Connect with us

Science

Scientists become a source of hope and information on TikTok, Instagram

Published

on

Scientists become a source of hope and information on TikTok, Instagram

Peter Neff understands the allure of the world’s fifth-largest continent.

The camera roll on his phone is brimming with videos and photos of his trips to Antarctica, where the glaciologist and climate scientist has spent days and weeks at a time collecting ice core samples. His work helps develop a record of past climate conditions and anticipate what’s to come.

When the pandemic lockdowns started to keep everyone at home, Neff, a professor at the University of Minnesota, upped his social media presence by posting explanations of his work online under the username “Icy Pete.” He reposted a video to TikTok that had done well on X, which captures the sound a chunk of ice makes when it falls 90 meters down a borehole (“Pew!” Just like the sound of a gunshot in a cartoon). It was an immediate success, garnering more than 30,000 views.

Antarctic ice.

A view of the sloping iceberg in Antarctica in February. Scientists like glaciologist Peter Neff are focusing on mapping changes in Antarctica’s glaciers and ice sheets.

(Sebnem Coskun / Anadolu / Getty Images)

Advertisement

In 2024 (and 2022), Neff was featured as a Climate Creator to Watch, a collaboration between startup media Pique Action and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and his posts had gained more than 4 million likes.

“As a scientist, my job is to tell folks what the situation is and what we could choose to do to not make it worse, or to make it better,” Neff said in an interview. “I hope I can provide information that is accurately used to describe the challenges that we face, because it is quite serious.”

As the internet accommodates a growing range of voices, scientists studying climate and the environment have taken to sharing their work online, translating obscure topics and discoveries into accessible bits of information. Instead of waiting years for their studies and work to be published in academic journals, scientists like Neff have used social media to extend their reach — and their brand.

Joe Hanson, the biologist who hosts PBS’ “Be Smart” series, is a well-known voice on climate issues on YouTube. One 44-second video explaining the Keeling curve (a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration) has 2.4 million views. His 28-minute video tackling climate change myths has been viewed more than 900,000 times. Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe has an authoritative presence on Instagram and partners with influencers to spread the gospel of climate science. Peter Kalmus took the internet by storm in 2022 when he and other scientists chained himself to the door of the J.P. Morgan Chase office building in downtown Los Angeles to protest the company’s fossil fuel investments and were subsequently arrested. On X, his “ClimateHuman” account has more than 330,000 followers.

Advertisement

The potential to attract likes is enormous. According to the Pew Research Center, one survey found about half of U.S. adults said they reported seeing news at least “sometimes” while using social media platforms.

Neff has studied glaciology for 15 years and has traveled several times to the Antarctic region to study ice cores — cylinders of drilled ice that serve as records of past climate change and are extracted from ice sheets and glaciers. Among his many titles, he is the director of field research and data for the Center for Oldest Ice Exploration.

Katharine Hayhoe stands with folded arms.

Katharine Hayhoe at the COP27 U.N. Climate Summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2022. Hayhoe has an authoritative presence on Instagram and partners with influencers to share climate science.

(Nariman El-Mofty / Associated Press)

On TikTok, Neff explains the process of “how to go from old air in ice to an air sample” in 60 seconds. While an academic journal entry might take on more scientific terms and explanations, Neff breaks down the process of his work with ice cores in layman’s terms, rushing through the narration — “drill your ice core borehole,” “load ice in the vacuum chamber,” “melt that ice” — in a matter-of-fact voice for a video that has more than 617,000 views as of this writing.

Advertisement

Neff’s TikTok account had 224,000 followers, and a graduate student and fellow Antarctica scientist, Austin Carter, who also posts about their work through the Center for Oldest Ice Exploration, has eclipsed him with nearly 254,000 followers.

According to a study published in January by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that monitors online hate speech, climate denialism has shifted from denying global warming is happening to claiming climate solutions won’t work and that the climate movement is unreliable across all platforms. (The study, which reviewed about 12,000 videos using artificial intelligence, also found that YouTube makes up to $13.4 million “from channels posting denial.”)

Neff has some unkind words for climate deniers. At one point, he deleted a video that showed sun halos in Antarctica because it had gone viral among “flat Earthers” who were trying to use the video as proof that the world is not, in fact, round.

“These people are brick walls … and you’re not going to change anybody’s mind,” he said. “You don’t know what people are going to do with your content once you post it.”

The climatologist stresses the role scientists can play in spreading fact-based information.

Advertisement

“I’m trying to just educate people … especially with all of our work being publicly funded,” Neff said. “We’re obligated to share about it.”

Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, a marine biologist, took a different path to social media stardom. As the former executive director of the La Jolla-based Waitt Institute, which implements sustainable ocean plans and policy, she led communication efforts to make sure Barbudan fishing communities had input in proposing policy. She began running Facebook pages for the effort, and found she had a knack for communicating her work to the public. Next, she began blogging for National Geographic and writing freelance stories.

 Ayana Elizabeth Johnson speaks onstage.

Marine biologist Ayana Elizabeth Johnson speaks onstage during a NYC Climate Strike rally and demonstration at Battery Park in 2019.

(Ron Adar / SOPA Images/Sipa USA /Associated Press)

“To me, all of climate, environmental communication is about how can we repeat each other’s successes and avoid others’ failures,” said Johnson, who has studied marine biology for about 12 years. “So that requires getting in the weeds a little and hopefully, in a way that’s appealing and welcoming as opposed to like, boring and insufferable.”

Advertisement

Johnson has acquired her expertise through many endeavors. She’s the Roux Distinguished Scholar at Bowdoin College, a co-founder of the think tank Urban Ocean Lab and the All We Can Save Project, both of which promote sustainable marine and climate solutions. This month, Johnson will release her book “What if We Get it Right?” which features conversations with farmers, climate activists and financiers — among others — in an effort to map out possible climate futures. In addition, she appears in several publications and platforms in an effort to convince the general public that there is still hope in avoiding climate catastrophe.

On TikTok, where she does not have an account, a snippet from one of her Ted Talks with five facts about parrotfish has more than 400,000 views. Johnson is often featured on podcasts as a guest to talk about ocean conservation, and followers share her climate action Venn diagram to inspire action and defeat hopelessness.

She gained a big chunk of her followers in 2020, after the Washington Post published her op-ed that tackled climate policy and racism. The content she posts under her name is personal and conversational (she has more than 120,000 followers on Instagram) but the organizations that she runs stick to policy-driven posts.

Conversations among members of the public, scientists and policymakers are all part of working toward a climate solution, Johnson said. “That is really at the heart of the way I attempt to share information, is not by me being out there just like screaming into the void as one person but by trying to make this a collective conversation.”

For now, Johnson said she will continue her “begrudging” relationship with social media and continue to be a voice that people can rely on when it comes to climate policy ahead of the November presidential election, and even local races, which have a direct impact on voters.

Advertisement

“There’s an intense amnesia in the United States about the Trump administration, and how awful that was for the environment,” she said, citing the hundreds of environmental regulations on clean air and water that he rolled back. “I just really want to do my little part in helping people understand how to be a climate voter. The people who follow me care about this issue, but it’s really hard to get good information from a person that you trust.”

Science

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

Published

on

FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week set maximum levels for lead in baby foods such as jarred fruits and vegetables, yogurts and dry cereal, part of an effort to cut young kids’ exposure to the toxic metal that causes developmental and neurological problems.

The agency issued final guidance that it estimated could reduce lead exposure from processed baby foods by about 20% to 30%. The limits are voluntary, not mandatory, for food manufacturers, but they allow the FDA to take enforcement action if foods exceed the levels.

It’s part of the FDA’s ongoing effort to “reduce dietary exposure to contaminants, including lead, in foods to as low as possible over time, while maintaining access to nutritious foods,” the agency said in a statement.

Consumer advocates, who have long sought limits on lead in children’s foods, welcomed the guidance first proposed two years ago, but said it didn’t go far enough.

“FDA’s actions today are a step forward and will help protect children,” said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, the agency took too long to act and ignored important public input that could have strengthened these standards.”

Advertisement

The new limits on lead for children younger than 2 don’t cover grain-based snacks such as puffs and teething biscuits, which some research has shown contain higher levels of lead. And they don’t limit other metals such as cadmium that have been detected in baby foods.

The FDA’s announcement comes just one week after a new California law took effect that requires baby food makers selling products in California to provide a QR code on their packaging to take consumers to monthly test results for the presence in their product of four heavy metals: lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium.

The change, required under a law passed by the California Legislature in 2023, will affect consumers nationwide. Because companies are unlikely to create separate packaging for the California market, QR codes are likely to appear on products sold across the country, and consumers everywhere will be able to view the heavy metal concentrations.

Although companies are required to start printing new packaging and publishing test results of products manufactured beginning in January, it may take time for the products to hit grocery shelves.

The law was inspired by a 2021 congressional investigation that found dangerously high levels of heavy metals in packaged foods marketed for babies and toddlers. Baby foods and their ingredients had up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to five times the mercury level that the U.S. allows to be present in bottled or drinking water, the investigation found.

Advertisement

There’s no safe level of lead exposure for children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The metal causes “well-documented health effects,” including brain and nervous system damage and slowed growth and development. However, lead occurs naturally in some foods and comes from pollutants in air, water and soil, which can make it impossible to eliminate entirely.

The FDA guidance sets a lead limit of 10 parts per billion for fruits, most vegetables, grain and meat mixtures, yogurts, custards and puddings and single-ingredient meats. It sets a limit of 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables and for dry infant cereals. The guidance covers packaged processed foods sold in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes.

Jaclyn Bowen, executive director of the Clean Label Project, an organization that certifies baby foods as having low levels of toxic substances, said consumers can use the new FDA guidance in tandem with the new California law: The FDA, she said, has provided parents a “hard and fast number” to consider a benchmark when looking at the new monthly test results.

But Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, called the FDA limits “virtually meaningless because they’re based more on industry feasibility and not on what would best protect public health.” A product with a lead level of 10 parts per billion is “still too high for baby food. What we’ve heard from a lot of these manufacturers is they are testing well below that number.”

The new FDA guidance comes more than a year after lead-tainted pouches of apple cinnamon puree sickened more than 560 children in the U.S. between October 2023 and April 2024, according to the CDC.

Advertisement

The levels of lead detected in those products were more than 2,000 times higher than the FDA’s maximum. Officials stressed that the agency doesn’t need guidance to take action on foods that violate the law.

Aleccia writes for the Associated Press. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Continue Reading

Science

NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration

Published

on

NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration

Anyone hoping for a clear path forward this year for NASA’s imperiled Mars Sample Return mission will have to wait a little longer.

The agency has settled on two potential strategies for the first effort to bring rock and soil from another planet back to Earth for study, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said Tuesday: It can either leverage existing technology into a simpler, cheaper craft or turn to a commercial partner for a new design.

But the final decision on the mission’s structure — or whether it should proceed at all — “is going to be a function of the new administration,” Nelson said. President-elect Donald Trump will take office Jan. 20.

“I don’t think we want the only [Mars] sample return coming back on a Chinese spacecraft,” Nelson said, referencing a rival mission that Beijing has in the works. “I think that the [Trump] administration will certainly conclude that they want to proceed. So what we wanted to do was to give them the best possible options so that they can go from there.”

Advertisement

The call also contained words of encouragement for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, which leads the embattled mission’s engineering efforts.

“To put it really bluntly, JPL is our Mars center in NASA science,” said Nicky Fox, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate. “They are the people who landed us on Mars, together with our industry partners. So they will be moving forward, regardless of which path, with a key role in the Mars Sample Return.”

In April, after an independent review found “near zero probability” of Mars Sample Return making its proposed 2028 launch date, NASA put out a request for alternative proposals to all of its centers and the private sector. JPL was forced to compete for what had been its own project.

The independent review board determined that the original design would probably cost up to $11 billion and not return samples to Earth until at least 2040.

“That was just simply unacceptable,” said Nelson, who paused the mission in late 2023 to review its chances of success.

Advertisement

Ensuing cuts to the mission’s budget forced a series of layoffs at JPL, which let go of 855 employees and 100 on-site contractors in 2024.

The NASA-led option that Nelson suggested Tuesday includes several elements from the JPL proposal, according to a person who reviewed the documents. This leaner, simpler alternative will cost between $6.6 billion and $7.7 billion, and will return the samples by 2039, he said. A commercial alternative would probably cost $5.8 billion to $7.1 billion.

Nelson, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Florida, will step down as head of the space agency when Trump takes office. Trump has nominated as his successor Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who performed the first private space walk, who must be confirmed by the Senate.

NASA has not had any conversations with Trump’s transition team about Mars Sample Return, Nelson said. How the new administration will prioritize the project is not yet clear.

“It’s very uncertain how the new administration will go forward,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy for the Planetary Society, a Pasadena nonprofit that promotes space research. “Cancellation is obviously still on the table. … It’s hard to game this out.”

Advertisement

Planetary scientists have identified Mars Sample Return as their field’s highest priority in the last three decadal surveys, reports that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine prepare every 10 years in order to advise NASA.

Successfully completing the mission is “key for the nation’s leadership in space science,” said Bethany L. Ehlmann, a planetary scientist at Caltech in Pasadena. “I hope the incoming administrator moves forward decisively to select a plan and execute. There are extraordinary engineers at JPL and NASA industry partners eager and able to get to work to make it happen.”

Continue Reading

Science

Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate

Published

on

Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate

Night fell as the two scientists got to work, unfurling long nets off the end of their boat. The jungle struck up its evening symphony: the sweet chittering of insects, the distant bellowing of monkeys, the occasional screech of a kite. Crocodiles lounged in the shallows, their eyes glinting when headlamps were shined their way.

Across the water, cargo ships made dark shapes as they slid between the seas.

The Panama Canal has for more than a century connected far-flung peoples and economies, making it an essential artery for global trade — and, in recent weeks, a target of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s expansionist designs.

But of late the canal has been linking something else, too: the immense ecosystems of the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The two oceans have been separated for some three million years, ever since the isthmus of Panama rose out of the water and split them. The canal cut a path through the continent, yet for decades only a handful of marine fish species managed to migrate through the waterway and the freshwater reservoir, Lake Gatún, that feeds its locks.

Advertisement

Then, in 2016, Panama expanded the canal to allow supersize ships, and all that started to change.

In less than a decade, fish from both oceans — snooks, jacks, snappers and more — have almost entirely displaced the freshwater species that were in the canal system before, scientists with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama have found. Fishermen around Lake Gatún who rely on those species, chiefly peacock bass and tilapia, say their catches are growing scarce.

Researchers now worry that more fish could start making their way through from one ocean to the other. And no potential invader causes more concern than the venomous, candy-striped lionfish. They are known to inhabit Panama’s Caribbean coast, but not the eastern Pacific. If they made it there through the canal, they could ravage the defenseless local fish, just as they’ve done in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

Already, marine species are more than occasional visitors in Lake Gatún, said Phillip Sanchez, a fisheries ecologist with the Smithsonian. They’re “becoming the dominant community,” he said. They’re “pushing everything else out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending