The largest stegosaurus skeleton ever found, nicknamed Apex, sold for a record breaking $44.6 million at auction in New York on Wednesday, Sotheby's said.
Estimated to be 150 million years old, Apex is said to be "among the most complete skeletons ever found," according to the auction house.
It measures 11 feet (3.3 meters) tall and 27 feet long and counts 254 fossil bone elements of an approximate total of 319.
The previous auction record of $31.8 million for a dinosaur skeleton was set in 2020 for a Tyrannosaurus Rex nicknamed "Stan."
Sotheby's had expected Apex to fetch between $4 million and $6 million, but the price quickly skyrocketed as telephone bidders deluged the sale, prompting gasps and clapping in the auction room.
After the record-breaking sale, the auctioneer asked her colleague Cassandra Hatton, Sotheby's global head of science, "do you need a cigarette?"
Apex was discovered in May 2022 on the private land of paleontologist Jason Cooper. The auction house says it has collaborated with Cooper to "document the entire process, from discovery and excavation to restoration, preparation and mounting," in order to guarantee the "highest standards and transparency."
In 2022, Christie's auction house had to withdraw a T-rex skeleton a few days before auction in Hong Kong, due to doubts about its authenticity.
Wednesday's auction follows an increasing trend for the sale of dinosaur remains.
Stegosaurus skeletons are already on display around the world, but according to Sotheby's, Apex is 30 percent larger than Sophie, the most complete stegosaurus on public display to date, which is housed in the Natural History Museum in London.
Have you tried manifesting? It’s hard to escape on social media – the idea that you can will what you desire into reality through the power of belief. This could be financial success, romantic love or sporting glory.
Singer Dua Lipa, who headlined Glastonbury festival in June 2024, has said that performing on Friday night at the festival was “on her dream board”. “If you’re manifesting out there, be specific – because it might happen!”
Manifesting gained popularity quickly during the pandemic. By 2021, the 3-6-9 manifestation method was famous. A TikTok viewed over a million times, for instance, explains this “no fail manifesting technique”. You write down what you want three times in the morning, six times in the afternoon and nine times before you go to bed and repeating until it comes true. Now, content creators are explaining countless methods to speak your dreams into reality.
But the idea that if you wish for something hard enough it will happen isn’t new. It grew out of the self-help movement. Some early popular books that peddled this idea include Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich from as long ago as 1937, and Louise Hay’s You Can Heal Your Life from 1984.
No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.
At first glance, the 2024 remake movie Twisters contains many of the ingredients of the 1996 original, which starred Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton: a catastrophic and rare weather event, the urgency to use new technology to understand it, and central characters battling personality clashes.
However, Twisters (on general release from July 17)
does more than confirm Hollywood’s interest in money-making sequels. It suggests movie financiers are convinced that people are fascinated by extreme weather and the devastation it can cause. And they’re right.
To make the film contemporary, Twisters adds the dimension of a social media superstar storm chaser (Tyler Owens, played by Glen Powell). Storm chasers like Owens have long been cult figures in the public imagination, and have even been the focus of a popular US TV series called Storm Chasers.
The idea of a celebrity whose popularity comes from uploading weather content accurately reflects the interest (and financial value) in posting weather footage online. Now, during any significant event, it’s easy to find not just professional footage from news channels, storm chasers or weather-focused social media channels, but also thousands of videos from people experiencing that catastrophe.
Extreme weather videos are hugely popular. Videos of dramatic events on YouTube and TikTok frequently attract tens of millions of views. During both Hurricane Irma (2017) and Hurricane Ian (2022), some YouTube channels streaming beach webcam footage had over 100,000 live viewers. Content recorded in the lead up to events also appear to capture the public imagination: popular social media accounts have begun to document seemingly mundane activities like packing tornado preparation bags.
What compels us to watch these kinds of videos? What are the psychological drivers of online rubber-necking? And, in a world where many will experience more extreme events, are there any benefits in watching videos of disastrous events?
A deeper social psychology
Research shows that our fascination with extreme weather videos – particularly live ones – is complex. While inevitably, some people want to watch things crash and burn, evidence is beginning to suggest that our captivation is driven by a deeper underlying social psychology: people often watch these videos because they connect us to people, places and ideas.
Sometimes, this is about being able to visualise concepts we’ve heard about but never seen with our own eyes. In a recent study, I examined why people were watching live footage of hurricanes and storms on YouTube. I found people wanting to see things they’d repeatedly heard reference to, such as the eye of the storm or the exact moment a hurricane made landfall. In one discussion in the comments, people wanted the wind to stop because they were only there to see if they could witness an “eye”.
For these people, videos of extreme moments helped connect what they’ve been told with what they could see (even if only through a screen).
The trailer for Twisters.
Extreme weather footage can also generate spaces that become important information sources and networks. Livestreams of all kinds often generate communities that are more valued than the content itself.
My study of the 2022 UK storms as well as Hurricanes Ian and Irma found the comment spaces around these videos mattered, because they connected people with different proximities to the event. During Irma, people used comment sections to compare government advice they’d received about whether to evacuate. Some watchers also became information conduits by connecting people to news reports and government websites.
Perhaps counterintuitively, people sometimes watch live videos hoping nothing will happen. I’ve come across numerous people watching livestreams of developing hurricanes for more than 12 hours. For these people – often on the other side of the world from the event – watching, hoping and commenting are the only things they could do to support the situation.
The giving up of time is considered an act of solidarity – one person said they had taken a day off work to watch because their childhood town was affected. Adapting a phrase used by one of these watchers, I termed these people “committed viewers”.
But for some people, it’s not about weather at all. Other researchers have written about how the watching of livestreams can be driven by desire to be part of a culturally or historically significant moment. Tens of thousands of people watched Aberdeen airport’s live webcams after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, for example, to catch a glimpse of planes landing as other members of the royal family flew in.
Currently, little is known about the effects of watching extreme weather footage on human behaviour. My ongoing research is trying to understand how hazard-focused social media influencers shape their followers’ future preparations, such as having an emergency plan or kit. What is already clear is that representations of disasters in films create misunderstandings about hazards and their aftermaths.
In Twisters, storm chaser Owens embodies the idea that people place a value (entertainment, support or otherwise) in watching spectacular situations – and that social media has created new ways to document experiences and engage increasing numbers of people with them. The challenge for scientists is harnessing this fascination in a way that stimulates knowledge and behavioural change beyond the small window of the event itself.
Earlier this month, drugs sold as cocaine in Melbourne were found to be contaminated with a powerful group of opioids, known as nitazenes.
These new synthetic drugs were also the suspected cause of four people being hospitalised in Sydney in May. And in April, nitazenes were found in drugs used by around 20 people who overdosed in outer Sydney.
So what are nitazenes, why are they so dangerous, and how can we minimise the harms they cause?
What are nitazenes?
Nitazenes are a group of synthetic opioids. This means they’re made in a lab (distinct from morphine or heroin which come from the opium poppy).
Nitazenes were developed in the 1950s to expand options for pain management, but the research was abandoned because they were too dangerous. There’s no modern medical use for these drugs.
Other common opioids include heroin, morphine and fentanyl, which are used for medical and non-medical purposes.
Some people use nitazenes intentionally seeking a stronger effect, but they’ve also been found in a range of common recreational drugs in Australia such as cocaine, MDMA (ecstasy) and ketamine. This means some people may take nitazenes without knowing it.
Because all these drugs are illegally manufactured, there’s no quality control, so people using them can’t be sure what they’re taking or how strong the drugs are.
Why are nitazenes so dangerous?
When someone takes nitazenes, there’s a very fine line between intoxication and overdose. Because these drugs are so strong they can be especially dangerous for people who are not used to taking opioids.
They’re also very quick to act and can stay longer in the body than other opioids. If someone has taken too much heroin, it takes an hour or more before they stop breathing, but nitazenes can take just a few minutes.
Opioids interfere with the part of the brain that controls breathing. Someone overdosing on opioids may have a strong pulse but their breathing will be shallow or stop.
Taking nitazenes in combination with another illicit drug can make them even more dangerous. There’s a risk of getting the unwanted effects from both drugs and if someone uses a stimulant like cocaine with an opioid, the stimulant can sometimes mask the effect of the opioid, so they may not initially realise they are overdosing.
People who use illicit drugs recreationally may unknowingly be exposed to nitazenes. Sebastian Ervi/Pexels
And given nitazenes have been found in Australia in drugs sold as cocaine, MDMA and ketamine, more people may be at risk of overdose.
Although only a relatively small proportion of the population use cocaine, use has increased significantly in the past 20 years in Australia. In 2022–23, 4.5% of the population reported having used cocaine in the past 12 months, up from 1.3% in 2001.
MDMA use decreased during the COVID pandemic but there are signs it’s increasing again. In 2023, 2.7% of the population reported using MDMA at least once in the previous year.
Ketamine has also increased in popularity as a recreational drug. In 2022–23, 1.4% of the population reported having used ketamine in the past 12 months, up from 0.4% in 2016. Some 4.2% of Australians in their 20s reported ketamine use in 2022–23.
Most people who use these sorts of drugs do so only occasionally, but harms from nitazenes are a concern even for people who use these drugs just once.
Reducing the risk of harm
People using drugs such as cocaine, MDMA or ketamine can get them checked at a drug checking service. However, drug checking services are currently only available in the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland. Victoria is due to get a service by the end of this year.
Australians can also buy nitazene test strips, which can detect the presence of nitazenes in a drug sample. While cross-reactivity is often a problem for drug test strips, in recent testing, nitazene strips
were found not to cross-react to a panel of other common substances outside the nitazene class.
Rates of people using cocaine, MDMA and ketamine are going up in Australia. Fahroni/Shutterstock
If you can’t get your drugs tested, make sure you buy from a known dealer, take just a small amount to start when you buy a new batch (we suggest one-quarter of your normal dose), and never use alone. If you’re with a group of friends, stagger use or make sure you are with someone who is not using, a bit like a designated driver.
If you regularly use these types of drugs you can keep naloxone on hand. Naloxone reverses the effects of opioids by temporarily blocking the opioid receptors in the brain. It’s free at pharmacies in Australia to anyone who might experience or witness an opioid overdose.
If you or someone you know has trouble breathing or any unwanted symptoms after taking a drug, call triple zero immediately, even if you have administered naloxone.
Governments can do a few simple things to prevent the harms we’ve seen in other countries from nitazenes. They could expand harm reduction services, such as drug checking and supervised injecting services, and ensure we have ample stocks of naloxone.
If you’re worried about your own or someone else’s drug use you can call the National Alcohol and other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015.
Nicole Lee, Adjunct Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne based), Curtin University and Monica Barratt, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow, Social Equity Research Centre and Digital Ethnography Research Centre, RMIT University
Seagrass, a marine plant that flowers underwater, has lots of environmental benefits – from storing carbon to preventing coastal erosion. This 3D habitat is often a haven for wildlife but, with so many seagrass restoration projects now happening globally, success can be hard to quantify.
In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Isabel Key, a marine ecologist at the University of Edinburgh in the UK, about her work recording the soundscape of Scottish seagrass meadows to uncover more about the creatures living within them. She also explains how this is the first step in the development of a seagrass sound library and potentially even artificial intelligence tools that could help us better understand the sounds of the sea.
Recording soundscapes in seagrass is a useful tool because it allows researchers like Key to listen in and detect creatures that can’t be seen. Perhaps they’re camouflaged, hiding or nocturnal. It’s also a cheap and easy method that causes minimal disturbance.
After she collects audio clips recorded in seagrass meadows off the shores of Scotland, Key analyses her recordings using “acoustic indices”. “These are measures of the complexity of the soundscape,” she explains. “That includes animal sounds but also waves, boat noise and chinking mooring chains.”
Key also assesses phonic richness by listening to one-minute-long clips:
Looking at the spectrogram – a visual depiction of these sounds – I can count how many different types of animal sounds are present. That’s time-consuming but gives a great insight.
She’s noticing a characteristic seagrass soundscape with certain sounds occurring more commonly in seagrass than in sandy habitats. “Fish make low-pitched grunting, burping or purring noises. Crabs make higher-pitched metallic sort of scraping sounds,” she says.
A shore crab perches on the audiomoth used to record underwater sound. Isabel Key, CC BY-NC-ND
As well as hearing sounds from marine animals, the waves and human activity, she’s been hearing a rather more surprising sound coming from the seagrass itself as well.
Once a more comprehensive sound library can be built, machine learning could be used to hear how seagrass meadows, and other marine habitats, are faring, both in Scotland and in oceans around the globe.
Listen to the full interview with Issy Key, and to some of her seagrass sound recordings, on The Conversation Weekly podcast.
Disclosure statement: Isabel Key receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council and NatureScot.
This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood. Sound design was by Eloise Stevens, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl. Stephen Khan is our global executive editor.
Milwaukee (AFP) – Climate change is little more than an afterthought for attendees at the Republican National Convention, who are gathered this week to crown Donald Trump as their party's nominee for this November's election.
"I don't believe all that," said Jack Prendergast, from New York, who believes that human activity does just as much harm to the planet as "when a volcano goes off."
"Trump is going to drill pipelines and we'll become the leading supplier of energy in the world, in the gas and the oil," Prendergast told AFP.
And the former president has promised as much -- adopting the slogan "drill, baby, drill" to sum up his fossil fuel-friendly approach.
Trump, who withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accord during his first term, on Monday appointed a fellow climate skeptic as his running mate: Ohio Senator J.D. Vance.
The 39-year-old, who would become Trump's vice president if they are elected, has previously accused Democrats of stirring up fears about climate change for political gain.
The two men will run on a 5,000-word Republican platform adopted on Monday by the party's delegates which makes no mention of plans for climate change or renewable energy.
Instead, it promises to end "green" policies it deems "socialist," and says the United States will become the world's number one oil and natural gas producer -- a position it already holds, according to official data.
Trump himself has said he is opposed to wind power -- a widely-touted alternative to fossil fuels -- as he is convinced it "kills all the birds."
'Bright future'
Climate groups such as the Sunrise Movement have criticized the Republican platform, saying the party "has made it clear that they're happy to make the climate crisis worse."
But for Stephen Perkins of the American Conservation Coalition -- perhaps the only booth at the Republican convention focused on preserving the planet -- you have to take Trump's comments with "a grain of salt."
"I think that some of his comments are meant to be more entertaining than policy positions," said the 29-year-old, wearing a striped blue polo shirt.
His organization is hoping to show what a "conservative approach to environmental policy and climate policy look like," which he thinks could entice younger voters.
But he concedes it's a "slow process," with older Republicans averse to agreeing to action on climate change.
According to a Yale survey published on Tuesday, more than two-thirds of Americans do believe in the existence of climate change.
However, that does not necessarily translate into support for Democratic President Joe Biden, who has pushed through several initiatives to combat global warming during his time in office.
Perkins instead believes Biden is at the mercy of a "radical sect" of progressives "that doesn't engage in nuance." His convention stand shows the word "destruction" alongside images of left-wing environmental activists throwing soup at a work of art.
If he had it his way, he would show that "we have a bright future ahead" despite the challenges of climate change, instead of "the doom and gloom."
Apart from the Sun, its planets and their moons, our Solar System has vast amounts of space rocks – fragments left over from the formation of the inner planets.
A large concentration of asteroids forms a vast ring around our Sun, orbiting it between Mars and Jupiter. Fittingly, it’s called the main asteroid belt. Comets are icy bodies of dust and rocks that originated even farther away – in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune and the Oort Cloud of debris surrounding the Solar System.
Extraterrestrial rocks come in many sizes. Generally speaking, asteroids are space rocks larger than one metre, while the smaller pieces (from two millimeters up to one meter in size) are known as meteoroids.
Regardless of where they come from, once these foreign rocks make it to Earth’s surface, we call them meteorites. But they are much more than just simple rocks from far, far away.
They have allowed us to estimate the age of our planet, and changed the course of evolution more than once. Here are six major ways meteorites and comets have contributed to Earth’s history or our knowledge of it.
1. The age of our planet
About 4.5 billion years ago, a Mars-sized planet collided with the proto-Earth, changing the composition of our planet and forming our Moon.
During its first tens of millions of years, Earth was predominantly molten. It was too hot to form solid minerals and rocks, so the exact age of our planet remains unknown. But we do know it’s between the age measured from meteorites and the age of the oldest rocks we have been able to find and date.
The oldest minerals that have been reliably dated on Earth are tiny zircon grains found in Western Australia. The oldest one is 4.4 billion years old. However, scientists have also dated specks of calcium and aluminum found in meteorites, which yielded an older age of 4.56 billion years – the age of our Solar System.
So, thanks in part to the oldest age provided by a meteorite, our best estimate is that Earth formed around 4.54 billion years ago.
A slab of the Allende meteorite, the best-studied meteorite in history. It has many calcium–aluminum-rich inclusions dated to be 4.567 billion years old – the oldest known solids to have formed in the Solar System. Shiny Things/Flickr, CC BY-NC
2. The building blocks of life
The most plausible theory for the beginning of life on Earth is based on simple organic compounds that formed in space and were brought to Earth by meteorites and other celestial bodies.
During the Late Heavy Bombardment, a period between 4.1 and 3.8 billion years ago when more impact events hammered our planet, Earth’s surface was partially solid.
Amino acids, hydrocarbons and other carbon-based molecules arrived at our planet in carbonaceous chondrites (primitive meteorites, remnants from the early Solar System) and comets.
Once the early Earth was enriched with these organic molecules, chemical evolution followed. Eventually, life emerged on our planet. The earliest evidence is potential microbial life from 3.8 billion years ago, not long after the Late Heavy Bombardment.
Regardless of how life started, all theories agree on the need for a primitive ocean – or pools of water – that allowed early life on Earth to develop.
Photomicrograph of an ordinary chondrite meteorite found in northwestern Africa containing small spherical particles of minerals called chondrules. Circled is a barred olivine chondrule. Francisco Testa/From the author's personal collection
3. How we got our oceans
Meteorites and comets also played a major role in the formation of Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. Large quantities of water were delivered to our planet during the Late Heavy Bombardment.
In addition, water was released from Earth’s interior through volcanic activity during the Hadean Eon, the first eon in our planet’s history.
Water vapor, along with other gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, nitrogen and sulphur, formed the proto-atmosphere. Rain began to fall once the temperature dropped below the boiling point of water, forming our primordial ocean.
Yes – the water we drink today is at least partly of extraterrestrial origin.
In contrast, the Late Devonian extinction about 380 to 360 million years ago cannot be explained by a single impact. Several factors have been proposed as potential causes, including multiple impacts, climate change, depletion of oxygen (anoxia) in the oceans and volcanic activity.
Repeated times during Earth’s history, impact events have influenced the survival and evolution of life on our planet.
The subtle impression of the Chicxulub impact crater is still visible on the Yucatán peninsula in Mexico today. NASA/JPL
5. Sampling Earth’s deep mantle and core
Scientists use a combination of methods to understand Earth’s internal structure: crust, mantle, core and their subdivisions. Seismology is the most important of them, which studies the propagation of seismic waves generated by earthquakes or artificial sources through Earth’s interior.
We have access to rock samples from the crust and upper mantle, but we will never be able to sample the deep mantle or solid core. Even if we had the technology, it would be astronomically expensive, and going down to such depths involves extreme pressures and temperatures.
Since direct sampling is impossible, scientists rely on indirect methods.
Pallasites and metallic meteorites are rocks from differentiated asteroids – ones that also have a mantle and core. Such space rocks are the closest we will ever come to sampling the deepest portions of our own planet. They help us understand its composition.
Pallasites are rare, and contain a silicate mineral called olivine embedded in nickel-iron alloys. It’s thought pallasites form in the boundary between the core and mantle-like regions of differentiated asteroids.
Metallic or iron meteorites are mainly composed of the nickel-iron alloys kamacite and taenite. They are the core fragments of differentiated asteroids, giving us clues to our own planet’s core.
Slab of Aletai iron meteorite, found in Xinjiang, China in 1898. Francisco Testa/From the author's personal collection
6. Meteorite impacts gave us huge gold and nickel deposits
The Witwatersrand rocks in South Africa host the world’s largest known gold reserves. This would not be the case without the Vredefort impact crater – the largest known impact structure on Earth – formed about 2.02 billon years ago.
The impact saved these gold deposits from erosion by covering the entire area with ejected material, concealing the ore-bearing layers beneath. If an ore deposit erodes, the material disperses and it wouldn’t make for profitable extraction.
Witwatersrand is the largest gold-producing district in the world. Which means the ancient meteorite impact has made an indirect, lasting impact on our society through the availability of this precious metal.
But that’s not the only such event. The third-largest known impact crater on Earth is the Sudbury Basin in Canada, formed 1.85 billion years ago. It hosts giant nickel deposits because the impact disrupted Earth’s crust, partially melting it and allowing magma from the mantle to rise.
This led to the accumulation of nickel, copper, palladium, platinum and other metals, producing one of the richest mining districts on the planet.
The author would like to acknowledge helpful feedback on this article from Prof Noel C. White, University of Tasmania.
It's well known that as far as the climate crisis goes, time is of the essence.
Now a study out Monday shows that the melting of the polar ice caps is causing our planet to spin more slowly, increasing the length of days at an "unprecedented" rate.
The paper, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that water flowing from Greenland and Antarctica is resulting in more mass around the equator, co-author Surendra Adhikari of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory told AFP.
"It's like when a figure skater does a pirouette, first holding her arms close to her body and then stretching them out," added co-author Benedikt Soja of ETH Zurich.
"The initially fast rotation becomes slower because the masses move away from the axis of rotation, increasing physical inertia."
Earth is commonly thought of as a sphere, but it's more accurate to call it an "oblate spheroid" that bulges somewhat around the equator, a bit like a satsuma.
What's more, its shape is constantly changing, from the impacts of the daily tides that affect the oceans and crusts, to longer term effects from drift of tectonic plates, and abrupt, violent shifts caused by earthquakes and volcanoes.
The paper relied on observational techniques like Very Long Baseline Interferometry, where scientists can measure the difference in how long it takes for radio signals from space to reach different points on Earth, and use that to infer variations in the planet's orientation and length of day.
It also used the Global Positioning System, which measures Earth's rotation very precisely, to about one-hundredth of a millisecond, and even looked at ancient eclipse records going back millenia.
- Implications for space travel -
If the Earth turns more slowly, then the length of day increases by a few milliseconds from the standard measure of 86,400 seconds.
A currently more significant cause of slowdown is the gravitational pull of the Moon, which pulls on the oceans in a process called "tidal friction" that has caused a gradual deceleration of 2.40 milliseconds per century over millions of years.
But the new study comes to a surprising conclusion that, if humans continue to emit greenhouse gases at a high rate, the effect of a warming climate will be greater than that of the Moon's pull by the end of the 21st century, said Adhikari.
Between the year 1900 and today, climate has caused days to become around 0.8 milliseconds longer -- and under the worst-case scenario of high emissions, climate alone would be responsible for making days 2.2 milliseconds longer by the year 2100, compared to the same baseline.
That might not sound like a great deal, and certainly not something that humans are able to perceive.
But "there are definitely a lot of implications for space and Earth navigation," said Adhikari.
Knowing the exact orientation of Earth at any given moment is crucial when attempting to communicate with a spaceship, such as the Voyager probes that are now well beyond our solar system, where even a slight deviation of a centimeter can end up being kilometers off by the time it reaches its destination.
People are living longer lives compared to previous generations but, over the last few decades, there has been a hidden shift — they are passing away at increasingly similar ages.
This is a trend captured by the Gini Index, also called the Gini Coefficient. Should everyone pass away at the same age, the Gini Index would be zero. This makes the Gini Index a measure of equality, and a Gini Index of one represents inequality.
The Gini Index, typically associated with wealth distribution, reflects the degree of inequality within a society. In the context of life expectancy, lifespan serves as the new wealth — the Gini Index quantifies the disparity between lifespans, wealth distribution and equality.
Breakthroughs in modern medicine are pushing the boundaries of human longevity, with life expectancy climbing globally, at different rates. The universal lifespan Gini Index hovers around 0.10 — 0.30 across the world, reflecting a reduction in lifespan inequality.
A map showing life expectancy in countries globally in 2021.
But individuals are passing away closer to the average age of mortality. This intriguing trend is measured by the Gini Index, reflecting a noticeable global shift with regional nuances.
Some regions show a tighter cluster of deaths around the average age of death than some other regions. While any two regions may show similar expected average ages of death, it is the distribution of ages at death that is of note. One region may show a clustering of deaths around the expected age, while in another, people may pass away across a broader range of ages.
The GMD predicts the anticipated age gap between two random individuals departing this world at a given moment in time in a specific location, and is used to calculate the Gini Index.
Analyzing the data
To validate these findings, our research team used data from the Human Mortality Database, giving us the number of people dying at various ages during specific time frames. This allowed us to calculate the Gini Index and GMD for select countries with available data.
The data we analysed covers total deaths across age categories from 47 countries spanning various decades. Notable findings from six countries — Canada, the United States, the Netherlands, Japan, Poland and Italy — reveal a universal rise in expected lifespan but a significant decrease in the Gini Index over time, indicating clustering of ages at death around the expected age of death.
Japan and Italy showed the lowest Gini Index (0.09) and GMD (14 years) in the 2010s, while the U.S. showed the highest Gini Index (0.13) and GMD (20 years) during the same period. In the late 1800s, the Netherlands and Italy had GMDs higher than expected lifespan and Gini Indexes higher than 0.5, suggesting the expected difference between the ages in two random deaths was higher than the expected lifespan itself.
Based on this analysis, we have identified a reason for optimism: the Gini Index has shown a consistent decrease over time. This implies that on some level, we anticipate people living longer lives and avoiding premature deaths.
Moving forward, there are several scenarios. The Gini Index may continue its decline, resulting in reduced lifespan inequality. Alternatively, it could stabilize at its current levels, or even worsen, leading to a resurgence in lifespan inequality.
There is often much debate about who is the greatest among sportsmen and women, movie stars, leaders or artists. But some scholars have truly made a staggering difference to the world.
Winning a Nobel prize is a rare, extraordinary achievement, but five remarkable people have done it twice. Who are they? What sets them apart? And who is the greatest?
This is an inherently subjective discussion in which time and context matter a great deal. Here are five top contenders.
Marie Curie – physics (1903) and chemistry (1911)
In a photo of the first Solvay conference for physics and chemistry in 1911, one person stands out among the giants of physics in attendance: the only woman. Marie Curie is the most famous of these five scholars and for good reason.
The world today, as well as science in general, is different because of her. She won her first prize for her work on radioactivity (physics), and then her second a mere eight years later for discovering the elements radium and polonium (chemistry). Among laureates she is the first woman, first double winner, and the first (and only) in two different scientific fields.
The first prize as co-winner was shared with her husband and with Henri Becquerel.
The Curies are a family of five Nobel winners, and the institute she established produced four more.
Curie’s accomplishments are all the more impressive given that she had to fight to obtain a great deal of her opportunities, including gaining a world-class laboratory and becoming a member of the French academy (for which she was never selected).
As a molecular biologist, I confess to a soft spot for Fred Sanger – he is one of my heroes. His two prizes were awarded for creating the processes for sequencing (reading the instruction booklet of) proteins and DNA.
The first, for work on the structure of insulin, he won alone. He shared the second with two other researchers. Sanger’s contribution was his method for determining DNA structure, still used today.
There is no overstating the importance of Sanger’s breakthroughs. Everything from the Human Genome Project to the very discipline of practical molecular biology stem from his sequencing methods. In contrast to the picture painted of Marie Curie, Sanger was a quiet, unassuming figure. It suggests double Nobel laureates don’t all fit the same mould. He should also be far more recognised than he is.
Pauling is the only person to receive two unshared prizes. Only he and Curie have won for two different fields. His discoveries in chemical bonding won him the first, and he helped found molecular biology as a discipline. His work inspired others in race for the DNA structure.
He pioneered quantum chemistry and made the extraordinary prediction of the existence of alpha helices and beta sheets – the secondary structures of proteins. If not for basic errors in predicting the DNA structure, he could have won a third prize but that eventually went to the molecular biologists Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins. His mistakes inadvertently helped the scientist Rosalind Franklin find what was missing. Franklin was the unsung hero of DNA’s discovery, excluded from the Nobel prize despite her crucial contribution.
His second prize was not one of the science prizes but the peace prize. It was awarded for his passionate advocacy for nuclear disarmament with his wife, and he placed himself in the public eye against nuclear testing of weapons wherever possible. He was awarded every major chemistry prize during his life.
John Bardeen – physics twice (1956 and 1972)
Much as with Sanger, Bardeen’s practical breakthroughs cannot be overstated.
The invention of transistors – a device used to amplify or switch electrical signals and power – and the discovery and communication of superconductivity, where materials conduct electricity with little or no resistance, won him his two physics prizes.
Both were shared three ways, but he was the first to receive two prizes in the same field. He really should be a household name, as his work has touched every area of our lives and impacted multiple disciplines.
Some might imagine double Nobel laureates as highly focused on their own careers, but Bardeen helped contribute to others winning the physics prize through generous collaboration with other scientists.
Karl Barry Sharpless – chemistry twice (2001 and 2022)
A more modern champion, Sharpless is the only one still living. Both his prizes were shared but sit among an extraordinary list of prizes he has been honoured with
including the Priestley medal and Wolf medal.
His first was for a process called catalytic asymmetric synthesis. The second was for “click chemistry”, where molecular building blocks can be made to snap together quickly and efficiently to form new compounds.
Not only was he the scientific “king” of click chemistry, but he was also a fine communicator of the science behind the processes named after him.
Sharpless has transformed life around us without our knowing it by making difficult chemistry processes easier. Like others in this shortlist, his passion for the subject and curiosity are boundless. Indeed, in his eighties, he is still at the forefront of research and one of the most respected academics in the world.
So there isn’t an archetype for double Nobel prize winners. Everyone will have their own view on the greatest among these five. For me, it is hard to argue against Marie Curie, who had to overcome huge obstacles as a female scientist at the beginning of the 20th century.
The deck was stacked against her in an extraordinary manner and she blazed a trail for other Nobel winners. Sanger should also be considered among the greatest practical scientists in history, because we’re still reaping the benefits of his successes through the modern genomics revolution.
Most adults never have to take an IQ test. But tests for assessing students’ cognitive abilities, such as the cognitive ability test (Cat), are used in schools around the world. These tests are very similar to IQ tests. Taking them may be a pain for kids. Possibly, it’s an even bigger pain for parents.
Just for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of a parent whose child’s overall Cat score turns out to be below average. A flock of unpleasant questions may pop into your mind. Does that mean they won’t get into a top university? And what about their career?
Some time after all this rumination, another thought may cross your mind. If performance on these tests matters, is it possible to improve it the way we improve on anything else, that is, by practice?
The science reveals that, whether you’re a child or an adult, it is possible to improve your performance on cognitive tests. That said, it won’t make you any smarter.
The long history of testing
Standardized testing has a long history in education and is sometimes used by companies as part of hiring. The most notable example is probably the Chinese civil service examination. This extremely tough assessment was introduced during the Sui dynasty (AD581–618) to select the candidates for the imperial bureaucracy, a job of high prestige.
Not much has changed. Just like imperial China, nowadays, educational institutions worldwide test students on a variety of skills, including both subject knowledge and cognitive abilities. In the US today, the SATs exams are used to filter out applications to prestigious universities. Testing students on subjects like maths, literacy and science makes as much sense as much today as 14 centuries ago.
It is a way to determine if students are learning the skills needed to be cultured, responsible and productive citizens. Less obvious, and more controversial, is what school cognitive testing brings to the table.
Cognitive tests are usually a set of tasks assessing a variety of intellectual capabilities. For instance, the latest version of the Cat measures four cognitive abilities: verbal reasoning, nonverbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning and spatial reasoning.
People who do well on a particular cognitive task are more likely to do well on other cognitive tasks. Cognitive tasks are therefore linked to each other and do not tap into acquired knowledge. So humans must possess a general mental ability to resolve unfamiliar intellectual problems unrelated to a subject. This is what we call intelligence.
Your score on a comprehensive cognitive test is usually referred to as IQ. But IQ scores are just proxies for people’s intelligence. Crucially, these scores are closely linked to academic performance.
In fact, IQ is by far the best predictor of academic achievement and an important predictor of professional success. Cognitive testing is, therefore, a useful and fairly reliable way to predict real-life outcomes.
Practice makes perfect, not smarts
A good performance on cognitive tests is a sign of intelligence. Being intelligent is useful to achieve life goals.
Performance on cognitive tests does improve with practice. For example, a study found that just taking a common nonverbal reasoning test twice increases scores by roughly the equivalent of eight IQ points.
So it is likely that a child taking a test such as the Cat a second time will perform better than the first time. Several rounds of repeated testing yield similar or even larger effects across several cognitive tests, although a plateau is to be expected.
Likewise, adults practicing the same intelligence test several times may improve their performance by learning the logic behind the questions. For this reason, standardized tests, such as the one used by Mensa, are not publicly available.
Still, improving your score by practicing would not prove that your intelligence has increased. As seen, cognitive tests have been designed to measure intelligence by exposing people to new material.
If you have the opportunity to familiarise yourself with a cognitive test beforehand, the test score will, to a certain extent, measure your expertise in performing the test rather than your intelligence. That is, practicing on a cognitive test essentially makes the test results un-interpretable.
To support the claim that training on particular cognitive tasks makes people more intelligent, you need to show that people show improvements on cognitive and academic tasks unrelated to the trained tasks.
The idea of enhancing intelligence via training on cognitive tasks is at least a few decades old. However, the evidence points in the opposite direction. While people consistently improve on trained tasks (or similar tasks), it has no effect on unfamiliar tasks to do with intelligence.
Training your child to perform well on the Cat or any other cognitive test may have practical purposes. For example, some grammar schools seem to use the Cat in their selection process. It may be a boost for the child’s confidence, too.
Still, academic and work skills aren’t. While high intelligence is a significant advantage, school and professional success does not entirely rely on it. Hard work, social class, personality, curiosity, creativity and even luck often have a big effect on individual lives.
Around 5,200 years ago, plague was not just present but common in six generations of one Swedish family, according to a
new study.
The researchers analysed both the ancient DNA of these people’s skeletal remains and the pathogens that left traces in them.
Three different strains of plague were present, of which the latest was possibly significantly more virulent than the earlier two. However, none had the gene that enabled the flea-based transmission behind the spread of the bubonic plague, the
Black Death disease that resulted in the loss of half the population in some parts of medieval Europe between 1347 and 1351.
The authors of the new study analysed ancient DNA from 108 Scandinavian Neolithic people found in eight “megalithic” large stone tombs in Sweden and one stone cist (a coffin-like box in the ground) in Denmark. The plague bacterium
Yersinia pestis was found in about 17% of those whose DNA was sequenced, but this probably underestimates its frequency.
The three distinct waves of plague spread through the population over a period of around 120 years. The first two waves were small and contained, but the third was more widespread.
Population crashes
The researchers suggest the wide prevalence of plague around 5,200 years ago could have contributed to the striking declines seen in the Neolithic population in Europe. These declines, of the order of those seen during the Black Death, have been revealed by archaeological research in southern Scandinavia and many other parts of Europe over the last 15 years.
We know this in part because the number of radiocarbon-dated archaeological sites drops very considerably in this period. Analysis of fossil pollen from plants and trees preserved in bogs and lakes also suggests areas that had previously been cleared for farming saw the regrowth of forests, so these two lines of evidence support one another.
But while the population declines are not in doubt, the idea that plague was responsible is much more open to question. To understand why, we need to go a bit further back.
Farming was brought to southern Scandinavia about 6,000 years ago by immigrant descendants of
people originally from present-day Turkey. These farmers had intermixed to varying degrees with the local hunter-gatherers – the people already present in Europe – as they dispersed across the continent over the preceding 2,500 years.
Neolithic passage grave at Falbygden, southern Sweden.
Frederik Seersholm, Author provided
The population of farmers in southern Scandinavia expanded very rapidly, reaching a peak around 5,600 years ago, 400 years after their arrival. At this point, it started to decrease, dropping by perhaps as much as 60-70% over the following 300 years.
The decline was not a sudden event like the Black Death, but a gradual process. In fact, by the time of the occurrences of plague revealed by the new research, the population level had already reached its floor. But the population continued to remain low, so plague might have been instrumental in this.
Britain makes an interesting comparison. Here too, farming was introduced by immigrants around 6,000 years ago, and we see
exactly the same pattern: the population rises to a peak 400 years later, then gradually declines until it reaches a low point 500-600 years later.
After the first couple of hundred years of farming immigration, there is very little evidence of continental connections that could have introduced plague until the arrival of
new immigrants from the east after 4,500 years ago.
These immigrants carried a type of genetic ancestry, known as Eurasian steppe ancestry, that had first appeared in the western half of Europe around 5,000 years ago. It seems significant that, so far, the earliest evidence of plague in Britain is after this, from two Bronze Age sites dating to around 4,000 years ago.
It’s also worth noting that farming was very late arriving at the northwest extremities of Europe. Immigrant farmers had arrived in southeast and central Europe 8,500 and 7,500 years ago respectively. Here too, wherever people have looked, they have found
similar boom-bust population patterns.
In other words, there seems to be some general process going on here that we still don’t really understand. Possible explanations include outbreaks of violence as the population peaks, and climate cooling events affecting crop yields. For the moment, disease outbreaks look a less likely explanation.
Storm-chasing for science can be exciting and stressful – we know, because we do it. It has also been essential for developing today’s understanding of how tornadoes form and how they behave.
In 1996 the movie “Twister” brought storm-chasing into the public imagination as scientists played by Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton raced ahead of tornadoes to deploy their sensors and occasionally got too close. That movie inspired a generation of atmospheric scientists.
With the new movie “Twisters” coming out on July 19, 2024, we’ve been getting questions about storm-chasing – or storm intercepts, as we call them.
Here are some answers about what scientists who do this kind of fieldwork are up to when they race off after storms.
Scientists with the National Severe Storms Lab ‘intercepted’ this tornado to collect data using mobile radar and other instruments on May 24, 2024. National Severe Storms Lab
What does a day of storm-chasing really look like?
The morning of a chase day starts with a good breakfast, because there might not be any chance to eat a good meal later in the day.
Our goal is to figure out where tornadoes are most likely to occur that day. Temperature, moisture and winds, and how these change with height above the ground, all provide clues.
There is a “hurry up and wait” cadence to a storm chase day. We want to get into position quickly, but then we’re often waiting for storms to develop.
A ‘hook echo’ on radar, typically a curl at the back of a storm cell, is one sign that a tornado could form. The hook reflects precipitation wrapping around the back side of the updraft. National Severe Storms Lab
Storms often take time to develop before they’re capable of producing tornadoes. So we watch the storm carefully on radar and with our eyes, if possible, staying well ahead of it until it matures. Often, we’ll watch multiple storms and look for signs that one might be more likely to generate tornadoes.
Once the mission scientist declares a deployment, everyone scrambles to get into position.
We use a lot of different instruments to track and measure tornadoes, and there is an art to determining when to deploy them. Too early, and the tornado might not form where the instruments are. Too late, and we’ve missed it. Each instrument needs to be in a specific location relative to the tornado. Some need to be deployed well ahead of the storm and then stay stationary. Others are car-mounted and are driven back and forth within the storm.
Vehicle-mounted equipment can act as mobile weather stations known as mesonets. These were used in the VORTEX2 research project. Dozens of scientists, including the authors, succeeded in recording the entire life cycle of a supercell tornado during VORTEX2 in 2009. Yvette Richardson
If all goes well, team members will be concentrating on the data coming in. Some will be launching weather balloons at various distances from the tornado, while others will be placing “pods” containing weather instruments directly in the path of the tornado.
A whole network of observing stations will have been set up across the storm, with radars collecting data from multiple angles, photographers capturing the storm from multiple angles, and instrumented vehicles transecting key areas of the storm.
Not all of our work is focused on the tornado itself. We often target areas around the tornado or within other parts of the storm to understand how the rotation forms. Theories suggest that this rotation can be generated by temperature variations within the storm’s precipitation region, potentially many miles from where the tornado forms.
Formation of a tornado: Changes in wind speed and direction with altitude, known as wind shear, are associated with horizontal spin, similar to that of a football. As this spinning air is drawn into the storm’s updraft, the updraft rotates. A separate air stream descends through a precipitation-driven downdraft and acquires horizontal spin because of temperature differences along the air stream. This spinning air can be tilted into the vertical and sucked upward by the supercell’s updraft, contracting the spin near the ground into a tornado. Paul Markowski/Penn State
Through all of this, the teams stay in contact using text messages and software that allows us to see everyone’s position relative to the latest radar images. We’re also watching the forecast for the next day so we can plan where to go next and find hotel rooms and, hopefully, a late dinner.
What do all those instruments tell you about the storm?
One of the most important tools of storm-chasing is weather radar. It captures what’s happening with precipitation and winds above the ground.
We use several types of radars, typically attached to trucks so we can move fast. Some transmit with a longer wavelength that helps us see farther into a storm, but at the cost of a broader width to their beam, resulting in a fuzzier picture. They are good for collecting data across the entire storm.
Smaller-wavelength radars cannot penetrate as far into the precipitation, but they do offer the high-resolution view necessary to capture small-scale phenomena like tornadoes. We put these radars closer to the developing tornado.
An inside look at some of the mobile systems and tools scientists use in storm-chasing, including how team members monitor storms in real time.
We also monitor wind, air pressure, temperature and humidity along the ground using various instruments attached to moving vehicles, or by temporarily deploying stationary arrays of these instruments ahead of the approaching storm. Some of these are meant to be hit by the tornado.
Weather balloons provide crucial data, too. Some are designed to ascend through the atmosphere and capture the conditions outside the storm. Others travel through the storm itself, measuring the important temperature variations in the rain-cooled air beneath the storm. Scientists are now using drones in the same way in parts of the storm.
Symbols show the paths of over 70 balloon-borne probes that the authors’ team launched into a supercell thunderstorm. The probes, carried by the wind, mapped the temperature in the storm’s downdraft region, which can be a critical source of rotation for tornadoes. Luke LeBel/Penn State
All of this gives scientists insight into the processes happening throughout the storm before and during tornado development and throughout the tornado’s lifetime.
How do you stay safe while chasing tornadoes?
Storms can be very dangerous and unpredictable, so it’s important to always stay on top of the radar and watch the storm.
A storm can cycle, developing a new tornado downstream of the previous one. Tornadoes can change direction, particularly as they are dying or when they have a complex structure with multiple funnels. Storm chasers know to look at the entire storm, not just the tornado, and to be on alert for other storms that might sneak up. An escape plan based on the storm’s expected motion and the road network is essential.
In 1947, the Thunderstorm Project was the first large-scale U.S. scientific study of thunderstorms and the first to use radar and airplanes. Other iconic projects followed, including ones that deployed a Totable Tornado Observatory, or Toto, which inspired the ‘Dorothy’ instrument in the movie ‘Twister.’
Scientists take calculated risks when they’re storm chasing – enough to collect crucial data, but never putting their teams in too much danger.
It turns out that driving is actually the most dangerous part of storm-chasing, particularly when roads are wet and visibility is poor – as is often the case at the end of the day. During the chase, the driving danger can be compounded by erratic driving of other storm chasers and traffic jams around storms.
What happens to all the data you collect while storm-chasing?
It would be nice to have immediate eureka moments, but the results take time.
After we collect the data, we spend years analyzing it. Combining data from all the instruments to get a complete picture of the storm and how it evolved takes time and patience. But having data on the wind, temperature, relative humidity and pressure from many different angles and instruments allows us to test theories about how tornadoes develop.
Although the analysis process is slow, the discoveries are often as exciting as the tornado itself.