envenoming”. Envenoming is when the poison from a snakebite results in a possibly life-threatening disease.

    “Snake venom can kill the victim from a few minutes up to two to three hours if not treated in time,” said Sadanand Raut, a doctor who, along with his wife Pallavi Raut, has made it his mission to prevent snakebite deaths entirely in the Narayangaon region of India’s Maharashtra state. Raut is also a member of the WHO roster of experts for snakebite envenoming.

    Raut explained that the type of snake venom depends on the species of snake. He said that Indian cobras have very quick-acting neurotoxic venom, which means it has a paralysing effect that can cause symptoms minutes after the bite.

    While krait bites inject the same type of venom, it may take longer – four to six hours after the bite – for symptoms to show. Krait bites might not hurt initially, but cause issues such as an inability to open the eyes, difficulty in breathing and cardiac problems when left untreated, Raut added.

    Other snakes such as Russell’s vipers and saw-scaled vipers release vasculotoxic venom. These snakebites are very painful and result in necrosis, which means death of the body tissue. Raut explained that vasculotoxic venom can result in the thinning of the blood and can even lead to kidney failure. The symptoms can begin to show within minutes of the bite.

    Russel's Viper
    The Russell’s viper releases a vasculotoxic venom which can result in necrosis – the death of body tissue [Shutterstock]

    What happens when a snake bites you?

    The effects of a poisonous snakebite can be terrifying, according to those who have survived.

    Kabiraj Kharel was about 18 years old when a krait bit his right hand. Kharel, now 50, whose family are farmers, had been removing ears from a batch of corn at his home in Sagarnath, Nepal, close to the Indian border, when he noticed the bite.

    Kharel recalled feeling terrified. “I thought I was going to die,” he told Al Jazeera. He rushed to get medical help.

    The nearest hospital was 25km (15.5 miles) from his house. Kharel said that he was aware of his surroundings for the first 20km, then his eyes and tongue began to tingle and go numb. After that, he lost consciousness.

    Venomous snakebites can cause difficulty in breathing, an inability to open the eyes and cardiac problems. Symptoms can be felt quicker with some types of snakes – for example, Indian cobras – than others such as kraits.

    If a venomous snakebite is left untreated or is treated too late, it can result in paralysis, breathing difficulties, bleeding disorders and kidney failure. Sometimes, the tissue damage can be bad enough to merit the amputation of a limb, resulting in permanent disability. Snakebites that are left untreated or are treated too late can prove fatal as well.

    Kharel regained consciousness after being given doses of antivenom at the hospital. He woke up disoriented. “I thought to myself, ‘Where am I?’”

    Jignasu Dolia, a wildlife biologist and conservationist in northern India’s Uttarakhand area, who carries out conservation-based research on king cobras, explained that not all snakebites result in envenoming, in fact about half of king cobra bites are “dry bites”, which means the snake does not inject any venom or may only inject small, non-lethal quantities.

    However, all snakebites should be considered venomous until proven otherwise and victims should be taken immediately to a hospital emergency room.

    Anti venom
    A snake is ‘milked’ for its venom [Shutterstock]

    How does antivenom work?

    Dolia explained that antivenom is produced by “milking” venom out of snakes, injecting a small amount into an animal, usually horses, and harvesting the antibodies produced to refine them into the antidote.

    Pakistan has, in the past imported antivenom from India, said Memon.

    Memon said that the antivenom does not work as well on snakebites in Pakistan, even for the same species of snake, due to slight variations in geography and diet.

    Can people easily access antivenom?

    Awareness is a serious issue. Memon cited a 2000 study which showed that 44.5 percent of people interviewed in rural Sindh were unaware that antivenom even existed.

    In rural Pakistan and India, in particular, there is often a significant time delay between snakebites and treatment for victims.

    Memon added that people in rural Pakistan and India sometimes delay going to hospital because they prefer to visit local natural healers instead. While natural healers are important figures in local communities, they do not have access to the necessary antivenom.

    This also results in the underreporting of snakebite cases. “Because they’re underreported, it’s thought to be maybe not as large of an issue,” said Memon.

    She added that antivenom production across South Asia needs to be improved. In Pakistan, only one authorised site of antivenom production exists – Islamabad’s National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Antivenom is very expensive, so making it more affordable would also be a step in the right direction, she said. Most antivenom also needs to be refrigerated, which can be a problem in Pakistan where there are electricity outages, especially during the monsoon season. “Creating a kind of composition of antivenom that does not need refrigeration would be ideal.”

    How is climate change affecting snakebites?

    Climate change is another major issue. Research by Emory University, published in July 2023, showed a considerable increase in the likelihood of being bitten by a snake for every degree Celsius that daily temperatures increase.

    There are many different species of snake and optimal living conditions vary for each, which is why it is hard to predict or even generalise about the effect of global warming on snakes generally.

    Rising temperatures, however, are known to make habitats for some species of snake unsuitable for them. Conditions can become too dry for snakes to thrive, explained Michael Starkey, conservation biologist and founder of Save the Snakes, a California-based organisation dedicated to conserving snakes and mitigating human-snake conflict.

    This can cause snakes to move to areas where conditions are better – often areas where humans are living, thus increasing the likelihood of humans and snakes interacting.

    Indian Common Krait
    Human encroachment into the natural habitat of snakes has caused a rising incidence of snakebites [Shutterstock]

    Some snakes may adapt to changing weather conditions while others may run out of suitable habitats altogether, eventually going extinct.

    A rise in temperature is not the only climate change effect that could be causing an increase in human-snake interactions, resulting in more snakebites.

    Following record-breaking rain in Pakistan in 2022, for example, Save the Children released a report stating that 54 percent of flood-affected families in Pakistan were sleeping outside in tents or makeshift shelters.

    The report added that children sleeping without adequate shelter faced an increased risk of dangerous snakebites since stagnant water attracts venomous snakes.

    Since climate-induced habitat loss is causing snakes to migrate, “believe it or not, they’re stressed out”, said Starkey. This may possibly explain more erratic behaviour that would lead to a higher number of venomous snakebites.

    Starkey added that snakes are also losing their habitats to the construction of urban infrastructure which encroaches on their territory.

    All of these things are a threat to snakes’ existence.

    Why do we need snakes?

    Experts say that it is essential for humans to learn to coexist with wildlife better, including with snakes, for their own benefit.

    Snakes can actually be very helpful to humans. They typically eat rats and rodents and also serve as prey for hawks, owls and larger snakes. If snakes die out, the food chain and ecosystem will fall out of balance.

    “They’re a pest control service and help with our ecosystems,” explained Starkey.

    Globally, rodents destroy 20 to 30 percent of crops each year, according to the International Rice Research Institute, which says it is dedicated to abolishing poverty and hunger among people and populations that depend on rice-based agrifood systems.

    Viper
    A viper common in South Asia eats a white rat [Shutterstock]

    Rodents also carry ticks that carry bacteria which causes Lyme disease. The ticks infect people by biting them, causing symptoms such as a fever, rash, joint pains and headaches.  Researchers at the University of Maryland in the United States in 2013 found a link between the decline of rattlesnakes and a rise in Lyme disease.

    Furthermore, killing snakes puts people at higher risk of being bitten. This is because the closer humans are to snakes, the more likely snakes are to act in defence and bite.

    Dolia explained that king cobra bites are rare, at least in India. The few deaths that have been recorded due to envenoming by this snake have “usually occurred as a result of rescuers mishandling the snake”.

    Dolia added that king cobras, which are endangered, usually eat other snakes, including venomous ones such as other types of cobra, which are known to cause many human fatalities.

    So, how do we prevent snakebites and protect snakes?

    Awareness of simple measures that will prevent snakes from entering homes or getting into crops will help, said Starkey. These include keeping grains in airtight containers so they do not attract rodents which in turn, attract snakes. General pest control around properties may also help.

    There needs to be more awareness about what treatment to seek, said Memon, whose own grandfather died from a snakebite near the family home in Tharparkar in the southern Sindh province.

    Instead of visiting doctors, people in South Asia rush to natural healers to treat snakebites. This leads them to miss the “golden window of time” to treat the bites quickly, explained Raut, adding that awareness should be spread in schools, rural centres, tribal institutes and medical institutions.

    Memon said that the production of antivenom needs to be ramped up throughout South Asia, adding that making it more affordable would be a step in the right direction.

    Most antivenom also needs to be refrigerated, which can be a problem in Pakistan where there are electricity outages, especially during monsoon season. “Creating a kind of composition of antivenom that does not need refrigeration would be ideal.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Could AI deepen inequalities in the world? | Technology News

    Could AI deepen inequalities in the world? | Technology News

    [ad_1]

    Doha, Qatar – At one of the world’s largest technology conferences, whether it was on the main stage, its side panels, or at the dozens of glitzy, towering company booths, there was one term on everybody’s lips: artificial intelligence (AI).

    At Web Summit – held for the first time in the Middle East in Doha – and which wrapped up on Thursday, entrepreneurs, investors and business leaders from around the world were all talking about AI’s capabilities.

    Hundreds of international companies and startups were represented at Web Summit
    Hundreds of international companies and startups were present at Web Summit [Urooba Jamal/Al Jazeera]

    Yet alongside that excitement, there are also growing concerns among experts that these technologies could exacerbate inequities dividing the world.

    Technologies, including AI, run the risk of amplifying biases that already exist, according to Ayo Tometi, co-creator of the US-based antiracist movement Black Lives Matter.

    “We’re seeing quite literally, that prejudice is being programmed into the technologies that are being deployed in our communities. And these biases must be addressed,” Tometi said at the summit.

    The social justice leader shared the example of predictive policing tools, which have been especially harmful to people of colour, particularly Black people in the United States, she said.

    According to a report in MIT Technology Review, there are broadly two types of these tools currently in use in the US.

    The first, tools that use location-based algorithms to predict where crime is likely to happen. The second, tools that draw on data about people, such as their age or gender, to predict who may get involved in crime.

    According to a study by accounting behemoth Deloitte, smart technologies like AI could help cities reduce crime by between 30 and 40 percent.

    Ayo Tometi, co-creator of Black Lives Matter, speaks at Web Summit
    Ayo Tometi, co-creator of Black Lives Matter, speaks at Web Summit [Urooba Jamal/Al Jazeera]

    But these technologies, Tometi said, are a “real serious cause for alarm, because we have yet to address racism and anti-Back racism within the criminal justice system already”.

    When these technologies are doled out, they are assumed to be neutral – but that is just not the case, she said.

    “[We’ve] seen cases where people are locked up right now because of a faulty facial scan. They just don’t see our faces in the same way, they don’t recognize our features,” Tometi pressed.

    “There’s just so much bias and discrimination of stereotypes that are being normalised through these technologies.”

    AI and the digital divide

    In addition to amplifying existing biases, another concern shared by experts about AI technologies is that they may exacerbate the global digital divide.

    Countries need to “accelerate their development in AI [by] being a producer rather than a consumer”, said Alaa Abdulaal, from the Saudi Arabia-based Digital Cooperation Organization, speaking at the summit.

    Abdulaal added that creating opportunities for upskilling can lessen this divide, and that governments cannot alone take this on; civil society organisations should step in.

    Jihad Tayara, CEO of the UAE-based firm Evoteq, offered a counter perspective, saying that while the race to AI supremacy on the world stage is dependent on funding availability, its consumption worldwide is narrowing the digital divide.

    “Most nations have better access now to connectivity,” Tayara said at the summit, adding that cloud computing and storage services are becoming less expensive, and that data is becoming more widely available.

    On the front of AI production, however, some nations still lag far behind, the CEO acknowledged.

    A recent trip to sub-Saharan Africa helped Tayara and his team understand, he said, that that region has no foundation yet to replicate his company’s “advanced” AI analytics in the pharmaceutical industry.

    Frank Long, Jihad Tayara, and Alaa Abdulaal speak on a panel at Web Summit
    (Left to right) Frank Long, Jihad Tayara and Alaa Abdulaal speak on a panel at Web Summit [Urooba Jamal/Al Jazeera]

    Still, countries around the world are enthralled about AI’s potential today far more than they were when mobile technologies first bloomed or when the internet itself was created, according to Frank Long, vice president at investment banking giant Goldman Sachs in the US.

    “In part, [it’s] because of the enormous economic impact that [AI] could have, but also because of the direct geopolitical applications,” Long said at Web Summit.

    Long also argued that the race to develop AI technologies will be multilayered, adding that there are “dynamic initiatives” under launch worldwide.

    “I think it’s not going to be a straightforward horse race, this person or that person, this country or that country,” he said. “It’s going to be a full stack with participants and competition at each layer of the stack.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why is measles making a comeback in the UK? | Health News

    Why is measles making a comeback in the UK? | Health News

    [ad_1]

    On Tuesday, the first case of measles in seven years was reported in Northern Ireland.

    Outbreaks of measles have sprung up in parts of Britain in recent months amid concerns of what Dr Vanessa Saliba from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), has called a “worryingly low MMR [measles, mumps and rubella] vaccine uptake in some areas across the country”.

    So where and why is measles on the rise in the UK?

    How quickly is measles spreading in the UK?

    In the four weeks since January 22, 169 new cases of measles have been recorded in England, taking the total number of confirmed cases there since the start of October to 581.

    To put that into perspective, there were only two confirmed cases of measles across the whole of the UK in 2021 and 54 one year later.

    This month, a man in his 40s died in Ireland after contracting the virus during a visit to the West Midlands in England, where UK measles cases are among the most prevalent and at their highest since the 1990s. That case has focused the minds of many health professionals in the British Isles.

    This week’s case reported in Northern Ireland was found in an adult who also became infected while travelling. Measles, which was recorded as long ago as the ninth century by Persian doctor Rhazes, can be serious for both adults and children.

    What are the symptoms of measles, and can it be fatal?

    If coughs and sneezes spread diseases, then measles is one such illness to which that old adage applies.

    Common symptoms of measles, which is caused by a virus, include a high fever, sore and watery eyes, coughing and sneezing. These symptoms are accompanied by a red rash all over the body. While measles can be contracted at any age, children are most at risk.

    Most people who catch measles recover within seven to 10 days, but in more serious cases, it can cause pneumonia, meningitis, seizures, complications leading to blindness and even death.

    In more affluent parts of the world, measles is fatal in about one in 5,000 cases. But in poorer regions with less robust healthcare systems, as many as one in 100 who catch measles will die from it. Over the past decade, deadly measles outbreaks have been documented in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Samoa and Pakistan among other countries.

    Measles patient
    A child with measles who has developed complications that may leave her blind is treated in a hospital isolation ward in Mongala province in northern Democratic Republic of the Congo [File: Hereward Holland/Reuters]

    How helpful are vaccines?

    Prior to the introduction of the first measles vaccine in 1963, 2.6 million people died from the disease worldwide each year. In 2016, despite a much higher overall global population, 90,000 people died from measles. In 2017, the World Health Organization declared that the UK had eliminated measles as a result of vaccine use.

    Roald Dahl, the Welsh-born children’s author, lost his daughter Olivia to the virus in 1962 at the age of seven after she developed measles encephalitis.

    While the measles vaccine came one year too late to protect Olivia Dahl, an improved version that caused fewer side effects was developed in 1968 by which time inoculations had been rolled out across parts of Africa.

    The MMR vaccine, first introduced in Britain in 1988 and still used today, offers lifelong protection against measles, mumps and rubella and is 99 percent effective. As part of the UK national vaccination programme, it is normally given to children in two doses: at 12 months and again at around three years and four months.

    A triple-shot MMR vaccination is now used across many parts of the world. It has proved highly effective in reducing infections.

    According to the World Health Organization, “between 2000 and 2020, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 31.7 million deaths worldwide.”

    Why are people choosing not to have the vaccine in the UK?

    In England, the most populous of the UK’s four constituent nations, uptake of the MMR vaccine in children for 2022-2023 was recorded at about 85 per cent, the lowest level since 2010-2011, sparking fears that this highly contagious but preventable disease could make a comeback in Britain.

    Despite saving millions of lives globally, the MMR vaccine has proved fertile ground for conspiracy theorists.

    The British physician Andrew Wakefield made headlines in 1998 when a study he wrote was published in the international medical journal The Lancet. His study linked the MMR vaccine to the development of autism in children despite his findings being based on only 12 patients.

    Wakefield
    Dr Andrew Wakefield, centre, speaks at the General Medical Council on January 28, 2010, in London. The council found he acted ‘dishonestly and irresponsibly’ in carrying out his research after his 1998 study caused vaccination uptake rates to drop dramatically [File: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images]

    Wakefield was later unveiled as a fraud. He was found to have had a financial interest in claiming a damaging link to the MMR vaccine, and his conclusions were debunked. But the damage was done.

    The average uptake of MMR in England dropped sharply from 91.8 percent in 1996 to 79.9 percent in 2004, and cases of measles rose, largely as a result of his false claims.

    Experts said today’s drop in MMR uptake in Britain – the National Health Service England said 3.4 million children under 16 have not been inoculated – is down to a number of factors.

    They include a conflation of anti-vax conspiracy theories during the pandemic when myths peddled about the COVID-19 vaccine rubbed off on the MMR vaccine, causing scepticism in some parents. In 2019, the European Commission and the World Health Organization urged governments to take action against the spread of misinformation about vaccines.

    Which other diseases are threatening a comeback in the UK?

    Cases of tuberculosis (TB), an illness caused by a bacterial infection that many in Britain today associate with the Victorian and Edwardian eras, rose by 11 per cent last year in England.

    There were, according to the UKHSA, 4,850 cases of TB in England in 2023 as opposed to 4,380 in 2022.

    TB, known as “consumption” in the 1800s because sufferers often lost weight and almost wasted away, commonly affects the lungs, and symptoms include a persistent cough, a high temperature and loss of appetite.

    As was the case in the past, TB remains linked to poverty and deprivation, but can be successfully treated today with antibiotics. However, if left untreated, TB can still prove fatal.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The AI Series: AI and the Global South | Technology

    The AI Series: AI and the Global South | Technology

    [ad_1]

    Nobel peace prize laureate Maria Ressa and Urvashi Aneja explore how current AI developments impact the Global South.

    While many of today’s headline-grabbing artificial intelligence (AI) tools are designed in Silicon Valley, much of the labour that fuels the boom is based in the Global South, raising questions over who stands to gain from the technology and at what cost.

    Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa and the director of the Digital Futures Lab, Urvashi Aneja, explore the impact AI is already having on communities in the Global South – from labour conditions to democracy and the environment – and why countries need to move beyond “catching up with the North” when deciding what role AI can and should play in their societies.

    [ad_2]

    Source link