Connect with us

Science

Another unwelcome consequence of climate change: an explosion of urban rats

Published

on

Another unwelcome consequence of climate change: an explosion of urban rats

If scorching heat waves, destructive storms, prolonged droughts and rising seas aren’t enough to make some folks fear the consequences of climate change, perhaps this will do the trick: The warmer it gets, the faster rats multiply in cities that already struggle to contain them.

That is sure to be unwelcome news to Americans, who collectively endure well over $27 billion worth of property damage each year at the hands — and teeth — of rats. That doesn’t include the cost of the diseases the animals spread, such as hantavirus, murine typhus and bubonic plague, nor the mental health toll of living among them.

The new findings, reported Friday in the journal Science Advances, are based on records of rat sightings in 16 cities around the world. Unfortunately for humans, 11 of those cities saw their rat populations expand over the course of the study, while two cities held steady and only three achieved measurable declines.

That the rodents are thriving should come as little surprise. They’re perfectly suited to urban environments, where they make their homes in walls, basements and subway stations and feast on garbage, sewage, dog poop and abandoned pizza slices. The only continent they have yet to conquer is Antarctica.

A rat foraging in a dumpster in Richmond, Va.

Advertisement

(Jonathan Richardson)

“This species is really well-adapted to take food and convert that into new baby rats that are scampering around your neighborhood,” said Jonathan Richardson, a biologist at the University of Richmond who studies wildlife in cities and their impact on human health. “They do that really efficiently.”

One of the few things that slows rats down is cold weather. And with climate change, we have less of it.

Global warming causes average temperatures to rise, which reduces the number of wintry days. In cities, the trend is compounded by the fact that the built environment absorbs and retains more heat than the rural area around it, a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect.

Advertisement

To investigate a possible link between rat populations and rising temperatures, Richardson and his colleagues searched for reliable data in the country’s 200 most populous cities. Conducting a thorough rat census was impractical — if not impossible — so they used municipal inspection logs and rat sightings reported to government agencies.

They found 13 cities that had kept consistent records for at least seven years. Then they widened their search and found three more cities overseas. The final group had rat data going back for an average of slightly more than 12 years.

Since the cities used different sources of data collected over different periods of time, the researchers came up with a standardized way to measure the change in rat sightings. They found that rat reports increased the most in Washington, D.C., followed by San Francisco, Toronto, New York City, Amsterdam, Oakland, Buffalo, Chicago, Boston, Kansas City and Cincinnati.

Three cities — New Orleans, Louisville and Tokyo — managed to reduce their rat populations during the study period. There were no significant changes in Dallas or St. Louis.

Los Angeles wasn’t included in the analysis because systematic rat records weren’t available. L.A. routinely ranks among the top three in pest control companies’ annual lists of America’s “rattiest cities,” but Richardson said the perennially large volume of rodent complaints had more to do with the city’s sprawling size than a uniquely rat-friendly environment.

Advertisement

Next, the researchers used statistical methods to see which factors might account for the differences in the cities’ rat control outcomes. About two-thirds of the variation could be explained by five things, including human population density and the amount of area covered by vegetation.

The most important factor was the change in a city’s average temperature — the more it rose, the more the rat population grew.

A rat crosses a subway platform in New York City's Times Square.

A rat crosses a subway platform in New York City’s Times Square.

(Richard Drew / Associated Press)

The change in a city’s minimum temperature had no bearing on rats. Richardson said the team initially was surprised by that, since cold weather extends the time it takes for female rats to become fertile and reduces the number of pups in a litter.

Advertisement

In more hospitable weather, a rat can become pregnant when she’s just two months old, and that pregnancy will last only three to five weeks. The researchers realized that if rising average temperatures caused winter conditions to arrive a week or two later and wrap up a week or two earlier, it could buy a rat enough time to squeeze in an extra reproductive cycle each year, Richardson said.

Santtu Pentikäinen, a researcher at the University of Helsinki who was not involved in the work, said the study authors made a convincing case that global warming is good for rats.

“The results just make sense,” said Pentikäinen, a member of the Helsinki Urban Rat Project.

Coauthor Maureen Murray, a wildlife disease ecologist at Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo and leader of the Chicago Rat Project, said she hoped the findings will “motivate people to care that climate change could exacerbate their rat problems.”

But Richardson said he wasn’t sure the prospect of “more rats scurrying around” will be any more galvanizing than pictures of “the sad polar bear floating on ice.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Video: Debris Rains Down After SpaceX Starship Test Flight

Published

on

Video: Debris Rains Down After SpaceX Starship Test Flight

new video loaded: Debris Rains Down After SpaceX Starship Test Flight

transcript

transcript

Debris Rains Down After SpaceX Starship Test Flight

While the Starship’s booster successfully returned to the launchpad, the upper-stage spacecraft failed in space and lost several engines and attitude control on March 6, tumbling in space.

“What an incredible sight to see. The super heavy booster gliding down into the chopstick arms once again.” “And we just saw some engines go out.” “Oh my gosh, it’s like lighting up the water.”

Advertisement

Recent episodes in U.S.

Continue Reading

Science

'Enough is enough': Scientists from UCLA, USC protest Trump's policy changes

Published

on

'Enough is enough': Scientists from UCLA, USC protest Trump's policy changes

Hundreds of scientists marched under sunny skies in front of federal offices in Los Angeles on Friday as part of a day of nationwide protests against Trump administration policies.

Pushing back against perceived threats to research and science, they bore on-theme signs, including one that read “What would Albert do?” accompanying a photo of Einstein.

The rally outside the Wilshire Federal Building drew graduate students and professors from USC and UCLA and was held under the banner of the Stand Up for Science movement, which drew inspiration from the March for Science held in 2017 shortly after Trump began his first term.

Many scientists once again feel under attack. In a matter of weeks, the second Trump administration has slashed jobs at science agencies — including the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement (again), clawed back research papers under review at scientific journals to scrub terms that the political right has railed against, such as “transgender,” and terminated funding for global health programs. The administration has also attempted to block grants and reduce funding for research institutions.

Protesters hold up science-related signs to express their discontent. The Los Angeles rally was one of at least 32 Stand Up for Science demonstrations held nationwide on Friday.

Advertisement

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

“We have seen incredible disarray and attempts to dismantle a very effective research infrastructure in this country. And we have to say, enough is enough,” Judith Currier, a professor of medicine at UCLA, said at the demonstration, that took place in the shadow of offices for agencies including Veterans Affairs.

At least 32 coordinated rallies were held across the country Friday, anchored by a march on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., attended by thousands.

Duke Han, a professor of psychiatry and family medicine at USC, said that although he wasn’t as involved in the March for Science movement during Trump’s first stint in the White House, he chose to participate in these protests because the level of interference has grown in significance. Science has historically been considered nonpartisan, but events in recent years have galvanized those in the field to speak out.

Advertisement

“A lot of us are trying to figure out what we can do,” Han said. “A number of us are becoming more politically active, or politically active for the first time.”

For Han, the impact isn’t theoretical. He says his institution has become more cautious about giving offers to graduate students. A grant that was supposed to fund research he’s involved with to identify early signs of Alzheimer’s disease is five weeks late. He reached out to contacts at NIH but believes “it’s something that’s happening above them.”

A protester holds a sign in a crowd

The rally outside the federal building in Westwood drew professors, graduate students and others.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Several people at the protest said that the money used to fund scientific work pays dividends — and that losing it can have disastrous consequences for biomedical research, pharmaceutical development and more. Younger scientists shared the concern at the event. An international student at UCLA said the reason she came to the United States was for the “great opportunities” for research. “But look at the situation now,” said the 21-year-old undergrad, originally from India, who declined to provide her name because of how it might affect her immigration status.

Advertisement

Katherine Karlsgodt, an associate professor at UCLA in the psychology and psychiatry departments, who helped organize the Los Angeles rally, said she was “very upset” by the barrage of changes and concerned about their ramifications.

Alterations to science agency funding “have the potential to just completely derail scientific research and medical research [and] have a huge impact on universities and university budgets and our ability to train students and do research and basically everything that we do.”

Karlsgodt caught wind of the Stand Up for Science effort but was disappointed when she didn’t see a local rally on the books. Then some people at UCLA and USC got to talking, she said. One of her students — Dylan Hughes, a PhD student in the clinical psychology program at UCLA — booked the site and they began trying to spread the word. By the evening before the event, 300 people had RSVP’d.

Hundreds gathered for the Stand Up for Science rally.

“This is a really dark time for science and for humanity,” said Dylan Hughes, a UCLA graduate student who helped organize the Los Angeles rally, “but there’s an energy that we’ve created here that’s really helpful and has the power to change the world.”

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Expressions of anger and alarm intermingled with hope and solidarity at the rally. Sam Cooke’s “A Change Is Gonna Come” played as scores of attendees mingled and flashed pithy signs to cars speeding down Wilshire Boulevard. Honks elicited cheers. A dog in the crowd sported a sign announcing, “Dogs against DOGE,” around its neck, a reference to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk, who has led much of the Trump administration’s cost-cutting efforts.

What’s now a national movement began as a Bluesky post.

On. Feb. 8, Colette Delawalla, a graduate student in psychology at Emory University, announced online that she was planning a national protest for science, according to the New York Times. It hit a collective nerve, and other scientists quickly hopped on board, evolving into Stand Up for Science.

Behind the rallies are policy goals outlined on the group’s website, including ending political interference and censorship; restoring and expanding research funding; and defending diversity and accessibility.

Back in L.A., Hughes, the UCLA PhD student, who helped spearheaded the local event, urged people to take in the moment.

Advertisement

“This is a really dark time for science and for humanity,” Hughes said, “but there’s an energy that we’ve created here that’s really helpful and has the power to change the world.”

Hundreds gathered for the Stand Up for Science rally.

The Stand Up for Science movement drew inspiration from the 2017 March for Science.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

How Foreign Aid Cuts Are Setting the Stage for Disease Outbreaks

Published

on

How Foreign Aid Cuts Are Setting the Stage for Disease Outbreaks

Dangerous pathogens left unsecured at labs across Africa. Halted inspections for mpox, Ebola and other infections at airports and other checkpoints. Millions of unscreened animals shipped across borders.

The Trump administration’s pause on foreign aid has hobbled programs that prevent and snuff out outbreaks around the world, scientists say, leaving people everywhere more vulnerable to dangerous pathogens.

That includes Americans. Outbreaks that begin overseas can travel quickly: The coronavirus may have first appeared in China, for example, but it soon appeared everywhere, including the United States. When polio or dengue appears in this country, cases are usually linked to international travel.

“It’s actually in the interest of American people to keep diseases down,” said Dr. Githinji Gitahi, who heads Amref Health Africa, a large nonprofit that relies on the United States for about 25 percent of its funding.

“Diseases make their way to the U.S. even when we have our best people on it, and now we are not putting our best people on it,” he added.

Advertisement

In interviews, more than 30 current and former officials of the United States Agency for International Development, members of health organizations and experts in infectious diseases described a world made more perilous than it was just a few weeks ago.

Many spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the federal government.

The timing is dire: The Democratic Republic of Congo is experiencing the deadliest mpox outbreak in history, with cases exploding in a dozen other African countries.

The United States is home to a worsening bird flu crisis. Multiple hemorrhagic fever viruses are smoldering: Ebola in Uganda, Marburg in Tanzania, and Lassa in Nigeria and Sierra Leone.

In 2023, U.S.A.I.D. invested about $900 million to fund labs and emergency-response preparedness in more than 30 countries. The pause on foreign aid froze those programs. Even payments to grantees for work already completed are being sorted out in the courts.

Advertisement

Waivers issued by the State Department were intended to allow some work to continue on containing Ebola, Marburg and mpox, as well as preparedness for bird flu.

But Trump administration appointees choked payment systems and created obstacles to implementing the waivers, according to a U.S.A.I.D. memo by Nicholas Enrich, who was the agency’s acting assistant administrator for global health until Sunday.

Then last month, the Trump administration canceled about 5,800 contracts, effectively shuttering most U.S.A.I.D.-funded initiatives, including many that had received permission to continue.

“It was finally clear that we were not going to be implementing” even programs that had waivers, Mr. Enrich recalled in an interview.

The decision is likely to result in more than 28,000 new cases of infectious diseases like Ebola and Marburg, and 200,000 cases of paralytic polio each year, according to one estimate.

Advertisement

Secretary of State Marco Rubio “has been working diligently since being sworn in to review every dollar spent,” the State Department said in an emailed statement.

“We’ll be able to say that every program that we are out there operating serves the national interest, because it makes us safer or stronger or more prosperous,’” the statement quoted Mr. Rubio as saying.

Most U.S.A.I.D. staff members were terminated or placed on administrative leave without warning. The agency had more than 50 people dedicated to outbreak responses, the result of a Congressional push to beef up pandemic preparedness.

Now it has six. Those who were fired included the organization’s leading expert in lab diagnostics and the manager of the Ebola response. “I have no idea how six people are going to run four outbreak responses,” said one official who was let go.

Also sent home were hundreds of thousands of community health workers in Africa who were sentinels for diseases.

Advertisement

In early January, the Tanzanian government denied there were new cases of Marburg, a hemorrhagic fever. It was a community health worker trained through a U.S.-funded Ebola program who reported the disease a week later.

The outbreak eventually grew to include 10 cases; it is now under control, the government has said.

Even in quieter times, foreign aid helps to prevent, detect and treat diseases that can endanger Americans, including drug-resistant H.I.V., tuberculosis and malaria, and bacteria that don’t respond to available antibiotics.

Much of that work has stopped, and other organizations or countries cannot fill the gap. Compounding the loss is America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization, which has instituted cost-cutting measures of its own.

“This is a lose-lose scenario,” said Dr. Keiji Fukuda, who has led pandemic prevention efforts at the W.H.O. and the C.D.C.

Advertisement

The slashing of foreign aid deprives the world of American leadership and expertise, but it also locks the United States out of global discussions, Dr. Fukuda said: “For the life of me, I cannot see the justification or the reason for this very calculated, systematic approach to pull down public health.”

U.S.A.I.D.’s intense focus on global health security is barely a decade old, but it has mostly received bipartisan support. The first Trump administration expanded the program to 50 countries.

Much of the aid was intended to help them eventually tackle problems on their own. And to some extent, that was happening.

But confronted with a new virus or outbreak, “there’s so many things that one has to do and learn, and many countries can’t do that on their own,” said Dr. Lucille Blumberg, an infectious diseases physician and expert on emerging diseases.

U.S.A.I.D. and its partners helped countries identify the expertise, training and machinery they needed, brought together officials in various ministries and engaged farmers, businesses and families.

Advertisement

“It actually doesn’t cost the U.S. government that much,” said an official with a large development organization. “But that sort of trust-building, communication, sharing evidence is a real strength that the U.S. brings to health security — and that’s gone.”

In Africa, some countries have reacted to the disappearance of aid with alarm, others with resignation. “We’re doing our best to adapt to this development,” said Dr. Muhammad Ali Pate, Nigeria’s health minister.

“The U.S. government is not responsible, ultimately, for the health and the security of Nigerian people,” he said. “At the end of the day, the responsibility is ours.”

A successful outbreak response requires coordination of myriad elements: investigators to confirm the initial report; workers trained to do testing; access to test kits; transport of samples; a lab with enough workers, running water, electricity and chemical supplies for diagnoses; and experts to interpret and act on the results.

In broad strokes, the C.D.C. provided expertise on diseases, U.S.A.I.D. funded logistics and the W.H.O. convened stakeholders, including ministries of health.

Advertisement

Before the aid freeze, employees from each organization often talked every day, sharing information and debating strategy. Together, they lowered response time to an outbreak from two weeks in 2014 to five days in 2022 to just 48 hours most recently.

But now, C.D.C. experts who have honed their expertise over decades are not even allowed to speak to colleagues at the W.H.O.

U.S.A.I.D. funding for sample transport, lab supplies, fuel for generators and phone plans for contact tracers has ended. Much of its investment in simple solutions to seemingly intractable problems has also stopped.

In West Africa, for example, rodents that spread Lassa fever invade homes in search of food. One program in U.S.A.I.D.’s Stop Spillover project introduced rodent-proof food containers to limit the problem, but has now shut down.

In Congo, where corruption, conflict and endless outbreaks mean that surveillance “looks like Swiss cheese even at the best of times,” the mpox response slowed because there were no health workers to transport samples, said a U.S.A.I.D. official familiar with the response.

Advertisement

More than 400 mpox patients were left stranded after fleeing overwhelmed clinics. Before a waiver restarted some work, the United States identified two new cases of mpox, both in people who had traveled to East Africa.

In Kenya, U.S.A.I.D. supported eight labs and community-based surveillance in 12 high-risk counties. Labs in the Marsabit, Mandera and Garissa counties — which border Ethiopia and Somalia — have run out of test kits and reagents for diseases including Rift Valley fever, yellow fever and polio, and have lost nearly half their staff.

Kenya also borders Uganda and Tanzania and is close to Congo — all battling dangerous outbreaks — and has lost more than 35,000 workers.

“These stop-work orders would mean that it increases the risk of an index case passing through unnoticed,” Dr. Gitahi said, referring to the first known case in an outbreak. His organization has terminated nearly 400 of its staff of 2,400.

Many labs in Africa store samples of pathogens that naturally occur in the environment, including several that can be weaponized. With surveillance programs shut off, the pathogens could be stolen, and a bioterrorism attack might go undetected until it was too late to counter.

Advertisement

Some experts worried about bad actors who may release a threat like cholera into the water, or weaponize anthrax or brucellosis, common in African animals. Others said they were concerned that even unskilled handling of these disease threats might be enough to set off a disaster.

Funding from the U.S. government helped hire and train lab workers to maintain and dispose of dangerous viruses and bacteria safely.

But now, pathogens can be moved in and out of labs with no one the wiser. “We have lost our ability to understand where pathogens are being held,” said Kaitlin Sandhaus, founder and chief executive of Global Implementation Solutions.

Her company helped 17 African labs become accredited in biosafety procedures and supported five countries in drafting laws to ensure compliance. Now the firm is shutting down.

In the future, other countries, including China, will know more about where risky pathogens are housed, Ms. Sandhaus said: “It feels very dangerous to me.”

Advertisement

China has already invested in building labs in Africa, where it is cheaper and easier to “work on whatever you would like without anyone else paying attention,” said one U.S.A.I.D. official.

Russia, too, is providing mobile labs to Ugandans in Mbale, on the border with Kenya, another official said.

Some African countries like Somalia have fragile health systems and persistent security threats, yet minimal capacity for tracking infections that sicken animals and people, said Abdinasir Yusuf Osman, a veterinary epidemiologist and chair of a working group in Somalia’s health ministry.

Each year Somalia exports millions of camels, cattle and other livestock, primarily to the Middle East. The nation has relied heavily on foreign aid to screen the animals for diseases, he said.

“The consequences of this funding shortfall, in my view, will be catastrophic and increase the likelihood of uncontrolled outbreaks,” Dr. Osman said.

Advertisement

In countries with larger economies, foreign aid has helped build relationships. Thailand is a pioneer in infectious diseases, and U.S.A.I.D. was funding a modest project on malaria elimination that boosts its surveillance capabilities.

The abrupt end to that commitment risks losing good will, said Jui Shah, who helped run the program.

“In Asia, relationships are crucial for any type of work, but especially for roles that work with surveillance and patient data,” she said. “Americans will suffer if other countries hesitate to engage with us about outbreaks.”

Continue Reading

Trending