Science & Technology News

[GordMay]

The race for coronavirus vaccines: a graphical guide
Eight ways in which scientists hope to provide immunity to SARS-CoV-2 .
More than 90 vaccines are being developed against SARS-CoV-2 by research teams across the world. They are trialling different technologies, some of which haven’t been used in a licensed vaccine before. At least six groups have already begun injecting formulations into volunteers in safety trials; others have started testing in animals. Nature’s graphical guide explains each vaccine design. (Nature | 8 min read)
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01221-y

[GordMay]

Renewable power surges, as pandemic scrambles global energy outlook
The pandemic-induced global economic meltdown has triggered a drop in energy demand and related carbon emissions that could transform how the world gets its energy -- even after the disease wanes, according to a report released today by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
- Global energy demand is expected to drop by 6% in 2020, compared to the previous year. That’s a seven times bigger drop than in the wake of the 2008 recession. The biggest change is predicted for the most developed economies, with a 9% decline in the U.S. and 11% in the European Union.
- Carbon emissions from the energy sector are expected to fall by 8% for the year – almost 2.6 gigatonnes. That make it the largest drop ever recorded, and six times the decline caused by the last recession.
- Demand for renewable energy is expected to grow 1% over the year, driven by a 5% increase in use of renewable electricity. That contrast with fossil fuels stems largely from the low fuel costs for generating electricity from wind, sunlight or hydroelectric dams.
IEA Global Energy Review 2020 ➥ https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020

[GordMay]

Watch a half-dead sea urchin get menaced by a hungry crab—and live to tell the tale
Seafloor images taken off the coast of Norway have revealed a new high-water mark for the tenacious sea urchin: Despite having a gaping hole where its anus and sexual organs used to be, one severely injured Strongylocentrotus kept moving for at least 43 hours and 20 minutes, at one point even dodging an attack from a hungry crab.
More ➥ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...n=urchin-24179

Video ➥ https://youtu.be/g3t5l97na-k

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Get the latest SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY NEWS with updated newsfeeds & free email newsletters, from (just a few of) the many free, on-line, science & technology journals:

“Nature” ➥ https://www.nature.com/news

“Science” ➥ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/latest-news

NASA ➥ https://science.nasa.gov/science-news

Science Daily ➥ https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/top/science/

Phys Org ➥ https://phys.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI...yAAEgLFsPD_BwE



Science News ➥ https://www.sciencenews.org/

“National Geographic” ➥ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/latest-stories/

“Scientific American” ➥ https://www.scientificamerican.com/

“Live Science” ➥ https://www.livescience.com/news

“New Scientist” ➥ https://www.newscientist.com/

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ➥ https://thebulletin.org/

One of my favorites is "Earthsky" with a popular astronomy focus.
https://earthsky.org/

[GordMay]

“Dispersion, Accumulation, and the Ultimate Fate of Microplastics in Deep-Marine Environments: A Review and Future Directions” ~ by Ian A. Kane and Michael A. Clare
Ocean currents are sweeping microplastics into the deep sea.
Deep underwater currents are creating large build-ups of microplastics, in biologically rich areas, on the sea floor. An estimated 8.3 billion tons of non-biodegradable plastic has been produced over the last 65 years. Much of this is not recycled, and is disposed into the natural environment, has a long environmental residence time, and accumulates in sedimentary systems worldwide, posing a threat to important ecosystems, and potentially human health.
Ian Kane, and his colleagues, analysed the effect of slow-moving currents on the accumulation of microplastics (fragments and fibres less than one millimetre in size).
Looking at currents in the Tyrrhenian Sea, off the western coast of Italy, the team found that microplastics aggregate in biodiversity hotspots, at concentrations of up to 1.9 million pieces per square metre.
More ➥ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...019.00080/full

[GordMay]

‘A new era in human spaceflight'
SpaceX to launch first test flight with humans in 39 years
NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley are ready to make history as they prepare to become the first two Americans to launch from U.S. soil since 2011.
Behnken and Hurley are scheduled to launch from the Kennedy Space Center at 4:32 p.m. ET on May 27 atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in a Crew Dragon capsule in the Demo-2 mission.
Demo-2 is the first test with humans since the 1981 launch of the space shuttle Columbia. It will also mark the first time astronauts have landed in the ocean since the Apollo missions.
The May 27 launch follows the first test, Demo-1, a mission that sent an uncrewed Crew Dragon to dock with the International Space Station (ISS) in March 2019, while Canadian astronaut David Saint-Jacques was aboard.
The launch will be historic for another reason: unlike most launches, NASA and SpaceX are insisting that people NOT head down to Cape Canaveral to watch the historic event. Watch it from home; watch it online; watch it on TV.
➥ https://www.spacex.com/news/2020/04/...demo-2-mission
➥ https://www.nasa.gov/specials/dm2/

[GordMay]

Clinical Trials Database

The global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has seen a deluge of clinical studies, with hundreds registered on clinicaltrials.gov. ClinicalTrials.gov is a database of privately and publicly funded clinical studies, conducted around the world.
Explore 337,990 research studies in all 50 states and in 210 countries, including:
COVID-19 - 1,133 studies
SARS-CoV-2 - 393 studies
2019-nCoV - 34 studies
severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 - 30 studies
2019 novel coronavirus - 20 studies
Wuhan coronavirus - 1 studies
Studies ➥ https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19

[GordMay]

A Pandemic is No Time to Sacrifice Research Integrity
The global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has seen a deluge of clinical studies, with hundreds registered on clinicaltrials.gov. But a palpable sense of urgency, and a lingering concern that “in critical situations, large randomized controlled trials are not always feasible or ethical” perpetuate the perception that, when it comes to the rigors of science, crisis situations demand exceptions to high standards for quality.
Everyone wants a treatment or cure for COVID-19. A viable vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 wouldn’t be bad either.
However, it’s important that researchers, pursuing these vital innovations, don’t cut corners in design, protocols, and ethics to achieve these Holy Grails.
To enable stakeholders to fulfill their social responsibilities, research should embody five conditions of informativeness and social value:
Importance
Rigorous design
Analytical integrity
Trials should be reported completely, promptly, and consistently with prespecified analyses
Feasibility

“Against pandemic research exceptionalism” ~ by Alex John London, & Jonathan Kimmelman
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6490/476

[SailOar]

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments

Starting today [September 24, 2013], PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here's why.

... Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.

If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.

Even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story...

[LakeSuperior]

So let me parse this out (I see the article is dated 2013.)

The Popular Science management feels that:

Popular Science presents to their readers the pure and unassailable science truth.

Their science readers are too dumb to understand a science article. Their thoughts becomes corrupted by reading the comments sections.

Comments/debate on a article in Popular Science leads to bad public policy.

[Mike OReilly]

So, this is kinda funny, because when I go to the PS website I see comments are currently allowed, at least on the 1/2-dozen articles I clicked on. So I guess they reversed their decision?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments

Starting today [September 24, 2013], PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here's why.

... Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.

If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.

Even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story...

Can hardly think of a better example illustrating the dichotomy between science and politics/religion.


Not to mention human nature and 'reality'.

[CaptTom]

I just ran across this thread for the first time, and I appreciate what you're trying to do, Gord. I do hope we can keep the politics at bay.

I've noticed that on news aggregator sites like Google News, the "Science" section seems to be filled with fluff stories about how exciting it is to see the "Super Blue Worm Moon" or whatever. I guess people are too stupid to comprehend that full moons and orbital perigees are pretty well understood now.

Likewise, the "Technology" section is generally all about some newly-leaked feature of the next iPhone. This from the company which thinks rounded corners are such a technological breakthrough that they patented them.

My point is, it's hard to find legitimate science and technology articles from the popular media outlets. I applaud any effort to change that.

[SailOar]

A rather scary AI developement.

Deepfakes Are Going To Wreak Havoc On Society. We Are Not Prepared.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by SailOar

A rather scary AI developement.

Deepfakes Are Going To Wreak Havoc On Society. We Are Not Prepared.

You mean more than the 'business' model that Forbes supports has already wreaked on society?

Nothing at all truly scary about deepfakes or any other artefact of the seriously misnamed information age. Bacteria will survive.

It could be construed as a bit sad if the only (at least semi) self-aware entity in the universe snuffed itself out in a spasm of narcissistic folly, but given the likelyhood of we being the only example (virtually zero), don't think it's much of a thing.

Appears to be about the right time to embrace the philosophy (sic) of the deniers and the conspiracists, and grab what you can whilst the grabbing is good.

What have you (we) got to lose?