The punishing heat experienced around the Mediterranean in July would have been "virtually impossible" in a world without global warming, a group of climate scientists said Wednesday.
A deadly heatwave brought temperatures well above 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) to southern Europe and North Africa, where such extreme summer spells are becoming more frequent.
Scorching heat claimed more than 20 lives in a single day in Morocco, fanned wildfires in Greece and the Balkans, and strained athletes competing across France in the Summer Olympic Games.
World Weather Attribution, a network of scientists who have pioneered peer-reviewed methods for assessing the possible role of climate change in specific extreme events, said this case was clear.
"The extreme temperatures reached in July would have been virtually impossible if humans had not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels," according to the WWA report by five researchers.
The analysis looked at the average July temperature and focused on a region that included Morocco, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece.
Scientists used this and other climate data to assess how the heat in July compared to similar periods in a world before humanity began rapidly burning oil, coal and gas.
They concluded the heat recorded in Europe was up to 3.3C hotter because of climate change.
Beyond the Mediterranean, intense heat reached Paris this week where athletes competing in the Olympic Games withered as temperatures hit the mid-30s this week.
"Extremely hot July months are no longer rare events," said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London, a co-author of the study.
"In today's climate... Julys with extreme heat can be expected about once a decade," she said.
Scientists have long established that climate change is driving extreme weather and making heatwaves longer, hotter and more frequent.
This latest episode came in a month when global temperatures soared to their highest levels on record, with the four hottest days ever observed by scientists etched into the history books in July.
The past 13 months have been the warmest such period on record, exceeding a 1.5C limit that scientists say must be kept intact over the long term to avoid catastrophic climate change.
In our everyday life, we are surrounded by objects that have properties enabling them to perform certain functions. Rigidity and softness enable an object to perform a specific function. These propoerties are seemingly opposing in nature, and one property cannot be traded for another.
For example, pillows are soft to provide the necessary cushioning and comfort. A rolling pin is rigid and round to be able to roll over dough. Once these objects are fabricated, those properties cannot be changed. A pillow cannot flatten dough, and a rolling pin cannot provide support for a head and neck.
But imagine if an object as soft as a pillow could transform into an object as stiff as a rolling pin. With a simple switch, that object could acquire the properties and functions of a stiff material and, with another click, those of a soft material.
A material that could do this would allow an object to have multiple functions. This multifunctionality would inherently bring a substantial drop in the use of our resources. It would represent a paradigm shift for the sustainable future of everyday technologies.
Future materials
Along with other material scientists, physicists and engineers, my research investigates what we describe as reconfigurable mechanical metamaterials. These are a class of re-programmable multipurpose metamaterials with a transformable internal architecture.
These materials have three antagonist — seemingly counteractive — properties: floppiness, rigidity and multistability. This means that a user can re-program, on demand, their properties to be either stiff or soft or, if needed, even multistable.
An object made by this all-in-one class of metamaterials can become rigid to resist the application of external forces as a stiff structure, shape morph as a floppy mechanism, or trap and absorb energy as a multistable material.
Reconfigurable building block, namely a metahinge. Applying a pair of forces to the rigid structure on the left can form a flexible hinge, generating a flopping mechanism (right) that can rotate around the central pivot. (D. Pasini and L. Wu), CC BY
This rearrangement can be triggered through the application of forces at particular pressure points. During the reconfiguration process, their edges come into contact, eventually merge, and close the central void, forming a flexible hinge. In one configuration, the building block is rigid because the metal hinge is not formed, whereas, in the other, the activation of the meta-hinge generates local rotation around the central pivot, making it floppy.
The metahinge activation can turn a structure into a floppy mechanism: on the left, a rigid curved beam withstands the applied load with negligible deformation, while on the right, the same beam becomes extremely floppy and sag in the opposite direction under the application of the identical load. (D. Pasini and L. Wu), CC BY
The reconfigurable building block can be used to create multifunctional structures with re-programmable properties. For example, a one-dimensional beam can be made to behave as either a stiff or floppy structure under a load applied at its midspan.
On the other hand, tessellating the building block in two dimensions allows the creation of three types of reconfigurations, each corresponding to a given class of macroscopic solids, either rigid, floppy or multistable at the verge between the two. Extensions to three dimensions are also possible.
The selective activation of metahinges enables a single metamaterial to acquire seemingly conflicting mechanical properties: rigidity (left), floppiness (right) and multistability when between the two states (middle). (D. Pasini and L. Wu), CC BY
Applications of metamaterials
Multifunctional products that can benefit from property reprogrammability span multiple sectors. In addition to physical properties, other geometric properties can be re-programmed. For example, the reconfigurability of the unit cells can bring overall changes in the size and shape of a product.
Fostering sustainability through multifunctional products, such as this reconfigurable coat hanger in different states: fully deployed with a width of 52 cm, and condensed, with a width of 16 cm. (D. Pasini, L. Wu and A. Sitbon), CC BY
A multifunctional coat hanger is just one example. By selectively activating certain hinges, the coat hanger can collapse for space-saving and ease of transportation, as well as be deployed when needed in different sizes and forms to accommodate clothing of different sizes. This provides an unprecedented level of multifunctionality, leading to sustainable resource use.
This all-in-one class of metamaterials helps create multipurpose products. This multifunctionality promises to reduce the use of resources, open a sustainable pathway to our future technology and contribute to attaining the sustainability targets our world has set, thereby paving the way for a greener and more resilient future.
Sealed inside a habitat in Texas and cut off from the outside world for over a year, Kelly Haston was the commander of a first-of-its-kind simulation for NASA to prepare for a future mission to Mars.
From conducting mock "Marswalks" to tending to a vertical garden, and occasionally grappling with boredom -- Haston expressed pride in advancing the cause of space exploration while admitting the experience made her reconsider the reality of life on the Red Planet.
"Going to space would be an amazing opportunity," the 53-year-old biologist told AFP. "But I would say that it would be harder having experienced this, to know how it feels to leave your people."
The overarching goal of the experiment, called CHAPEA (Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog) Mission 1, is to better understand the impacts of isolation on a crew's performance and health.
The project lasted 378 days and concluded in early July.
After all, a round-trip to Mars could easily take more than two years, factoring in the transit time of six-to-nine months and the time NASA hopes to spend on the planet.
For Haston, the hardest part was clear: "I could have been in that habitat for another year and survived with all of the other restrictions, but your people -- you miss your people so much."
Communications with the outside world were delayed by twenty minutes each way, simulating how long it takes a radio signal to travel between Earth and Mars.
They were also some limits on sending and receiving videos, to account for bandwidth restrictions.
The worst feeling was when relatives or friends were experiencing rough times, said Haston. "You couldn't be there for them in real time."
Her only direct human contacts were her three teammates and fellow Mars colonists -- but she insists they never went stir-crazy.
"Of course, there were times where you had crabby days, or something was bothering us, either as a crew or as an individual," she explained.
"But the communication was extremely good in this group," she said and besides, such problems were few and far between. "Up until the very end, we ate meals together."
Their 1,700-square-foot (160-square-meter) home included crew quarters, common areas and even an area for crops like tomatoes and peppers.
Called "Mars Dune Alpha" the 3D-printed habitat was installed inside a hangar at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Simulated "Marswalks" took place in an exterior area that recreated the Martian environment with red soil and cliffs painted along the walls.
Crew members donned spacesuits and passed through an airlock to reach the "sandbox," as it was nicknamed, with tasks coordinated by their colleagues inside.
- Boredom -
"There were days where you did really wish you were outside, I can't lie," says the Canadian who now lives in California. But, to her surprise, these pangs only intensified towards the end.
Periods of boredom are an inevitable part of long space expeditions, and it was precisely this extended isolation that set CHAPEA apart from most prior "analog" missions.
Halston staved off ennui by embroidering mission symbols and images of Mars.
Of course, "analogs can't address all problems or all issues of an eventual mission to Mars," she said, though the lessons learned will aid in planning.
Each team member's food intake was meticulously documented, their blood, saliva and urine samples were collected, and their sleep habits, physical and cognitive performance analyzed.
"The food system is one of the greatest mass drivers on a human mission for human logistics, and we are going to be resource-constrained on these missions," NASA scientist Grace Douglas said on a podcast.
This makes it critical to determine the minimum necessary provisions to maintain astronauts' health and ensure the mission's success.
For now, NASA is keeping the details of the crew's tasks under wraps to preserve the element of surprise for the next two iterations of the mission. CHAPEA 2 is set for 2025.
Methane emissions are rising faster than expected, a new study has warned, and the surge is putting global climate goals at risk.
The study, published Monday in Frontiers in Science, found that methane emissions have risen quickly since 2006, with the growth rates for atmospheric methane seeing an "abrupt and rapid increase" in the early 2020s.
"The growth rate of methane is accelerating, which is worrisome," lead study author and Duke University climate scientist Drew Shindell, toldThe Guardian. "It was quite flat until around 20 years ago, and just in the last few years we've had this huge dump of methane. It's made the job of tackling anthropogenic warming all the more challenging."
"Reducing CO2 will protect our grandchildren—reducing methane will protect us now."
Methane is the second leading greenhouse gas heating the atmosphere and contributing to the climate crisis. It is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide during the first 20 years after being emitted, but it also fades from the atmosphere much more quickly—in around 12 years rather than centuries. Methane emissions released between the industrial era and 2019 have caused 65% as much global heating as carbon dioxide, according to the new paper.
Methane emissions have spiked in recent years, reaching record levels in 2021 and 2022. The increase in atmospheric methane concentrations in 2021 was also the highest ever recorded. The growth rates in the early 2020s "far exceeded" predictions, and the situation is not expected to improve on its own.
"This study shows that emissions are expected to continue to increase over the remainder of the 2020s if no greater action is taken and that increases in atmospheric methane are thus far outpacing projected growth rates," the authors wrote.
Methane is emitted primarily by leaks and flaring during fossil fuel production, animal and rice agriculture, and the decaying of organic matter. The authors considered what had caused methane production to spike in the early 2020s specifically, and concluded that the two main drivers were fossil fuels—primarily oil and gas production—and an increase in decomposition rates from wetlands as higher temperatures interacted with La Niña conditions in the tropics.
Despite the significant role that methane plays in accelerating the climate emergency, only around 2% of climate finance is dedicated to targeting it, and current policies only respond to around 13% of total methane emissions. Given the rising rates of methane growth, the authors argued that this must change.
"It is imperative to rapidly reduce methane emissions to reduce the accelerating climate damages so many people around the world are suffering," Shindell said in a statement.
Why has the world dragged its feet on methane so far?
"The world has been rightly focused on carbon dioxide, which is the largest driver of climate change to date," Shindell explained. "Methane seemed like something we could leave for later, but the world has warmed very rapidly over the past couple of decades, while we've failed to reduce our CO2 emissions. So that leaves us more desperate for ways to reduce the rate of warming rapidly, which methane [cuts] can do."
Methane, Shindell told The Guardian, "is the strongest lever we can quickly pull to reduce warming between now and 2050."
"There's just such a rapid response to cutting it," Shindell continued. "We've already seen the planet warm so much that if we are to avoid worse impacts we have to reduce methane. Reducing CO2 will protect our grandchildren—reducing methane will protect us now."
Refusing to curb methane could also undermine efforts to reduce CO2: for every 50 megatons of methane that are not eliminated in keeping with low-warming projections, the remaining carbon dioxide budget is reduced by 150 gigatons.
The scientists outlined three "imperatives" for tackling methane:
Reverse the rise in emissions;
Make a plan to tackle CO2 and methane together; and
Optimize methane-reduction plans and technologies for maximum effect.
To that end, the study authors developed an online tool that policymakers and other interested parties can use to gauge the effectiveness and economic benefits of different technologies and strategies.
"The benefits of methane mitigation nearly always outweigh the net costs," Shindell said in a statement.
Each ton of methane emitted in 2020 caused between $470 and $1,700 in damages, without considering methane's contribution to deadly air pollution. If that is taken into account, the true cost per ton could be $7,000 or more.
The most effective action a stakeholder can take to reduce emissions will depend on where they live and their position in society. For governments in countries with large fossil fuel industries, for example, the most important tools would be regulating production, offering incentives for companies to capture any methane, or charging the companies for emitting methane, the study authors argue.
For individuals, the most effective actions may be altering their consumption patterns or taking political action.
"People can make sure they avoid overconsumption of beef and dairy, and compost their organic waste whenever possible," said Shindell in a statement.
"If it's not possible where they live, they can vote for those who'll create programs for composting in their towns. They can also vote for those who will make polluters pay for methane emissions rather than letting them profit while society picks up the tab for the damages they're inflicting."
As a species, humans like to think that we are fully in control of our decisions and behavior. But just below the surface, forces beyond our conscious control influence how we think and behave: our genes.
But the influence of genes on psychology has been overlooked.
My research addresses how genes influence human psychology and behavior. Here are some specific ways psychologists can use genetic conflict theory to better understand human behavior – and potentially advance the treatment of psychological issues.
What do genes have to do with it?
Genetic conflict theory proposes that though our genes blend together to make us who we are, they retain markers indicating whether they came from mom or dad. These markers cause the genes to either cooperate or fight with one another as we grow and develop. Research in genetic conflict primarily focuses on pregnancy, since this is one of the few times in human development when the influence of different sets of genes can be clearly observed in one individual.
Typically, maternal and paternal genes have different ideal strategies for growth and development. While genes from mom and dad ultimately find ways to cooperate with one another that result in normal growth and development, these genes benefit by nudging fetal development to be slightly more in line with what’s optimal for the parent they come from. Genes from mom try to keep mom healthy and with enough resources left for another pregnancy, while genes from dad benefit from the fetus taking all of mom’s resources for itself.
When genes are not able to compromise, however, this can result in undesirable outcomes such as physical and mental deficits for the baby or even miscarriage.
Some scientists theorize that genes operate in their own self-interest.
The complex nature of psychology and behavior makes it hard to pinpoint the unique influence of a single gene, let alone which parent it came from. Take, for example, depression. Not only is the likelihood of developing depression influenced by 200 different genes, it is also affected by environmental inputs such as childhood maltreatment and stressful life events. Researchers have also studied similar complex interactions for stress- and anxiety-related disorders.
Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes
When researchers study genetic conflict, they have typically focused on its link to disease, unintentionally documenting the influence of genetic conflict on psychology.
Specifically, researchers have studied how extreme instances of genetic conflict – such as when the influence of one set of parental genes is fully expressed while the other set is completely silenced – are associated with changes in behavior by studying people who have Prader-Willi syndrome and Angelman syndrome.
Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes are rare genetic disorders affecting about 1 in 10,000 to 30,000 and 1 in 12,000 to 20,000 people around the world, respectively. There is currently no long-term treatment available for either condition.
These syndromes develop in patients missing one copy of a gene on chromosome 15 that is needed for balanced growth and development. Someone who inherits only the version of the gene from their dad will develop Angelman syndrome, while someone who has only the version of the gene from their mom will develop Prader-Willi syndrome.
Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes both involve mutations to a specific gene on chromosome 15. Prader-Willi results from the suppression of the paternal version of the gene, while Angelman results from the suppression of the maternal version of the gene. Paternally expressed genes are marked in blue, maternally expressed genes in red, and genes expressed from both parents in pink Yang et at. 2021, genes/MDPI, CC BY-SA
These syndromes represent one of the few instances where the influence of a single missing gene can be clearly observed. While both Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes are associated with language, cognitive, eating and sleeping issues, they are also associated with clear differences in psychology and behavior.
Children with Prader-Willi syndrome, on the other hand, experience tantrums, anxiety and have difficulties in social situations. These behaviors are associated with increased hardships on mothers early in the individual’s life, potentially delaying when their mother will have another child. This would therefore increase the child’s access to resources such as food and parental attention.
Genetic conflict in psychology and behavior
Angelman syndrome and Prader-Willi syndrome highlight the importance of investigating genetic conflict’s influence on psychology and behavior. Researchers have documented differences in temperament, sociability, mental health and attachment in these disorders.
Since most scientists don’t consider the influence of genetic conflict on human behavior, much of this research is still theoretical. Researchers have had to find similarities across disciplines to see how the biological process of genetic conflict influences psychological processes. Research on Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes is only one example of how integrating a genetic conflict framework into psychological research can provide researchers an avenue to study how our biology makes us uniquely human.
Using radar, a Nasa spacecraft, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), has confirmed the existence of caves beneath the lunar surface. Here’s why such geological features will be key for establishing a base on the Moon, and what they can tell us about Earth and our Moon’s shared cosmological origins.
Lunar orbiting satellites first spotted pits on the Moon’s surface decades ago. Many of these were thought to be openings that connected to substantial underground tunnels that form through volcanic processes, but only now has this been confirmed through the analysis of radar data.
Some of the tunnels thought to exist on the Moon are expected to be lava tubes, which are also found on Earth. When molten lava flows out of the ground, the lava stream eventually cools and hardens into a crust. The lava inside is still molten, and continues to flow. Once the lava has flowed away, it leaves an empty tunnel called a lava tube. These formation processes are thought to be be very similar on the Earth and the Moon.
The data used in the latest study was collected in 2010 by LRO but only recently analysed using state of the art signal processing techniques. Radar (electromagnetic waves of 12.6cm wavelength) fired at acute angles towards these lunar pits, partially illuminated the shadowed subterranean areas to generate measurable radar echo signals.
The pit in Mare Tranquillitatis leads to an underground cave system. Nasa
The timing and amplitude of the reflected signals allowed researchers to compare with simulations and build up a picture of the underground terrain. Data indicate that the largest “Mare Tranquillitatis” pit leads to a cave 80 metres long and 45 metres wide: an area equivalent to around half a football pitch.
It is likely that the lunar surface is home to hundreds of such caves. It is widely thought that around 4.5 billion years ago, a young Earth violently collided with a Mars-sized proto-planet, splitting our youthful planet into the Earth and Moon system we have today.
After this high energy impact, the Moon may have been molten. It is therefore hardly surprising that caves of seemingly volcanic origin, bearing striking similarities with volcanic caves here on Earth, are present on the Moon. However, we don’t need to worry about astronauts dealing with the dangers of a volcanic eruption; volcanic activity on the Moon petered out entirely around 50 million years ago.
The Moon is thought to have formed when a Mars-sized object slammed into Earth. NASA/JPL-CALTECH/T. PYLE.
A home from home?
On Earth, we live in an unusually fortuitous environment, which protects us from threats from outer space. For example, Jupiter, the largest planet in our solar system, is well placed to gravitationally drag asteroids away from Earth. This minimises the frequency of cataclysmic asteroid collisions with our planet – such as the one that spelled the end of the dinosaurs.
One less obvious threat to life on Earth is ionizing radiation. The whole solar system is constantly bathed in a soup of charged particles called galactic cosmic rays, which are accelerated to huge speeds by distant supernova explosions, sending them on a collision course with Earth.
In addition, periodic events called coronal mass ejections from our own sun fling highly energetic particles in our direction in much larger numbers, but on a less frequent basis.
Lava tubes like this one may also exist on the Moon. NPS / B Michel
The Earth’s magnetic field protects us from this radiation to a large degree, by funneling the charged particles towards the north and south poles. This is the origin of aurora borealis and australis that light up the night sky at high latitudes. The Earth’s thick atmosphere also protects us, but we still get some exposure: a return transatlantic flight, where we are higher up in the atmosphere, gives the traveller a dose of radiation equivalent to five X-ray scans.
Now spare a thought for our Moon, which possesses neither an atmosphere nor notable magnetic field. Far from being a “sea of tranquility” (the name of the site of the first human landing on the Moon in 1969) the lunar surface is constantly bombarded by high energy radiation.
This poses a serious challenge for populating a Moon base with humans. Astronauts bouncing about on the lunar surface will soak up about 10 times more radiation than experienced on a transatlantic flight and about 200 times what we get on Earth’s surface.
Although our bodies can deal with the generally harmless low levels of background radiation we experience on Earth, exposure to high levels of ionising radiation can have serious health implications. When ionising radiation interacts with the body, it can ionise the atoms contained within cells, stripping them of electrons. This damage can sometimes prevent DNA from replicating properly, and in extreme cases, can cause cell death.
For these reasons, any Moon base must provide adequate radiation shielding to protect its inhabitants. However, radiation shielding is best provided by dense material, which is expensive to transport to the Moon from Earth.
Hence, naturally shielded areas, like the recently discovered caves, are being earmarked as possible locations for human habitation on the Moon. These caves would afford its residents a whopping 130 to 170 meters of solid rock shielding – enough to halt even the highest energy radiation.
When considering human settlements on the Moon, Mars and further afield, much
attention is given to the travel times, food and radiation risk. We’ll undoubtedly face a harsh environment in deep space and some thinkers have been pointing to genome editing as a way to ensure that humans can tolerate the severe conditions as they venture further into the solar system.
In January, I was fortunate to attend a much-anticipated debate between astronomer royal Lord Martin Rees and Mars exploration advocate Dr Robert Zubrin. The event at the British Interplanetary Society took on the topic of whether the exploration of Mars should be human or robotic.
In a recent book called The End of Astronauts, Lord Rees and co-author Donald Goldsmith outline the benefits of exploration of the solar system using robotic spacecraft and vehicles, without the expense and risk of sending humans along for the ride. Dr Zubrin supports human exploration. Where there was some agreement was over Rees’s advocacy of using gene editing technology to enable humans to overcome the immense challenges of becoming an interplanetary species.
Our genome is all the DNA present in our cells. Since 2011, we have been able to easily and accurately edit genomes. First came a molecular tool called Crispr-Cas9, which today can be used in a high school lab for very little cost and has even been used on the International Space Station. Then came techniques called base and prime editing, through which miniscule changes can be made in the genome of any living organism.
The potential applications of gene editing for allowing us to travel further are almost limitless. One of the most problematic hazards astronauts will encounter in deep space is a higher dosage of radiation, which can cause havoc with many processes in the body and increase the longer-term risk of cancer.
Perhaps, using genome editing, we could insert genes into humans from plants and bacteria that are able to clean up radiation in the event of radioactive waste spills and nuclear fallout. It sounds like science fiction, but eminent thinkers such as Lord Rees believe this is key to our advancement across the solar system.
Identifying and then inserting genes into humans that slow down aging and counter cellular breakdown could also help. We could also engineer crops that resist the effects of exposure to radioactivity as crews will need to grow their own food. We could also personalise medicine to an astronaut’s needs based on their particular genetic makeup.
Imagine a future where the human genome is so well understood it has become pliable under this new, personalised medicine.
Kate Rubins was the first person to sequence DNA in space. NASA
Genes for extremes
Tardigrades are microscopic animals sometimes referred to as “water bears”. Experiments have shown that these tiny creatures can tolerate extreme temperatures, pressures, high radiation and starvation. They can even tolerate the vacuum of space.
Geneticists are eager to understand their genomes and a paper published in Nature sought to uncover the key genes and proteins that give the miniature creatures this extraordinary stress tolerance. If we could insert some of the genes involved into crops, could we make them tolerant to the highest levels of radiation and environmental stress? It’s worth exploring.
Even more intriguing is whether inserting tardigrade genes into our own genome could make us more resilient to the harsh conditions in space. Scientists have already shown that human cells in the lab developed increased tolerance to X-ray radiation when tardigrade genes were inserted into them.
Transferring genes from tardigrades is just one speculative example of how we might be able engineer humans and crops to be more suited to space travel.
Tardigrades are incredibly resilient organisms. Dotted Yeti
We’ll need much more research if scientists are ever to get to this stage. However, in the past, several governments have been keen to enforce tight restrictions on how genome editing is used, as well as on other technologies for inserting genes from one species into another.
Germany and Canada are among the most cautious, but elsewhere restrictions seem to be relaxing.
In November 2018, the Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had created the first gene edited babies. He had introduced a gene into the unborn twins that confers resistance to HIV infection.
The scientist was subsequently jailed. But he has since been released and allowed to carry out research again.
In the new space race, certain countries may go to lengths with genome editing that other nations, especially in the west where restrictions are already tight, may not. Whoever wins would reap enormous scientific and economic benefits.
If Rees and the other futurists are right, this field has the potential to advance our expansion into the cosmos. But society will need to agree to it.
It’s likely there will be opposition, because of the deep-seated fears of altering the human species forever. And with base and prime editing now having advanced the precision of targeted gene editing, it’s clear that the technology is moving faster than the conversation.
One country or another is likely to take the leap where others pull back from the brink. Only then will we find out just how viable these ideas really are. Until then, we can only speculate with curiosity, and perhaps excitement too.
Fashion is a dynamic business. Most apparel brands make at least two to four collections per year. While selling current seasonal collections, brands plan for the next ones at least a year in advance, identifying market trends and materials. The selling window is around three months, and unsold inventories represent financial loss.
Fast fashion companies introduce new lines even more frequently, reducing the amount of time needed to design, produce and market new items.
Tech and fashion
The fashion industry is familiar with experimenting with technological frontiers. Some of the most significant technological breakthrough are laser cutting, computer-aided design and more recently, the use of 3D printing in early 2010.
Fashion companies also use blockchains for product authentication, traceability and digital IDs, including those integrated by LVMH/Louis Vuitton, product authentication and traceability.
Additionally, companies have incorporated augmented reality into marketing and retail strategies to create immersive and interactive customer experiences.
Generative AI could become a game-changer for the fashion industry, adding between US$150 and US$250 billion to operating profits within three to five years. While the fashion sector has only started integrating AI, the opportunities and challenges it presents are evident across all business processes.
Generative AI could help fashion companies improve their processes, bring their products to the market faster, sell more efficiently and improve customer experience. Generative AI could also support product development by analyzing large social media and runway show datasets to identify emerging fashion trends.
Estée Lauder Companies and Microsoft have teamed up to open an in-house AI innovation lab for identifying and responding to trends, informing product development and improving customer experiences.
Designers could use AI to visualize different materials and patterns based on past consumer preferences. For example, the Tommy Hilfiger Corporation is collaborating with IBM and the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York on the Reimagine Retail project, which uses AI to analyze consumer data and design new fashion collections.
NOWNESS looks at Dutch designer Iris van Herpen’s imaginative uses of AI.
AI and sustainability
AI helps in creating more sustainable fashion practices by optimizing the use of resources, recycling materials and reducing waste through more precise manufacturing processes and efficient supply chain and inventory management. For example, H&M uses AI to improve its recycling processes, sort and categorize garments for recycling and promote a circular fashion economy.
AI can improve operations and supply chain processes by optimizing inventory management, predicting sales based on historical data, and reducing overstock and stock-outs. Brands like Zara and H&M already use AI to control supply chains, promoting sustainability by optimizing stock levels and reducing waste. Zara also introduced AI and robotics into their retail stores to speed up online order pick-ups.
AI-powered virtual try-on solutions allow customers to see how clothes will look on them without physically trying them, enhancing the online shopping experience and reducing return rates. Virtual try-ons are already a reality in digital companies, such as prescription eyewear retailer Warby Parker and Amazon.
Another example is Modiface, acquired by French multinational personal care company L’Oréal in 2018, which provides AR-based virtual try-ons for makeup and fashion accessories.
Virtual try-ons help buyers make decisions and reduce returns. (Shutterstock)
Effective campaigning
AI can also deliver customized customer experiences. Some brands, such as Reebok and Versace, invite their customers to use AI tools to design products inspired by the brand’s feel and look.
AI-powered tools can help marketing teams target and maximize the impact of their communication campaigns, potentially reducing marketing costs.
The fashion business includes everything from small companies to global chains, haute couture to ready-to-wear, mass market and fast fashion. Each brand must understand where AI could generate value for their business without diluting their brand identity.
The biggest challenge, however, is to avoid homogenization. Generative AI should not replace human creativity but create new spaces and processes.
Fashion companies should be prepared to manage the associated risks with new technologies, particularly regarding intellectual property, creative rights and brand reputation. One of the primary issues is the potential infringement of intellectual property related to training data.
GenAI models are trained on vast design datasets, often containing copyrighted works. This can lead to legal disputes over originality and ownership. A related risk is bias and fairness in generative-AI systems, which may present reputational challenges for brands that rely on the technology.
The ambiguity surrounding creative rights in the age of AI is another concern. It’s challenging to determine who holds the creative rights to a design, whether it’s the designer who conceptualized the idea, the developer who built the AI or the AI itself. This ambiguity can dilute the authenticity of a brand’s creative expression, potentially harming its reputation if consumers perceive the brand as less innovative or authentic.
Plastic microbeads, those tiny troublemakers found in the personal care products of the early 1990s to the late 2010s, wreak havoc on the environment. These minuscule bits, smaller than a sesame seed, escape the clutches of wastewater treatment plants, accumulating in oceans and rivers where they pose a threat to marine life.
Thankfully, soaps and scrubs containing plastic microbeads are impossible to find on today’s store shelves. In recent years, many countries have recognized these microbeads as a source of marine plastic pollution and banned them from personal hygiene products. Microbead bans make room for more environmentally friendly substitutes, allowing consumers to continue to experience that satisfying deep-cleaning feeling without harming the environment.
Instead of relying on synthetic plastics, research shows that a treasure trove of possibilities is hidden within biowaste. Once such gem is brewer’s spent grain (BSG), the leftovers from brewing beer. Inexpensive and abundant, BSG is used in animal feed, biogas production, compost and fertilizer.
More recently, BSG is used as a protein- and fibre-rich ingredient in crackers, breads and cookies.
Cellulose — the main molecule constituent in plant cell walls — is a key component of brewer’s spent grain. For over a century, scientists have prepared vast amounts of cellulose-based materials by transforming trees through a relatively straightforward chemical process. Trees are felled, debarked, chipped, pulped and bleached, then the cellulose that remains is shaped into its desired final form.
Cellulose fibers don’t dissolve in most solvents, and thankfully so, otherwise cotton t-shirts would be washed away in the rain and acetone-soaked tissues would melt instead of removing nail polish.
However, sodium hydroxide dissolved in water in various concentrations provides a more sustainable option. Additionally, with sodium hydroxide, cellulose can be converted back into a solid through a simple neutralization reaction.
This alkali-based process can yield pure cellulose microbeads, which were first prepared about a decade ago. Cellulose pulp is dissolved in aqueous sodium hydroxide, then neutralized, one drop at a time, in an acid bath. When the acid bath is drained away, spherical cellulose-based microbeads remain.
Fine-tuning the process
Our research considered whether the abundance of cellulose-based biowaste generated from agri-food industries could generate microbeads. With BSG as our cellulose-rich starting material and exfoliating microbeads as our goal, we started experimenting in the lab.
Inexpensive and abundant, brewer’s spent grain is used in animal feed, biogas production, compost and fertilizer. (Shutterstock)
BSG presented a challenge for creating pure cellulose microbeads due to the complexity of its composition. Besides cellulose, BSG contains hemicellulose, lignin, proteins, lipids and small amounts of ash, all carefully intertwined to create different plant-cell structures.
To overcome this obstacle, dilute acid hydrolysis loosens BSG’s cellulose and other fibers (hemicellulose and lignin). Coarse filtration washes simple sugars and proteins away, leaving behind a cellulose- and lignin-enriched pulp.
Next steps involve fine-tuning the sodium hydroxide solution. Only at specific temperatures and concentrations are sodium hydroxide solutions stronger than the bonds that hold cellulosic fibers together; this is true of more complex BSG-pulp as well.
Our experiments revealed a narrow processing window where BSG pulp completely dissolved, aided by small amounts of zinc oxide. Then, introducing these BSG-solutions, drop by drop, into an acid bath simultaneously achieved our shaping and solidification goals.
After a few hours, the acid bath was drained away and smooth, spherical BSG-based microbeads remained.
Finally, strength and stability testing proved that BSG beads had the necessary strength to hold up to their conventional plastic counterparts. When incorporated into soaps, BSG-based microbeads performed better than other plastic microbead alternatives currently available, such as ground coconut shells and apricot pits.
Plastic microbeads, once popular in the personal care products of the early 1990s to the late 2010s, are environmentally damaging. (Shutterstock)
Creative solutions
The transformation of brewery waste into exfoliating microbeads represents yet another step towards a more sustainable future. By harnessing the properties of the cellulose and lignin present in BSG, this innovation demonstrates the potential of waste materials to contribute to sustainable solutions.
This success ultimately underscores the importance of research and innovation in transitioning towards more environmentally friendly practices. Finally, it encourages exploring other similar opportunities to reduce our ecological footprint.
If it’s possible to transform brewery waste into a valuable component of personal hygiene products, just imagine what other opportunities may be found in the trash.
I am a biochemist and molecular biologist studying the roles microbes play in health and disease. I also teach medical students and am interested in how the public understands science.
Here are some facts about vaccines that skeptics like Kennedy get wrong:
Nevertheless, the false claim that vaccines cause autism persists despite studyafter study of large populations throughout the world showing no causal link between them.
Claims about the dangers of vaccines often come from misrepresenting scientific research papers. Kennedy cites a 2005 report allegedly showing massive brain inflammation in monkeys in response to vaccination, when in fact the authors of that study state that there were no serious medical complications. A separate 2003 study that Kennedy claimed showed a 1,135% increase in autism in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children actually found no consistent significant association between vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Kennedy also claims that a 2002 vaccine study included a control group of children 6 months of age and younger who were fed mercury-contaminated tuna sandwiches. This claim is false.
Kennedy is co-counsel with a law firm that is suing the pharmaceutical company Merck based in part on the unfounded assertion that the aluminum in one of its vaccines causes neurological disease. Aluminum is added to many vaccines as an adjuvant to strengthen the body’s immune response to the vaccine, thereby enhancing the body’s defense against the targeted microbe.
The law firm’s claim is based on a 2020 report showing that brain tissue from some patients with Alzheimer’s disease, autism and multiple sclerosis have elevated levels of aluminum. The authors of that study do not assert that vaccines are the source of the aluminum, and vaccines are unlikely to be the culprit.
Notably, the brain samples analyzed in that study were from 47- to 105-year-old patients. Most people are exposed to aluminum primarily through their diets, and aluminum is eliminated from the body within days. Therefore, aluminum exposure from childhood vaccines is not expected to persist in those patients.
Vaccines undergo the same approval process as other drugs
Clinical trials for vaccines and other drugs are blinded, randomized and placebo-controlled studies. For a vaccine trial, this means that participants are randomly divided into one group that receives the vaccine and a second group that receives a placebo saline solution. The researchers carrying out the study, and sometimes the participants, do not know who has received the vaccine or the placebo until the study has finished. This eliminates bias.
Results are published in the public domain. For example, vaccine trial data for COVID-19, human papilloma virus and rotavirus is available for anyone to access.
Vaccine manufacturers are liable for injury or death
Kennedy’s lawsuit against Merck contradicts his insistence that vaccine manufacturers are fully immune from litigation.
His claim is based on an incorrect interpretation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP. VICP is a no-fault federal program created to reduce frivolous lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, which threaten to cause vaccine shortages and a resurgence of vaccine-preventable disease.
A person claiming injury from a vaccine can petition the U.S. Court of Federal Claims through the VICP for monetary compensation. If the VICP petition is denied, the claimant can then sue the vaccine manufacturer.
The majority of cases resolved under the VICP end in a negotiated settlement between parties without establishing that a vaccine was the cause of the claimed injury. Kennedy and his law firm have incorrectly used the payouts under the VICP to assert that vaccines are unsafe.
The VICP gets the vaccine manufacturer off the hook only if it has complied with all requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and exercised due care. It does not protect the vaccine maker from claims of fraud or withholding information regarding the safety or efficacy of the vaccine during its development or after approval.
Good nutrition and sanitation are not substitutes for vaccination
Kennedy asserts that populations with adequate nutrition do not need vaccines to avoid infectious diseases. While it is clear that improvements in nutrition, sanitation, water treatment, food safety and public health measures have played important roles in reducing deaths and severe complications from infectious diseases, these factors do not eliminate the need for vaccines.
After World War II, the U.S. was a wealthy nation with substantial health-related infrastructure. Yet, Americans reported an average of 1 million cases per year of now-preventable infectious diseases.
Vaccines introduced or expanded in the 1950s and 1960s against diseases like diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, polio, mumps, rubella and Haemophilus influenza type B have resulted in the near or complete eradication of those diseases.
It’s easy to forget why many infectious diseases are rarely encountered today. The success of vaccines does not always tell its own story. It must be retold again and again to counter misinformation.
Researchers have been attaching tags to the foreheads of seals for the past two decades to collect data in remote and inaccessible regions. A researcher tags the seal during mating season, when the marine mammal comes to shore to rest, and the tag remains attached to the seal for a year.
A researcher glues the tag to the seal’s head – tagging seals does not affect their behavior. The tag detaches after the seal molts and sheds its fur for a new coat each year.
The tag collects data while the seal dives and transmits its location and the scientific data back to researchers via satellite when the seal surfaces for air.
First proposed in 2003, seal tagging has grown into an international collaboration with rigorous sensor accuracy standards and broad data sharing. Advances in satellite technology now allow scientists to have near-instant access to the data collected by a seal.
New scientific discoveries aided by seals
The tags attached to seals typically carry pressure, temperature and salinity sensors, all properties used to assess the ocean’s rising temperatures and changing currents. The sensors also often contain chlorophyll fluorometers, which can provide data about the water’s phytoplankton concentration.
Phytoplankton are tiny organisms that form the base of the oceanic food web. Their presence often means that animals such as fish and seals are around.
The seal sensors can also tell researchers about the effects of climate change around Antarctica. Approximately 150 billion tons of ice melts from Antarctica every year, contributing to global sea-level rise. This melting is driven by warm water carried to the ice shelves by oceanic currents.
With the data collected by seals, oceanographers have described some of the physical pathways this warm water travels to reach ice shelves and how currents transport the resulting melted ice away from glaciers.
Seals regularly dive under sea ice and near glacier ice shelves. These regions are challenging, and can even be dangerous, to sample with traditional oceanographic methods.
Across the open Southern Ocean, away from the Antarctic coast, seal data has also shed light on another pathway causing ocean warming. Excess heat from the atmosphere moves from the ocean surface, which is in contact with the atmosphere, down to the interior ocean in highly localized regions. In these areas, heat moves into the deep ocean, where it can’t be dissipated out through the atmosphere.
In fronts, the ocean’s circulation creates turbulence and mixes water in a way that brings nutrients up to the ocean’s surface, where phytoplankton can use them. As a result, fronts can have phytoplankton blooms, which attract fish and seals.
Scientists use the tag data to see how seals are adapting to a changing climate and warming ocean. In the short term, seals may benefit from more ice melt around the Antarctic continent, as they tend to find more food in coastal areas with holes in the ice. Rising subsurface ocean temperatures, however, may change where their prey is and ultimately threaten seals’ ability to thrive.
Seals have helped scientists understand and observe some of the most remote regions on Earth. On a changing planet, seal tag data will continue to provide observations of their ocean environment, which has vital implications for the rest of Earth’s climate system.
Novo Nordisk — the pharmaceutical giant behind popular weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy — spent a record $3.2 million on lobbying in the first six months of 2024 as the Denmark-based company expanded its footprint in the United States.
In 2017, after two years of clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration approved Novo Nordisk’s injectable weight-loss drug Ozempic strictly for adults with Type 2 diabetes. Four years later, the FDA approved Wegovy, another weight-loss drug that is not strictly for type 2 patients but contains the same active ingredient as Ozempic, semaglutide.
Although Ozempic was originally approved for patients with diabetes, some non-diabetics buy it for the purpose of general weight loss under “off-label” prescriptions. The popularity of these prescriptions has contributed to a shortage of Ozempic in the United States, leaving it out of the hands of those who need it most.
An estimated 15.5 million Americans, or 6% of the U.S. population, have reported using injectable weight-loss drugs, according to a Gallup poll released in May. These drugs rose in popularity in 2023 as Novo Nordisk launched an aggressive advertising campaign, spending a total of $471 million to market Ozempic and Wegovy in one year.
In 2023, Novo Nordisk and its U.S. subsidiary, Novozymes North America, spent over $5 million on lobbying, hiring a whopping 77 lobbyists across 13 firms. This marked a 51% increase from the number of lobbyists hired in 2022. Of those, 54 previously held government jobs, bringing insider knowledge and industry connections to each role.
In addition to its lobbying efforts, Novo Nordisk has also been actively making campaign contributions in the U.S., spending over $497,000 between its PAC, employees, and executives in the 2023-2024 cycle, as of July 16.
Novo Nordisk currently charges around $1,000 for a month’s supply of Ozempic injections. The high cost of this medicine has been criticized for squeezing low-income patients with diabetes out of the market for life-changing drugs.
Medicare only covers Ozempic when it is used to treat patients with diabetes. Similarly, Wegovy is only covered for patients at cardiovascular risk. Yet, when used for general weight loss, Medicare does not cover the cost of Ozempic or Wegovy.
Novo Nordisk hired a law firm, Arnold & Porter, to lobby for Ozempic to be covered by Medicare as more and more Americans became customers in 2023.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) argues that the high price of these weight-loss drugs has the power to bankrupt the Medicaid system. In June, Sen. Sanders threatened to subpoena Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen, criticizing Novo Nordisk’s high American price tag on Ozempic when it is significantly lower in other countries.
“The American people are sick and tired of paying, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Novo Nordisk currently charges Americans with Type 2 diabetes $969 a month for Ozempic, while this same exact drug can be purchased for just $155 in Canada and just $59 in Germany.”
Jorgensen voluntarily agreed to testify in a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing in September. The name of the hearing: “Why Is Novo Nordisk Charging Americans with Diabetes and Obesity Outrageously High Prices for Ozempic and Wegovy?”