Are we getting close to the time when parents would have the option of genetically engineering their children at the embryo stage? If so, is this a good thing, a bad thing, or both? In order for this to happen such engineering would need to be technically, legally, and commercially viable. Let’s take these in order, and then discuss the potential implications.

The main reason this is even a topic for discussion is because genetically engineering is technically feasible. Obviously we do it to plants and animals all the time. We also have increasingly powerful and affordable technology for doing so, such as CRISPR. This is already powerful and practical enough for small startups to perform CRISPR as a service, if it were legal. We already have FDA-approved CRISPR treatments, and have performed personalized CRISPR therapy. CRISPR is fast and affordable enough to have made its way into the clinic. But there is a crucial difference between these treatments and genetic modification – these treatments affect somatic cells, not germ-line cells. This means that whatever change is made will stay confined to that one individual, and cannot get into the human gene pool. What we are talking about now is genetically modifying an embryo at an early enough stage that it will affect all cells, including germ cells. This means that these changed can be passed down to the next generation, and effectively enter the human gene pool.

This difference is precisely why there is regulation dealing with such procedures in many countries, including the US. In the US the situation is a little complex. It is not explicitly illegal to perform germ line gene editing on humans. However, there is a ban on federal funding for any such research.  This does allow for private funding of such research, but any resulting treatment would still need FDA approval, which is highly unlikely in the current environment. Despite this, there is discussion among several startups to start exploring this idea. Why this is happening all at once is not clear, but it seems like we have crossed some threshold and startups have noticed. With current regulation, where does that leave us regarding our three criteria?

Technically a CRISPR-based germ-line treatment for humans is possible. We do have the technology. What needs to be worked out is specific changes and their results. This would require clinical trials, and that is the main stumbling block in the US and some other countries. It seems unlikely the FDA would approve such trials, and therefore there would be no way to even work towards FDA approval. A company could theoretically do privately funded studies that are not part of FDA approval, but they would still need ethical approval (IRB approval) for such studies, which may prove difficult (although not necessarily impossible). Such research could be carried out in countries with more lax regulations, however. Over 70 nations have such regulations, which means many do not. So technically we are theoretically close to having marketable treatments designed to change actual human genetic inheritance.

Continue Reading »

Many people might find this to be an easy question and simple concept – what is your favorite color? In fact it was used as the quintessential easy question by the bridge guardian in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. But it is a good rule of thumb that everything is much more complicated than you think or than it may at first appear, and this is no exception. We recently had a casual discussion about this topic on the SGU, and it left me unsatisfied, so I thought I would do a deeper dive. Perhaps there is a neuroscientific answer to this question.

The panel differed in their reactions to the question of favorite color (we were just giving our subjective feelings, not discussing research or evidence). Cara felt that “favorite color” is largely arbitrary. Kids are asked to pick a favorite color, which they do (under pressure) and then often just stick with that answer as they get older. She also felt the question was meaningless without context – are you referring to clothes, cars, house color, or something else? Jay was at the other end of the spectrum – he has a strong affiliation for the color orange which gives him a pleasant feeling. The rest were somewhere in between these two extremes.

I knew there had to be a science of “favorite color”, which I thought might be interesting. Indeed there is – and it is interesting.

First, what is the distribution of favorite color, across the world and demographically? Blue is, far and away, the most favorite color, in most countries across the world, so it seems to be very cross-cultural. It is also the favorite across age groups and gender. The second-most favorite color is either green, red, or purple. Brown is almost universally the least favorite color. Gender has an effect on favorite color, with more women favoring pink, and reds in general (but still preferring blue overall). Republicans still prefer blue over red, but more Republicans prefer red than Democrats. There are country-specific differences as well. Red is a higher preference in China than many other countries, for example.

Continue Reading »

I have a love-hate relationship with TikTok, as I do social media in general. It is a great communication tool and allows scientists and science communicators to get their content out to a larger audience cheaply and easily. If you know how to use the internet and social media as a resource, you can find a video about almost any topic. I particularly love the “how to” videos. And yet these applications are also used (mostly used) to spread nonsense and misinformation, or at least inaccurate, misleading, or overly generalized information. The low bar of entry cuts both ways.

As a result I spend part of my time as a communicator with my finger in the dike of social media pseudoscience and science denial. For example, this individual feels his insights into the workings of the human brain need to be shared with the world. His musings are based entirely on a false premise, his apparent misunderstanding of what neuroscientists understand about brain function. He begins with the nicely vague statement, “scientists have discovered”, followed by a completely incorrect statement – that thoughts come to our brain from outside the brain.

Before I get into this old “brain as receiver” claim, I want to point out that this format is extremely common on TikTok in particular and social media in general. This is more worrying than any individual claim – the culture is to present some random nonsense in the format of “isn’t this crazy”, or with with a cynical tone implying something nefarious is going on. Such authors may or may not believe what they say, they may just be trying to amplify their engagement with a total disregard toward whether what they are saying is true or not. They may even be a full Poe – knowing that what they say is nonsense. Either way, they feel it is appropriate to spend the time to record and upload a video without spending the few minutes that would be needed to check to see if what they are saying is even true. The very platform they are using to spread their nonsense often has all the information they need to answer their alleged questions. The culture is profoundly incurious, intellectually vacuous, lacking all scholarship or quality control, and seems to value only engagement. Thrown into the mix are true believers, grifters, and those who display classic symptoms of some form of thought disorder. This is “infotainment” taken to its ultimate expression.

Continue Reading »

Many teachers are panicking over AI (artificial intelligence), and for good reason. This goes beyond students using AI to cheat on their homework or write their essays for them. If you have AI essentially think for you, then you will not learn to think. On the other hand optimists point out that AI can be a powerful tool to aid in learning. It all comes down to how we use, regulate, and manage our AI tools.

The cautionary approach was captured well, I think, by Mark Crislip in this SBM commentary, in which worries about the effects of AI on doctor education. How will a new generation of physicians learn how to think like expert clinicians if they can have AIs do all their clinical thinking for them? My question is – is AI fundamentally different than all the other technological advances that have come before. Did calculators take away our ability to do math? The answer appears to be no. Students still gain basic math skills at the same rate with or without access to calculators. But there are lots of confounding factors here, and so some teachers still warn of allowing kids access to calculators too soon. Others point out that access to calculators has simply shifted our math abilities, away from basic operations toward more modeling, problem solving, and complex concepts. It seems we are in the middle of the same exact conversation about AI.

We can also think about things like GPS. My ability to navigate from point A to point B without GPS, or to navigate with maps, has definitely declined. But using GPS has also made my navigating to unfamiliar locations easier and more efficient. I would not want to go back to a world without it.

Continue Reading »

As we anticipate the Artemis II launch, now slated for early April with plans to take four astronauts on a trip around the Moon and back to Earth, NASA has been unveiling some significant changes to its plans for returning to the Moon and beyond. If you have fallen behind these announcements, here is a summary of the important bits.

Artemis II will continue as planned, marking the first crewed deep space mission since 1972 (Apollos 17). The original plan was for Artemis III to land on the Moon in 2027, but this mission has been pushed to an Artemis IV mission in 2028. A new Artemis III mission has been inserted – this will go only to low Earth orbit (LEO) and will test the integration of all the systems necessary to land on the Moon. This will include docking with one or both of the two landers, one being built by SpaceX and one by Blue Origin. This sounds like a really good idea, and it did seem unusual that they were planning on going straight to the Moon without ever test docking with the lander.

Even though landing on the Moon will be delayed by at least a year, NASA says this will set them up to have at least annual landings on the Moon after that, with a goal of a landing every six months. The reason for this frequent pace is the the more recent announcement by NASA last week – that they are putting on pause plans for a Lunar Gateway in lunar orbit and instead are going to focus on building a permanent Moon base near the lunar south pole.

In order to make this possible, and to support the future Moon base (no word yet on whether this will be called Moon Base Alpha, as it should) NASA plans about 30 uncrewed robotic landings on the Moon every year. They will be scoping out the location for the base and delivering equipment and supplies.

Continue Reading »

Last year the inner solar system had an interstellar visitor – 3I/Atlas (which stands for the third interstellar object which was discovered by the Atlas telescope). The third ever of anything is by definition a rare event, and so this was scientifically exciting. The comet came into the inner solar system, passing close to Jupiter and Mars, but not to the Earth, went behind the sun, then emerged on its path away from the sun. It is now headed for the orbit of Jupiter and out of the solar system. At first 3I/Atlas displayed a number of minor anomalies. It was behaving sort of like a comet, but with some differences. This fits well, however, with the main hypothesis that it is an interstellar comet – so it’s a comet, but may have a different composition from comets that were formed in our own solar system. This is not almost certainly the case – the comet comes from the thick disc of the galaxy, likely from a low metallicity star system, and has likely been travelling through interstellar space for billions of years, possibly being even older than our own star.

Now that it is passing out of the solar system we can look at all the data that NASA collected and make some fairly confident conclusions. There are a lot of sources of information, but Wikipedia actually has a pretty good summary and list of references. In the end, 3I/Atlas behaved mostly like a typical comet. It formed a tail heading away from the sun, brightened as it got close, then faded away as it moved away from the sun. Spectral analysis found that the comet was unusually rich in carbon dioxide (CO2), with small amounts of water ice, water vapor, carbon monoxide (CO), and carbonyl sulfide (OCS). It also had small amounts of cyanide and nickel gas, which is common in comets from our own solar system. In other words – it is a comet. It did originate from a part of the sky that we had previously calculated would have fewer such interstellar objects, which either makes it especially rare or means that our calculations are off.

Every time we encounter a new interstellar object we gather more data about such objects – how frequent are they, where do they come from, and what is their nature. Right now we have just three data points. After the first one, Oumuamua, we had not idea how common they were because we had just one data point. Now we have enough instruments surveying the sky that we are better able to detect such objects, which are very fleeting. The question was – was Oumuamua a one-off, and we just got lucky to detect something that happens very rarely, or are such objects common. We now have three data points and can conclude that they are fairly common, and we should detect one every few years or so, perhaps even more often if we start looking more.

Continue Reading »

In the decades before the Wright brothers historic 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk there were many claims of powered heavier-than-air flying machines. There were also many false sightings of “airships”, amounting to a form of mass delusion. But the false claims and false sightings do not change the fact that the technology for powered flight was right on the cusp, and that the Wright brothers crossed that threshold in 1903, leading ultimately to the massive industry we have today. This is not surprising. There is often a sense, in the industry and spreading to the public, that the technological pieces are in place for a significant application breakthrough. Today this is more true than ever, with a vibrant industry of tech news, showcases, conferences, blogs, podcasts, etc. I cover plenty of tech new here. It’s interesting to try to glimpse what technology is right around the corner. Any technology that is closely watched and much anticipated is likely to generate lots of premature hype and false claims.

This is definitely true for battery technology. We are arguably in the middle of a massive effort to electrify as much of our industry as possible, especially transportation. Also maximizing intermittent renewable sources of energy would be greatly facilitated by advances in energy storage. Meanwhile electronic devices are becoming increasingly integrated into our daily lives. Advances in battery technology can have a dramatic impact on all these sectors, and is likely to be a critical technology for the next century. So it’s no surprise that there is a lot of hype surrounding battery tech, some of it legitimate, some of it fake, and some just premature. But this hype does not change the fact that battery technology is rapidly improving and the hype will become reality soon enough (just like the Wright flyer).

When it comes to EV batteries we all have a wish-list of features we would like to see. I now own two EVs, and they are the best cars I have ever owned. At least for my personal situation (I live in an exurb and own my own parking spots), EVs are great, and current battery technology is more than adequate for EVs. But sure, I live everyday with the reality of how advances in battery tech will make EVs even more convenient and useful. I have detailed the wish-list before, but here it is again: increased capacity, both in terms of volume but especially weight (specific energy), to decrease the weight while increasing the potential range of EVs, faster charging (with the holy grail being the ability to fully recharge an EV as fast as you can fill a car with gas), long charge-discharge cycle lifespan (longer than the lifespan of the car), useful in a wide range of temperatures, stability (does not spontaneously catch fire), and cheap, which is tied to being made from cheap and abundant elements. This last feature also means that the battery is not dependent on rare elements whose supply line is largely controlled by hostile or conflict-ridden countries.

Continue Reading »

This is a tiny ray of light in what has been a gloomy year for science-based federal health policy. Recently U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy in Boston ruled that the actions of RFK Jr. as HHS Secretary to fire the entire Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) did not follow procedure and is therefore not valid. Further, he concluded that the new ACIP, packed with anti-vaxxers, made capricious and arbitrary decisions that did not follow established science-based procedure. His ruling is a preliminary injunction that has delayed meetings of the ACIP and stays the revised vaccine schedule. The ruling is in a case brought by a coalition of medical professional societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. They are celebrating the ruling as “a momentous step toward restoring science-based vaccine policymaking.”

There are a few layers to this story. The first is RFK Jr. himself and what he has been doing as HHS secretary. I have not written much about him here, because posts about him and other Trump health appointees have dominated the SBM blog over the last year. This has been an “extinction level event” for rational federal health policy, and we have documented it and analyzed it every step of the way. David Gorski has done a great job specifically documenting what RFK Jr. has done to vaccines in the US in his series – “RFK Jr. is definitely coming for your vaccines”, in which he just published part 8. He did a great job not only documenting all of RFK Jr’s harmful actions but actually predicting them. Essentially, RFK is systematically using every lever at his disposal to dismantle the vaccine infrastructure in the US to reduce vaccines as much as possible. Given his actions he clearly straight-up lied to the confirmation committee when he said he was not anti-vaccine and would not take away American’s vaccines.

We, of course, recognized exactly what RFK Jr was doing during the hearings, because we have been following his nonsense for 30 years. He said, for example, “If we want uptake of vaccines, we need a trustworthy government,” Kennedy said. “That’s what I want to restore to the American people and the vaccine program. I want people to know that if the government says something, it’s true.” He then promised “gold standard science”. I would argue he has done the exact opposite. But what this statement is is classic denialism. Just claim you want to review the science, that everything is open to examination, and you just want the highest standards of science. These principles are great, but they can be used as a weapon, not just a tool. You can deny well-established scientific conclusions by arbitrarily claiming we need yet higher standards. Also, claiming you want to “restore” faith in the vaccine program assumes there is currently a lack of faith, which is rich coming from the person who has done the most to undermine that faith with pseudoscience and false claims. That is another denialist strategy – make a well-established science seem controversial, then argue that because it’s controversial we need to reexamine it and call it into question.

Continue Reading »

How common is life in the universe? This is one of the greatest scientific questions, with incredible implications, but we lack sufficient information to answer it. The main problem is the “N of 1” problem – we only have one example of life in all the universe. So we are left to speculate, which is still very useful when based on solid scientific evidence and reasoning. It helps guide our search for signs of life that arose independently from life on Earth.

One important question, therefore, is where is it possible for life to exist? We know life can arise on a rocky planet with a nitrogen and CO2 atmosphere in a temperature range that allows liquid water on the surface. We also know that such life may create and sustain large amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere. It therefore makes sense to focus our search on similar planets. But life does not have to be restricted to Earth-like life. Scientists, therefore, try to imagine what other conditions might also support some kind of life. It is possible, for example, that life arose in the vast oceans under the ice of moons like Europa or Enceladus. Such life would be very different than most life on Earth. It would be dependent on chemical processes for energy (chemosynthetic), rather than sunlight.

Knowing how many different kinds of places life could possibly exist affects our estimate of the number of locations in our galaxy that might harbor life. The current estimates for how many Earth-like exoplanets there are in the Milky Way galaxy ranges from 300 million to 40 billion, depending on various assumptions and how tightly you define “Earth-like”. There are 100-400 billion stars in the galaxy, but about a third of those stars are in multi-star systems, so that means there are tens to up to 100 billion distinct stellar systems in the Milky Way.  One estimate from observed multi-star systems is that about 89% of them could allow for a stable orbit of a rocky planet in the habitable zone.

But perhaps we should not limit the calculations of how many worlds in the galaxy may support life to Earth-like planets. I am not just talking about life in oceans under icy moons. Astronomers have also been considering the possibility of life on moons that orbit free floating gas giant planets. A free floating planet (FFP), also called a nomadic planet or rogue planet, does not orbit a star at all. At some point, likely early in the life of its parent star, it was flung out of its system and now wanders freely between the stars. Astronomers estimate there may be hundreds of billions of such planets in the Milky Way. But this means the planet is dark, without any sunlight to keep it warm or fuel life. What about the moons of an FFP, however?

Continue Reading »

Creationism, in all its various manifestations, is sophisticated pseudoscience. This makes it a great teaching tool to demonstrate the difference between legitimate science and science denial dressing up as a cheap imitation of science. Creationist arguments are a great example of motivated reasoning, providing copious examples of all the ways logic and argumentation can go awry. It has also been interesting to see creationist arguments (at the leading edge) “adapt” and “evolve” into more complex forms, while maintaining their core feature of denying evolution at all costs.

I am going to focus in this article on young Earth creationists, specifically Answers in Genesis, and something that is a persistent element of their position. Essentially they do not understand the concept of nested hierarchies. I have a strong sense that this is because they are highly motivated not to understand it, because if they did the entire structure of their YEC arguments would collapse.

This AiG article is a great example – Speciation is Not Evolution. The article is more than a bit galling, given that the author seeks to lecture scientists about the use of precise definitions. It begins by patronizingly explaining the humor in the famous “Who’s on First” skit (gee, thanks for that), then accuses scientists of not being precise with their definitions. This is, of course, the opposite of the truth. Good science endeavors to be maximally precise in terminology (hence the jargon of science), and it is creationists who habitually use vague and shifting definitions – such as their abuse of the word “information” and for that matter “evolution”.

Continue Reading »