Research

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares62 Views

    Americans Have Regained Modest Trust in Scientists, Survey Finds

    by

    A sharp partisan divide remains over how involved researchers should be in policy decisions.For the first time since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the public’s trust in scientists has improved, according to a survey published Thursday by the Pew Research Center.About 76 percent of Americans say they have confidence that scientists act in the public’s best interest, a modest but significant improvement from last year but about 10 points lower than the figure before the pandemic.This year’s uptick was driven largely by a slight increase in trust among Republicans, a group that also experienced the steepest drop in confidence during the pandemic, said Alec Tyson, a Pew researcher and the report’s lead author.Still, the roughly 9,500 Americans surveyed were divided over whether scientists should play a role in policy decisions — a particularly timely issue now, as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to appoint leaders of the country’s science and health agencies.About half of the survey respondents said experts should take “an active role” in policy debates about scientific issues, like childhood vaccines and climate change, while the other half said they should focus instead on “establishing sound scientific facts.”Respondents were largely split along partisan lines: 67 percent of Democrats believed scientists should be involved in policy debates, compared with just 35 percent of Republicans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares64 Views

      in Elections

      25 Escaped Monkeys of 43 Are Captured in South Carolina

      by

      The monkeys escaped after a worker at a research center left an enclosure unlocked. One monkey was captured Saturday, and another 24 on Sunday, while the rest remain at large.Twenty-five of 43 monkeys that escaped an enclosure at a South Carolina research center were captured on Saturday and Sunday while the rest remain at large, officials said.Dozens of rhesus macaques made a break for it on Wednesday after a caretaker at the research center, Alpha Genesis, failed to latch the door behind her after feeding the 50 monkeys and cleaning their enclosure.The police in Yemassee, about 60 miles west of Charleston, said on Facebook on Sunday that 24 monkeys were recovered on Sunday by Alpha Genesis. One monkey was caught on Saturday. It was not clear where the monkeys were captured.Based on initial reports, veterinarians said that the recovered monkeys were in good health, according to the Facebook post. The police added that a large group of the escaped monkeys remain along the research center’s fence line.The Facebook post, quoting Greg Westergaard, chief executive of Alpha Genesis, said that the “recovery process is slow, but the team is committed to taking as much time as necessary to safely recover all remaining animals.”Alpha Genesis houses about 7,000 primates for biomedical studies and other scientific research.The police warned the public not to get near the animals and not to get too close to the research center, which is on 100 acres and surrounded by woods where some of the monkeys have been spotted in trees.The Facebook post also urged residents not to fly drones in the area.“A recent incident involving a drone led to the primates becoming spooked, which not only increased their stress but also complicated efforts for their safe return,” the post said.There is no risk to public health because the animals are too young to carry disease, according to Alpha Genesis.Gregory Alexander, the town’s police chief, said that it’s unlikely that the monkeys would be aggressive toward humans, though they are skittish. Each weighs six to seven pounds.The research center is using humane traps and fresh fruit and vegetables to bait the monkeys, which is an effective lure because the domesticated animals cannot easily find food in the wild. A couple of the escapees entered the traps, but did not go in far enough to make the doors close, the police said.The town’s 2,200 residents have been asked to keep their doors and windows closed, and to call the police if they spot a monkey.This is not the first time the town has dealt with escaped monkeys from Alpha Genesis.In 2014, 26 monkeys escaped and were recaptured within two days. In 2017, the company was fined $12,600 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for that episode and other failures to contain the animals. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      From AI to Musk’s Brain Chip, the F.D.A.’s Device Unit Faces Rapid Change

      by

      The new director overseeing medical devices will confront criticisms about hasty approvals as she ushers in revolutionary technology.There are now artificial intelligence programs that scan M.R.I.s for signs of cancer, Apple AirPods that work as hearing aids and devices that decode the electrical blips of the brain to restore speech to those who have lost it.Medical device technology is now deeply entrenched in many patients’ health care and can have a stunning impact on their lives. As advancements become more tangible to millions of Americans, regulation of the devices has commanded increasing attention at the Food and Drug Administration.Dr. Michelle Tarver, a 15-year-veteran of the agency, is stepping into that spotlight at a critical time. She is taking the reins of the F.D.A.’s device division from Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, who forged deep ties with the device industry, sped up the pace of approvals and made the agency more approachable to companies. Some of those device makers were represented by Dr. Shuren’s wife and her law firm, posing ethical conflicts for him that continue to draw scrutiny.Dr. Michelle Tarver, an ophthalmologist and a 15-year veteran of the F.D.A.’s medical device division.U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationMore broadly, congressional lawmakers and consumer advocates have become increasingly concerned about the device industry’s influence over the sprawling division, which has a budget of about $790 million and a staff of 2,500. Device safety and standards for agency approvals of products as intimate as heart valves or neural implants will be at the forefront of the division’s mission in the coming years. Among the issues Dr. Tarver will encounter:Brains, computers and Elon MuskFew devices will require such intense oversight as one of the most breathtaking technologies in development: brain-computer interfaces that dip into the surface layers of the brain to decode its electrical noise — and return function to people who have lost it.Researchers from a number of teams have demonstrated the capability to restore the voice and speech of a California man with ALS, to enable a paralyzed man to walk and to help a man who is paralyzed below the neck to play Mario Kart by simply thinking about steering left or right.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares137 Views

      in Elections

      Heart-Valve Patients Should Have Earlier Surgery, Study Suggests

      by

      The results of a new clinical trial have overturned the “wait and see” approach that cardiologists have long favored for symptom-free patients.For decades, people with failing heart valves who nevertheless felt all right would walk out of the cardiologist’s office with the same “wait and see” treatment plan: Come back in six or 12 months. No reason to go under the knife just yet.A new clinical trial has overturned that thinking, suggesting that those patients would be much better off having their valves replaced right away with a minimally invasive procedure.The trial, whose results were published this week in The New England Journal of Medicine, could change the way doctors treat severe aortic stenosis, a narrowing of the valve that controls blood flow from the heart. The disease, which has a prognosis worse than that of most cancers, afflicts more than 3 percent of people ages 65 and older. It is expected to become more common as people live longer.Replacing people’s heart valves, even if they were not yet experiencing any ill effects, appeared to roughly halve their risk of being unexpectedly hospitalized for heart problems over at least two years, the trial found.Patients who were put on the more conservative treatment plan overwhelmingly ended up needing surgery anyway: Roughly 70 percent of them developed symptoms and needed to have their valves replaced within two years, suggesting that the disease worsens more quickly than previously understood.“You may be able to at least prevent that progression and perhaps improve patient outcomes by treating earlier,” said Dr. Gregg Stone, a professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, describing the implications of the trial. The findings, he said, “will have a major effect on practice.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares128 Views

      in Elections

      Was This Scrap of Cloth Once a Tunic Worn by Alexander the Great?

      by

      A Greek researcher says a piece of purple-and-white fabric discovered decades ago in a tomb in northern Greece may have belonged to Alexander. Others disagree.Could it be a scrap of Alexander the Great’s clothing?A fragile piece of purple-and-white fabric, frayed over more than two millenniums, that was found in one of a series of tombs in northern Greece decades ago is at the center of a new claim ruffling feathers in the country’s archaeological community.The debate erupted this month after Antonis Bartsiokas, a paleoanthropologist at Democritus University of Thrace, published a paper arguing that one of the tombs, believed up to now to house the remains and treasures of Alexander’s father, actually held items belonging to Alexander the Great himself and his half brother. That included a purple chiton, or tunic.The claim challenges the work of one Greece’s most renowned archaeologists, Manolis Andronicos, who led the discovery of the tomb in 1977. Mr. Andronicos, who died in 1992, had asserted that the tomb and artifacts belonged to the father, Philip II of Macedon, whose military victories united ancient Greece and laid the foundation for his son’s conquests from Egypt to India.Mr. Bartsiokas, who specializes in the microanalysis of fossils, instead believes it was Alexander’s half brother, Arrhidaeus, or Philip III, who was buried in the tomb, along with some of Alexander’s possessions, including the chiton, a piece of purple cotton with a layer of white fabric in between.If the new claim were confirmed, it could upend long-held beliefs about one of the most important burial sites in Greece. Some Greek archaeologists say, however, that the claim is without substance.Mr. Bartsiokas said he used new technology and his interpretation of an ancient frieze found in the tomb to make his case.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares162 Views

      in Elections

      One-Third of World’s Trees Face Extinction Risk, Report at COP16 Says

      by

      They play an essential role in supporting life on Earth, but many species are in decline, researchers found.More than a third of the world’s tree species are threatened with extinction, according to the first comprehensive assessment of trees by the world’s leading scientific authority on the status of species.The findings, announced on Monday by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, are especially sobering given the amount of life that trees sustain. Countless species of other plants, animals and fungi rely on forest ecosystems. Trees are also fundamental to regulating water, nutrients and planet-warming carbon.“Trees are essential to support life on Earth through their vital role in ecosystems, and millions of people depend on them for their lives and livelihoods,” Grethel Aguilar, director general of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, said in a statement.The tree assessment is considered comprehensive because it includes more than 80 percent of known tree species. In all, 38 percent were found to be at risk of extinction. More than a thousand experts from around the world contributed.Island biodiversity is particularly vulnerable, in part because those species often have small populations that exist nowhere else, and island trees accounted for the highest proportion of trees threatened with extinction. In Madagascar, for example, numerous species of rosewoods and ebonies are threatened. In Borneo, 99 species in the family of trees called Dipterocarpaceae are imperiled. In Cuba, fewer than 75 mature individuals of the red-flowered Harpalyce macrocarpa, known in Spanish as maiden’s blood, remain.Around the world, the biggest threats to trees are agriculture and logging, followed by urbanization, said Emily Beech, head of conservation prioritization at Botanic Gardens Conservation International, a nonprofit group that led the research now included in the Red List.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares168 Views

      in Elections

      Enigmas Seen With James Webb Space Telescope May Be Stellar Bullying Victims

      by

      Some 1,350 light-years from Earth, astronomers detected strange pairs of unexplained objects orbiting in the Orion Nebula. Since then, about 12 months ago, other scientists have proposed a new potential explanation for these apparitions, while other researchers wonder whether they exist at all.“There’s a bit less confidence they exist,” said Rosalba Perna, a theoretical astrophysicist at Stony Brook University. But “even just having one would revolutionize what we thought was possible” for star and planet formation.Using the James Webb Space Telescope, astronomers have started to reveal the Orion Nebula in glorious detail, showcasing the brilliant swirling clouds of dust and gas that will give rise to hundreds of stars in the next few million years.Two scientists, Mark McCaughrean at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany and Samuel Pearson from the European Space Agency in the Netherlands, detected more than 40 pairs of objects similar in mass to Jupiter floating within the nebula. They named the objects Jupiter Mass Binary Objects, or JuMBOs.A James Webb Space Telescope image showing the spectrum of light from objects in the Orion Nebula, known as Jupiter Mass Binary Objects, among some of the fainter lines. The white dots in the image are bad pixels and cosmic ray hits, not stars.Mark McCaughrean (MPIA) & Sam Pearson (ESA)scienceThe JuMBOs suggested something was wrong in our understanding of star and planet formation. Stars form from the gravitational collapse of dust and gas, but JuMBOs appeared to be too small to have undergone this process, suggesting they formed as planets around stars that were then ejected. However, their presence in pairs complicates this scenario. It is unlikely that dozens of pairs of planets thrown from a star would end up orbiting one another because of their low gravitational attraction.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares148 Views

      in Elections

      82 American Nobel Prize Winners Endorse Kamala Harris

      by

      More than 80 American Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics have signed an open letter endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president.“This is the most consequential presidential election in a long time, perhaps ever, for the future of science and the United States,” reads the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. “We, the undersigned, strongly support Harris.”The letter praises Ms. Harris for understanding that “the enormous increases in living standards and life expectancies over the past two centuries are largely the result of advances in science and technology.” Former President Donald Trump, by contrast, would “jeopardize any advancements in our standards of living, slow the progress of science and technology and impede our responses to climate change,” the letter said.Eighty-two Nobel laureates — from a physicist who helped discover leftover light from the Big Bang to an immunologist who paved the way for one type of Covid-19 vaccine — have signed the letter. The laureates include the molecular biologist Gary Ruvkun, the chemist David Baker, the physicist John Hopfield and the economist Daron Acemoglu, all of whom won Nobels this month.Read the Letter from Nobel Laureates Endorsing Kamala Harris for PresidentMore than 80 American Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics have signed an open letter endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president.Read Document 4 pagesJoseph Stiglitz, an economist at Columbia University who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001, drafted the endorsement. He said he was motivated by the “enormous cuts in science budgets” Mr. Trump proposed during his presidency, as well as what Dr. Stiglitz described as the former president’s “anti-science” and “anti-university” stances.While in office, Mr. Trump proposed a budget that would have led to a severe loss of funds for federal health and science agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Science Foundation and the Environmental Protection Agency. On the campaign trail this year, Mr. Trump has suggested shutting down the Department of Education.“I hope it’s a wake-up call for people,” Dr. Stiglitz said of the letter. “A consequence of this election is the really profound impact that his agenda has on science and technology.”The letter also praised Ms. Harris’s recognition of the role that immigrants play in advancing science and technology, both nationally and on a global scale. Immigration has been a key issue in this year’s election, with both candidates promising a stricter approach than their prior presidential campaigns.Many scientists are inclined to “stick to their knitting,” Dr. Stiglitz said — focusing on their research rather than politics, and on knowledge for knowledge’s sake instead of the real-world applications that result from it.“But they’ve recognized this is a moment where you can’t be silent,” he said. More

    • 150 Shares188 Views

      in Elections

      Teens Think Movies and TV Shows Have Too Much Sex, Study Finds

      by

      At least that is what they told researchers at U.C.L.A. The high popularity of romance plots in movies and shows suggests otherwise.Movies and television shows about rich people are the last thing we want to watch. And skip the sex: We prefer content that focuses on platonic relationships. (There’s enough porn online as it is.) We do like fantasy as a genre, increasingly so. But please, pretty please, fix how you incorporate social media into story lines. It’s cringe.That is what young people — ages 10 to 24 — think about movies, television shows, video games and social media, according to a study released Thursday.The study, Teens & Screens, conducted by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that 63.5 percent of participants said they wanted content that depicted platonic relationships, as opposed to romance and sex. That is up from 51.5 percent last year. (Questions involving romance and sex were not shown to participants ages 10 to 13.)Of course, what study participants say and what they actually do can vary wildly. There is ample evidence to the contrary among shows that are popular with younger audiences, including “The Sex Lives of College Girls,” a raunchy comedy; “Emily in Paris,” an impassioned romance; and “Tell Me Lies,” a steamy soap.Movies like “Poor Things,” which found an insatiable Emma Stone romping through a Paris brothel, and the sexually frank “All of Us Strangers” attracted a surprisingly large audience of people in their early 20s, according to box office analysts.This year’s study was conducted in August and included 1,644 young people.“We’re trying to shift the culture by giving storytellers better information,” said Yalda T. Uhls, the founder and chief executive of the Center for Scholars & Storytellers, which is based at U.C.L.A. “The problem is often that Hollywood storytellers use their own memories of their teenage years or what their children in Los Angeles are doing, and that does not remotely represent what young people really want.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More