Connect with us

Science

Trump's first term brought world-changing vaccine. His second could bring retreat

Published

on

Trump's first term brought world-changing vaccine. His second could bring retreat

President Trump once celebrated the COVID-19 vaccines released at the end of his first term as “one of the greatest achievements of mankind,” echoing the sentiments of mainstream medical officials who praised their rapid development as pivotal in combating the then-raging pandemic.

But as his second administration takes shape, some are sounding the alarm regarding Trump’s picks to lead major public health agencies, concerned that the nominees’ skepticism, if not hostility, toward vaccines could jeopardize the nation’s ability to respond to new or resurgent infectious threats.

There’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who has called the COVID-19 vaccine the “deadliest vaccine ever made” and said that “there’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has contended that he’s not against vaccines, but has spread the myth that they commonly injure children and can cause autism.

(Morry Gash / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Nominated to lead the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is Dr. Dave Weldon, a former congressman from Florida who has expressed skepticism of the safety of vaccines and promoted the discredited idea that a preservative, thimerosal, that has been used in some vaccines, or the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine — which has never used thimerosal — may be linked to autism.

Skepticism and outright conspiracy theories about vaccines are nothing new, and health officials have long warned about the potential pitfalls of such misinformation.

But now, some top doubters could be in the position to shape federal health policy.

While COVID is no longer the grave public health threat it once was, the disease spikes periodically — as it did this summer — and has continued to be responsible for the most hospitalizations and deaths of any respiratory disease nationally, with nearly 60,000 fatalities for the yearlong period that ended Sept. 30. And other infectious threats, be they whooping cough, measles or the latest strain of bird flu, continue to loom.

Advertisement

“We really don’t want to return to the era where these vaccine-preventable diseases were frequent, and children were getting sick or hospitalized or even dying,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat, a former deputy director at the CDC, who served at the agency for more than three decades, starting in the Reagan administration. “We’ve been fortunate in the past couple decades to have high levels of vaccination and low levels of most of the diseases.”

Neither the Trump transition team, a spokesperson for Kennedy, nor Weldon answered requests for comment for this story.

Trump, who had his own brush with the coronavirus near the end of his first term, hailed the rapid development of the COVID vaccines as a “monumental national achievement” and celebrated the production of “a verifiably safe and effective vaccine.”

He continued in 2021 to promote COVID vaccines in interviews and at rallies, though he also said he didn’t support making the shots mandatory. That year alone, the World Health Organization estimates, the vaccines likely saved at least 14.4 million lives worldwide.

But even then, skepticism surrounding the shots was starting to take root — including among Trump’s supporters. A KFF survey found that 60% of Republicans who support his “Make America Great Again” agenda got at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at some point. But by late 2023, another KFF survey found that 70% of self-identified MAGA Republicans were either not too confident or not at all confident in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Advertisement

That same survey found that only 36% of Republicans were very or somewhat confident the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, compared with 54% of independents and 84% of Democrats.

Kennedy has contended he is not “anti-vaccine,” but his organization, the Children’s Health Defense, has questioned their safety. Kennedy himself has criticized what he sees as deficits in the science on vaccine safety and spread the myth that vaccines commonly injure children.

When asked by a documentary maker whether there were any vaccines in history that were a benefit to mankind, Kennedy replied: “I don’t know the answer to that.”

More recently, he has said he would not “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

But even if a vaccine isn’t taken away entirely, “you can just make it much harder for people to get,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health and a former White House COVID-19 Response coordinator under President Biden.

Advertisement
Dr. Ashish Jha gestures while speaking with a White House logo on the wall behind him

Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “consistently shows that he doesn’t believe in modern medicine, doesn’t believe in the scientific process that has led to these huge gains that we’ve had” in public health.

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

For instance, Jha said, newly appointed officials could demand randomized clinical trials for every annual update to the COVID vaccine — “even though we don’t do that for the flu vaccines.”

“If that is a new standard that they create, it probably will make it impossible for [updated] COVID vaccines to be available in time for the holiday season,” Jha said. “If they follow through on their own previous critiques, they may box themselves in and make it very, very hard for Americans to even get COVID vaccines.”

Kennedy has also advanced the baseless claim that thimerosal in vaccines can cause autism, which has been thoroughly discredited by scientists. Thimerosal has been removed from childhood vaccines since 2001, according to the CDC, and “research does not show any link between thimerosal and autism.” While it is still used in some flu vaccines, parents can request a formulation without the preservative for their children.

Advertisement

Organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics also say the MMR vaccine — which protects against measles, mumps and rubella and is a major target of the anti-vax movement — is safe.

Critics have also accused Kennedy of spreading misinformation regarding the safety of the measles vaccine in Samoa. The Associated Press reported that Kennedy traveled to the island nation in June 2019 and met with anti-vaccine activists before a severe outbreak that killed 83, mostly infants and children.

At the time, public health officials said anti-vaccine misinformation had made the nation vulnerable. Kennedy has denied playing a role in the outbreak, which he has characterized as “mild.” “I had nothing to do with people not vaccinating in Samoa. I never told anybody not to vaccinate,” Kennedy told an interviewer in the 2023 documentary “Shot in the Arm.”

In a video published by the New York Post in 2023, Kennedy floated the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 may have been engineered to avoid harming Jews and Chinese people. Critics called his comments antisemitic and anti-Asian.

In a social media post, Kennedy said “the insinuation” that “I am somehow antisemitic, is a disgusting fabrication.” In another post, Kennedy said he has “never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews” and asserted “that the U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021 study of the COVID-19 virus shows that COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect certain races.”

Advertisement

Some scientists have dismissed some of Kennedy’s assertions as absurd and not based in science.

“One of my biggest concerns about about him is the misinformation that he spreads around vaccination,” said Dr. Richard Besser, who served as acting CDC director during the initial response to the 2009 H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic and is now president and chief executive of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The Health and Human Services secretary plays a major role in setting health priorities for the nation — suggesting how much money various agencies should get, helping determine what is covered for people on Medicare or Medicaid, and having a say in what kind of public recommendations the agency issues, Besser said.

Kennedy “consistently shows that he doesn’t believe in modern medicine, doesn’t believe in the scientific process that has led to these huge gains that we’ve had” in public health, Jha said.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, whom Trump appointed as commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during his first term, said on CNBC that if Kennedy follows through on his rhetoric, “You’re going to see measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rates go down,” which he expects would result in large outbreaks. “For every 1,000 cases of measles that occur in children, there will be one death,” he added.

Advertisement

Trump’s apparent skepticism toward some vaccine requirements — during the campaign he pledged to “not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate” — is also raising alarm bells in some corners.

Making moves that would erode the share of schoolchildren receiving vaccines they have been getting for generations would “create health risks” for the community at large, said Dr. Mark Ghaly, former secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency.

Dr. Mark Ghaly smiling for a portrait beside his reflection in a window

“I can imagine that some states may be pushed into a corner” if federal funding for public health work is reduced, said Dr. Mark Ghaly, former secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

If a policy scrapping federal funding at schools that enforce vaccination requirements for schoolchildren were enacted, some districts or states may have to make tough decisions. While most public schools largely rely on state and local funding, federal dollars flow to support certain programs, such as school lunches.

Advertisement

California is a little less reliant on federal funding for public health work, but “I can imagine that some states may be pushed into a corner,” Ghaly said.

State and local health officials should also speak up if they see messaging from the federal government that amounts to misinformation, Jha said. “It is, I think, really critical for state and local public health officials to speak up and not cede the floor to federal officials, especially if those federal officials are not sort of sticking to where the scientific evidence is,” Jha said.

Different leadership at national health agencies could also affect the availability or cost of vaccines.

“Could they become harder to get? Could it become more expensive to get in some places? Maybe not in the first year or two, but down the road, absolutely,” Ghaly said.

The federal government’s childhood vaccination program, run out of the CDC with oversight from Health and Human Services, plays a major role in getting half the kids in America their childhood vaccines essentially for free, Jha said. If federal officials decide to gut the program, “a lot of poor kids are not going to have easy access to vaccines, which, of course, would be tragic and would put everybody at risk.”

Advertisement

Other questions include whether future federal health officials would seek next fall to water down the CDC’s current recommendation that everyone age 6 months and up get vaccinated against COVID — and whether that would affect whether insurers cover the costs of vaccines.

One glimpse into a sharply different way of managing COVID vaccination recommendations is in Florida.

In a move at direct odds with the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, Florida’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, advised against getting mRNA COVID vaccinations this fall and suggested that healthcare providers look into a non-mRNA shot for the elderly and immunocompromised. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both use mRNA technology, while a different vaccine from Novavax does not.

Ladapo, a former professor at UCLA, is viewed favorably by some highly ranked Republicans, including Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who appointed him. Just after the election, DeSantis urged Trump to appoint Ladapo as the next secretary of Health and Human Services.

The CDC and FDA have rebuked earlier claims by Ladapo, saying his suggestion that there was an increased risk of harmful, life-threatening side effects caused by the COVID-19 vaccines was “incorrect, misleading and could be harmful to the American public.” The letter said the FDA-approved COVID vaccines have met rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness.

Advertisement

Jha said he thought some of Trump’s other administration picks were reasonable, including the nomination of Dr. Marty Makary, a surgical oncologist at Johns Hopkins University, to run the FDA.

Makary drew attention for a February 2021 op-ed in which he wrote he expected COVID-19 to be “mostly gone” by that April, a prediction that failed to materialize. Later that year, he criticized federal recommendations to have 16- and 17-year-olds receive a COVID-19 vaccine booster, citing a lack of supporting clinical data. In early 2022, he criticized experts who he said discounted infection-derived immunity to COVID.

Jha said he disagrees with Makary on a number of topics — such as, in his view, discounting the value of COVID vaccinations in kids. The difference between Kennedy and Makary, Jha said, is that Makary’s views “are within the range of medical professionals who believe in modern medicine, who can disagree honestly.”

Among Trump’s other picks Jha said he considered reasonable was Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University health policy professor and economist who was critical of pandemic lockdowns, and offered pandemic policy advice to Florida. Nominated to run the National Institutes of Health, Bhattacharya supported a pandemic response called “focused protection” — protecting those at highest risk of death while allowing others to “live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection.”

“I think some of his ideas and recommendations during the pandemic were really problematic and caused a lot of suffering,” Jha said of Bhattacharya, adding that no state was able to implement “focused protection” and that “lots of Floridians died.”

Advertisement

But, Jha added, “If the question is — is he qualified? This is a guy who has an MD, PhD at Stanford … he’s got a very broad body of work, mostly in health economics … He’s very smart, very experienced.”

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

Trump Orders U.S. Exit From the Paris Agreement on Climate

Published

on

Trump Orders U.S. Exit From the Paris Agreement on Climate

President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, the pact among almost all nations to fight climate change.

By withdrawing, the United States will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only four countries not party to the agreement, under which nations work together to keep global warming below levels that could lead to environmental catastrophe.

The move, one of several energy-related announcements in the hours following his inauguration, is yet another about-face in United States participation in global climate negotiations. During his first term Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris accord, but then President Biden quickly rejoined in 2020 after winning the White House.

Scientists, activists and Democratic officials assailed the move as one that would deepen the climate crisis and backfire on American workers. Coupled with Mr. Trump’s other energy measures on Monday, withdrawal from the pact signals his administration’s determination to double down on fossil-fuel extraction and production, and to move away from clean-energy technologies like electric vehicles and power-generating wind turbines.

“If they want to be tough on China, don’t punish U.S. automakers and hard-working Americans by handing our clean-car keys to the Chinese,” said Gina McCarthy, former White House climate adviser and former head of the Environmental Protection Administration. “The United States must continue to show leadership on the international stage if we want to have any say in how trillions of dollars in financial investments, policies and decisions are made.”

Advertisement

On Monday Mr. Trump also signed a letter to the United Nations, which administers the pact, notifying the world body of the withdrawal. The withdrawal will become official one year after the submission of the letter.

U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were already stalling in 2024, and Mr. Trump’s entry into office makes it increasingly unlikely the United States will live up to its ambitious pledges to cut them even further. Emissions dropped just a fraction last year, 0.2 percent, compared with the year earlier, according to estimates published this month by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.

Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power that was spurred by the previous administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.

The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting Mr. Biden’s goal, announced last month under the auspices of the Paris Agreement, of slashing greenhouse gases 61 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.

In a scenario where Mr. Trump rolled back most of Mr. Biden’s climate policies, U.S. emissions might fall only 24 to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, the Rhodium Group found.

Advertisement

“President Trump is choosing to begin his term pandering to the fossil fuel industry and its allies,” the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement. “His disgraceful and destructive decision is an ominous harbinger of what people in the United States should expect from him and his anti-science cabinet.”

Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade.

The United States is also a major exporter of emissions. Because of policies promoted by both Republicans and Democrats, the United States is now producing more crude oil and natural gas than any nation in history. Mr. Trump has vowed to further ramp up production and exports.

While the United States may not be party to the Paris Agreement, it will still be part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which hosts annual climate negotiations known as COPs. This year’s COP will be held in Brazil in November and nations will be announcing new pledges for emissions reductions.

One recent study by Climate Action Tracker, a research group, found that, if every country followed through on the pledges they have formally submitted so far, global average temperatures would be on track to rise roughly 2.6 degrees Celsius, or 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, well above the 1.5 degrees Celsius the Paris Agreement originally set as a goal.

Advertisement

“Trump’s irresponsibility is no surprise,” said Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and an architect of the Paris Agreement in 2015. “In time, Trump will not be around but history will point to him and his fossil fuel friends with no pardon.”

Continue Reading

Science

RFK Jr. wants to improve Americans' health. Here's some advice from the outgoing FDA chief

Published

on

RFK Jr. wants to improve Americans' health. Here's some advice from the outgoing FDA chief

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the Food and Drug Administration a “corrupt system” that is waging “war on public health.” He has pledged to eliminate “entire departments” at the agency charged with ensuring the safety of the foods Americans eat and the medicines we take, warning the more than 18,000 people who work there to “pack your bags.”

President-elect Donald Trumphas nominated Kennedy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Kennedy will have the opportunity to “go wild” on health, foods and medicines, as Trump put it during the campaign.

Remaking the FDA may not be as straightforward — or as desirable — as it seems from the outside, says Dr. Robert Califf. He’s in a position to know: his second stint as the agency’s commissioner comes to an end Monday.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf testifies during a Senate hearing on Capitol Hill.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Califf’s career has spanned academia, large health systems, the biotech industry, Silicon Valley and the highest echelons of the federal government. His colleagues at the FDA “work just as hard and are at least as smart” as people he’s worked with anywhere else, he said. Public criticism comes with the territory, but things look different when you’re on the inside trying to ensure access to infant formula, make tobacco products less addictive and help consumers understand what’s in their groceries.

Califf spoke to a group of reporters last week on his last day in the FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md. Here’s his advice to those who will take over public health roles in the incoming Trump administration. His comments have been edited for length and clarity.

What do you wish people understood about your job?

This is a job that has a lot of bosses and a lot of constraints. When you’re in the commissioner’s office at FDA, you report to the executive branch. But Congress also thinks it’s your boss. It’s not unheard of for FDA to want to do something and get a message from an important appropriator that, “If you do this, we’re going to cut your budget somewhere else.”

It’s really interesting to me that people think the FDA can just declare this and that. It usually can’t. It usually has to go through a systematic approach. The minute you step beyond the legal boundaries of what the rule book says, you’re going to end up in court. That will get reined in fairly quickly.

Advertisement

How do you expect the new administration to change the FDA?

I have no idea. Right now we have rhetoric, and the rhetoric is contradictory. We just have to wait and see.

Some of the people who have been nominated to positions have been very critical, implying that there are nefarious motives of people working in public heath agencies. It feels a lot different when you have to make the decision and be accountable for it as opposed to criticizing the decision.

I have a copy of [President Theodore] Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech above my desk at home to remind myself every day that you get all this criticism from people who are not actually doing the work. It’s better to be in the arena trying to do the best that you can do.

Kennedy says he wants to get rid of certain departments within FDA. Are there areas you’re most worried about?

I’m worried about every part of the FDA. I don’t think you’ll find people at FDA doing work that no one cares about.

If you look at the food side of the FDA and the inspectorate, it’s massively underfunded. If you cut that — especially if you’re also saying we need to radically change the food system — that would be a problem.

Advertisement

Kennedy wants to see big changes in the food and health industries. Is that realistic?

Slogans are easy, and they sound really tough, but it’s a little different when you get into the to-and-fro. The lobbies that have very much created this food system are powerful. Maybe they can be overcome. There’s a possibility that things could be done for public health that couldn’t be done before.

The other part of this is if you really want to change the food system, you’d better have a 10- or 20-year plan. If you pronounced today, “No ultra-processed foods in SNAP or other federally assisted programs,” the farming industry would crash. I’m not saying that’s a reason to keep it the way it is. What I am saying is you’d better have a very carefully thought-out plan which sustains the economy, not just a bunch of slogans.

Trump said he would investigate claims about vaccines and autism. How should the FDA respond?

Anyone that investigates this will find that the risks and benefits are already delineated. There are dozens of studies that show no relationship between vaccination and autism. It wouldn’t be where I would spend my time, but if he wanted to do it, I think he’ll find that things are already well-documented.

That doesn’t mean that post-market surveillance couldn’t be better. It’s not a great way to have things that every time a question needs to be answered for public health, you need to get permission from every state and territory.

But I don’t think people are going to find any surprises. It’s all out there. For there to be any kind of conspiracy, it would take a whole lot of people outside of government deciding to work together. I’ve lived in America my whole life. It’s hard to get anybody to work together on things.

Advertisement

You’ve called misinformation a leading cause of death. Is it getting better or worse?

We’re losing the battle on misinformation. I’m not talking specifically about FDA. I’m talking about all of us.

To me it’s very clear that a lot of people died who would not have died had they just gotten a free COVID vaccine, and had they not been misled or been made to feel doubtful by people peddling incorrect information.

Often people who are experts in one area have opinions about another area, then when someone disagrees they call it misinformation. It’s a lot easier to put out a slogan or to make something up than it is to worry about whether you’ve got it right and take the time and effort to go to sources and get the right information.

We’re losing the battle right now because of this intersection of social media and cultural changes that have happened. It threatens a lot of the basis for public health. We’ve got to create networks of people who are dedicated to the truth.

What advice do you have for the new health leadership?

Change doesn’t come so easily in government. If we move at least five people, it has to get a congressional review. This makes it really hard.

Advertisement

When possible, use evidence for decision-making. I’ve heard a lot of tweets and short social media things saying, “We’re going to do this, we’re going to do that.” Let’s see the evidence about what an effective treatment is, and then if it’s good, go with it.

Those are my two main pieces of advice.

Continue Reading

Science

Extinct Human Species Lived in a Brutal Desert, Study Finds

Published

on

Extinct Human Species Lived in a Brutal Desert, Study Finds

Chimpanzees live only in African rainforests and woodlands. Orangutans live only in the jungles of Indonesia. But humans live pretty much everywhere. Our species has spread across frozen tundras, settled on mountaintops and called other extreme environments home.

Scientists have historically seen this adaptability as one of the hallmarks of modern humans and a sign of how much our brains had evolved. But a new study hints that maybe we aren’t so special.

A million years ago, researchers have found, an extinct species of human relatives known as Homo erectus thrived in a harsh desert landscape once considered off limits before Homo sapiens came along.

“It’s a significant shift in the narrative of adaptability, expanding it beyond Homo sapiens to include their earlier relatives,” said Julio Mercader, an archaeologist at the University of Calgary and an author of the study, which was published Thursday in the journal Communications Earth and Environment.

Fossils of our early forerunners collected over many decades seemed to confirm the special adaptability of our species. Our ancestors, known as hominins, split off from other apes in Africa about six million years ago and lived for millions of years in open woodlands. They did not seem to live in extreme environments.

Advertisement

Dr. Mercader and his colleagues closely examined environments in East Africa, which has yielded some of the richest troves of hominin fossils. They picked a site in northern Tanzania called Engaji Nanyor where paleoanthropologists had previously found fossils of Homo erectus.

Homo erectus is believed to have evolved about 2 million years ago in Africa. They were the first to reach the stature of modern humans, and they had long slender legs to run on. Their brains were also larger than those of earlier hominins, though only about two-thirds the size of our own.

At some point, Homo erectus expanded out of Africa, getting as far as Indonesia, where they became extinct about 100,000 years ago. In Africa, many researchers suspect, they gave rise to our own species in the past several hundred thousand years before disappearing there as well.

Dr. Durkin and his colleagues set out to determine exactly what kind of environment Homo erectus lived in a million years ago at Engaji Nanyor. They looked at fossil pollen grains, analyzed the chemistry of the rocks and searched for other clues to the landscape.

“These studies are an immense amount of work,” said Elke Zeller, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the project.

Advertisement

For hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers determined, Engaji Nanyor had been a comfortable open woodland. But around a million years ago, the climate dried up and the trees vanished. The landscape turned to a Mojave-like desert shrub land — an extremely arid place that seemed inhospitable for early hominins.

“The data led us to a pivotal question: How did Homo erectus manage to survive and even thrive under such challenging conditions?” Dr. Mercader said.

Instead of fleeing, the hominins figured out how survive in their changing home. “Their greatest asset was their adaptability,” Dr. Mercader said.

They changed the way they searched for animal carcasses to scavenge, for example. The hominins found the ponds and streams that sprang into existence after storms. They didn’t just drink at these fleeting watering holes. They hunted the animals that also showed up there, butchering their carcasses by the thousands.

The hominins also adapted by upgrading their tools. They took more care when chipping flakes from stones to give them a sharper edge. Rather than just pick up rocks wherever they were, they preferred material from particular places. And once they made a tool, they carried it with them.

Advertisement

“They may have had strategies where they basically say, ‘This is a good tool. I should bring it with me and be ready if we find food,’” said Paul Durkin, a geologist at the University of Manitoba who also worked on the study.

Dr. Durkin and his colleagues found that Engaji Nanyor was at the southern edge of a vast belt of desert shrub lands that stretched out of Africa, across much of the Middle East and into Asia. It’s possible that the adaptability that Homo erectus displayed at Engaji Nanyor helped them expand to other continents.

Dr. Zeller and her colleagues have taken a different approach to studying hominins: creating large-scale climate models to figure out what conditions were like during our evolution. Their models, like the new study, suggest that Homo erectus may have thrived in environments that were once thought too harsh for species other than our own.

Studies like the ones Dr. Zeller and the Engaji Nanyor team are conducting “are all starting to tell the same story,” she said. “We definitely have to look further back in time to understand our adaptability.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending