By Libby Richards/Professor of Nursing, Purdue University
You’ve probably heard “Don’t go outside in the winter with your hair wet or without a coat; you’ll catch a cold.”
by Tomohiro OSAKI
People with missing teeth may be able to grow new ones, say Japanese dentists testing a pioneering drug they hope will offer an alternative to dentures and implants.
Unlike reptiles and fish, which usually replace their fangs on a regular basis, it is widely accepted that humans and most other mammals only grow two sets of teeth.
But hidden underneath our gums are the dormant buds of a third generation, according to Katsu Takahashi, head of oral surgery at the Medical Research Institute Kitano Hospital in Osaka.
His team launched clinical trials at Kyoto University Hospital in October, administering an experimental medicine to adult test subjects that they say has the potential to jumpstart the growth of these concealed teeth.
It's a technology "completely new" to the world, Takahashi told AFP.
Prosthetic treatments used for teeth lost to decay, disease or injury are often seen as costly and invasive.
So "restoring natural teeth definitely has its advantages", said Takahashi, the project's lead researcher.
Tests on mice and ferrets suggest that blocking a protein called USAG-1 can awaken the third set, and the researchers have published lab photographs of regrown animal teeth.
In a study published last year, the team said their "antibody treatment in mice is effective for tooth regeneration and can be a breakthrough in treating tooth anomalies in humans".
For now, the dentists are prioritising the "dire" needs of patients with six or more permanent teeth missing from birth.
The hereditary condition is said to affect around 0.1 percent of people, who can have severe trouble chewing, and in Japan often spend most of their adolescence wearing a face mask to hide the wide gaps in their mouth, Takahashi said.
"This drug could be a game-changer for them," he added.
The drug is therefore aimed primarily at children, and the researchers want to make it available as early as 2030.
Angray Kang, a dentistry professor at Queen Mary University of London, only knows of one other team pursuing a similar objective of using antibodies to regrow or repair teeth.
"I would say that the Takahashi group is leading the way," the immunotechnology expert, who is not connected to the Japanese research, told AFP.
Takahashi's work is "exciting and worth pursuing", Kang said, in part because an antibody drug that targets a protein nearly identical to USAG-1 is already being used to treat osteoporosis.
"The race to regenerate human teeth is not a short sprint, but by analogy a set of back-to-back consecutive ultra-marathons," he said.
"This is only the beginning."
Chengfei Zhang, a clinical professor in endodontics at the University of Hong Kong, said Takahashi's method is "innovative and holds potential".
"The assertion that humans possess latent tooth buds capable of producing a third set of teeth is both revolutionary and controversial," he told AFP.
He also cautioned that "outcomes observed in animals do not always directly translate to humans".
The results of the animal experiments raise "questions about whether regenerated teeth could functionally and aesthetically replace missing teeth", Zhang added.
A confident Takahashi argues that the location of a new tooth in a mouth can be controlled, if not pinpointed, by the drug injection site.
And if it grows in the wrong place, it can be moved through orthodontics or transplantation, he said.
No young patients with the congenital disorder are taking part in the first clinical trial, as the main objective is to test the drug's safety, rather than its effectiveness.
So for now, the participants are healthy adults who have lost at least one existing tooth.
And while tooth regeneration is not the express goal of the trial this time around, there is a slim chance that it could happen to subjects anyway, Takahashi said.
If so, the researchers will have confirmed that the drug can be effective for those with acquired toothlessness -- which would be a medical triumph.
"I would be over the moon if that happens," Takahashi said.
This could be particularly welcome news in Japan, which has the second-oldest population in the world.
Health ministry data shows more than 90 percent of people aged 75 or older in Japan have at least one tooth missing.
"Expectations are high that our technology can directly extend their healthy life expectancy," Takahashi said.
© Agence France-Presse
Shortly after he was elected, Donald Trump announced an economic gambit that was aggressive even by his standards. He vowed that, on the first day of his second term, he would slap 25 percent tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and boost those already placed on Chinese products by another 10 percent.
The move set off a frenzy of pushback. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau even flew to the president-elect’s Florida resort to make his case. Economists say the potential levies threaten to upend global trade — including on green technologies, many of which are manufactured in China. The moves would cause price spikes for everything from electric vehicles and heat pumps to solar panels.
“Typically, with tariffs, we’ve seen [companies] pass them along to the consumer,” said Corey Cantor, electric vehicles analyst at Bloomberg NEF. Ansgar Baums, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan foreign policy think-tank Stimson Center, said retaliatory moves from the three targeted countries would only make things worse. “It will drive up consumer costs and hurt those who cannot afford it.”
Trump acknowledges that possibility. But he has argued that tariffs are necessary to force Canada and Mexico to crack down on drugs, particularly fentanyl, and migrants crossing the border into the U.S.
It’s not the first time Trump has turned to tariffs as a foreign policy tool. In 2018 and 2019, he imposed them on a litany of goods, from steel and aluminum to photovoltaic solar panels and washing machines. While the Biden administration eased some of those duties, it kept many in place, especially those targeting China, and recently raised tariffs on Chinese items including electric vehicles, solar cells, and electrical vehicle batteries. Experts say these efforts have done little more than raise prices.
“The consensus on the first round of Trump tariffs is that [they] generally did not improve American productivity,” said Alex Muresianu, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank. The nonprofit calculated that, in the long run, Trump’s first round of tariffs will hurt gross domestic product and cost the United States some 142,000 jobs. Baums was even more blunt about their impact: “They were a big failure. They didn’t achieve much.”
The recently threatened tariffs would ratchet prices even higher on things like solar panels, but are also much more far reaching because of their broad application to North American trading partners. One sweeping impact would be on gasoline prices because, although the U.S. is world’s largest oil producer, older domestic refineries can only process the type of heavier crude that comes from Canada. GasBuddy projects that tariffs could add 35 to 75 cents to a gallon of gas.
Automakers will also be hard hit, as $97 billion in parts and some four million vehicles come from Canada and, especially, Mexico. That’s where some of the more affordable electric vehicles, such as Ford’s Mustang Mach-E and the Chevrolet Equinox, are manufactured. Wolfe Research said that “given the magnitude, we’d expect most investors to assume Trump ultimately does not follow through with these threats” but that, if they were put in place, tariffs would add $3,000 to the price of the average car, regardless of whether it’s powered by gasoline or a battery.
Cantor, at Bloomberg NEF, says adding even a few thousand dollars to the price can drastically expand or contract the potential market of buyers for a vehicle. For example, about 70 percent of consumers consider a $35,000 car, a number that jumps to about 87 percent when a car is $30,000.
“People adjust their behavior,” he said. That could further harm an EV sector that will also likely be reeling from Trump’s rollback of federal tax-credits for electrified vehicles.
Baums doesn’t believe that more tariffs will meaningfully shift industries to the US and the Trump administration “underestimates” how complicated that process would be. Others say some relocation could occur. Michelle Davis, director and head of global solar for research firm Wood Mackenzie, wrote that the levies “would undoubtedly increase domestic manufacturing activity to meet market needs.” But even then, she adds, that “this would result in a more expensive market for domestic buyers.”
In addition to prices, Muresianu also worries that the type of protectionism that Trump favors could stymie innovation. He points to the U.S. shipbuilding industry as an example: it once supplied most of the world’s ships but, in large part due to policies meant to shield domestic shipyards from competition, American vessels have since become drastically more expensive than those made overseas and now account for less than 1 percent of the global total. Tariffs could impose similar stagnancy on other U.S. industries, Muresianu says.
Baums’ concerns are more existential. Trump, he says, is geo-politicizing issues like climate change in ways that will ultimately make it more difficult to share technology, lower costs, and combat greenhouse gas emissions. He would like countries to instead come together and agree that some industries — including cleantech — are too important to put at the center of a trade war.
“The planet is burning,” said Baums. “If there’s anything we should try to cooperate on, it’s stuff that makes a clean transition happen.”
A concerningly high number of endangered false killer whales are being injured when they get hooked by fishing gear in waters off the main Hawaiian islands, according to a new research paper released Thursday.
Published in the scientific journal Endangered Species Research, the research concludes there should be closer monitoring of that unique but dwindling local population and how the creatures — actually dolphins, not whales, and not killers — interact with the small-scale commercial and recreational boats that fish in those waters.
That could include installing cameras to record encounters with the false killer whales, which feed on the same large fish those boats catch and often go after what is already on the hook, said Robin Baird, a research biologist with the nonprofit Cascadia Research Collective, which led the study.
Injuries such as this to a false killer whaleʻs dorsal fin typically happen as the dolphin struggles to free itself from fishing gear. The fin often gets damaged against the taut fishing line. (Courtesy: Robin Baird/Cascadia Research)“We have an idea of where these interactions are likely occurring, but we donʻt know when theyʻre occurring or with what type of gear,” Baird said Wednesday. “Being able to come up with solutions requires (this) information.”
Cascadia, along with two Hawaii-based wildlife foundations and federal fisheries officials, analyzed photographs taken between 1999 and 2021 of three false killer whale populations found near or around the Hawaii archipelago, including the endangered group that inhabits the waters off the main islands.
The researchers flagged the photos that showed clear fishing-related injuries to the animalsʻ mouths and dorsal fins. The endangered group had the most documented injuries by far, the study showed.
Researchers were able to find photos of both the dorsal fin and the mouth for 153 individual dolphins for that group. Out of those 153, some 44 dolphins had been injured by fishing gear, the study found — nearly one in every three.
False killer whales hunt the same large species of fish coveted by local fishers in Hawaii, including ahi and mahimahi.The rate of injury was drastically lower for the other two Hawaii populations, which arenʻt endangered. One of them is a pelagic, roaming group of several thousand dolphins. The other, which inhabits the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, has nearly 500 individuals, according to the study.
The endangered group near the main islands is down to an estimated 138 dolphins, according to the study. Itʻs the only endangered population of false killer whales in the world, according to Baird. Theyʻre found anywhere from just off the beach to tens of miles offshore.
That swath of ocean generally coincides with Hawaiiʻs federally mandated “exclusion zone” — a region up to 70 miles offshore where the local longliner fleet is prohibited from fishing.
Thus, the dolphins are getting hooked by smaller-scale boats that fish closer to the islands, not the longliners, Baird said.
Thereʻs already a federally organized False Killer Whale Take Reduction Team thatʻs been working since 2010 to try and reduce the number of species deaths, but the fishers represented in that group are all from Hawaiiʻs longline fishing industry.
Baird on Wednesday recommended forming a new, similar hui (group) that would include the nearshore fisherman to address the plight of the endangered false killer whales.
False killer whales typically hunt and feed on ahi, mahimahi and other fish often sought by human fishers in nearby ocean waters. There have even been unique, documented instances in which the marine mammals have attempted to share their catch with people they encounter in the water, according to Baird.
By Libby Richards/Professor of Nursing, Purdue University
You’ve probably heard “Don’t go outside in the winter with your hair wet or without a coat; you’ll catch a cold.”
That’s not exactly true. As with many things, the reality is more complicated. Here’s the distinction: Being cold isn’t why you get a cold. But it is true that cold weather makes it easier to catch respiratory viruses such as the cold and flu.
Research also shows that lower temperatures are associated with higher COVID-19 rates.
As a professor of nursing with a background in public health, I’m often asked about infectious disease spread, including the relationship between cold and catching a cold. So here’s a look at what actually happens.
Many viruses, including rhinovirus – the usual culprit for the common cold – influenza, and SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, remain infectious longer and replicate faster in colder temperatures and at lower humidity levels. This, coupled with the fact that people spend more time indoors and in close contact with others during cold weather, are common reasons that germs are more likely to spread.
The flu and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, tend to have a defined fall and winter seasonality. However, because of the emergence of new COVID-19 variants and immunity from previous infections and vaccinations decreasing over time, COVID-19 is not the typical cold-weather respiratory virus. As a case in point, COVID-19 infection rates have surged every summer since 2020.
More specifically, cold weather can change the outer membrane of the influenza virus, making it more solid and rubbery. Scientists believe that the rubbery coating makes person-to-person transmission of the virus easier.
It’s not just cold winter air that causes a problem. Air that is dry in addition to cold has been linked to flu outbreaks. That’s because dry winter air further helps the influenza virus to remain infectious longer. Dry air, which is common in the winter, causes the water found in respiratory droplets to evaporate more quickly. This results in smaller particles, which are capable of lasting longer and traveling farther after you cough or sneeze.
How your immune system responds during cold weather also matters a great deal. Inhaling cold air may adversely affect the immune response in your respiratory tract, which makes it easier for viruses to take hold. That’s why wearing a scarf over your nose and mouth may help prevent a cold because it warms the air that you inhale.
Cold weather can affect nasal immunity.Also, most people get less sunlight in the winter. That is a problem because the sun is a major source of vitamin D, which is essential for immune system health. Physical activity, another factor, also tends to drop during the winter. People are three times more likely to delay exercise in snowy or icy conditions.
Instead, people spend more time indoors. That usually means more close contact with others, which leads to disease spread. Respiratory viruses generally spread within a 6-foot radius of an infected person.
In addition, cold temperatures and low humidity dry out your eyes and the mucous membranes in your nose and throat. Because viruses that cause colds, flu and COVID-19 are typically inhaled, the virus can attach more easily to these impaired, dried-out passages.
The bottom line is that being wet and cold doesn’t make you sick. That being said, there are strategies to help prevent illness all year long:
Handwashing is a time-tested strategy for reducing the spread of germs at any time of year.
Mike Kemp/Tetra Images via Getty Images
Following these tips can ensure you have a healthy winter season.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on Dec. 15, 2020.![]()
Libby Richards, Professor of Nursing, Purdue University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The recently updated South African Ethics in Health Research Guidelines have been a recent cause of concern, with some researchers and bioethicists interpreting them as allowing what’s known as heritable human genome editing.
Heritable human genome editing involves editing the DNA of sex cells (eggs, sperm) or early embryos in a manner that may be inherited by offspring. Because the impacts on future offspring and society are unknown, there is vigorous and active ongoing debate on the ethics of such interventions.
Rather than allowing heritable human genome editing, the guidelines acknowledge the reality that South African law already allows human genome editing. The only change lies in how the guidelines provide a framework on oversight into heritable human genome editing. This guidance should not be interpreted as a green light for heritable human genome editing.
From this perspective, the guidelines provide much-needed clarity on how research ethics committees can go about ensuring that research and clinical applications of genome editing in humans are carried out safely.
Human genome editing involves changing the DNA of sex or embryo cells. (Shutterstock)
The current controversy relates to one particular statutory provision: Section 57(1) of the South African National Health Act. The provision reads as follows:
A person may not —
(a) manipulate any genetic material, including genetic material of human gametes, zygotes or embryos; or
(b) engage in any activity, including nuclear transfer or embryo splitting,
for the purpose of the reproductive cloning of a human being.
What stands out from this provision is that it prohibits a number of acts, including the manipulation of genetic material, zygotes and embryos. One might interpret this provision as including heritable human genome editing. Viewed in this way, the guidelines are problematic in that they allow something the law prohibits.
However, such an interpretation of Section 57(1) conflicts with the rules of statutory interpretation in South Africa.
Statutes in South Africa must be interpreted purposively. How to interpret Section 57(1) does not depend on whether the text can be read as applying to heritable human genome editing, but rather whether the apparent purpose of the provision was to prohibit heritable human genome editing, considering the context within which the words appear.
There is no mystery around why Section 57(1) exists, which is to prohibit human reproductive cloning. That this was the purpose is evidenced by the language of the provision itself, which prohibits “manipulation of genetic material” only “for the purposes of the reproductive cloning of a human being.”
Other principles of statutory in South African law point to the conclusion that Section 57(1) does not apply to heritable human genome editing. Where a provision in a statute features the word “include,” the words after it define the general class of things that fall within the scope of that provision.
Section 57(1) prohibits “reproductive cloning,” which it defines as “the manipulation of genetic material in order to achieve the reproduction of a human being and includes nuclear transfer or embryo splitting for such purpose.” The general class of things this section applies to are clarified to be “nuclear transfer or embryo splitting,” which are both cloning techniques.
Therefore, the rules of statutory interpretation require that the definition of what Section 57(1) prohibits (reproductive cloning) not be read as including heritable human genome editing.
Another feature of statutory interpretation in South Africa that is relevant here is the presumption that where a provision is linked with a criminal sanction — as is the case with Section 57(1) — the narrowest possible interpretation of that statutory provision is to be preferred. So if Section 57(1) can reasonably be interpreted as limited only to human reproductive cloning and not heritable human genome editing, such an interpretation is the one our law gives effect to.
The guidelines reflect an accurate understanding of South African law by its drafters. South African law may prohibit genetic manipulation, but this only applies for the purposes of human reproductive cloning.
Genetic manipulation for other purposes, including heritable human genome editing, is not prohibited; there is nothing in the law preventing heritable human genome editing.
Research into genetic manipulation aims to prevent genetic health conditions or provide immunity against tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. (Shutterstock)
It is important to note that the guidelines should not be taken as endorsing the use of heritable human genome editing technology. South Africa’s health research ethics guidelines serve as a “minimum benchmark of norms and standards for conducting responsible and ethical research in South Africa.” They are a tool meant to inform, guide and empower research ethics committees (RECs).
RECs ultimately decide whether or not to approve research. The guidelines simply provide guidance on how RECs should analyze research protocols including heritable human genome editing, but ultimately such research will not occur unless the relevant committee is convinced that doing so is safe and effective.
The inclusion of a form of research in the guidelines should not be understood as a green light for that kind of research or its clinical applications. There is no reason to believe that South African RECs will permit heritable human genome editing in South Africa before there is compelling evidence that doing so is safe.
Concerns have been expressed about the extent to which South Africa may be pushing the envelope with the new guidelines, given that other countries have not explicitly permitted heritable human genome editing. It is worth noting, however, that research on policies relating to heritable human genome editing reveals that most of the countries with restrictive policies are in the West, and are predominantly in Europe.
An important factor to consider in why South Africa — or any other country — may seek to plot a path forward when it comes to heritable human genome editing has to do with how those countries perceive the ethical considerations in question.
There is hardly consensus on the ethics of heritable human genome editing, and we have relatively little insight into non-western perspectives on editing the human genome editing. What research does exist suggests there may be material differences on what aspects, if any, of heritable human genome editing people consider ethically problematic and a cause for concern.
In the context of South Africa, a deliberative public engagement study found that an overwhelming majority of participants supported allowing the use of heritable human genome editing to prevent genetic health conditions or provide immunity against tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, provided it was conducted in a safe and effective manner.
The guidelines do well to adopt an open-ended approach to the future of heritable human genome editing, by remaining open to the possibility that there may come a time where at least some applications are found to be both safe and ethically acceptable in South Africa.![]()
Bonginkosi Shozi, Fellow, Center for Law and the Biosciences, Stanford University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The United States is moving to grant federal protections to the monarch butterfly -- a once-common species recognizable by its striking black and orange patterns that has faced a dramatic population decline in recent decades.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday it has initiated a public comment period to consider listing the insect under the Endangered Species Act.
But the looming presidency of Donald Trump, who rolled back numerous wildlife protections during his first term, casts uncertainty over the decision.
"The iconic monarch butterfly is cherished across North America, captivating children and adults throughout its fascinating lifecycle," said FWS Director Martha Williams in a statement.
"Despite its fragility, it is remarkably resilient, like many things in nature when we just give them a chance."
The proposed listing comes at a critical time for the species, which has been designated as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature since 2022.
Monarchs are divided into two migratory populations in North America. The larger eastern group has declined by approximately 80 percent since the 1980s, while the western population has plummeted by 95 percent.
According to the FWS, the species faces a host of threats, including the loss and degradation of its breeding, migratory, and overwintering habitats, exposure to insecticides, and the growing impacts of climate change.
As part of its conservation efforts, the FWS is also recommending the designation of critical habitat at specific overwintering sites along California's coast. These habitats serve as vital winter refuges, providing monarchs the resources needed to rest and prepare for spring breeding.
"The fact that a butterfly as widespread and beloved as the monarch is now the face of the extinction crisis is a tri-national distress signal warning us to take better care of the environment that we all share," said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.
"For thirty years, we've watched the population of monarch butterflies collapse. It is clear that monarchs cannot thrive -- and might not survive -- without federal protections," added Dan Ritzman, director of conservation at Sierra Club.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is widely credited with saving iconic American species such as the gray wolf, bald eagle, and grizzly bear.
During Trump's first administration, however, key provisions of the law were weakened. These changes, later reversed by President Joe Biden, included measures that allowed industrial projects like roads, pipelines and mines in areas designated as critical habitat for vulnerable species.
Trump's administration also removed endangered species protections for gray wolves across most of the United States and slashed critical habitat designated for northern spotted owls.
Thirteen years before any other woman joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics – or the NACA, NASA’s predecessor – in a technical role, a young lab assistant named Pearl Young was making waves in the agency. Her legacy as an outspoken and persistent advocate for herself and her team would pave the way for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics for decades to come.
My interest in Young’s story is grounded in my own identity as a woman in a STEM field. I find strength in sharing the stories of women who made lasting impacts in STEM. I am the director of the NASA-funded North Dakota Space Grant Consortium, where we aim to foster an open and welcoming environment in STEM. Young’s story is one of persistence through setbacks, advocacy for herself and others, and building a community of support.
Young was a scientist, an educator, a technical editor and a researcher. Born in 1895, she was no stranger to the barriers that women faced at the time.
In the early 20th century, college degrees in STEM fields were considered “less suited for women,” and graduates with these degrees were considered unconventional women. Professors who agreed to mentor women in advanced STEM fields in the 1940s and 1950s were often accused of communism.
In 1956, the National Science Foundation even published an article with the title: “Women are NOT for Engineering.”
Despite society’s sexist standards, Young earned a bachelor’s degree in 1919 with a triple major in physics, mathematics and chemistry, with honors, from the University of North Dakota. She then began her decades-long career in STEM.
An avid traveler, Pearl Young – waving at the top of the stairs – traveled to Hawaii on a UND alumni trip in 1960. Pearl Young Papers collection in UND's Special Collections
Despite the hostile culture for women, Young successfully navigated multiple technical roles at the NACA. With her varied expertise, she worked in several divisions – physics, instrumentation and aerodynamics – and soon noticed a trend across the agency. Many of the reports her colleagues wrote weren’t well written enough to be useful.
In a 1959 interview, Young spoke of her start at the NACA: “Those were fruitful years. I was interested in good writing and suggested the need for a technical editor. The engineers lacked the time to make readable reports.”
Three years after voicing her suggestion, Young was reassigned to the newly created role of assistant technical editor in the publications section in 1935. After six years in that role, Young earned the title of associate technical editor in 1941.
In 1941, the NACA established the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory, now known as NASA Glenn Research Center, in Cleveland. This new field center needed experienced employees, so two years later, NACA leadership invited Young to lead a new technical editing section there.
Pearl Young, seated in the front row, far right, with the technical editing section at the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory. The AERL’s Wing Tips described Young’s office as one which embodied ‘constant vigilance’ and encompassed a ‘rigidly trained crew.’ NASA Glenn Research Center Archives
It was at the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory that Young published her most notable technical work, the Style Manual for Engineering Authors, in 1943. NASA’s History Office even referred to Young as the architect of the NACA technical reports system.
Young’s style manual allowed the agency to communicate technological progress around the globe. This manual included specific formatting rules for technical writing, which would increase consistency for engineers and researchers reporting their data and experimental results. It was essential for efficient World War II operations and was translated into multiple languages.
But it wasn’t until after this publication that Young finally received the promotion to full technical editor, 11 years after she voiced the need for the role at the agency. She was the first person to hold this role, but she had to start at the assistant level, then move up to associate before receiving the full technical editor designation.
Perhaps the most noteworthy piece of Young’s story is her character. While advocating for herself and her colleagues, Young often had to challenge authority.
She stood up for her editing section when male supervisors wrongfully accused them of making mistakes. She wrote official proposals to properly classify her office in the research division at the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory. She regularly acknowledged the contributions of her entire team for the achievements they shared.
She also secured extra personnel to lessen unbearable workloads and wrote official memorandums to ensure that her colleagues earned rightful promotions. Young often referred to these actions as “raising hell.”
Excerpt of Pearl Young’s letter to colleague and friend Viola Ohler Phillips, stating she’ll ‘raise hell’ if the Washington office refused to follow proper technical editing practices.
NASA Glenn Research Center Archives
The archival documents I’ve analyzed indicate that Young’s performance at the NACA was exemplary throughout her career. In 1967, she was awarded the University of North Dakota’s prestigious Sioux Award in recognition of her professional achievements and service to the university.
In 1995, and again in 2014, NASA Langley Research Center dedicated a theater in her name. The new theater is located in NASA’s Integrated Engineering Services Building.
In 2015, Young was inducted into the inaugural NASA/NACA Langley Hall of Honor. But throughout her career, not all of her colleagues shared this complimentary view of Young and her work.
One of Young’s supervisors in 1930 thought it necessary to assess her “attitude” and fitness as an employee in her progress report – and justified his position by typing these additional words into the document himself.
Later that year, Young requested time off – likely for the holiday season – prompting a different supervisor to draft an official memorandum to the engineer in charge, a position akin to today’s NASA center director. He referred to Young’s “attitude” in requesting to use her vacation days.
A 1930 memorandum to the engineer in charge, from the official personnel folder of Pearl Irma Young, describes her ‘attitude.’ National Archives and Records Administration - National Personnel Records Center
While sexism in STEM has shifted its forms over time, gender-based inequities still exist. Women in STEM frequently confront microaggressions, marginalization and hostile work environments, including unequal pay, lack of recognition and additional service expectations.
Women often lack supportive social networks and encounter other systemic barriers to career advancement, such as not being recognized as an authority figure, or the double standard of being perceived as too aggressive instead of as a leader.
Women of color, women who belong to LGBTQ+ communities and women who have one or more disabilities face even more barriers rooted in these intersectional identities.
One of the ways to combat these inequities is to call attention to systemic barriers by sharing stories of women who persisted in STEM – women like Pearl Young.![]()
Caitlin Milera, Research Assistant Professor of Aerospace, University of North Dakota
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
After locking carbon dioxide in its frozen soil for millennia, the Arctic tundra is undergoing a dramatic transformation, driven by frequent wildfires that are turning it into a net source of carbon dioxide emissions, a U.S. agency said Tuesday.
This stark shift is detailed in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2024 Arctic Report Card, which revealed that annual surface air temperatures in the Arctic this year were the second-warmest on record since 1900.
"Our observations now show that the Arctic tundra, which is experiencing warming and increased wildfire, is now emitting more carbon than it stores, which will worsen climate change impacts," said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad.
The finding is based on average of observations recorded from 2001-2020.
Climate warming exerts dual effects on the Arctic. While it stimulates plant productivity and growth, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it also leads to increased surface air temperatures that cause permafrost to thaw.
Thawing permafrost releases carbon previously trapped in frozen soil as carbon dioxide and methane -- two potent greenhouse gases -- through microbial decomposition.
In 2024, Alaska recorded its second-warmest permafrost temperatures on record, the report said.
Human-caused climate change is also intensifying high-latitude wildfires, which have increased in burned area, intensity, and associated carbon emissions.
Wildfires not only combust vegetation and soil organic matter, releasing carbon into the atmosphere, but they also strip away insulating soil layers, accelerating long-term permafrost thaw and its associated carbon emissions.
Since 2003, circumpolar wildfire emissions have averaged 207 million tons of carbon annually, according to NOAA. At the same time, Arctic terrestrial ecosystems have remained a consistent source of methane.
"Last year, 2023, was the largest fire year on record due to Canadian wildfires, which burned more than twice any other year on record in Canada," report co-author Brendan Rogers said during a press conference.
The fires emitted nearly 400 million tons of carbon -- more than two-and-a-half times the emissions from all other sectors in Canada combined, he added.
Meanwhile, 2024 ranked as the second-highest year for wildfire emissions within the Arctic Circle.
- 'Alarming harbinger' -
Asked whether the Arctic's shift from carbon sink to source might be permanent, Rogers said it remains an open question. While boreal forests further south still serve as carbon sinks, northern regions are of greater concern.
"There is definitely interannual variability," he emphasized. "What I'm reporting on here is the average condition we've seen over a 20 year period."
Reacting to the news, Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists said that "the climate catastrophe we're seeing in the Arctic is already bringing consequences for communities around the world."
"The alarming harbinger of a net carbon source being unleashed sooner rather than later doesn't bode well. Once reached, many of these thresholds of adverse impacts on ecosystems cannot be reversed."
As well as warmer, the Arctic is also growing wetter, with summer 2024 seeing the most rainfall on record.
The trend accelerates coastal erosion, threatening Indigenous communities reliant on stable ice and traditional hunting practices.
Warmer temperatures are impacting wildlife too, with the report finding tundra caribou numbers have decreased by 65 percent over the past two to three decades -- with summer heat disrupting their movements and survival, alongside changes to winter snow and ice conditions.
Surprisingly, however, Alaska's ice seal populations remain healthy.
The report found no long-term negative impacts on body condition, age of maturity, pregnancy rates, or pup survival for the four species of ice seals -- ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon -- inhabiting the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas.
Google on Monday showed off a new quantum computing chip that it said was a major breakthrough that could bring practical quantum computing closer to reality.
A custom chip called "Willow" does in minutes what it would take leading supercomputers 10 septillion years to complete, according to Google Quantum AI founder Hartmut Neven.
"Written out, there is a 1 with 25 zeros," Neven said of the time span while briefing journalists. "A mind-boggling number."
Neven's team of about 300 people at Google is on a mission to build quantum computing capable of handling otherwise unsolvable problems like safe fusion power and stopping climate change.
"We see Willow as an important step in our journey to build a useful quantum computer with practical applications in areas like drug discovery, fusion energy, battery design and more," said Google CEO Sundar Pichai on X.
A quantum computer that can tackle these challenges is still years away, but Willow marks a significant step in that direction, according to Neven and members of his team.
While still in its early stages, scientists believe that superfast quantum computing will eventually be able to power innovation in a range of fields.
Quantum research is seen as a critical field and both the United States and China have been investing heavily in the area, while Washington has also placed restrictions on the export of the sensitive technology.
Olivier Ezratty, an independent expert in quantum technologies, told AFP in October that private and public investment in the field has totaled around $20 billion worldwide over the past five years.
Regular computers function in binary fashion: they carry out tasks using tiny fragments of data known as bits that are only ever either expressed as 1 or 0.
But fragments of data on a quantum computer, known as qubits, can be both 1 and 0 at the same time -- allowing them to crunch an enormous number of potential outcomes simultaneously.
Crucially, Google's chip demonstrated the ability to reduce computational errors exponentially as it scales up -- a feat that has eluded researchers for nearly 30 years.
The breakthrough in error correction, published in leading science journal Nature, showed that adding more qubits to the system actually reduced errors rather than increasing them -- a fundamental requirement for building practical quantum computers.
Error correction is the "end game" in quantum computing and Google is "confidently progressing" along the path, according to Google director of quantum hardware Julian Kelly.
© Agence France-Presse
A group of 75 Nobel laureates are concerned that there will be a disaster for public health, with someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. leading the Department of Health and Human Services.
The New York Times reports that "it's the first time in recent memory that Nobel laureates have banded together against a Cabinet choice," according to 1993 winner, Richard Roberts, who helped draft the letter to Senators.
The physiologist called out Kennedy for "political attacks on science," which he called "very damaging."
"You have to stand up and protect it," Roberts added.
The letter says Kennedy, an environmental lawyer by trade, lacks " credentials" in medicine and science.
ALSO READ: Agenda 47: Alarm sounded about Trump’s dystopian plans for his second term
“Placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of DHHS would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in the health sciences,” it continues.
Kennedy has a history of vaccine skepticism and seeks to withdraw fluoridation in drinking water.
The letter also points out that Kennedy has been a “belligerent critic” of the government agencies he would oversee, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.
Kennedy has already pledged to fire hundreds of NIH employees and alleged that the FDA waged a "war on public health."
“The leader of DHHS should continue to nurture and improve — not to threaten — these important and highly respected institutions and their employees,” the letter also said.
“Science is dependent on the political structures of this country," Roberts said. “I don’t think we should be burying our heads in the sand just because we’re scientists."
He added: “Maybe there are some who will read this and think, 'Well, we really do want to protect the health of our citizens. They didn’t elect us so that we could kill them.'”
A new machine-learning weather prediction model called GenCast can outperform the best traditional forecasting systems in at least some situations, according to a paper by Google DeepMind researchers published today in Nature.
Using a diffusion model approach similar to artificial intelligence (AI) image generators, the system generates multiple forecasts to capture the complex behavior of the atmosphere. It does so with a fraction of the time and computing resources required for traditional approaches.
The weather predictions we use in practice are produced by running multiple numerical simulations of the atmosphere.
Each simulation starts from a slightly different estimate of the current weather. This is because we don’t know exactly what the weather is at this instant everywhere in the world. To know that, we would need sensor measurements everywhere.
These numerical simulations use a model of the world’s atmosphere divided into a grid of three-dimensional blocks. By solving equations describing the fundamental physical laws of nature, the simulations predict what will happen in the atmosphere.
Known as general circulation models, these simulations need a lot of computing power. They are usually run at high-performance supercomputing facilities.
The past few years have seen an explosion in efforts to produce weather prediction models using machine learning. Typically, these approaches don’t incorporate our knowledge of the laws of nature the way general circulation models do.
Most of these models use some form of neural network to learn patterns in historical data and produce a single future forecast. However, this approach produces predictions that lose detail as they progress into the future, gradually becoming “smoother”. This smoothness is not what we see in real weather systems.
Researchers at Google’s DeepMind AI research lab have just published a paper in Nature describing their latest machine-learning model, GenCast.
GenCast mitigates this smoothing effect by generating an ensemble of multiple forecasts. Each individual forecast is less smooth, and better resembles the complexity observed in nature.
The best estimate of the actual future then comes from averaging the different forecasts. The size of the differences between the individual forecasts indicates how much uncertainty there is.
According to the GenCast paper, this probabilistic approach creates more accurate forecasts than the best numerical weather prediction system in the world – the one at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.
GenCast is trained on what is called reanalysis data from the years 1979 to 2018. This data is produced by the kind of general circulation models we talked about earlier, which are additionally corrected to resemble actual historical weather observations to produce a more consistent picture of the world’s weather.
The GenCast model makes predictions of several variables such as temperature, pressure, humidity and wind speed at the surface and at 13 different heights, on a grid that divides the world up into 0.25-degree regions of latitude and longitude.
GenCast is what is called a “diffusion model”, similar to AI image generators. However, instead of taking text and producing an image, it takes the current state of the atmosphere and produces an estimate of what it will be like in 12 hours.
This works by first setting the values of the atmospheric variables 12 hours into the future as random noise. GenCast then uses a neural network to find structures in the noise that are compatible with the current and previous weather variables. An ensemble of multiple forecasts can be generated by starting with different random noise.
Forecasts are run out to 15 days, taking 8 minutes on a single processor called a tensor processor unit (TPU). This is significantly faster than a general circulation model. The training of the model took five days using 32 TPUs.
Machine-learning forecasts could become more widespread in the coming years as they become more efficient and reliable.
However, classical numerical weather prediction and reanalysed data will still be required. Not only are they needed to provide the initial conditions for the machine learning weather forecasts, they also produce the input data to continually fine-tune the machine learning models.
Current machine learning weather forecasting systems are not appropriate for climate projections, for three reasons.
Firstly, to make weather predictions weeks into the future, you can assume that the ocean, land and sea ice won’t change. This is not the case for climate predictions over multiple decades.
Secondly, weather prediction is highly dependent on the details of the current weather. However, climate projections are concerned with the statistics of the climate decades into the future, for which today’s weather is irrelevant. Future carbon emissions are the greater determinant of the future state of the climate.
Thirdly, weather prediction is a “big data” problem. There are vast amounts of relevant observational data, which is what you need to train a complex machine learning model.
Climate projection is a “small data” problem, with relatively little available data. This is because the relevant physical phenomena (such as sea levels or climate drivers such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation) evolve much more slowly than the weather.
There are ways to address these problems. One approach is to use our knowledge of physics to simplify our models, meaning they require less data for machine learning.
Another approach is to use physics-informed neural networks to try to fit the data and also satisfy the laws of nature. A third is to use physics to set “ground rules” for a system, then use machine learning to determine the specific model parameters.
Machine learning has a role to play in the future of both weather forecasting and climate projections. However, fundamental physics – fluid mechanics and thermodynamics – will continue to play a crucial role.![]()
Vassili Kitsios, Senior Research Scientist, Climate Forecasting, CSIRO
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
What can plants or animals do when faced with harsh conditions? Two options for survival seem most obvious: move elsewhere or adapt to their environment.
Some organisms have a third option. They can escape not through space but through time, by entering a dormant state until conditions improve.
As it turns out, dormancy may not only benefit the species who use it. In new research, we found that a propensity for dormancy may affect the balance of competition between species, and make it possible for more species to survive together when environments change.
Many organisms use dormancy as a survival strategy.
Bears hibernate in winter, for example, and many plants produce seeds in summer that lie dormant in soil over the cold months before sprouting in spring. In these examples, the organisms use dormancy to avoid a season where conditions are hard.
However, other organisms can remain inactive for decades, centuries, or even thousands of years.
The oldest known plant seeds to germinate are 2,000-year-old seeds of a Judean date palm.
Even older plant material (though not seeds) has been brought back to life: placental floral tissue more than 31,000 years old, found in an ice age squirrel burrow.
In our research we focus on a particular kind of dormancy in animals called diapause, in which organisms reduce their metabolic activity and resist changes in environmental conditions. Here, animals usually do not eat or move much.
In theory, dormancy can allow species to escape hostile conditions. However, it has been difficult to directly link dormancy to the persistence of a given species.
We tried to make this link by means of experiments using a kind of nematode worm often found in soil called Caenorhabditis elegans. In these worms, the genetic pathway that affects dormancy is well understood.
C. elegans and C. briggsae worms under the microscope. Natalie Jones, CC BY
We looked at four groups of worms. The first group were genetically more inclined to enter dormancy, the second group were less inclined to enter dormancy, the third group were completely unable to enter a dormant state, and the fourth were ordinary wild-type worms with a medium propensity for dormancy.
We created an experiment where all these groups competed with a common competitor species – another worm called C. briggsae – for food in different environments.
Using data from these experiments, we then ran millions of computer simulations to determine whether one species would drive the other to extinction over the long term, or if they could coexist in different environmental conditions.
We found that when species are more inclined to dormancy, competing species can coexist under a wider range of environmental conditions.
When we simulated fluctuating environmental conditions, species with a higher investment in dormancy were able to coexist with a competitor over a wider range of temperatures.
This outcome is what is predicted in theory, but it is an exciting result because the prediction has been difficult to test. The experimental system we used has great potential, and can be used to further explore the role of dormancy in species persistence.
Our results also raise an important question: will species that have a dormant form be more resilient to the huge environmental fluctuations the world is currently experiencing? Organisms that can avoid heatwaves and drought may well be more prepared for this era of unprecedented global change.
We hope to begin finding out in the next phase of our research: linking the dynamics we saw in the laboratory to dormancy in plants, animals and microbes in the real world.![]()
Natalie Jones, Lecturer in Ecology, Griffith University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Bird flu has officially jumped from birds to infect two people in Arizona, AZFamily reported Friday.
It adds another state to the list where the disease has spread.
State health officials said the transition impacted two workers at a commercial facility where infected birds were processed. The poultry at the facility tested positive in mid-November, reported AZ Central.
While cases of the disease, known as Type A H5N1, jumping to humans in California have previously been reported, this is the first case in Arizona, the report said.
“There is no evidence that human-to-human transmission of H5 (avian flu) is occurring to date. The risk to the general public from H5 remains low,” the health department promised in a news release.
ALSO READ: The one belief that predicted Trump voters with scary accuracy
Several bird flu cases have been reported across Arizona among the feathered creatures.
In March, the first case of bird flu was detected in U.S. cows' milk.
The USDA said Friday they're implementing a National Milk Testing Strategy, which will mandate milk supplies be tested for the virus. It will begin Dec. 16 in six states.
"The virus has been spreading rapidly, particularly in California, where nearly 500 of the more than 700 infected U.S. herds have been detected," the report said about animals impacted by the flu.
"The virus has infected 57 people in the U.S. this year, including 31 in California, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," it continued.
It first popped up in Texas where at least cows were either slaughtered by the rancher or died of the disease. Reuters then reported that the same was unfolding in five other states.
"Although the virus kills many types of mammal, most infected cows don't develop severe symptoms or die," Nature.com wrote in May.
The American Veterinary Medical Association confirmed that, saying, "Most affected animals reportedly recover with supportive treatment.
After the election, the American Farm Bureau Federation released a statement saying that bird flu caused the price of eggs to soar in grocery stores.
"It is likely that egg prices will continue to show volatility related to the impacts of HPAI," the report said.
Grocery prices proved to be a major concern for Americans when they went to the polls in November, and they blamed Democrats, CNN reported.
Copyright © 2026 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.