ReportWire

Tag: scientists

  • A.I. Pioneer Yoshua Bengio Becomes 1st Living Scientist With 1M Google Scholar Citations

    [ad_1]

    Yoshua Bengio was also a recipient of the 2018 Turing Award. Andrej Ivanov/AFP via Getty Images

    Michel Foucault, the late French philosopher and historian, long held the distinction as the only researcher to surpass more than one million citations on Google Scholar. These days, however, Foucault has company: A.I. pioneer Yoshua Bengio.

    Last month, Bengio became the first living scientist to have his work cited more than one million times on Google Scholar. Citations to his research have surged in recent years, with more than 730,000 recorded since 2020 and roughly 135,000 in 2024 alone.

    Often dubbed one of the “Godfathers of A.I.,” Bengio’s work in deep learning helped lay the foundations for much of today’s A.I. revolution. A founder of the Mila-Quebec AI Institute and a professor of computer science at the University of Montreal, Bengio recently launched LawZero, a nonprofit focused on developing safety-centered A.I. systems to assist in scientific research.

    “This Google Scholar citation count reflects the extensive impact of Professor Bengio’s research in deep learning, which serves as a foundation for countless other scientific and technological advancements worldwide,” said Hugo Larochelle, who earlier this year succeeded Bengio as scientific director of Mila, in a statement.

    Bengio, alongside fellow A.I. researchers Geoffrey Hinton and Yann LeCun, received the 2018 Turing Award—often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Computing”— for their breakthroughs in neural networks. The trio also co-authored Bengio’s second most-cited paper. Hinton, who currently has nearly 980,000 citations on Google Scholar, is also on track to soon join Bengio in the million-citation club, according to Mila.

    Researchers in fields like A.I., machine learning and cancer research are more likely to accumulate high citation counts due to widespread interest and rapid publication cycles, said Daniel Sage, a mathematics professor at the University of Buffalo who studies citation metrics.

    Top-cited scholars tend to work “in certain fields which have a lot of people working in them, and a lot of papers being produced,” he told Observer.

    The growing fascination with A.I. has even boosted citation counts of researchers outside the field. For example, Terence Tao, a renowned mathematician and Fields medalist, has earned more than 100,000 Google Scholar citations. Many of his top-cited papers, however, were actually published in electrical engineering or computer science journals, rather than pure mathematics, said Sage.

    “It’s apples and oranges comparisons if you try to compare people in A.I. vs. people in various other fields,” he added, noting that Google Scholar generally reports higher citation counts than other data providers such as Web of Science due to its broader indexing criteria.

    That said, reaching one million citations remains a remarkable achievement. “It’s still incredibly impressive,” said Sage. “One has to take these kinds of things with a grain of salt, but it is a sign both of the hotness of the field and the quality of the work within the field.”

    A.I. Pioneer Yoshua Bengio Becomes 1st Living Scientist With 1M Google Scholar Citations

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Fossil discovery reinvents story of echidna and platypus evolution

    [ad_1]

    If you’ve always thought echidnas and platypuses were distant cousins who went their separate ways on land and water, think again. A single fossilized arm bone, found in a remote corner of southeastern Australia three decades ago, is rewriting that family history—and possibly changing what scientists thought they knew about how mammals adapt to different environments.

    They both belong to the Order Monotremata, a unique order of mammals that give birth to eggs instead of live offspring. The platypus is busy these days racing up and down creeks and rivers, and echidnas burrow around on the ground searching for ants, termites, and worms.

    Scientists used to believe a while ago that they descended from an animal which inhabited the land, and platypuses subsequently developed to inhabit water. But new finds indicate otherwise: the origins of echidnas and platypuses may have started in the sea.

    A photo of an echidna. (CREDIT: Gunjan Pandey)

    A fossil with a tall tale to tell

    The find was directed by UNSW Sydney School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences Emeritus Professor Suzanne Hand and a team of researchers. The fossil represents the incomplete left half of one upper arm bone of a small mammal named Kryoryctes cadburyi. It is estimated to have lived 108 million years ago during the Early Cretaceous era when dinosaurs ruled the earth.

    It was found in the early 1990s by Museums Victoria excavators at Dinosaur Cove, a site that was famous for yielding cryptic ancient finds. The bone was at first thought to resemble the bone of an echidna today, and some had believed that it could be an echidna’s ancestor. Others believed that it could be a stem-monotreme, an ancient relative of the platypuses and echidnas.

    But it wasn’t until scientists decided to ignore its outside form and look inside using sophisticated scanning techniques that the breakthrough finally came. “Where the outside shape of a bone will enable you to compare it directly to similar animals, its internal structure will tend to reveal something about its lifestyle,” says Hand.

    Inside the bone: secrets of the past

    In the humerus, researchers found features like those of no extant echidna. The bone had robust walls with a very small central cavity—features of semiaquatic mammals like the platypus. Dense bones play the ballast function in order to allow animals to dive and stay underwater without breaking through to the surface. Echidnas have lightweight bones more appropriate for digging on land.

    Phylogenetic relationships of K. cadburyi among mammaliaforms. (CREDIT: Suzanne Hand, et al.)

    Phylogenetic relationships of K. cadburyi among mammaliaforms. (CREDIT: Suzanne Hand, et al.)

    The research explains Kryoryctes cadburyi as a semiaquatic digger and perfectly adapted to both life in water and also in soil. That would suggest an amphibious ancient monotreme way of life previously assumed by scientists to be otherwise. If indeed so, echidna and platypus development started in water and echidnas then evolved out of water to a life entirely on land.

    “Such a scenario would be a highly unusual phenomenon,” Hand states, adding that while there are some 30 examples of mammals evolving from land to sea—whales, dolphins, seals, and otters, say—there is scarcely a reversion.

    Rethinking monotreme history

    The fossil also indicates how little the platypus has changed. UNSW co-author Professor Michael Archer also adds that the line of evolution that has resulted in today’s platypus has exhibited extraordinarily high “niche conservatism” for over 100 million years, i.e., they’ve lived pretty much the same way for a very long period of time. The echidnas are a radical departure from such waterborne origins.

    However, the fossil record of monotreme ancestors is limited. Jaw and tooth parts contribute to most Australian Mesozoic mammal fossils. Limb bone Kryoryctes cadburyi is the only one that is from that period, and it gives scientists a unique opportunity to learn about the animals’ habits.

    “This humerus has given us an absolute great opportunity to find out about early Australian mammals and how they lived, and it is telling us a story—maybe one that we were not hoping to hear,” he says.

    Kryoryctes humeral shape compared with extant monotremes. (CREDIT: Suzanne Hand, et al.)

    Kryoryctes humeral shape compared with extant monotremes. (CREDIT: Suzanne Hand, et al.)

    Sign of aquatic life in living echidnas

    Echidnas are not river-swimming like platypuses but retain the marks of waterborne heritage in their bodies. Firstly, their bills have fewer electroreceptors—sensitive probes that pick up the faint electrical signals from prey—such as in a platypus’s bill. They are perhaps vestigial traces of an archaic foraging system. Even embryonic echidnas retain a weak trace of this heritage: traces of a platypus-like bill in embryonic stages.

    Their legs are a hint too. Echidnas, and also platypuses, retain backward-pointing hind legs, though they use them to dig these days and not to swim. Backward-facing foot is not typical for mammals apart from the monotremes. Physiology also digs it out.

    Echidnas also have a diving reflex—slowing of heart rate and conserving oxygen during submersion—the same as aquatic mammals. Myoglobin analysis, which measures the amount of oxygen-storing muscle protein, reveals echidnas have more than expected quantities for a burrowing mammal, showing their ancestors had once depended on extensive diving.

    Technology converges with paleontology

    Since the Kryoryctes fossil is so unusual, researchers can’t just slice it open to look at its microscopic makeup, or histology. Instead, they’re using high-resolution, non-destructive scanning methods like synchrotron imaging to study the bone at increasingly smaller levels of detail.

    Bone microstructure attributes of Kryoryctes compared with extant mammals. (CREDIT: Suzanne Hand, et al.)

    Bone microstructure attributes of Kryoryctes compared with extant mammals. (CREDIT: Suzanne Hand, et al.)

    The scientists are hopeful that such technologies will reveal more of the patterns of growth, physiology, and lifestyle of the animal without sacrificing the specimen. The research continues, and scientists are also applying their research to other fossil beds like Lightning Ridge in New South Wales. These beds have Mesozoic-age beds which have the potential to yield more monotreme remains, which can reconstruct missing links to this evolutionary past.

    Why it matters

    The new information rewrote not just our knowledge of the evolutionary history of platypus and echidna, but the general picture of how mammals evolve—or re-evolve—to new continents. If echidnas did inherit a marine ancestor, they belong to an extremely small minority of mammals to do a reverse of the common land-to-sea jump of evolution.

    It poses interesting questions about what opportunities and pressures led echidnas onto land. Was it competition for food? Climate change? Or a combination of factors? Without more fossils, the answers remain out of reach. But one thing is clear: the story of these egg-laying mammals is far from finished.

    From a single ancient bone, we’re learning that the history of life is rarely a straight line. Evolution can take surprising detours, and sometimes, it even turns around.

    Research findings are available online in the journal PNAS.

    Related Stories

    Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News’ newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Climate change boosted Helene’s deadly rain and wind and scientists say same is likely for Milton

    Climate change boosted Helene’s deadly rain and wind and scientists say same is likely for Milton

    [ad_1]

    Human-caused climate change boosted a devastating Hurricane Helene’s rainfall by about 10% and intensified its winds by about 11%, scientists said in a new flash study released just as a strengthening Hurricane Milton threatens the Florida coast less than two weeks later.The warming climate boosted Helene’s wind speeds by about 13 miles per hour (20.92 kilometers per hour), and made the high sea temperatures that fueled the storm 200 to 500 times more likely, World Weather Attribution calculated Wednesday from Europe. Ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above average, WWA said.”Hurricane Helene and the storms that were happening in the region anyway have all been amplified by the fact that the air is warmer and can hold more moisture, which meant that the rainfall totals — which, even without climate change, would have been incredibly high given the circumstances — were even higher,” Ben Clarke, a study co-author and a climate researcher at Imperial College London, said in an interview.Milton will likely be similarly juiced, the authors said.The scientists warned that continued burning of fossil fuels will lead to more hurricanes like Helene, with “unimaginable” floods well inland, not just on coasts. Many of those who died in Helene fell victim to massive inland flooding, rather than high winds.Helene made landfall in Florida with a record storm surge 15 feet (4.57 meters) high and catastrophic sustained winds reaching 140 miles per hour (225.31 kilometers per hour), pummeling Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Virginia. It decimated remote towns throughout the Appalachians, left millions without power, cellular service and supplies and killed over 230 people. Search crews in the days following continued to look for bodies. Helene was the deadliest hurricane to hit the mainland U.S. since Katrina in 2005.Helene dumped more than 40 trillion gallons of rain — an unprecedented amount of water — onto the region, meteorologists estimated. That rainfall would have been much less intense if humans hadn’t warmed the climate, according to WWA, an international scientist collaborative that runs rapid climate attribution studies.”When you start talking about the volumes involved when you add even just a few percent on top of that, it makes it even much more destructive,” Clarke said.Hurricanes as intense as Helene were once expected every 130 years on average, but today are about 2.5 times more likely in the region, the scientists calculated.The WWA was launched in 2015 to assess the extent to which extreme weather events could be attributed to climate change. The organization’s rapid studies aren’t peer-reviewed but use peer-reviewed methods. The team of scientists tested the influence of climate change on Helene by analyzing weather data and climate models including the Imperial College Storm Model, the Climate Shift Index for oceans and the standard WWA approach, which compares an actual event with what might have been expected in a world that hasn’t warmed about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times.A separate analysis of Helene last week by Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley National Lab scientists determined that climate change caused 50% more rainfall in some parts of Georgia and the Carolinas, and that observed rainfall was “made up to 20 times more likely in these areas because of global warming.” That study was also not peer-reviewed but used a method published in a study about Hurricane Harvey.Kim Cobb, director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, wasn’t involved in either study. She said there are uncertainties in exactly how much climate change is supercharging storms like Helene, but “we know that it’s increasing the power and devastation of these storms.”She said Helene and Milton should serve “as a wake-up call” for emergency preparedness, resilience planning and the increased use of fossil fuels.”Going forward, additional warming that we know will occur over the next 10 or 20 years will even worsen the statistics of hurricanes,” she said, “and we will break new records.”The analysis is already indicating climate change made possible the warmed sea temperatures that also rapidly intensified Milton. Clarke said the two massive storms in quick succession illustrate the potential future of climate change if humans don’t stop it.”As we go into the future and our results show this as well, we still have control over what trajectory this goes in as to what risks we face in the future, what costs we pay in the future,” he said. “That just hinges on how we change our energy systems and how many more fossil fuels we burn.”

    Human-caused climate change boosted a devastating Hurricane Helene‘s rainfall by about 10% and intensified its winds by about 11%, scientists said in a new flash study released just as a strengthening Hurricane Milton threatens the Florida coast less than two weeks later.

    The warming climate boosted Helene’s wind speeds by about 13 miles per hour (20.92 kilometers per hour), and made the high sea temperatures that fueled the storm 200 to 500 times more likely, World Weather Attribution calculated Wednesday from Europe. Ocean temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above average, WWA said.

    “Hurricane Helene and the storms that were happening in the region anyway have all been amplified by the fact that the air is warmer and can hold more moisture, which meant that the rainfall totals — which, even without climate change, would have been incredibly high given the circumstances — were even higher,” Ben Clarke, a study co-author and a climate researcher at Imperial College London, said in an interview.

    Milton will likely be similarly juiced, the authors said.

    The scientists warned that continued burning of fossil fuels will lead to more hurricanes like Helene, with “unimaginable” floods well inland, not just on coasts. Many of those who died in Helene fell victim to massive inland flooding, rather than high winds.

    Helene made landfall in Florida with a record storm surge 15 feet (4.57 meters) high and catastrophic sustained winds reaching 140 miles per hour (225.31 kilometers per hour), pummeling Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Virginia. It decimated remote towns throughout the Appalachians, left millions without power, cellular service and supplies and killed over 230 people. Search crews in the days following continued to look for bodies. Helene was the deadliest hurricane to hit the mainland U.S. since Katrina in 2005.

    Helene dumped more than 40 trillion gallons of rain — an unprecedented amount of water — onto the region, meteorologists estimated. That rainfall would have been much less intense if humans hadn’t warmed the climate, according to WWA, an international scientist collaborative that runs rapid climate attribution studies.

    “When you start talking about the volumes involved when you add even just a few percent on top of that, it makes it even much more destructive,” Clarke said.

    Hurricanes as intense as Helene were once expected every 130 years on average, but today are about 2.5 times more likely in the region, the scientists calculated.

    The WWA was launched in 2015 to assess the extent to which extreme weather events could be attributed to climate change. The organization’s rapid studies aren’t peer-reviewed but use peer-reviewed methods. The team of scientists tested the influence of climate change on Helene by analyzing weather data and climate models including the Imperial College Storm Model, the Climate Shift Index for oceans and the standard WWA approach, which compares an actual event with what might have been expected in a world that hasn’t warmed about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times.

    A separate analysis of Helene last week by Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley National Lab scientists determined that climate change caused 50% more rainfall in some parts of Georgia and the Carolinas, and that observed rainfall was “made up to 20 times more likely in these areas because of global warming.” That study was also not peer-reviewed but used a method published in a study about Hurricane Harvey.

    Kim Cobb, director of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, wasn’t involved in either study. She said there are uncertainties in exactly how much climate change is supercharging storms like Helene, but “we know that it’s increasing the power and devastation of these storms.”

    She said Helene and Milton should serve “as a wake-up call” for emergency preparedness, resilience planning and the increased use of fossil fuels.

    “Going forward, additional warming that we know will occur over the next 10 or 20 years will even worsen the statistics of hurricanes,” she said, “and we will break new records.”

    The analysis is already indicating climate change made possible the warmed sea temperatures that also rapidly intensified Milton. Clarke said the two massive storms in quick succession illustrate the potential future of climate change if humans don’t stop it.

    “As we go into the future and our results show this as well, we still have control over what trajectory this goes in as to what risks we face in the future, what costs we pay in the future,” he said. “That just hinges on how we change our energy systems and how many more fossil fuels we burn.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Secret Warnings About Wuhan Research Predated the Pandemic

    Secret Warnings About Wuhan Research Predated the Pandemic

    [ad_1]

    “Delete That Comment”

    In late October 2017, a US health official from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) arrived at the Wuhan Institute of Virology for a glimpse of an eagerly anticipated work in progress. The WIV, a leading research institute, was putting the finishing touches on China’s first biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory. Operating with the highest safeguards, the lab would enable scientists to study some of the world’s most lethal pathogens.

    The project had support from Western governments seeking a more robust partnership with China’s top scientists. France had helped design the facility. Canada, before long, would send virus samples. And in the US, NIAID was channeling grant dollars through an American organization called EcoHealth Alliance to help fund the WIV’s cutting-edge coronavirus research.

    That funding allowed the NIAID official, who worked out of the US embassy in Beijing, to become one of the first Americans to tour the lab. Her goal was to facilitate cooperation between American and Chinese scientists. Nevertheless, says Asha M. George, executive director of the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, a nonprofit that advises the US government on biodefense policy, “If you want to know what’s going on in a closed country, one of the things the US has done is give them grant money.”

    In emails obtained by Vanity Fair, the NIAID official told her superiors what she’d gleaned from the technician who’d served as her guide. The lab, which was not yet fully operational, was struggling to develop enough expertise among its staff—a concern in a setting that had no tolerance for errors. “According to [the technician], being the first P4 [or BSL-4] lab in the country, they have to learn everything from zero,” she wrote. “They rely on those scientists who have worked in P4 labs outside China to train the other scientists how to operate.”

    She’d also learned something else “alarming” from the technician, she wrote. Researchers at the WIV intended to study Ebola, but Chinese government restrictions prevented them from importing samples. As a result, they were considering using a technique called reverse genetics to engineer Ebola in the lab. Anticipating that this information would set off alarm bells in the US, the official cautioned, “I don’t want the information particularly using reverse genetics to create viruses to get out, which would affect the ability for our future information gain,” meaning it would impair the collaboration between NIAID and the WIV.

    There was good reason to fear that such a revelation could derail the fledgling partnership. One year earlier, the US Department of Energy had warned other agencies, including NIAID’s parent entity, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), that advanced genetic engineering techniques could be misused for malign ends. The Energy Department had developed a classified proposal, reported on here for the first time, to ramp up safeguards against that possibility and develop tools to better detect evidence of genetic engineering. The proposal, which was not implemented in its suggested form, prompted a heated interagency battle, six people with knowledge of the debate tell Vanity Fair.

    On January 10, 2018, as the NIAID official prepared her official trip report for the US embassy in Beijing, she wrote to colleagues, “I was shocked to hear what he said [about reverse engineering Ebola]. I also worry the reaction of people in Washington when they read this. The technician is only a worker, not a decision maker nor a [principal investigator]. So how much we should believe what he said?” She concluded, “I don’t feel comfortable for broader audience within the government circle. It could be very sensitive.”

    Among the recipients of that email was F. Gray Handley, then NIAID’s associate director for international research affairs. Handley agreed with the official’s assessment and advised her: “As we discussed. Delete that comment.”

    On January 19, the US embassy in Beijing issued a sensitive but unclassified cable that included concerning details from the NIAID official’s tour. It said that WIV scientists themselves had noted the “serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate” the lab, according to an unredacted copy obtained by Vanity Fair. But the cable did not include the information that her NIAID colleagues apparently found most worrying.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine Eban

    Source link

  • Climate Change Keeps Making Wildfires And Smoke Worse. Scientists Call It The ‘New Abnormal’

    Climate Change Keeps Making Wildfires And Smoke Worse. Scientists Call It The ‘New Abnormal’

    [ad_1]

    It was a smell that invoked a memory. Both for Emily Kuchlbauer in North Carolina and Ryan Bomba in Chicago. It was smoke from wildfires, the odor of an increasingly hot and occasionally on-fire world.

    Kuchlbauer had flashbacks to the surprise of soot coating her car three years ago when she was a recent college graduate in San Diego. Bomba had deja vu from San Francisco, where the air was so thick with smoke people had to mask up. They figured they left wildfire worries behind in California, but a Canada that’s burning from sea to warming sea brought one of the more visceral effects of climate change home to places that once seemed immune.

    “It’s been very apocalyptic feeling, because in California the dialogue is like, ‘Oh, it’s normal. This is just what happens on the West Coast,’ but it’s very much not normal here,” Kuchlbauer said.

    As Earth’s climate continues to change from heat-trapping gases spewed into the air, ever fewer people are out of reach from the billowing and deadly fingers of wildfire smoke, scientists say. Already wildfires are consuming three times more of the United States and Canada each year than in the 1980s and studies predict fire and smoke to worsen.

    While many people exposed to bad air may be asking themselves if this is a “new normal,” several scientists told The Associated Press they specifically reject any such idea because the phrase makes it sound like the world has changed to a new and steady pattern of extreme events.

    “Is this a new normal? No, it’s a new abnormal,” University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann said. “It continues to get worse. If we continue to warm the planet, we don’t settle into some new state. It’s an ever-moving baseline of worse and worse.”

    It’s so bad that perhaps the term “wildfire” also needs to be rethought, suggested Woodwell Climate Research Center senior scientist Jennifer Francis.

    “We can’t really call them wildfires anymore,” Francis said. “To some extent they’re just not, they’re not wild. They’re not natural anymore. We are just making them more likely. We’re making them more intense.”

    Several scientists told the AP that the problem of smoke and wildfires will progressively worsen until the world significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, which has not happened despite years of international negotiations and lofty goals.

    Fires in North America are generally getting worse, burning more land. Even before July, traditionally the busiest fire month for the country, Canada has set a record for most area burned with 31,432 square miles (81,409 square kilometers), which is nearly 15% higher than the old record.

    “A year like this could happen with or without climate change, but warming temperatures just made it a lot more probable,” said A. Park Williams, a UCLA bioclimatologist who studies fire and water. “We’re seeing, especially across the West, big increases in smoke exposure and reduction in air quality that are attributable to increase in fire activity.”

    Numerous studies have linked climate change to increases in North American fires because global warming is increasing extreme weather, especially drought and mostly in the West.

    As the atmosphere dries, it sucks moisture out of plants, creating more fuel that burns easier, faster and with greater intensity. Then you add more lightning strikes from more storms, some of which are dry lightning strikes, said Canadian fire scientist Mike Flannigan at Thompson Rivers University in British Columbia. Fire seasons are getting longer, starting earlier and lasting later because of warmer weather, he said.

    “We have to learn to live with fire and smoke, that’s the new reality,” Flannigan said.

    Ronak Bhatia, who moved from California to Illinois for college in 2018 and now lives in Chicago, said at first it seemed like a joke: wildfire smoke following him and his friends from the West Coast. But if it continues, it will no longer be as funny.

    “It makes you think about climate change and also how it essentially could affect, you know, anywhere,” Bhatia said. “It’s not just the California problem or Australia problem. It’s kind of an everywhere problem.”

    Wildfires in the U.S. on average now burn about 12,000 square miles (31,000 square kilometers) yearly, about the size of Maryland. From 1983 to 1987, when the National Interagency Fire Center started keeping statistics, only about 3,300 square miles (8,546 square kilometers) burned annually.

    During the past five years, including a record low 2020, Canada has averaged 12,279 square miles (31,803 square kilometers) burned, which is three and a half times larger than the 1983 to 1987 average.

    The type of fires seen this year in western Canada are in amounts scientists and computer models predicted for the 2030s and 2040s. And eastern Canada, where it rains more often, wasn’t supposed to see occasional fire years like this until the mid 21st century, Flannigan said.

    If the Canadian east is burning, that means eventually, and probably sooner than researchers thought, eastern U.S. states will also, Flannigan said. He and Williams pointed to devastating fires in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, that killed 14 people in 2016 during a brief drought in the East.

    America burned much more in the past, but that’s because people didn’t try to stop fires and they were less of a threat. The West used to have larger and regular fires until the mid-19th century, with more land settlement and then the U.S. government trying to douse every fire after the great 1910 Yellowstone fire, Williams said.

    Since about the 1950s, America pretty much got wildfires down to a minimum, but that hasn’t been the case since about 2000.

    “We thought we had it under control, but we don’t,” Williams said. “The climate changed so much that we lost control of it.”

    The warmer the Arctic gets and the more snow and ice melt there — the Arctic is warming three times faster than the rest of Earth — the differences in the summer between Arctic and mid-latitudes get smaller. That allows the jet stream of air high above the ground to meander and get stuck, prolonging bouts of bad weather, Mann and Francis said. Other scientists say they are waiting for more evidence on the impact of bouts of stuck weather.

    A new study published on June 23 links a stuck weather pattern to reduced North American snow cover in the spring.

    For people exposed to nasty air from wildfire smoke, increasing threats to health are part of the new reality.

    Wildfires expose about 44 million people per year worldwide to unhealthy air, causing about 677,000 deaths annually with almost 39% of them children, according to a 2021 study out of the United Kingdom.

    One study that looked at a dozen years of wildfire smoke exposure in Washington state showed a 1% all-ages increase in the odds of non-traumatic death the same day as the smoke hit the area and 2% for the day after. Risk of respiratory deaths jumped 14% and even more, 35%, for adults ages 45 to 64.

    Based on peer-reviewed studies, the Health Effects Institute estimated that smoke’s chief pollutant caused 4 million deaths worldwide and nearly 48,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2019.

    The tiny particles making up a main pollutant of wildfire smoke, called PM2.5, are just the right size to embed deep in the lungs and absorb into the blood. But while their size has garnered attention, their composition also matters, said Kris Ebi, a University of Washington climate and health scientist.

    “There is emerging evidence that the toxicity of wildfire smoke PM2.5 is more toxic than what comes out of tailpipes,” Ebi said.

    A cascade of health effects may become a growing problem in the wake of wildfires, including downwind from the source, said Ed Avol, professor emeritus at the Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California.

    Beyond irritated eyes and scratchy throats, breathing in wildfire smoke also can create long-term issues all over the body. Avol said those include respiratory effects including asthma and COPD, as well as impacts on heart, brain and kidney function.

    “In the longer term, climate change and unfortunately wildfire smoke is not going away because we really haven’t done that much quick enough to make a difference,” Avol said, adding that while people can take steps like masking up or using air filters to try to protect themselves, we are ultimately “behind the curve here in terms of responding to it.”

    Borenstein reported from Washington and Walling from Chicago.

    Follow AP’s climate and environment coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

    Follow Seth Borenstein and Melina Walling on Twitter at @borenbears and @MelinaWalling.

    Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Seltzer Is Torture

    Seltzer Is Torture

    [ad_1]

    I do not like carbonated beverages, plain and simple. I won’t drink soda, and you’ll never catch me with a beer. Gin and tonics are a no. Sparkling water? A beast in disguise. Oh, the cocktail is not that fizzy, you say? I’ve heard that one before. And get your slushie out of my face. As I said, I do not like carbonated beverages. I do not like them at all.

    I don’t just mean that they taste bad to me, the way soap or penicillin does. I mean that they hurt me. They inflict actual, physical pain on my mouth. The sensation is prickly, like having my tongue poked with hundreds of needles. On the handful of foolhardy occasions when I’ve dared take a sip of Coke, it’s felt like what I imagine sipping static electricity would feel like, at least until the pain subsides and I’m left with nothing but the hyper-saturated sweetness of a melted freezer pop. Even after I swallow, my mouth feels raw.

    When I try to explain this aversion, people sometimes struggle to wrap their mind around it. “Even sparkling cider?” they ask incredulously. “Even cream soda?” Yes, even sparkling cider. Yes, even cream soda. Occasionally, people try to relate: “Oh, I hate carbonation tooexcept in champagne.” Whatever these people mean by “hate” is clearly not the same thing I mean. The specifics of the drink make no difference to me. The carbonation itself is the problem.

    Part of me wonders whether this all traces back to an incident from my childhood. When I was 6 or 7 years old, I accidentally ate a piece of sushi covered in more wasabi than I’d bargained for and, in a panic, took a big gulp of water—except the water wasn’t water; it was seltzer, and I spit it all over the table. A couple of years later, I tried root beer at day camp and spat that out too. By that point, I’d pretty much learned my lesson.

    So why am I like this? It’s not as though my mouth is hypersensitive to all tastes and sensations. I pop Sour Skittles at the movies and have a pretty high spice tolerance. My issue is more specific and, given that Americans consume more than 40 gallons of soda a person each year, very rare. But apparently I’m not the only one: On Reddit’s r/unpopularopinion forum and others like it, never-fizzers find common cause. Drinking carbonated beverages is “kinda masochist.” It’s “pure agony.” It’s like “swallowing battery acid.” “I feel like I’m drinking flesh eating bacteria,” one Redditor writes. “I swear I thought I was the only one who thinks they hurt,” another replies.

    You can find dozens of posts like these online—so many, in fact, that you may begin to wonder: How many times can an unpopular opinion be posted before it ceases to qualify as an unpopular opinion? Scientists, for their part, have documented at least one instance of an anaphylactic reaction to sparkling water. That reaction was not caused by the bubbles themselves, but neither is carbonation’s distinctive mouthfeel. For a long time, people assumed that the fizzy sensation was just the tactile experience of having bubbles pop inside your mouth. Early suspicions to the contrary came from mountaineers, who reported that when they raised a toast at the summit, their bubbly champagne tasted flat. In 2013, researchers confirmed that the “bite” of carbonation is not dependent on bubbles: Even after drinking sparkling water in a pressure chamber, where bubbles cannot form, test subjects still reported feeling the slight “sting, burn, or pungency” associated with fizzy drinks, both on the tip of their tongue and at the back of their throat.

    The source of that bite, scientists determined, is the carbonic acid formed when enzymes in the mouth break down carbon dioxide. (That process happens to be inhibited by a medication commonly taken by mountaineers to stave off altitude sickness.) The acid activates pain receptors, Earl Carstens, a neurobiologist at UC Davis, told me, so the experience of drinking a carbonated beverage should be sharp and irritating for everyone. In that sense, the weird thing is not that some people hate carbonation; it’s that anyone likes it at all. Social conditioning may play a role: We accept the pain of drinking soda because we’re taught that it’s okay. Or perhaps the mild pain is associated with a pleasurable release of endorphins, as can occur when people eat a spicy food. Both of those factors are likely in play, Carstens said.

    But as my experience shows, not everyone experiences carbonic-acid pain the same way. Some people feel a refreshing tickle, others a chemical assault. No one knows why. Scientists have traced other aversions—to cilantro, for example, or tannic wines—to natural variations in human taste and smell receptors. “We are not at the same place in our knowledge of carbonation,” Emily Liman, a neurobiologist at the University of Southern California, told me. The problem faced by sodaphobes may yet turn out to have a genetic explanation, but for the moment, scientists don’t even understand exactly which cells are involved in the sensation. Pain receptors (such as the ones that detect spiciness) and taste cells (such as the ones that detect sourness) seem to play a part in feeling carbonation, Liman said, but it’s unclear exactly which cells contribute.

    In short, there’s no way to know whether I’m the victim of busted mouth biology, or of some long-repressed experience that bubbles up as oral pain, or of something else entirely. In any case, hating carbonation only means that I have to do a lot of polite declining. It’s not a huge deal, yet I sometimes find myself perturbed to to be cut off from a whole sector of human experience, to dislike something that almost everyone else seems to like, and to dislike it not because of some contrarian impulse or principled objection but because of my physiology or my psychology. Best not to indulge such musings, though—they can easily give way to temptation. Last summer, after years of strict avoidance, I ordered a cider at a bar, thinking that maybe, after all these years, something had changed. Nope!

    [ad_2]

    Jacob Stern

    Source link

  • A Major Breed of Flu Has Gone Missing

    A Major Breed of Flu Has Gone Missing

    [ad_1]

    In March 2020, Yamagata’s trail went cold.

    The pathogen, one of the four main groups of flu viruses targeted by seasonal vaccines, had spent the first part of the year flitting across the Northern Hemisphere, as it typically did. As the seasons turned, scientists were preparing, as they typically did, for the virus to make its annual trek across the equator and seed new outbreaks in the globe’s southern half.

    That migration never came to pass. As the new coronavirus spread, pandemic-mitigation measures started to squash flu-transmission rates to record lows. The drop-off was so sharp that several flu lineages may have gone extinct, among them Yamagata, which hasn’t been definitively detected in more than three years despite virologists’ best efforts to root it out.

    Yamagata’s disappearance could still be temporary. “Right now, we’re all just kind of holding our breath,” says Adam Lauring, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. The virus might be biding its time in an isolated population, escaping the notice of tests. But the search has stretched on so fruitlessly that some experts are ready to declare it officially done. “It’s been missing for this long,” says Vijaykrishna Dhanasekaran, a virologist at Hong Kong University. “At this point, I would really think it’s gone.”

    If Yamagata remains AWOL indefinitely, its absence would have at least one relatively straightforward consequence: Researchers might no longer need to account for the lineage in annual vaccines. But its vanishing act could have a more head-spinning implication. Flu viruses, which have been plaguing human populations for centuries, are some of the most well-known and well-studied threats to our health. They have prompted the creation of annual shots, potent antivirals, and internationally funded surveillance programs. And yet, scientists still have some basic questions about why they behave as they do—especially about Yamagata and its closest kin.


    Yamagata, in many ways, has long been an underdog among underdogs. The lineage is one of two in a group called influenza B viruses, and it’s slower to evolve and transmit, and is thus sometimes considered less troublesome, than its close cousin Victoria. As a pair, the B’s are also commonly regarded as the wimpier versions of flu.

    To be fair, the competition is stiff. Flu B’s are constantly being compared with influenza A viruses—the group that contains every flu subtype that has caused a pandemic in our recent past, including the extraordinarily deadly outbreak of 1918. Seasonal flu epidemics, too, tend to be heavily dominated by flu A’s, especially H3N2 and H1N1, two notably tough-to-target strains that feature prominently in each year’s vaccine. Even H5N1, the flavor of avian influenza that’s been devastating North America’s wildlife, is a member of the pathogen’s A team.

    B viruses, meanwhile, don’t have a particularly daunting résumé. “To our knowledge, there has never been a B pandemic,” says John Paget, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research. Only once every seven seasons or so does a B virus dominate. And although A and B viruses sometimes tag-team the winter, causing twin outbreaks spaced out by a few weeks, these seasons often open with a major flu A banger and then close out with a more muted B coda.

    The reasons underlying these differences are still pretty murky, though scientists do have some hints. Whereas flu A viruses are known as especially speedy shape-shifters, constantly spawning genetic offshoots that vie to outcompete one another, flu B’s evolve at oddly plodding rates. Their sluggish approach makes it easier for our immune system to recognize the viruses when they reappear, resulting in longer-lasting protection, more effective vaccines, and fewer reinfections than are typical with the A’s. Those molecular differences also seem to drive differences in how and when the viruses spread. The A’s tend to trouble people repeatedly from birth to death, and are great at globe-trotting. But B’s, perhaps because immunity against them is easier to come by, more often concentrate among kids, many of whom have never encountered the viruses before—and who are usually more resilient to respiratory viruses and travel less than adults, keeping outbreaks mostly regional. That might also help explain why B epidemics so frequently lag behind A’s: Slower pathogen evolution facing off with more durable host immunity add up to less rapid B spread, while their A colleagues rush ahead. Our bodies also seem to mount rather fiery defenses against A viruses, steeling them against other infections in the weeks that follow and deepening the disadvantage against any B’s trailing behind. All of that means flu B has a hard time catching humans off guard.

    The virus’s host preferences, too, make flu A viruses more dangerous. Those lineages are great at hopscotching among a whole menagerie of species—most infamously, pigs and wild, water-loving birds—sometimes undergoing rapid bursts of evolution as they go. But flu B’s seem to almost exclusively infect humans, igniting only the rare and fast-resolving outbreak in a limited number of other species—a few seals here, a handful of pigs there. Spillovers from wild creatures into humans are the roots of global outbreaks. And so, with its zoonotic bent, “influenza A will always be the main focus” of concern, says Carolien van de Sandt, a virologist at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, in Melbourne. Even among some scientists, Yamagata and Victoria register as little more than literal B-list blips.

    Plenty of other experts, though, think flu B’s relative obscurity is misguided—perhaps even a bit dangerous. Flu B’s account for roughly a quarter of annual flu cases, many of which lead to hospitalization and death; they seem hardier than their A cousins against certain antiviral drugs. And scientists simply know a lot less about flu B’s: how, precisely, they interact with the immune system; what factors influence their sluggish evolutionary rate; the nuances of their person-to-person spread; their oddball animal-host range. And that lack of intel on what has for decades been a formidable infectious foe creates a risk all on its own.


    Flu lineages have dipped into relative obscurity before only to come roaring back. After the end of the H2N2 pandemic of the late 1950s, H1N1 appeared to flame out—only to reemerge nearly two decades later to greet a population full of young people whose immune systems hadn’t glimpsed it before. And as recently as the 1990s, the B lineage Victoria underwent a years-long ebb in most parts of the world, before ricocheting back to prominence in the early 2000s.

    As far as researchers can tell, Victoria is alive and well; during the globe’s most recent winter seasons, the lineage appears to have ignited late-arriving outbreaks in several countries, including in South Africa, Malaysia, and various parts of Europe. But based on the viral sequences that researchers have isolated from people sick with flu, Yamagata is still nowhere to be found, says Saverio Caini, a virologist at the cancer research center ISPRO, in Italy.

    The lineage was already teetering on a precipice before the pandemic began, van de Sandt told me. Yamagata and Victoria, which splintered apart in the early 1980s, are still closely related enough that they often compete for the same hosts. And just prior to 2020, Victoria, the more diverse and fleet-footed of the two B lineages, had been reliably edging out its cousin, pushing Yamagata’s prevalence down, down, down. That trend, coupled with several years of use of a well-matched Yamagata strain in the seasonal flu vaccine, meant that Yamagata “had already decreased in incidence and circulation,” van de Sandt said. With the odds so steeply stacked, the addition of pandemic mitigations may have been the final factor that snuffed the lineage out.

    Recently, a few countries—including China, Pakistan, and Belize—have tentatively reported possible Yamagata infections. But there’s been no conclusive genetic proof, several experts told me. Several parts of the world, including the United States, regularly use flu vaccines containing active flu viruses that can trip the same viral tests that the wild, disease-causing pathogens do. “So the reports could be contaminations,” van de Sandt said. Scientists would need to scour the virus’s genetic sequences to distinguish infection from injection; those data, however, haven’t emerged.

    Should the Yamagata dry spell continue, researchers may want to start considering snipping the lineage out of vaccines altogether, perhaps as early as the middle or end of this year. Doing so would punt the world back to the early 2010s, when flu shots were trivalent—designed to protect people against two A viruses, H3N2 and H1N1, plus either Victoria or Yamagata, depending on which lineage researchers forecasted would surge more. (They were often wrong.) Or maybe the space once used for Yamagata could feasibly be filled with another flavor of H3N2, the fastest mutator of the bunch.

    But purging Yamagata from the vaccine would be a gamble. If Yamagata is not gone for good, van de Sandt worries that booting it from the vaccine would leave the world vulnerable to a massive and deadly outbreak. Even Dhanasekaran, who is among the researchers who are fairly confident that we’ve seen the last of Yamagata, told me he doesn’t want to rule out the possibility that the virus is cloistering in an immunocompromised person with a chronic infection, and it’s unclear if it could reemerge from such a hiding place. The only thing scientists can do for now is be patient, says Jayna Raghwani, a computational biologist at the University of Oxford. “If we don’t see it in successive seasons for another two to three years, that will be more convincing,” she told me.

    If Yamagata’s death knell has actually rung, though, it will have reverberating effects. There’s no telling, for instance, how other flu lineages might be affected by their colleague’s supposed retirement. Perhaps Victoria, which can swap genetic material with Yamagata, will evolve more slowly without its partner. At the same time, Victoria may have an easier time infecting people now that it no longer needs to compete as often for hosts.

    If Yamagata has gone to pasture, “there won’t be a ceremony declaring the world Yamagata free,” Lauring told me. And it’s easy, he points out, to forget things we don’t see. But even if Yamagata seems gone for now, the effects of its demise will be significant enough that it can’t be forgotten—not just yet.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Vilcek Foundation Awards $600,000 in Prizes to Immigrant Scientists and Musicians

    Vilcek Foundation Awards $600,000 in Prizes to Immigrant Scientists and Musicians

    [ad_1]

    Prizes awarded in honor of immigrant leaders in the arts and sciences, including musicians Du Yun and Angélique Kidjo, and scientist Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado

    The Vilcek Foundation announces the recipients of the 2023 Vilcek Foundation Prizes. Awarded annually in the arts and sciences, the prizes recognize and celebrate immigrant contributions to the arts, culture, and society, and build awareness of how important immigration is for intellectual and cultural life in the United States.

    Since 2006, the Vilcek Foundation has awarded prizes each year in biomedical science and in rotating categories in the arts and humanities. In 2023, the arts and humanities prizes are awarded in music. The foundation awards two primary types of prizes in each category: the Vilcek Prizes, and the Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise.

    The Vilcek Prizes are $100,000 awards bestowed on immigrant professionals whose career achievements represent a legacy of major accomplishments in their field. The Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise honor immigrant professionals whose early-career work demonstrates a singular innovation or represents a significant contribution to their field. Recipients of the Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise each receive an unrestricted cash award of $50,000. 

    The Vilcek Foundation typically awards one Vilcek Prize and three Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in each category every year. In 2023, the Vilcek Foundation is awarding two Vilcek Prizes in Music. 

    The Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science

    The 2023 Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science is awarded to Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado, executive director and chief scientific officer of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. Born in Caracas, Venezuela, Sánchez Alvarado receives the Vilcek Prize for his contributions to the field of regeneration—from the identification of genes that control regeneration in living organisms to the potential for regenerative medicine to revolutionize how we treat disease in humans. 

    “Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado has devoted his career to understanding the fundamental molecular and cellular bases of regeneration, from the specific genes responsible for regeneration to epigenetic regulators that compel the expression of these genes,” said Vilcek Foundation Chairman and CEO Jan Vilcek. “Using a freshwater flatworm—an organism called Schmidtea mediterranea—as a powerful experimental tool to study the molecular mechanisms of tissue regeneration, he has pioneered and expanded the field of regeneration. His work has broad applications for our understanding of the pathology of degenerative disease.”

    The Vilcek Prize in Music

    The Vilcek Foundation has made the decision to award two Vilcek Prizes in Music in 2023 to Du Yun and to Angélique Kidjo. Each will receive a cash award of $100,000 and a commemorative trophy.

    “Music transcends language,” said Vilcek Foundation Cofounder, Vice Chair, and Secretary Marica Vilcek. “It defies borders and boundaries, and has a unique power to resonate with people across cultures. Rhythm, melody, and harmony are critical parts of how we communicate with one another as humans.” She continued, “With this year’s prizes, we wanted to honor the range of impact that immigrants have on this expansive art form. As such, we made the decision to award two Vilcek Prizes in Music this year, to Du Yun and Angélique Kidjo.”

    Says Vilcek Foundation President Rick Kinsel, “The sheer scope of Du Yun and Angélique Kidjo’s work defies any easy categorization. Du Yun’s virtuosic range and arresting compositions expand the horizons of contemporary and classical music. Kidjo’s resonant songwriting and engaging performances have captivated audiences globally, and introduced generations of audiences to Afropop, Afrobeat, and traditional West African music. These distinctions convey the breadth of music as an art form, as well as the broad impact immigrants have on culture and society.” 

    Du Yun receives the Vilcek Prize in Music for her open approach to composition, which subverts the boundaries of traditional classical music by incorporating influences from punk, electronic, and experimental music, and for the virtuosity of her Pulitzer Prize-winning opera, Angel’s Bone. Born in Shanghai, China, Du Yun began studying piano at the age of four and began attending the Preparatory Divisions of the Shanghai Conservatory of Music at age six. She came to the United States to pursue higher education in music, earning her bachelor’s at Oberlin Conservatory and her Ph.D. in Music Composition at Harvard University. In 2001, Du Yun co-founded the International Contemporary Ensemble with the goal of advancing the genre of experimental music through collaborations, commissions, and performances.

    Angélique Kidjo receives the Vilcek Prize in Music in recognition of her exceptional range as a singer-songwriter, and for her artistic leadership through her performances, albums, and collaborations. Born in Ouidah, Benin, Kidjo had her musical debut with the album Pretty in 1981. She rose to international fame in the 1990s with albums like Logozo, Ayé, and Fifa. In 1997, Kidjo immigrated to the United States, moving to Brooklyn, New York. Since then, she has continued to write, record, and tour extensively, while undertaking humanitarian work as an international Goodwill Ambassador for UNICEF and with the Batonga Foundation, which she founded in 2006. 

    The Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science

    The recipients of the 2023 Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science are Edward Chouchani (b. Canada), Biyu J. He (b. China), and Shixin Liu (b. China).

    Edward Chouchani receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science for his work to decipher the molecular mechanisms that drive metabolic disease, with the aim of developing therapeutic interventions targeted at the molecular drivers of metabolism within cells. 

    Biyu J. He receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science for her leadership in the field of cognitive neuroscience, and for her groundbreaking discoveries on the biological bases of perceptual cognition and subjective experience.

    Shixin Liu receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise for applying cutting-edge biophysical tools to directly visualize, manipulate, and understand the physiological function of nanometer-scale biomolecular machines including DNA replication and transcription complexes at the single-molecule level.

    The Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in Music

    The 2023 Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in Music are awarded to Arooj Aftab (b. Saudi Arabia, to Pakistani parents) Juan Pablo Contreras (b. Mexico), and Ruby Ibarra (b. the Philippines).

    Arooj Aftab receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise in Music for her evocative songs and compositions that incorporate a range of influences from semi-classical Pakistani music and Urdu poetry, to jazz harmonies and experimental music. 

    Juan Pablo Contreras receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise in Music for his work as a composer and conductor of orchestral music that draws on his Mexican heritage, and for his leadership in founding the Orquesta Latino Mexicana. 

    Ruby Ibarra receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise in Music for her hip-hop and spoken word performances that center her experience as a Filipina American woman, and for her powerful lyrics that address colonialism, immigration, colorism, and misogyny.

    The Vilcek Foundation

    The Vilcek Foundation raises awareness of immigrant contributions in the United States and fosters appreciation for the arts and sciences. The foundation was established in 2000 by Jan and Marica Vilcek, immigrants from the former Czechoslovakia. The mission of the foundation was inspired by the couple’s respective careers in biomedical science and art history. Since 2000, the foundation has awarded over $7 million in prizes to foreign-born individuals and has supported organizations with over $5.8 million in grants.

    The Vilcek Foundation is a private operating foundation, a federally tax-exempt nonprofit organization under IRS Section 501(c)(3). To learn more, please visit vilcek.org

    Source: The Vilcek Foundation

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vilcek Foundation Awards $250,000 in Prizes to Leading Immigrant Scientists

    Vilcek Foundation Awards $250,000 in Prizes to Leading Immigrant Scientists

    [ad_1]

    Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado, Edward Chouchani, Biyu J. He, and Shixin Liu are honored with the 2023 Vilcek Foundation Prizes in Biomedical Science

    Press Release


    Oct 18, 2022

    The Vilcek Foundation has announced the recipients of the 2023 Vilcek Foundation Prizes in Biomedical Science. Awarded annually since 2006, the prizes recognize immigrant scientists at the forefront of their fields, and celebrate the importance of immigrant contributions to scientific research and discovery in the United States. In 2023, the foundation awards a total of $250,000 to Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado (b. Venezuela), Edward Chouchani (b. Canada), Biyu J. He (b. China), and Shixin Liu (b. China).

    The prizes comprise the Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science, and three Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science. The Vilcek Prize is a $100,000 award bestowed on an immigrant scientist whose career achievements demonstrate a legacy of major accomplishment in their area of study. The Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise are $50,000 prizes given to immigrant scientists and researchers whose early career work represents a significant contribution to their field. 

    The Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science is awarded to Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado. Edward Chouchani, Biyu J. He, and Shixin Liu receive Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise. 

    The Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science

    Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado is executive director and chief scientific officer of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. He receives the Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science for his contributions to the field of regeneration—from the identification of crucial genes that control regeneration in living organisms to the potential for regenerative medicine to address how we treat disease in humans. Born in Caracas, Venezuela, Sánchez Alvarado immigrated to the United States to pursue his bachelor’s at Vanderbilt University before going on to complete his Ph.D. in pharmacology and cell biophysics at the University of Cincinnati School of Medicine. 

    “Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado has devoted his career to understanding the fundamental molecular and cellular bases of regeneration, from the specific genes responsible for regeneration to epigenetic regulators that compel the expression of these genes,” said Vilcek Foundation Chairman and CEO Jan Vilcek. “Using a freshwater flatworm—an organism called Schmidtea mediterranea—as a powerful experimental tool to study the molecular mechanisms of tissue regeneration, he has pioneered and expanded the field of regeneration. His work has broad applications for our understanding of the pathology of degenerative disease.”

    The Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science

    Edward Chouchani, Biyu J. He, and Shixin Liu are the recipients of the 2023 Vilcek Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science.

    Edward Chouchani is an associate professor of cancer biology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an associate professor of cell biology at Harvard Medical School. He is a cofounder and board member of Matchpoint Therapeutics, a biotechnology company focused on the development of precision medicine. Born in Ottawa, Canada, Chouchani earned his bachelor’s at Carleton University and his Ph.D. in biological sciences at the University of Cambridge. He receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science for his work to decipher the molecular mechanisms that drive metabolic disease, with the aim of developing therapeutic interventions targeted at the molecular drivers of metabolism within cells. 

    Biyu J. He is an assistant professor of neurology, neuroscience and physiology, and radiology at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and principal investigator of the Perception and Brain Dynamics Laboratory at NYU Langone Health. Born in Xinxiang, China, Biyu J. He immigrated to the United States to pursue her Ph.D. in neuroscience at Washington University in St. Louis. She receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science for her research leadership in the field of cognitive neuroscience, and for her groundbreaking work on the biological bases of perceptual cognition and subjective experience. 

    Shixin Liu receives the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise for applying cutting-edge biophysical tools to directly visualize, manipulate, and understand the physiological function of nanometer-scale biomolecular machines including DNA replication and transcription complexes at the single-molecule level. Liu is an associate professor at The Rockefeller University, where he has been the head of the Laboratory of Nanoscale Biophysics and Biochemistry since 2016. Born in Anhui province in China, he immigrated to the United States to pursue his Ph.D. in chemistry at Harvard University.

    The 2023 Vilcek Foundation Prizes

    In addition to the Vilcek Foundation Prizes in Biomedical Science, in 2023 the foundation is awarding $250,000 in prizes to immigrant musicians with the Vilcek Foundation Prizes in Music. The recipients of the Vilcek Foundation Prizes in Music are Du Yun, Angélique Kidjo, Arooj Aftab, Juan Pablo Contreras, and Ruby Ibarra.

    The Vilcek Foundation

    The Vilcek Foundation raises awareness of immigrant contributions in the United States and fosters appreciation for the arts and sciences. The foundation was established in 2000 by Jan and Marica Vilcek, immigrants from the former Czechoslovakia. The mission of the foundation was inspired by the couple’s respective careers in biomedical science and art history. Since 2000, the foundation has awarded over $7 million in prizes to foreign-born individuals and has supported organizations with over $5.8 million in grants.

    The Vilcek Foundation is a private operating foundation, a federally tax-exempt nonprofit organization under IRS Section 501(c)(3). To learn more, please visit vilcek.org.

    Source: The Vilcek Foundation

    [ad_2]

    Source link