Connect with us

Science

Opinion: Scientists have become sitting ducks. We need leaders to step up and defend us

Published

on

Opinion: Scientists have become sitting ducks. We need leaders to step up and defend us

Nearly a century ago, when global dominance in scientific research began shifting to the United States from Europe, our nation built an empire firmly grounded in the natural sciences. America’s research universities and institutes flourished and provided the discoveries leading to the Manhattan Project, Silicon Valley’s tech industry, NASA and space exploration, vaccines to fight polio and other global infections, and new treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes and depression.

As a science envoy for the State Department, I saw first-hand how global leaders and technocrats admired the U.S. for its higher education system of scientific training and support. They spoke to me with pride about their time spent at U.S. universities or their hopes and aspirations that one day their sons and daughters might study here.

I have devoted my life to vaccine science. During the pandemic, our team at the Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine developed a low-cost COVID vaccine that was scaled for production in India and Indonesia, where almost 100 million doses were administered.

But here in the United States, thousands of Americans needlessly perished because they refused a COVID-19 immunization during our awful Delta wave in the summer and fall of 2021 and the BA.1 Omicron wave in the winter of 2022. Analyses by myself and colleagues have found that 200,000 unvaccinated Americans died during this period. Overwhelmingly, those deaths occurred in Republican strongholds, including 40,000 in my state of Texas. A closer examination reveals that the redder the county, the lower the immunization rates and the higher the death rates.

The dead were victims of what we too often label as “misinformation,” as though these victims succumbed to random junk on the internet. This was not always the case. The unvaccinated were targeted by a well-financed and newly politicized anti-vaccine movement.

Advertisement

It accelerated at the CPAC conference of conservatives in Dallas in the summer of 2021, when prominent anti-vaccine activists were featured speakers and one Republican lawmaker from the House Freedom Caucus announced that vaccinations would lead to government confiscations of Bibles and guns.

Just before CPAC, another prominent Freedom Caucus member had disparaged vaccinators as “medical brown shirts,” meaning Nazis, and she later attacked me and other scientists by name on Steve Bannon’s podcast. Other caucus members regularly made unsupported and spectacular claims about the benefits of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin as COVID treatments, while disparaging COVID-19 vaccinations.

Fox News piled on, misleading a huge swath of Americans. The partisan divide driving low COVID vaccinations and high deaths in 2021-22 was so profound that Liz Hamel of the Kaiser Family Foundation pronounced: “If I wanted to guess if somebody was vaccinated or not and I could only know one thing about them, I would probably ask what their party affiliation is.”

Now in 2023 the GOP Senate and House have intensified their efforts to promote conspiracies or denigrate science. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) went on Fox News in August claiming the pandemic “was all pre-planned by an elite group of people.”

Partisan politics is not the only factor driving vaccine disinformation, but this aspect has become the most intractable and lethal. It is also uncomfortable to discuss. I was taught that science and politics do not mix, and that we scientists need to be neutral. But what happens when the data overwhelmingly demonstrate that thousands of Americans died from political targeting?

Advertisement

During the 1930s, Joseph Stalin’s rise to authoritarian control relied on exiling or imprisoning prominent scientists. This had catastrophic consequences for Soviet productivity, especially in agricultural science.

Now American biomedical scientists have become targets. A 2021 survey found that 15% of scientists who engage with the news media about COVID-19 have received death threats. Another in 2022 found that almost 40% of COVID-19 scientists report experiencing at least one confrontation either online or in person, including death threats.

I’ve been singled out regularly by political extremists and Fox News anchors. Such statements reverberate and result in online threats or actual stalking.

How can America preserve its hard-earned dominance in science, especially given the volume of recent attacks on biomedicine?

First, we must protect biomedical scientists. So far there have been few public statements of support from any branch of the U.S. government, and our university leaders and scientific societies are mostly silent. There are no organizations on which biomedical scientists can depend for legal help if they are targets of public smear campaigns. This silence could well shape the plans of young people now choosing careers, as they see how scientists are treated in America.

Advertisement

The U.S. must also recognize how anti-science rhetoric has emerged as a new lethal force and find mechanisms to halt its advance. Pseudoscience carved a path of destruction in the U.S.S.R. almost 100 years ago, and now it is happening again. Beyond the 200,000 deaths that have already occurred, as activism against COVID vaccines morphs into panic about all immunizations, we could see the return of catastrophic childhood infections such as measles or polio. The fact that polio genomes have been detected recently in the wastewaters of New York and London is an ominous warning. Over the last two decades we made steady progress in vaccinating the world’s children, with impressive declines in pediatric deaths. But those gains are fragile.

We must find ways to preserve our achievements in biomedicine and support scientists, even if that means both the scientists and those in positions of power engage political leaders and challenge ideologues to reject their anti-science rhetoric and agenda. Otherwise, almost a century of America’s preeminence in science will soon decline, our democratic values will erode, and our global stature will fall.

Peter Hotez is a professor and dean at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development. He is the author, most recently, of “The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science: A Scientist’s Warning.”

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

Opinion: Fentanyl could fuel another cycle of loss in L.A.'s Black communities. It doesn't have to

Published

on

Opinion: Fentanyl could fuel another cycle of loss in L.A.'s Black communities. It doesn't have to

The death of a parent is typically a gutting and disorienting experience for adults. For a child, it’s even worse, stoking feelings of frustration and abandonment and sometimes self-destructive behaviors such as drug use that can continue well into adulthood. This has particularly serious implications when the child is Black and therefore more likely to end up in the child welfare system.

A recent report by federal researchers provides the fullest picture yet of the sprawling impact of overdose deaths on Black children in Los Angeles and other cities — and what we can do about it.

From 2011 to 2021, the report found, more than 321,000 American children lost a parent to a drug overdose. Black children experienced the highest increases in the rate of such losses during those years, compounding a long-standing public health crisis across Black America. Like much of the United States, Los Angeles has seen drug overdoses soar in recent years, with disproportionate losses among the city’s Black adults.

Black people are significantly more likely to experience drug-related deaths due to limited access to treatment and resources such as naloxone, which can reverse overdoses. When they’re parents, the toll on their children is both rapid and deep. Parental drug use is highly associated with use among children.

Although Black children make up just 7.4% of the Los Angeles County population, they represented 24% of those who entered the child welfare system in one recent year. One study found that about 47% of Black children in California were the subject of a maltreatment investigation before the age of 18, with substance use accounting for 41% of the state’s child maltreatment cases.

Advertisement

The disproportionate number of Black children in Los Angeles’ child welfare system has been scrutinized since the late 1980s, the height of Los Angeles’ heroin and crack epidemics. The drugs, then largely addressed as a criminal issue through heavy-handed policing and prosecution, consigned a generation of young and middle-aged Black Angelenos, both users and dealers, to premature death and incarceration. Many of their children wound up in the city’s fragmented child welfare system and, all too often, on a similar path toward addiction and entanglement with the legal system.

When a child’s parent dies, other family members — the child’s other parent, grandparents, aunts or uncles — are the first resort to assume responsibility for their care. But Black children, especially those from low-income communities, often end up in the child welfare system instead.

Why? The child’s surviving family members may lack the resources to fill the breach. But racial biases also predispose child welfare workers to remove Black children from their families and impede reunification efforts.

Research has consistently shown that child welfare workers more readily define Black parents’ behavior as abusive or neglectful even when it’s comparable to the conduct of parents of other races. Child welfare workers are also more likely to regard Black families as less loving of their children and less redeemable.

Children who enter the child welfare system due to parental death already spend twice as much time in the system. Black children tend to remain in the system even longer because of bias.

Advertisement

The twin depredations of Los Angeles’ opioid epidemic and its child welfare system are daunting but not beyond repair. The first necessity is to revamp the city’s racially biased child removal process. Los Angeles officials have been piloting a “blind removal” approach in which investigations are followed by a decision-making process that excludes demographic details such as the child’s race. This is a step in the right direction.

However, a UCLA study of the pilot program revealed that racial disproportionality persists, demonstrating how deep-seated child welfare biases are. For blind removal to be effective in eliminating racial disparities, it must be supplemented by greater transparency, expanded civilian review boards and training in implicit bias.

Second, we need a better understanding of the consequences of placing Black children in the child welfare system. In general, Black children in the system are highly stigmatized, especially when they come from families with histories of drug abuse. That contributes to making them less likely to be adopted. The trauma of losing a parent also means they’re more likely to experience depression and anxiety.

These experiences frequently devolve into social isolation, poor academic outcomes, limited employment prospects and incarceration. Officials must work to identify these patterns early and provide resources such as mental health care to disrupt this harmful cascade.

Lastly, policymakers must continue to explore the benefits of guaranteed basic income to provide a cushion for personal and professional growth. Another California pilot program would provide guaranteed basic income to those who age out of foster care at 21 or older. The state should lower the eligibility age to 18 to account for the steep challenges in housing and employment Black youths face as soon as they become adults. Researchers at Stanford and other institutions have found that such policies support better health, housing security and employment prospects.

Advertisement

Addressing the deepening overdose epidemic in Los Angeles’ Black communities requires attention not just to the immediate risks to drug users but also to the childhood experiences that often drive them to use. One of our most powerful tools for preventing future overdoses is to take better care of the children most directly affected by today’s losses.

Jerel Ezell is an assistant professor of community health sciences at UC Berkeley who studies the racial politics of substance use.

Continue Reading

Science

NASA JPL team hopes to give greenhouse gas-monitoring satellite 'unprecedented' vision

Published

on

NASA JPL team hopes to give greenhouse gas-monitoring satellite 'unprecedented' vision

It was almost 10 years ago when Andrew Thorpe received a text from the crew flying overhead in a small aircraft: They had spotted a new methane hot spot.

Thorpe drove along winding dirt and mountain roads in an unwieldy rental SUV near the Four Corners region of the southwestern U.S. When he arrived at the spot relayed from the plane, he pulled out a thermal camera to scan for the plume. Sure enough, methane was seeping out of the ground, likely from a pipeline leak.

He found a marker sticking out of the desert with the phone number for a gas company, so he gave them a call. “I had the most confused individual on the other side of the phone,” Thorpe said. “I was trying to explain to them why I was calling, but this was back many years ago when there really weren’t any technologies that could do this.”

Over the years, the work has gotten Thorpe some unwanted attention. “I did some driving surveys in California .… A rent-a-cop was very suspicious of me and tried to scare me off,” said Thorpe. “If you set up a thermal camera on a public road and you’re pointing it at a tank beyond the fence, people are going to get nervous. I’ve been heckled by some oil and gas workers, but that’s par for the course.”

Today, Thorpe is part of a group that is at the forefront of greenhouse gas monitoring at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. For over 40 years, the Microdevices Laboratory at JPL has developed specialized instruments to measure methane and carbon dioxide with extreme precision.

Advertisement

The instruments, called spectrometers, detect gases based on which colors of sunlight they absorb. Earlier this year, a team of researchers from JPL, Caltech and research nonprofit Carnegie Science was selected as a finalist for a NASA award to put the technology into orbit.

JPL technicians work on an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer, or AVIRIS, that will be installed in an airplane to search for methane and other greenhouse gases.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

If chosen for the satellite mission, the team’s carbon investigation, called Carbon-I, would launch in the early 2030s. Over the course of three years, Carbon-I would continuously map greenhouse gas emissions around the globe and take daily snapshots of areas of interest, allowing scientists to identify sources of climate pollution, such as power plants, pipeline leaks, farms and landfills.

Advertisement

While there are already multiple satellites monitoring these gases, Carbon-I’s resolution is unprecedented and would eliminate any guesswork in determining where the gas was emitted. “There’s no denying it anymore — once we see a plume, there’s no other potential source,” said Christian Frankenberg, co-principal investigator for Carbon-I and a professor of environmental science and engineering at Caltech.

Caltech professor Christian Frankenberg peers into the AVIRIS-5.

Caltech professor Christian Frankenberg, co-principal investigator for the proposed space-based Carbon-I emission-monitoring system, peers into an AVIRIS monitor under construction in a JPL lab.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Carbon-I’s finest, 100-foot resolution “is a very high resolution from space. That’s an incredible resolution to be able to get,” said Debra Wunch, a professor at the University of Toronto who studies Earth’s carbon cycle and is not involved in the Carbon-I proposal. “It would be able to give us much more insight into exactly the source of emissions .… This would be groundbreaking. You would be able to see individual stacks, individual parts of landfills, even.”

Historically, monitoring the release of greenhouse gases from individual emitters has been challenging — both carbon dioxide and methane are colorless and odorless. So scientists have often had to rely on adding up self-reported values from companies and estimates from research. For example, to estimate the amount of methane cows produce, scientists would have to determine how much methane one cow releases and multiply it by the total number of cows on Earth.

Advertisement

“If you look at international policies … currently they’re all based on these bottom-up inventories,” said Anna Michalak, co-principal investigator for Carbon-I and the founding director of the Carnegie Climate and Resilience Hub at Carnegie Science. “We need to get to a point where … we actually have an independent way of tracking what the emissions are.”

Carbon-I’s resolution will also give scientists new access to the atmosphere of the tropics, where clouds currently obscure most forms of satellite surveillance. “It’s their Achilles’ heel,” said Frankenberg.

Since tropical and subtropical forests absorb roughly a quarter of the CO2 humanity produces by burning fossil fuels, accurate data from this region of the globe is badly needed.

Satellites currently orbiting Earth with lower resolution can’t see through small gaps in the cloud coverage. They only see a blurred average of the cloudy and clear spots in the sky for each pixel. Carbon-I, with each pixel’s area almost 50 times smaller than that of most other satellites, can see the clearings and take measurements through them. In an April 2024 paper, Frankenberg, Michalak and their collaborators estimated that Carbon-I would be able to see past the clouds in the tropics anywhere from 10 to 100 times more frequently than its predecessors.

Carbon-I “is going to see things where people don’t know what’s going on,” said Thorpe, who has moved on from his graduate school days pointing thermal cameras at gas leaks and now works as a research technologist with the Microdevices Laboratory. “It’s going to open a whole new realm of science.”

Advertisement

JPL’s airborne greenhouse gas-monitoring program goes back decades, but the field of space monitoring is still fairly new. Near the start of 2016, NASA headquarters contacted the JPL team. There was an ongoing massive blowout at the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility near Porter Ranch, and NASA wanted the team to check it out.

The team flew over the site in a variant of a 1960s-era spy plane on three days over the course of a month while the Southern California Gas Co. fought to contain the blowout. At the same time, NASA’s Goddard Flight Center in Maryland pointed the NASA Earth Observing spacecraft’s Hyperion spectrometer at the leak.

Hyperion was designed to make observations of the Earth’s surface and filter out noise from the atmosphere. Now, they were trying to observe the atmosphere and filter out the surface, and for the first time, scientists observed a human-made point source of methane from orbit.

“The Hyperion result was pretty noisy, but you could still see the plume,” said Thorpe. “This was really a proof of concept that we could do it from space.”

Even if Carbon-I launches, it doesn’t mean the team will stop putting instruments on planes. From aircraft, the team is able to monitor areas of interest in even sharper resolution and for consecutive days at a time. Right now, a leaner, meaner version of the spectrometers that observed the Four Corners leak and Aliso Canyon blowout is flying a series of missions to monitor the emissions of offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Advertisement
A twin-propeller King Air airplane in a hangar.

The twin-engine King Air plane used by JPL to conduct greenhouse gas-monitoring flights in its hangar at Hollywood Burbank Airport.

(Noah Haggerty/Los Angeles Times)

Plane missions also give the team an opportunity to try out new and improve spectrometers. “You can fix them, and you can upgrade them,” said JPL engineer Michael Eastwood, who’s worked with the spectrometers for over three decades and regularly flies with them. “You can take more risks, as opposed to spacecraft that need really mature, really well-known, high reliability — we’re not constrained like that.”

The air team is nimble, too. Typically, two crew members sit in the second row of a King Air twin-propeller aircraft looking at a stack of laptops and instruments with enough buttons to rival the plane’s cockpit. On the screens, they can look at real-time GPS data and spectrometer results and coordinate a flight plan with the pilots. The spectrometer — called AVIRIS, short for Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer — sits in the third row, looking down through a window cut out in the floor.

The NASA program for which Carbon-I was selected as a finalist aims to fund space-based Earth science that will benefit society. The team was awarded $5 million to sharpen its project proposal before a final NASA review in 2025. There are three other finalists, and two will be selected for the launch.

Advertisement

This two-step process for selecting missions is new for NASA’s Earth science programs and requires JPL to compete with the rest of the scientific community, independent of their association with the space agency.

“If we’re talking about grocery money, [$5 million] seems like a lot of money, but it’s really a bargain,” said Michalak. “If you think about the fact that you’re committing $300 million toward a mission, spending 1.5% of that to really make sure it’s going to be fabulous and successful is extremely smart.”

In the meantime, the Carbon-I team is focused on showing NASA that it has the technical know-how to execute the project on time and under budget.

“I think all four of the missions in the current phase are absolutely worthwhile scientific missions,” said Michalak, “and 50% odds are not bad odds for a satellite mission.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Signs of avian flu found in San Francisco wastewater

Published

on

Signs of avian flu found in San Francisco wastewater

Signs of H5N1 bird flu virus have been detected at three wastewater sites in California’s Bay Area, according to sampling data.

While positive wastewater samples have been found in seven other states, California is the only one that has yet to report a bird flu outbreak in a herd of dairy cows.

Genetic evidence of bird flu was detected in San Francisco wastewater on June 18 and June 26. Additional H5 “hits” were seen at a site in Palo Alto on June 19, and another on June 10 from the West County Wastewater facility in Richmond.

According to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, officials have been closely monitoring H5N1 along with federal, state and local partners, and are “aware of the recent detections of fragments of H5N1 in San Francisco’s wastewater.”

Advertisement

“As with the previous detections reported from before mid-May 2024, it is unclear what the source of H5N1 is, and an investigation is ongoing,” wrote department officials in a statement. “It is possible that it originated from bird waste or waste from other animals due to San Francisco’s sewer system that collects and treats both wastewater and stormwater in the same network of pipes.”

Health officials said the risk remains low for the general public.

The virus has not been identified in California cows, but it has been found in wild birds and domestic poultry in the state.

The finding “is concerning” because of their urban origin, said Devabhaktuni Srikrishna, an entrepreneur who is developing techniques for disease detection, and the chief executive and founder of PatientKnowHow.com. “There are not many dairy or animal farms in San Francisco.”

There are also no dairy farms in Palo Alto or Richmond.

Advertisement

The plant manager from Palo Alto was out of the office Friday, so could not comment. A spokesperson for the Richmond site directed questions to the state.

A request for comment from the state’s Wastewater Surveillance Program had not yet been returned.

Although the samples from the Bay Area wastewater sites tested positive for H5, the testing was not specific to H5N1.

However, researchers say a positive genetic identification for H5 is suggestive of bird flu — whether H5N1, the virus that has been found in U.S. dairy cattle (and which has infected three dairy workers ) or H5N2, the subtype implicated in the death of a man from Mexico City this month.

Most human influenza A viruses are of the H1 and H3 variety.

Advertisement

The virus has been detected in 133 dairy herds across 12 states. It has also been found in wild birds and domestic poultry flocks throughout the United States.

In recent weeks, H5 was also detected in wastewater samples in Idaho. among other states.

While there is “no threat to the general public from the H5 detection in wastewater” at this time, said Christine Hahn, Idaho state epidemiologist, “we have determined that it is important that we work to understand these recent findings as much as possible.”

The state is working in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate the issue.

WastewaterSCAN, the research organization that detected the virus, is an infectious disease monitoring network run by researchers at Stanford, Emory University and Verily, Alphabet Inc.’s life sciences organization.

Advertisement

A review of their data — which samples from 194 locations across the country — suggests H5 has also been detected at sites in Michigan, Texas, Minnesota, South Dakota and Iowa.

California is the only one of these states that has not reported H5N1-infected cattle.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending