Science

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares139 Views

    Anxious scientists brace for Trump’s climate denialism: ‘We have a target on our backs’

    by

    As the world’s largest gathering of Earth and space scientists swarmed a Washington venue last week, the packed halls have been permeated by an air of anxiety and even dread over a new Donald Trump presidency that might worsen what has been a bruising few years for science.The annual American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting drew a record 31,000 attendees this year for the unveiling of a slew of new research on everything from seismology to climate science to heliospheric physics, alongside a sprawling trade show and bouts of networking as scientists jostle to advance their work.As grad students and grizzled researchers huddled around pin-boarded presentations in a cavernous exhibition space, however, one person dominated muttered conversations: Trump. The president-elect has called climate science a “giant scam” and when last in office sought to gut US scientific funding and sidelined or even punished scientists deemed unfriendly to the interests of the chemical and fossil fuel industries.The prospect of an even more ideologically driven Trump administration slashing budgets and mass-firing federal staff has given America’s scientific community a sort of collective anxiety attack. “We all feel like we have a target on our backs,” said one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist, who added that agency staff are already seeking to “pivot” by replacing mentions of the climate crisis with more acceptable terms such as “air quality”.View image in fullscreen“My god, it’s so depressing,” said another federal scientist about the incoming administration. A doctoral candidate, when asked about entering the workforce under Trump, simply puffed her cheeks and groaned. “If someone offered me a departmental position now, I’d jump,” said one Nasa researcher. “It’s hard, particularly for younger people. Hopefully we will survive it all.”The challenges posed by the incoming administration barely featured in the official AGU program, which was more focused on highlighting new research – from a dire new warning about the melting Arctic to innovations that leverage artificial intelligence – and general boosterism of the value of science to our lives. But the leadership of the organization acknowledged there was a sense of unease.“Some of the signals coming out right now make people nervous about what’s going to happen to their jobs, their livelihoods, let alone what their science is,” said Ben Zaitchik, a climate scientist who will be president-elect of the AGU next year. “You could say people are feeling beleaguered or besieged, but many are also motivated. At the same time, it’s a time of transition. So we just don’t know.”Trump – through his alteration of hurricane maps with a Sharpie pen, staring with uncovered eyes at a solar eclipse and suggestion that disinfectant injections could cure Covid-19 – is seen by many here at the meeting as a catalyst of scientific contrarianism.This has been underscored by the nomination of Robert F Kennedy, who holds an array of conspiracy theories about vaccines, wind farms and chemtrails, as the nominee for the US’s new health secretary, as well as Trump’s promise this week to cast aside environmental reviews for “any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America”.View image in fullscreenBut scientists in the US face a broader crisis beyond the next president, amid a swirl of misinformation and declining trust in the profession among the American public. Overall trust in scientists has fallen by 10% since the pandemic, Pew polling has shown, with a growing partisan gap emerging in how science is viewed; nearly four in 10 Republicans now say they have little to no confidence in scientists acting in the public’s best interests.“When we get that kind of polling data, it is concerning,” acknowledged Lisa Graumlich, a paleoclimatologist and the current AGU president. Gone, it seems, are the halcyon days of celebrity 19th-century scientists such as Charles Darwin and Alexander von Humboldt, or even the reception to the polio vaccine in the 1950s, which was greeted with ringing church bells, with its inventor, Jonas Salk, routinely being greeted with applause and handshakes when he was seen in public.By contrast, Anthony Fauci, the face of the US response to the Covid pandemic, requires round-the-clock security protection due to ongoing death threats, even after his retirement. Climate scientists and meteorologists, too, have faced threats and harassment.“The conspiracy theories are out there, the misinformation is there,” said Graumlich. “Social media engines and the algorithms can take a person that isn’t necessarily prone to a conspiracy mindset and have them end up in this rabbit hole of misinformation.”Some researchers think scientists should adapt to this hyper-partisan environment by sticking to unadorned facts, rather than anything that could be seen as campaigning. “We have been come to be seen as just another partisan lobbying group,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I want us to get back to a point where scientists are seen as the establishers of facts rather than arguing for policy. We need to get back to a situation where we have a shared set of facts.”Others are determined to press the case for science to guide decisions, if not in the White House then with Congress, which previously thwarted major Trump-demanded cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency and Nasa’s Earth science work.View image in fullscreenJay Famiglietti, a hydrologist at Arizona State University who has come to AGU meetings since 1989, attended this year’s event to reveal terrifying findings about the loss of available freshwater around the world, due to the climate crisis and agricultural practices.“People like me who are experts need to step up and say, ‘I think this should be done,’” said Famiglietti, who has tangled with a family member about Trump and has even taken to switching Fox News off from the TVs in his local gym.“I mean I am not going to chain myself to a wellhead but I’m going to make sure the right people in Congress, in Washington, know about it,” he said. “Some people might want to jump off a bridge if they think about the next few years but I don’t think we need to go into a shell or be overly careful. We need to choose our words well, know our audience, but I’m very much in support of full speed ahead.”Even if Trump does follow Florida’s lead by deleting all mention of the climate crisis within the federal government, an oblivious world will continue to heat up regardless, bringing disasters and rising costs to Americans. Scientists say they will still be there when such truths become politically palatable again.“We are sober about the future, but we’re not daunted,” said Graumlich. “The facts are still facts, science is still science. The fight is bigger than just one political cycle, I’ve been doing this for 40 years. We’re not backing down.” More

    More stories

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The science of fluoride is starting to evolve’: behind the risks and benefits of the mineral

      by

      A national conversation about fluoride’s health benefits exploded this fall after a federal toxicology report, court ruling and independent scientific review all called for updated risk-benefit analysis.Fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral in some regions, has been added to community water supplies since the mid-20th century when studies found exposure dramatically reduced tooth decay.The controversy, heightened by description of the mineral as “industrial waste” by Robert F Kennedy Jr, Donald Trump’s pick to lead the US health department, highlights questions some towns are now wrestling with: should the mineral’s well-established protective effects against tooth decay be prioritized lest Americans, and especially children, be subject to unnecessary pain and shame from an unhealthy smile? Or should the possibility of neurodevelopment effects be prioritized, even as studies continue?“Fluoride is the perfect example of helping people without them even having to do anything,” said Dr Sreenivas Koka, the former dean of the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s school of dentistry. The state is a “dental desert”, where there is only one dentist for every 2,120 residents. “Fluoride in the water – all you have to do is drink water and you’ll get the benefit.”Fluoride is added to about 72% of community water supplies in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC again endorsed the practice in a scientific statement this May, saying it found no “convincing scientific evidence linking community water fluoridation with any potential adverse health effect or systemic disorder such as an increased risk for cancer, Down syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis and bone fracture, immune disorders, low intelligence, renal disorders, Alzheimer disease, or allergic reactions”.Still, controversy over water fluoridation recently made headlines after two high-profile reports and a federal court ruling. The US National Toxicology Program set off a firestorm in August when it published a systematic review that found with “moderate confidence” that children exposed to fluoride levels twice those recommended for drinking water (1.5mg per liter versus the recommended 0.7mg per liter) “are consistently associated with lower IQ in children”.Then, in October, a new Cochrane Review lowered the estimated impact of fluoride, citing the widespread use of fluoride in toothpaste beginning in 1975.“Studies conducted in 1975 or earlier showed a clear and important effect on prevention of tooth decay in children,” Cochrane Review researchers wrote. “However, due to the increased availability of fluoride in toothpaste since 1975, it is unlikely that we will see this effect in all populations today.”The public debate comes as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest publicly funded research agency, is both a key funder of research advancing society’s understanding of fluoride’s non-dental health effects and an agency squarely in Trump’s crosshairs.The agency is one of the top targets for cuts and restructuring. Paradoxically, that could mean that critics such as Kennedy cut research on fluoride, even as the NIH funds research into potential detriments. The incoming administration has not made proposals on how to improve oral health in the US.Fluoride’s health benefits were investigated in the early 20th century, when a Colorado Springs dentist questioned why town residents had brown, mottled and decay-resistant teeth – now known as fluorosis.It was later found that fluoride naturally occurred at high levels in Colorado Springs, causing the cosmetic defects. Its decay-resistant properties were confirmed in a landmark 1945 study in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which found children in Grand Rapids were 60% less likely to develop dental caries (better known as cavities) with fluoride added to water.By 1999, the CDC hailed water fluoridation as one of public health’s greatest victories, alongside seat belts and vaccination. That view was buttressed by a 2015 Cochrane Review, considered the gold standard, that found fluoridating water at 0.7mg per liter led to a nearly 26% reduction in tooth decay, a figure still cited by the American Dental Association (ADA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) today.The need for preventive oral health solutions is profound in the US – more than 68 million people lack dental insurance and about one in four adults said in a survey they have avoided the dentist because of cost.In addition, school children lose an estimated average of 34m school hours each year due to unexpected dental visits; 2 million Americans visit the emergency room each year because of tooth pain; half a million travel abroad for cheaper care and one in five American seniors lack a single natural tooth. Lack of dental access is so common in some areas, doctors in prison frequently have patients who have never seen one.“One of the things I routinely ask young people in juvenile jail is: ‘Do you have a doctor? Do you have a dentist?’” said Dr Fred Rottnek, former medical director of St Louis county jails in Missouri and now a professor of community medicine at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. “A lot of them have never reported going to the dentist.”Modern inquiry into fluoride’s non-dental health effects began to pick up pace in 2015, when the National Toxicology Program (NTP) requested a systematic review on fluoride’s impact on neurodevelopment. By 2019, toxicology researcher Bruce Lanphear, of Simon Fraser University in Canada, co-authored a study finding fluoride exposure was associated with decreased IQ, which would later be incorporated into the NTP’s systematic review.“That gives you an indication that the science of fluoride is starting to evolve – it wasn’t set in stone 70 years ago,” he said.Lanphear, and a small group of like-minded toxicology researchers, argue now is the time for us to “pause and have an independent scientific committee look at all this new evidence” as “we have a lot of new science specifically about fluoride and the developing brain,” he said.Critics were buttressed again when a federal court ruled in September that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needed to evaluate fluoride under the Toxic Substances Control Act.But physicians, dentists and mainstream professional associations from the American Dental Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics stand by recommendations for fluoridated water.While some towns step away from fluoride, communities such as Buffalo, New York, are restarting programs.“This is a shame if we don’t take advantage of what we know from the science,” said Koka about the preventive effects of fluoride. “Are there challenges to doing it right? Yes, but should they be so strong they overcome trying at all? That’s a tragedy.”The CDC has also refined guidance about fluoridation in recent years. In 2015, its water fluoridation recommendations went down to 0.7mg per liter of water, from 0.7 to 1.0mg per liter dependent on climate. Later, the CDC issued a 2019 report that advised parents of children younger than two to speak with their dentist about fluoridated toothpaste, and reminded parents of children younger than three to use only a “grain of rice”-sized “smear”.As critics argue that federal agencies’ recommendation lag behind, the US government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) has become one of the chief funders of research into fluoride’s potential impacts on IQ.“Getting funding from the NIH shows they are interested in this important question,” said Christine Till, an assistant professor at York University in Canada and a co-investigator with Lanphear, whose grant studying tooth dentin and neurodevelopment in Canada was funded by the NIH, but turned down by the Canadian government.Others, such as Ashley Malin, epidemiology professor at University of Florida, and Dana Goin, assistant professor of epidemiology at Columbia University, have also received NIH funding to research fluoride’s non-dental health effects. Malin is studying fluoride’s impact on children’s sleep and Goin is investigating reproductive health effects.“There is a lot of ongoing work in this area, particularly in the US,” said Goin. “Hopefully, the results from these studies will help determine whether EPA drinking water regulations and CDC recommendations for water fluoridation are adequately balancing improvements in dental health from fluoridation versus any potential negative effects.”Goin’s current funding builds on her previous work, which found water fluoridation was not associated with small-for-gestational age or preterm births. She is now exploring whether fluoride is associated with gestational diabetes.Malin added that it’s a sign of “progress” that the studies can be discussed: “Over a decade ago, to even ask the question of whether optimally fluoridated, or the concentration in drinking water, could be impacting neurodevelopment was quite controversial.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump pick for US health agency proposed ‘herd immunity’ during Covid

      by

      Jay Bhattacharya, an unofficial Covid adviser in Trump’s first administration, has been selected as the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one of the leading biomedical research institutions in the world.The choice of Bhattacharya, a Stanford economist whose proposal for widespread Covid-19 infection was backed by the White House, signals a return to controversial and scientifically questionable health policies in the second Trump administration, experts say.Bhattacharya, an economist who attended medical school, has called for an “an absolute revamping of the scientific community”.He has questioned the safety of vaccines, testified against the effectiveness of face masks, and argued that NIH officials should not be involved with scientific policy.Bhattacharya did not respond to requests for comment.In early 2020, Bhattacharya downplayed Covid’s deadliness, and he soon joined two other scientists in a recommendation to let Covid spread with “focused protection” – a proposal on the scientific fringes that soon became politically mainstream.After the Trump administration adopted the strategy of “herd immunity” through infection, millions of Americans were disabled and killed, with a vastly higher mortality rate than peer nations.In April 2020, Santiago Sanchez, then a first-year student at Stanford Medical School, wanted to do something to help as the novel coronavirus swept the nation and brought the world to a standstill.That’s how he found himself volunteering in a makeshift laboratory in the ballroom of the Palo Alto Sheraton, carefully squeezing droplets of blood samples into rapid tests for 10 to 12 hours a day.The research project was an attempt to see how many people had already gotten sick from Covid. If more people than previously known had already gotten sick and recovered, that would mean the virus wasn’t as severe as it seemed, and it might also mean there were enough people out there with immunity to help stop the virus from spreading, Sanchez hoped.But as he saw negative result after negative result, Sanchez felt his optimism curdle. After two days, the volunteers had conducted more than 3,300 tests, but fewer than two dozen turned positive, as Sanchez remembers it.That’s why he was puzzled when one of the senior researchers of the study, Jay Bhattacharya, stepped into the ballroom, saw the handful of positive tests alongside stacks of negative tests, and said, “there’s definitely signal here,” according to Sanchez’s recollection.“That was my first sinking feeling, because I was like, ‘That is not how I am interpreting this experiment,’” Sanchez said.The ensuing preprint study estimated that between 2.5% to 4% of people in the region had been infected – a rate vastly higher than previously thought, and a figure significantly higher than the number of positive tests Sanchez says he saw.Bhattacharya became a fixture on Fox News and other networks, proclaiming the opposite of what Sanchez now believed: that many more people had the virus than anyone thought, and that meant the US should reopen.“He was everywhere during the pandemic except hospitals,” said Jonathan Howard, associate professor of neurology and psychiatry at NYU Langone Health and author of the book We Want Them Infected. “He didn’t treat a single Covid patient himself and became famous despite having no real-world responsibility that way.”Scientists quickly discovered significant errors in the study: the people who gave blood weren’t a random sample; the positive tests may well have been false positives; and the study was sponsored in part by an airline founder who was an avid proponent of reopening in the midst of Covid’s strongest grip.Despite criticism, the study results “spiraled out of control”, Sanchez said. “I and many others who worked on this study had this shared feeling of being taken advantage of, like we had been pawns in an obviously ideological project that did not meet scientific muster.”A few months later, Bhattacharya and other skeptics of Covid precautions met with President Trump at the White House, at a time when Trump had stopped speaking with his chief medical adviser, Anthony Fauci.Bhattacharya and two other scientists, Sunetra Gupta and Martin Kulldorff, soon unveiled a plan, known as the Great Barrington Declaration, to let the virus spread unchecked among the general population while attempting to protect the vulnerable. The authors believed this approach could stop the pandemic within three to six months.“This is not mainstream science. It’s dangerous,” said Francis Collins, then director of the NIH.Yet the day after the proposal was released, the authors met with Alex Azar, then the secretary of Health and Human Services, who confirmed that the proposal echoed the Trump administration’s policy of reopening.Within months, the worst wave of deaths of the entire pandemic crashed into the US. The strategy of protecting the vulnerable never materialized; even Trump, perhaps the most protected person in the nation, was hospitalized with Covid.“He was a pro-infection doctor,” Howard said of Bhattacharya. “He said that parts of the country had reached herd immunity in summer 2020 … He said that one infection led to permanent, robust immunity, and he treated rare vaccine side effects as a fate worse than death.”In the past four years, Bhattacharya has testified in state and Canadian courts, as well as US congressional hearings. Bhattacharya has said that public health has become a “tool for authoritarian power … a political tool that’s been used to enforce the biosecurity state”, and that the field needs to be rebuilt.When Sanchez sees patients who say they don’t need a Covid booster, he wonders if they’ve been influenced, directly or indirectly, by Bhattacharya’s messages.And he sees a direct line from the economist’s Covid advice to his possible appointment at the NIH.“They handed Trump a huge gift. They gave him a way to talk about the pandemic that obviously reached a lot of people, that let them, in their own minds, compartmentalize what had happened and feel that it was okay to tolerate the amount of disability and death,” Sanchez said of the researchers.“It totally obfuscated people’s ability to even assess risk, to the point that we have well-established, highly efficacious childhood vaccines that are now being denied – to the point that measles is coming back in some parts of the United States.”With trust in public health greatly diminished, the repercussions could be long-lasting and tragic in coming years, particularly as Trump’s health nominees erode trust in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and other public-health precautions, Howard said.“Every measles outbreak, every pertussis outbreak, will be on them.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Hear me out: RFK could be a transformational health secretary | Neil Barsky

      by

      Among the cast of characters poised to join the Trump administration, no one is as exasperating, polarizing or potentially dangerous as Robert F Kennedy Jr. But in a twist that is emblematic of our times, no single nominee has the potential to do as much good for the American people.Bear with me. RFK Jr has been rightly pilloried for promoting a litany of theories linking vaccines with autism, chemicals in the water supply to gender identity, how people contract Aids and saying the Covid-19 vaccine, which in fact stemmed the deadliest pandemic of our lifetimes, was itself “the deadliest vaccine ever made”. He claimed Covid-19 was meant to target certain ethnic groups, Black people and Caucasians, while sparing Asians and Jewish people.In normal times, these notions would be disqualifying. Spouting unfounded scientific claims is corrosive to a functioning democracy. It weakens the bonds of trust in our public institutions, and feeds the rightwing narrative that all government is illegitimate. This is why, writing in the Guardian this September, I dismissed the prospect of RFK Jr, saying his “anti-vaccine work is more likely to make America have measles again”.But these are not normal times. RFK Jr is Donald Trump’s pick to run our country’s health and human services department. He will have a massive impact on our broken, expensive and largely ineffectual delivery of healthcare services. How shall we deal with this?On one hand, RFK Jr’s anti-vaccine views are beyond the pale. To obtain Senate approval, I think he will have to repudiate the unproven assertion that the Covid-19 vaccine was harmful, and embrace the scientific reality that vaccines for measles, smallpox, coronavirus and other contagious diseases are in fact modern medical miracles that spared the lives hundreds of millions of people. And here is where I will part company with many of my Trump-fighting friends: should RFK Jr be able to abandon his numerous conspiracy theories about vaccines, he can be the most transformative health secretary in our country’s history.This is because RFK Jr has articulated what our Democratic and Republican leaders have largely ignored: our healthcare system is a national disgrace hiding in plain sight. He recognizes the inordinate control the pharmaceutical and food industries over healthcare policy, and the revolving door that exists among congressional staffers, pharmaceutical lobbyists and corporate executives. In testimony during hearings chaired by the Republican senator Ron Johnson this past September, Kennedy offered a lucid analysis of what is making America metabolically sick; he railed against big pharma and big food, and drew links between the damage done by ultraprocessed foods such as seed oils and sugars to our health, as well as the efforts of the food industry to come up with chemicals that make these foods addictive.He advocates banning pharmaceutical advertising on television, and wants to clamp down on the corporate ties to federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Health. (To my knowledge, he has not spoken out against the egregious cost of life-saving drugs or unequal access to medical treatment, but hopefully he will get around to that as well.)We spend $4tn on healthcare annually, and lead the world in spending more than $12,000 per person, 50% more than Switzerland, which is the second biggest spender per capita. American doctors dominate the Nobel prizes for medicine, and our medical schools are considered the best in the world. Yet we appear incapable of stemming the epidemic of chronic diseases. A staggering 73% of us are obese or overweight and more than 38 million people suffer from diabetes.This issue hits home for me, as I was diagnosed with severe type 2 diabetes in 2021, and – after receiving terrible medical advice to rely on insulin and metformin – reversed my condition by adopting a diet low in carbohydrates. This year, I published a “follow the money” series for the Guardian, Death By Diabetes, in which I highlighted the heavy influence of big pharma and big food on the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The ADA is a so-called patient advocacy group that sets the standard of care for diabetes treatment in this country, and yet it accepts money from food companies such as the makers of Splenda and Idaho potatoes – two products which have been found to increase people’s risk of getting diabetes.I subsequently wrote about amputations, and the reality that African Americans with diabetes are four times more likely to endure that grim procedure than white people. I view nutrition and metabolic health as a matter of racial and economic equity. I am clear-eyed, I think, of the serious risks to public health that RFK Jr’s unfounded anti-vaccine views pose. But so long as we still have a voice and can find a drop of hope in these terrible times, I think we should try to tilt policy toward the public good where we can. To that end, here is the game plan I believe RFK Jr should pursue.

      Lose the conspiracies and stick to the science. RFK Jr is right, and there is more than ample research to focus on the deleterious impact of sugars and seed oils. Following the money has always been a valuable strategy. Let’s start there.

      Lean on the vast ecosystem of committed researchers, clinicians and writers who have devoted their career to promoting metabolic health, even while knowing they would forfeit access to government and pharmaceutical grants. Many of these mavericks come from top medical schools, but they are a decided minority on their faculties. They include clinicians such as Georgia Ede, Mariela Glandt, Tony Hampton, Eric Westman, scientists such as Benjamin Bikman, Ravi Kampala, Cate Shanahan, and writers such as Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz and Casey Means. These are heroic people who, in getting to know them and reading their work, I have found to be intellectually honest health practitioners.

      Appoint a diabetes czar to come up with proposals to once and for all fix this deadly and utterly reversible disease. I choose this particularly chronic ailment because it is ubiquitous, ruinously expensive, a disease that disproportionately afflicts the poor, is closely connected to our obesity epidemic, and utterly reversible through diet. Wouldn’t it be amazing if we could finally reverse type 2 diabetes in our lifetime?

      Increase federal funding of nutrition studies. The FDA and NIH historically have tilted the research scales in favor of studies that might produce the next blockbuster drug. In reality, we still do not understand why we get fat and why we have seen an increase in chronic (non-contagious) diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Crohn’s.

      Severely regulate the ability of cereal companies to market their sugary wares to children, and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to barrage the rest of us with advertisements. Will a Republican-controlled Congress allow for more government regulation – even if it saves lives?
      RFK Jr’s ascent represents a tricky issue for people like myself who strongly supported the election of Kamala Harris. Healthcare is far from the only issue I am committed to, and I am disgusted by the Trump administration’s plans to deport millions of undocumented people, its attack on democratic institutions, and possible abandonment of Ukraine and the Nato alliance. While I disagreed with Liz Cheney about many, if not most, issues, I also embraced her apostasy when it came to the election – I adhere to the approach of not interrupting people you disagree with while they are doing the right thing.After writing something unkind about RFK Jr in the days leading up to the election, I received a private note from Jan Baszucki, a prominent metabolic health advocate I have come to admire over the past year. “With all due respect,” she wrote. “I am a big fan of your reporting on type 2 diabetes. But your comments about RFK Jr … are not helpful to the cause of metabolic health, which is only on the national agenda because he put it there.”Leading up to the election, I believed RFK Jr was fair game. I was, and remain, particularly concerned that his fringe ideas about vaccines and poisons would get conflated with his excellent perspective on metabolic health, and hurt the cause. Now I think we should be constructive where we can advance the public good.The larger question hanging over RFK Jr’s term as HHS secretary is whether Donald Trump will back him up when he takes on the pharmaceutical and food industries. The US’s health is not an issue the president-elect has evinced an interest in in the past. And his embrace of corporate executives such as Tesla’s Elon Musk suggests crony capitalism could be the dominant theme of the second Trump administration. But if we know anything about what makes Trump tick, we know that he responds to positive reinforcement.After all, it was the criminal justice advocates such as Van Jones and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who coaxed him into supporting the First Step Act, a significant piece of criminal justice reform (and one which Trump now forswears). As founder of the Marshall Project, the non-profit journalism organization that covers the US criminal justice system, I believe criminal justice reform should also be a matter of national urgency, yet at the time, I was ambivalent about efforts to work with the administration. In retrospect, whatever harm Trump might have otherwise inflicted, I would say we are a better country for the First Step Act.We are in a similar dilemma with respect to healthcare today: the system is ruinously expensive and inhumane. If there is someone in the administration who wants to make things better, let’s not interrupt him.

      Neil Barsky, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and investment manager, is the founder of the Marshall Project More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      SpaceX live: Donald Trump and Elon Musk arrive at launch site for Starship rocket

      by

      The weather is looking “fantastic” for the rocket launch, a SpaceX employee said.“Light breeze, no clouds in the sky,” he said.Beyond a return to the moon, Elon Musk is relying on Starship to be an integral part of his much more ambitious plan to get humans to Mars.In September, the billionaire SpaceX founder revealed he was optimistic that the first astronauts could reach the red planet inside four years, and be living there in a self-sustaining city in 20.Some observers say that’s an inconceivable timeline, while others see purpose in Musk’s assertions. Regular shuttle flights to Mars on Starship are absolutely achievable in the short to midterm future, they say.Here’s our article looking at how, and when, Musk might actually achieve his dream of making humans an interplanetary species.A banana has been placed inside the Starship flight, SpaceX says.“Today’s Starship flight test has a special payload onboard – a banana!” Starlink writes.“This universally-accepted measurement of scale is approximately the size of one Starlink Mini.”Responding to Donald Trump’s message wishing him good luck on today’s launch, Elon Musk replied on X:
      Honored to have President Trump at our Starship launch!
      The term Starship refers to the entire launch vehicle, namely the booster rocket and spacecraft of the same name.A main purpose of the program is to return humans to the surface of the moon for the first time since 1972.Nasa’s Artemis III mission, currently scheduled for September 2026, will incorporate a Starship lander, a variant of the spacecraft currently under test, to take a crew of two astronauts to the moon’s south pole.SpaceX has begun sharing its live broadcast of its Starship rocket launch.SpaceX says today’s flight test “aims to expand the envelope on ship and booster capabilities” and to “get closer to bringing reuse of the entire system online”.“Objectives include the booster once again returning to the launch site for catch, reigniting a ship Raptor engine while in space, and testing a suite of heatshield experiments and maneuvering changes for ship reentry and descent over the Indian Ocean,” the company says.Donald Trump has arrived at the site of the rocket launch with Elon Musk.Trump was seen wearing a red “Make America Great Again” baseball hat and blue suit; Musk wore an all-black outfit and sunglasses.SpaceX has said the propellant load of the super heavy booster is now under way.Donald Trump wished Elon Musk good luck on an “incredible” project as he confirmed that he will be attending the SpaceX rocket launch in Texas.Trump, in a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday, wrote:
      I’m heading to the Great State of Texas to watch the launch of the largest object ever to be elevated, not only to Space, but simply by lifting off the ground. Good luck to Elon Musk and the Great Patriots involved in this incredible project!
      Donald Trump has arrived in Texas to watch the launch, according to the account Trump Jet (Tracking) on Bluesky.The president-elect’s private Boeing 757 jet landed in Brownsville just under an hour ago after a 2hr 49min flight from West Palm Beach, close to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home.Today’s launch is the sixth test of the mighty Starship, and its fourth flight this year.The world’s most powerful space launch system has about twice the thrust of the Saturn V rockets of the Apollo era that sent astronauts to the moon.One significant difference is that Starship is designed to be reusable.Its first-stage super-heavy booster was successfully captured in SpaceX’s so-called chopsticks – giant mechanical arms on the launch site “catch tower” – during the fifth test mission last month.Tuesday’s launch of the SpaceX rocket Starship comes just a week after Donald Trump announced that Elon Musk will co-lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, along with the former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.Musk had pushed for a government efficiency department and has since relentlessly promoted it, emphasizing the acronym for the agency: Doge, a reference to a meme of an expressive shiba inu dog and the inspiration for the name of the cryptocurrency Dogecoin, which Musk promotes.According to a statement by Trump, Musk and Ramaswamy will work from outside government to “pave the way for my administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies”.SpaceX will be conducting its sixth test of its Starship rocket, the largest and most powerful rocket ever built, on Tuesday.The test launch is planned for 6pm CT (5pm ET or 2200 GMT) from SpaceX’s sprawling rocket development site in Boca Chica, Texas, Reuters reports.You can watch the launch on SpaceX’s website.Welcome to our live coverage of the launch of the sixth test of SpaceX’s giant Starship rocket from Texas, where the US president-elect, Donald Trump, is expected to attend alongside the company’s CEO, Elon Musk.The rocket launch is scheduled for 4pm CT (5pm ET or 2200 GMT) from SpaceX’s sprawling rocket development site in Boca Chica, Texas, Reuters reports.Trump is expected to be joined by his son Donald Jr, and the Republican senator from Texas, Ted Cruz.Trump’s attendance underscores his increasingly close friendship with Musk, whom he has tapped to co-lead a new Department of Government Efficiency with the former Republican presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy. More

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      How a second Trump term could further enrich Elon Musk: ‘There will be some quid pro quo’

      by

      Donald Trump owes his decisive 2024 presidential victory in no small part to the enthusiastic support of the world’s richest man. In the months leading up to the election, Elon Musk put his full weight behind the Maga movement, advocated for Trump on major podcasts and used his influence over X to shape political discourse. Musk’s America Pac injected nearly $120m into the former president’s campaign.Now, Trump is looking to return the favor. Speaking with reporters last month, he said he would appoint Musk as “secretary of cost-cutting”. Musk, for his part, has joked he would be interested in serving as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (Doge) with a stated goal of reducing government spending by $2tn. Practically speaking, experts say those cost cuts could result in deregulation and policy changes that would directly impact Musk’s universe of companies, particularly Tesla, SpaceX, X and Neuralink.Trump administration officials, eager to maintain Musk’s support, may similarly loosen rules and reassign federal government officials to benefit Musk’s interests. It’s an explicit, openly transactional relationship unlike any seen in recent US political memory, experts said.“We’ve seen lobbying efforts, we’ve seen Super Pacs, but this is a different level we’ve never seen before,” said Gita Johar, a professor at Columbia Business School. “There will be some quid pro quo where he [Musk] will benefit.”Pausing for a moment, Johar added: “‘Conflict of interest’ seems rather quaint.”Trump: bad for electric vehicles, good for ElonTesla is already reaping the benefits of a second Trump administration. On Wednesday, just hours after the Associated Press official called the race in favor of Trump, the car company’s stock shot up 13% to a 52-week high. By the end of the week, Tesla reached $1tn in market capitalization, its highest valuation in two years. Musk’s own fortune shot up $26bn with the stock.That might seem odd considering the former president’s vocal disdain for electric vehicles. In recent years, the president-elect has referred to efforts to promote environmentally friendly cars as a “Green New Scam” and claimed EVs simply “don’t work.” He has also pledged he would end Joe Biden’s “electric vehicle mandate” on his first day in office. Biden has implemented tax credits and emissions standards that favor electric vehicles.But Trump’s hardline rhetoric against EVs started to soften almost immediately after Musk pledged his support for the candidate. Trump himself has been explicit about the reason for his shifting outlook.“I’m for electric cars,” Trump said during a campaign event in August. “I have to be, because Elon endorsed me very strongly.”Still, experts agreed a Trump administration will likely roll back tax credits for consumers looking to buy new electric vehicles. That would hurt newer EV startups and legacy carmakers that are still trying to bring down the costs of manufacturing their vehicles. By contrast, eliminating those credits may be a boon to Tesla since the company has already made extensive use of those credits to capture a commanding lead in the EV market in the US.View image in fullscreen“Tesla has the scale and scope that is unmatched,” Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said in a recent note to investors. “This dynamic could give Musk and Tesla a clear competitive advantage in a non-EV subsidy environment.” For the rest of the electric vehicle industry, though, Trump presidency would be “an overall negative”, Ives wrote.Tesla will also find itself caught in the middle of Trump’s much-vaunted but still vague tariff proposals. Though auto tariffs could help insulate Tesla from cheap, competitive Chinese electric vehicles entering US markets from the likes of BYD, stiff import taxes would simultaneously make it much more expensive to manufacture new cars. Tesla’s supply chain is highly dependent on goods and materials from China. Steel tariffs would likely drive up the cost to produce the company’s Cybertruck, while tariffs impacting rare earth metals and minerals sourced from China would also drive up costs of semiconductors crucial to powering the fleet’s cameras and sensors.“If there is a general tariff, the price of those will skyrocket,” George Mason University Mercatus Center research fellow Matt Mittelsteadt said in an interview. “You can’t re-shore what you can’t make.” Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.Clearing a road for Musk’s autonomous vehiclesExperts say Musk’s role in the Trump administration could help chart the path for Tesla’s autonomous vehicle rollout. The company is currently being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over the role its Autopilot and “full-self driving” features may have played in a spate of accidents, including more than two dozen fatal ones. A Trump administration favorable toward Musk’s business interest could wind down those investigations.“The specific worry with Musk and NHTSA is that the Trump administration might influence the decisions that civil servants are making to benefit the business interests of Tesla,” Cardozo School of Law professor and tech regulation expert Matthew Wansley said.Musk has also explicitly said he would try to leverage his influence in a Trump administration to streamline regulations around fully autonomous “driverless” vehicles like those operated by Waymo and Cruise. Though Tesla vehicles aren’t currently capable of the same level of autonomy, Musk recently revealed the concept for a more advanced “Cybercab” robotaxi he says will operate without a steering wheel.Current safety regulation for this level of autonomous vehicles varies by state and generally require years of testing with humans behind the wheel. Musk advocated for a “federal approval process” that would preempt those strict state rules during a third-quarter Tesla earnings call. If that weaker federal process were to be approved, Tesla may have a shorter climb to catch up with more advanced competitors.SpaceX could win lucrative government contracts for a Starlink rollout and a Mars missionFew of Musk’s endeavors have benefited as directly from government partnerships in recent years as SpaceX. The private space company secured a $3bn federal contract in 2021. It is currently competing with Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin for a series of contracts with the US Space Force worth some $5.6bn. Musk has already asked Trump to appoint SpaceX employees to top government positions, according to the New York Times.Experts agreed Musk’s relationship with Trump would strengthen its position as a top contender for space contracts. Mittelsteadt says recent Republican opposition to the Biden administration’s beleaguered rural $42.45bn broadband initiative could also open up a new path for SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service. A GOP-led Federal Communications Commission, Mittelsteadt argued, could decide to pay SpaceX to expand Starlink access nationwide. Trump lauded Starlink’s role in providing internet access to hurricane survivors during a speech on election night.“The ceiling for what he could possibly get out of government contracts could be raising,” Mittelsteadt said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump and Musk also appear united in their interest in sending a rocket to Mars. The president-elect has repeatedly praised Musk’s “beautiful, shiny white” rockets on the campaign trail and has said he wants to land a rocket on the red planet before the end of his next term.“We will land an American astronaut on Mars,” Trump said during an October rally.Musk, meanwhile, has repeatedly emphasized his dream of colonizing Mars and creating an interplanetary human species. Equally as often, he has criticized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for bureaucratic “superfluous delays.” A favorable Trump administration could feel motivated to soften those rules and guidelines, experts said. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.Trump could reduce scrutiny on Neuralink and XTelsa and SpaceX aren’t the only Musk-owned properties that stand to thrive during a second Trump term. Neuralink, Musk’s brain-computer interface company, has drawn scrutiny from the US Food and Drug Administration over alleged issues related to record-keeping and quality controls for its animal testing. A more favorable FDA under the Trump administration could help wind down those inquiries and provide a clearer runway for the company’s future experiments. Neuralink did not respond to a request for comment.X, which Musk acquired in 2020 for $44bn, could likewise benefit during a Trump term. The platform served as an important, invaluable resource for spreading pro-Trump rhetoric during the 2024 presidential campaign. Johar, whose recent research dives into X’s rise, said its utility to Trump makes it unlikely to draw regulators’ ire under him.“I don’t see any guardrails going up in terms of verifying the truth of information that’s already gone by the wayside since X was taken over,” said Johar.‘Conflict of interest seem rather quaint’The scope of Musk’s influence in the Trump administration and US politics more broadly is just beginning. The billionaire said last week in a conversation livestreamed on X that he will continue pouring money into America PAC, his organization founded this summer to support Trump’s bid for president, and has plans to “weigh in heavily” on future elections like the 2026 midterms.“It’s impossible to imagine how much influence Elon Musk could have in this administration because there’s no precedent,” University of California Berkeley professor Dan Schnur said. “He could have spent over a billion dollars, and it would’ve still been an incredibly savvy investment for him.”Experts speaking to the Guardian unanimously agreed Musk’s potential efforts to influence policies that could directly impact his business would constitute a clear conflict of interest. Whether or not the billionaire faces substantive penalties, however, remains to be seen. Musk and the allied Trump administration could face a barrage of lawsuits alleging misconduct, but litigation alone may not prevent Musk from achieving his preferred policy agenda, experts predicted.“There are all sorts of potential conflicts of interest. The question is whether that bothers Trump or not,” Schnur said. “It’s a reasonable bet to assume that it does not.”Musk has said he would attempt to trim $2tn in government spending if appointed to the cost-cutting position in the Trump White House. Though he hasn’t fully outlined how he would achieve such a goal, the billionaire has suggested much of that belt-tightening could come from eliminating what he sees as redundant government workers and reducing overly burdensome regulations. But Mittelstead says Musk will likely face an uphill battle if tries to apply a “move fast and break things” attitude toward US government positions.“The type of cost-cutting, slash-and-burn approach that he brought to Twitter is not possible in the public sector,” Mittelstead said.It’s also an open question as to whether or not Musk and Trump’s newfound relationship can withstand the weight of two notoriously volatile personalities. Musk made headlines in 2017 when he stepped down from a pair of Trump advisory councils after disagreeing with the then-president decision to exit the Paris Climate Accords. Trump, for his part, has previously referred to Musk as a “bullshit artist”.“They’ve appeared to have developed a very strong personal rapport,” Schnur said. “But they’re also two of the most volatile personalities on the set and earth.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Scientists slam ‘indefensible’ axing of Nasa’s $450m Viper moon rover

      by

      Thousands of scientists have protested to the US Congress over the “unprecedented and indefensible” decision by Nasa to cancel its Viper lunar rover mission.In an open letter to Capitol Hill, they have denounced the move, which was revealed last month, and heavily criticised the space agency over a decision that has shocked astronomers and astrophysicists across the globe.The car-sized rover has already been constructed at a cost of $450m and was scheduled to be sent to the moon next year, when it would have used a one-metre drill to prospect for ice below the lunar surface in soil at the moon’s south pole.Ice is considered to be vital to plans to build a lunar colony, not just to supply astronauts with water but also to provide them with hydrogen and oxygen that could be used as fuels. As a result, prospecting for sources was rated a priority for lunar exploration, which is scheduled to be ramped up in the next few years with the aim of establishing a permanent human presence on the moon.Construction of Viper – volatiles investigating polar exploration rover – began several years ago, and the highly complex robot vehicle was virtually complete when Nasa announced on 17 July that it had decided to kill it off. The agency said the move was needed because of past cost increases, delays to launch dates and the risks of future cost growth.However, the claim has been dismissed by astonished and infuriated scientists who say the rover would have played a vital role in opening up the moon to human colonisation.“Quite frankly, the agency’s decision beggars belief,” said Prof Clive Neal, a lunar scientist at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana.“Viper is a fundamental mission on so many fronts and its cancellation basically undermines Nasa’s entire lunar exploration programme for the next decade. It is as straightforward as that. Cancelling Viper makes no sense whatsoever.”This view was backed by Ben Fernando of Johns Hopkins University, who was one of the organisers of the open letter to Congress. “A team of 500 people dedicated years of their careers to construct Viper and now it has been cancelled for no good reason whatsoever,” he told the Observer last week.“Fortunately I think Congress is taking this issue very seriously and they have the power to tell Nasa that it has to go ahead with the project. Hopefully they will intervene.”View image in fullscreenSeveral other water-prospecting missions to the moon have been planned for the next few years. However, most will involve monitoring the lunar surface from space or by landing a single excavator that will dig for ice at a single, fixed location.“The crucial advantage of Viper was that it could move around and dig into the lunar soil at different promising locations,” said Ian Crawford, professor of planetary science and astrobiology at Birkbeck, University of London.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAstronomers have long suspected that ice – brought by comets and asteroids – exists in the permanently shadowed craters near the moon’s south poles, an idea that was strongly supported in 2009 when Nasa deliberately crashed a Centaur rocket into the crater Cabeus.By studying the resulting plumes of debris, scientists concluded that ice could account for up to 5% of soil there. “China, Japan, India and Europe have all got plans to prospect for water on the moon, but now the US seems to have just given up,” added Crawford. “It is very, very puzzling.”Scientists also point out that ice and other materials brought to the moon by comets or asteroids will have remained there in a pristine state and could provide scientists with a history of the inner solar system and the processes that shaped it for millions or even billions of years into the past. “There is an incredible scientific treasure trove there that is begging to be explored,” added Neal.When Nasa announced its decision to abandon Viper, the space agency said it planned to disassemble and reuse its components for other moon missions – unless other space companies or agencies offered to take over the project. More than a dozen groups have since expressed an interest in taking over Viper, a Nasa spokesperson told the Observer last week. Whether these organisations are interested in Viper as a complete craft or as a source of components is not yet clear, however.“We simply do not know how practical or serious these offers are,” said Fernando. “Nasa keeps saying it had to cancel projects because of budgetary problems, but why on earth did they pick such an important mission on which to start making those cuts?” More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The surprising psychology behind extremism, and how politics is driving it – podcast

      by

      Psychologists usually expect ambivalence to be a driver of political apathy. But a new study appears to show a link between ambivalence in our views and the likelihood that we’ll support extremist actions. Madeleine Finlay speaks to the study’s co-author Richard Petty, professor of psychology at Ohio State University, to find out what pushes people to take extreme actions, how politics could be driving this behaviour and how it could be combated

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Malaria drug Trump touted as Covid cure increased chance of death – study

      by

      People who took an anti-malaria treatment that Donald Trump touted as a cure for Covid-19 in the early days of the pandemic and waning days of his presidency were 11% more likely to die from the virus, according to a new scientific study.The study’s authors – who published their findings in the peer-reviewed Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy journal – also estimated that nearly 17,000 people in six different countries, including the US, died after contracting Covid-19 and taking the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine.Doctors who prescribed hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 at the height of activity restrictions meant to slow the spread of the virus did so off-label and without evidence that there was any clinical benefit, as the authors of the new study noted. The study’s conclusions “illustrate the hazard of drug repurposing with low-level evidence for the management of future pandemics”, its authors added.A meta-analysis of randomized trials produced the findings in the study released by Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, a 67-year-old journal edited by DM Townsend of the Medical University of South Carolina.The study’s authors said they used public databases to establish the number of Covid-19 patients who were hospitalized during the early days of the pandemic. They said they then systematically reviewed 44 cohort studies to calculate that there was an 11% increase in mortality associated with cases involving the use of hydroxychloroquine, along with about 16,990 in-hospital deaths in the US, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Turkey.Trump first hawked hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug that could cure Covid-19 in March 2020 as he railed against activity lockdowns, saying they would ruin the US economy.His remarks about anti-malaria medication led to a surge in prescriptions for the drug. The Food and Drug Administration – which didn’t approve the first Covid-19 vaccine until December 2020 – was forced to warn that hydroxychloroquine could cause irregular heartbeats and other cardiac trouble.And the regulatory agency also clarified that the medication had only been approved to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.The then-president later dismissed an early study which showed hydroxychloroquine was an ineffective Covid-19 treatment as a “Trump enemy statement”.“They were giving it to people that were … almost dead,” Trump said at one point as the White House claimed he himself was taking the medication prophylactically.Trump ultimately tested positive for Covid-19 on 26 September 2020 and was hospitalized within days. He recovered after doctors treated him with a new antibody cocktail that was nearly impossible for the general public to access.Weeks later, Trump lost his bid for a second term in the Oval Office to Joe Biden. He is now facing 91 pending criminal charges for attempting to subvert his electoral defeat, illegally retaining government secrets, and hush-money payments to an adult film actor who has alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him.Trump nonetheless is leading the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, and polls have suggested a rematch with Biden would be competitive.Before the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped keeping track in May, more than 1.1 million people had died from Covid-19 in the US, and nearly 105m cases had been reported, according to officials. More