News Feeds

One day, doctors might be able to 3D print copies of your organs in order to test a variety of drugs, thanks to a new technique that uses light and sound for rapid printing

At CSICON this year I gave talk about topics over which skeptics have and continue to disagree with each other. My core theme was that these are the topics we absolutely should be discussing with each other, especially at skeptical conferences. Nothing should be taboo or too controversial. We are an intellectual community dedicated to science and reason, and have spent decades talking about how to find common ground and resolve differences, when it comes to empirical claims about reality. But the fact is we sometimes disagree, and this is a great learning opportunity. It’s also humbling, reminding ourselves that the journey toward critical thinking and reason never ends. On several topics self-identified skeptics disagree largely along political grounds, which is a pretty sure sign we are not immune to ideology and partisanship.

I spent most of the talk, however, discussing the issue of biological sex in humans, which I perceive as the currently most controversial topic within skepticism. My goal was to explore where it is we actually disagree. Generally speaking skeptics don’t disagree about the facts or about the proper role of science in determining what is likely to be true. We tend to disagree for more subtle reasons, although often the reason does come down to a lack of specific topic expertise on questions that are highly technical. The most important thing is that we actually engage with each-other’s arguments and positions, to make sure we truly understand what those who disagree with us are saying so that we can properly explore premises and logic.

Jerry Coyne, author of the book and blog Why Evolution is True, was also at CSICON and gave a talk essentially taking the opposing position to my own. His position is that biological sex in humans is binary, that this is the only scientific position, and anything else is simply ideology trumping science. His talk was after mine so I was very interested in how he would respond to my position. He essentially didn’t – he just gave the talk he was going to give and then included a single slide with his “responses” to my talk. Except, they weren’t responses at all, just a list of standard talking points that really had nothing to do with my talk.

Now he has written a blog post discussing my talk. Here is his opening paragraph:

“I’ve been busy at the CSICon conference, which included giving my own 30-minute presentation this morning. I had to modify it to take into account the misguided views of Steve Novella, who gave a talk yesterday about “When Skeptics Disagree.” It turned out to be largely a diatribe about how sex in humans is not binary, and in fact isn’t even to be defined by morphology or physiology. As far as I can see, Novella’s view of sex is that one is born with a “brain module” (which of course is biological) that determines which sex you are. No, not gender, but actual biological sex. You can have a “female” module or a “male module”, and regardless of gametes, hormones, genitalia, and so on, you are whatever sex your module dictates to your self-identification.”

It’s difficult to convey how disappointing this response is, from someone I previously admired for his science communication about evolution and creationism. His summary of my position is completely and utterly wrong. Calling it a strawman does not do justice to how off it is. He sat through my talk (as I sat through his), and yet I have to wonder if he actually listened to it. We do agree on one thing – CSI will be making the recorded talks available and people can watch and decide for themselves – please do.

Here is my actual position, as articulated (quite clearly, if the overwhelming feedback I got was any indication) in the talk. Biological sex in humans is multifactorial and complicated, pretty much like all of biology. While there are two pathways of sexual development (we are a sexually dimorphic species), humanity is not “strictly” binary because not everyone fits cleanly or unambiguously into one of two sexes. Pretty much every aspect of biological sex has variations, or “differences in sexual development”, or ambiguous features in some individuals. These are the facts, and you cannot meaningfully disagree about this. So how do skeptics disagree? Largely due to semantics (or I guess making the other side into a one-dimensional strawman).

As an example I used archaeopteryx – a “transitional” species with morphological features that are pretty much half modern bird and half theropod dinosaur (the non-avian branch, if you are using cladistics, which of course is just another tradition of categorization). Creationist Duane Gish famously said that archaeopteryx is simply a bird. It had feathers and it flew, so it was a bird. When confronted about the fact that it also had teeth he say – well, some birds had teeth. He also, interestingly, said that you could look at archaeopteryx as a dinosaur with feathers. He was apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that he was just arbitrarily choosing a subset of morphological features as the “defining characteristics”. You could say feathers and flying equals bird, or teeth, claws, bony tail (and other features) equals dinosaur. Or – you could look at all the features and say it was transitional between these two groups. But that, of course, is exactly what he was trying to avoid and deny.

My larger point was that, in the end our labels are ultimately meaningless. They do not determine reality. Archaeopteryx is what it is regardless of what box we put it in. Saying that some birds have teeth or some dinosaurs have feathers are both equally correct, equally misleading, and equally just non sequiturs.

I then gave as an example of biological sex in humans those with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome). These are people who are XY, produce male levels of testosterone, have undescended testes, produce sperm, and do not develop a uterus, but they do not respond to testosterone so they develop otherwise along the female body plan. They have vaginas, a complete (and often even more so than average) suite of female secondary sexual characteristics, and typical female neurological development. So they have male genetics, hormones, and gametes, but female genitalia, body and brain. So – are they male or female? Do some men have vaginas, or do some women have XY chromosomes?  You see the parallel?

There is no necessarily right or wrong answer. Categorization is ultimately arbitrary and context dependent. You  have to ask – why are we dividing humanity up into two categories of biological sex in the first place? Is this just an exercise in abstract biological science, is this for social reasons, medical purposes, designing public bathrooms, or making rules for competitive sports? The answer may differ depending on the context. Also, CAIS is just one example. There are differences in every feature of biological sex, and often those features are ambiguous (there are conditions that are literally referred to as ambiguous genitalia, for example).

To me it is an unavoidable and simple fact that biological sex in humans is not strictly binary. I always use the modifier “strictly” to be as clear as possible. Even critics of this position admit humans are only “mostly” binary when it comes to sex. But they say – “mostly” binary equals binary. But this is nonsensical – it is a purely semantic argument.

What they are saying (pretty directly) is that biological sex in humans is binary, and anyone who does not fit into this binary simply doesn’t count. They also say that some features of sexual dimorphism in humans don’t count. Coyne’s position is that we should categorize biological sex by gametes and gametes only. Why? He only said during his talk that this is how it is done, so an appeal to tradition, I guess. He seems to be engaged in a bit of circular logic – biological sex is binary because of gametes, and we use gametes to define biological sex because they are essentially binary (with rare exceptions). I have also seen him make the justification (which I find ironic coming from an evolutionary biologist) that biological sex is about reproduction, and reproduction is all about gametes. But biological features, even if they evolved mainly for a specific purpose, often take on other purposes and aspects. I would argue that people are more than their gametes. Again – context matters. Should we have sperm and egg leagues in competitive sports? Should we just have pictures of sperms and eggs on signs outside public bathrooms?

Coyne argued that the percentage of people with differences of sexual development is too small to count. He used the very low end of estimates (without disclosing or discussing this fact), but even with this estimate we are talking about millions of people. And also where you draw the line is yet another arbitrary choice of categorization.

He also explicitly argues that the brain does not count. He ridicules this notion in his response, again creating a shallow strawman, and uses quotation marks inappropriately. I never said, for example, “male module” and yet his use of quotes made it seem as if I did. He states that it is my position that only the brain counts – which is pretty close to the exact opposite of my position, which is that everything counts. All sexual dimorphism, from genes to neurological development, are part of biological sex. It is a complex, dynamic, and multifactorial system, with lots of variation. There is no one “correct” way to categorize male and female. Sure, you can make rules that are true for most people. There are typical schemes of development. But whatever system you come up with, there will be people who do not fit. And yet all people count, and not just because they are actual people. Even in the abstract – all data counts.

My final point was that I don’t think we would even be having this discussion were it not for the political controversy around the trans issue. The point, in my opinion, of saying that only gametes count is to argue that the brain specifically does not count. But the brain is a biological organ, and brain development is absolutely influenced by sex genes and hormones. The brain is a sexual organ, and part of sexual dimorphism. Why wouldn’t it count as part of biological sex? I specifically said that at this time we have not identified the specific neuroanatomic correlates of gender identity (which are likely to be complex). But the early research so far is pointing in the direction that gender identity is both real and a neurological trait. It has the features of other neurological traits – like core personality features, and sexual orientation. Most people who identify as trans knew their gender identity from a very young age, and their identity is remarkably persistent over their lives. They are likely not a homogenous group, which is to be expected for a complex phenomenon like gender identity. But again, most show clear signs of gender identity being a persistent neurological trait (something Coyne dismisses as mere “feelings”).

The best analogy here is sexual orientation, which also behaves like a stable neurological trait. People cannot be “turned” gay, nor converted from being gay. Sexual orientation is basically a brain phenomenon, influenced by biological sex, including genetics and the hormonal environment of the womb. And yet, all the same arguments against the claim that gender identity is real and neurological were used against sexual orientation being a neurological trait, including the lack of a “gay gene” (analogous so saying their is no “gender module” in the brain).

This is the basic science, and we should be able to find common ground here. We can have meaningful discussions about what all this means for sports, bathrooms, and medical care for those identifying as trans. That is the social, medical, and political debate we should be having, because this is a complex topic. The claim that biological sex is simply binary, and any other thought is (as Coyne writes) “full-out progressive woke” is just not true. It strikes me as a rhetorical strategy to win the debate by semantic fiat. Biological sex is binary (because gametes) therefore all other discussions about sports and medical care is merely an exercise is delusion.

The position is one giant non-sequitur. What do we do in this specific context with people who do not unambiguously fit into a biological sex binary? Well, the answers seems to be, they don’t count because biological sex is binary because gametes. And they are a small percentage of humanity. But they exist and we still need to decide how best to accommodate them. Insisting sex is strictly binary is not only wrong, it doesn’t even address the issue.

Coyne makes some other claims (as if they are a rebuttal to my position) that are not based in reality (but are suspiciously similar to right-wing talking points and propaganda). He says, for example,

“And what about those people—yes, they exist—who think they really are in the wrong body, and should be a member of another species, like a horse or a cat? Does that actually make them a cat or horse? Of course not.”

First, reports of this phenomenon (called therians) is greatly exaggerated. They are often conflated with other groups (like furries). This is pretty clearly a social and psychological phenomenon, not a neurological trait, and having nothing to do with a system of neurological development (influenced by hormones, for example). He is making some sort of slippery slope argument, which does not hold up to examination. Some people have a strong psychological identity with an animal archetype, just like some people think they are aliens, or that they were reincarnated. This has literally nothing to do with gender identity and is not the same kind of phenomenon.

He also writes:

“One more example. There are people who are nonbinary, but are that way on a temporal basis: they change from feeling male to feeling female on a daily or even hourly basis.”

There are some people who are “gender fluid”. So what? What does that say about people who are not fluid, but remarkably stable in their gender identity (ie, most people)? Nothing. It’s irrelevant. It’s similar to arguing that we cannot treat people with MS because a subset of people with MS have a type that does not respond to treatment.

I think this statement by Coyne highlights his misunderstanding:

“Does a full biological man, with the right genitalia, hormones and chromosomes, but who feels that he’s a woman, actually become a woman (or vice versa for women)? Of course not, unless you think that words mean whatever you want them to. This is why I believe that people can claim to be of any gender, but they can’t actually change their biological sex.”

This is a non sequitur, and has nothing to do with my actual position. It shows that he completely does not get it. Notice that he thinks there is a “right” genitalia. This is a strangely essentialist formulation for an evolutionary biologist. Notice also that he dismisses how someone “feels” as if this is not, in some cases, a function of developmental neurology. But the core fallacy here is the straw man that gender identity changes biological reality. Rather, it is just part of biological reality. The entire point of the “trans” identity is that gender identity (which behaves in most people like a neurological trait) does not align with aspects of sexual morphology. They are not delusional about their genitalia – otherwise they would not identify as trans. Every aspect of biological sex may line up or not line up in some people. That is just reality. Coyne’s entire framing, however, is as a conflict between subjective feelings (which are not real) and anatomy (which is real). And in people where the more tangible anatomy does not line up (like in CAIS)? Well, they don’t count. Only gametes count.

I don’t expect we will agree on the broader issues here. But at the very least we should be able to agree on the basic science. This means getting past pointless semantic arguments and confidently mischaracterizing the “other side”. If I have misstated his position in any way I will happily make corrections, but I tried to fairly and with the principle of charity reflect what he has written. You can read it for yourself and see. My summary here is pretty much exactly what I said during my CISCON talk and have written elsewhere.

 

The post A Discussion about Biological Sex first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

Fibres in wet wipes and clothes often make their way into soil - and natural versions could be more damaging than synthetic ones

A mysterious man is said to have arrived in Japan in 1959 from a country that never existed.

Many people think of the James Webb Space Telescope as a sort of Hubble 2. They understand that the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has served us well but is now old, and overdue for replacement. NASA seems to agree, as they have not sent a maintenance mission in over fifteen years, and are already preparing to wind down operations. But a recent paper argues that this is a mistake. Despite its age, HST still performs extremely well and continues to produce an avalanche of valuable scientific results. And given that JWST was never designed as a replacement for HST — it is an infrared (IR) telescope) — we would best be served by operating both telescopes in tandem, to maximize coverage of all observations.

Let’s not fool ourselves: the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is old, and is eventually going to fall back to Earth. Although it was designed to be repairable and upgradable, there have been no servicing missions since 2009. Those missions relied on the Space Shuttle, which could capture the telescope and provide a working base for astronauts. Servicing missions could last weeks, and only the Space Shuttle could transport the six astronauts to the telescope and house them for the duration of the mission.

Without those servicing missions, failing components can no longer be replaced, and the overall health of HST will keep declining. If nothing is done, HST will eventually stop working altogether. To avoid it becoming just another piece of space junk, plans are already being developed to de-orbit it and send it crashing into the Pacific Ocean. But that’s no reason to give up on it. It still has as clear a view of the cosmos as ever, and mission scientists are doing an excellent job of working around technical problems as they arise.

The James Webb Space Telescope was launched into space on Christmas dat in 2021. Its system of foldable hexagonal mirrors give it an effective diameter some 2.7 times larger than HST, and it is designed to see down into the mid-IR range. Within months of deployment, it had already seen things that clashed with existing models of how the Universe formed, creating a mini-crisis in some fields and leading unscrupulous news editors to write headlines questioning whether the “Big Bang Theory” was under threat!

This image of NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope was taken on May 19, 2009 after deployment during Servicing Mission 4. NASA

The reason JWST was able to capture such ancient galaxies is that it is primarily an IR telescope: As the Universe expands, photons from distant objects get red-shifted until stars that originally shone in visible light can now only be seen in the IR. But these IR views are proving extremely valuable in other scientific fields apart from cosmology. In fact, many of the most striking images released by JWST’s press team are IR images of familiar objects, revealing hidden complexities that had not been seen before.

This is a key difference between the two telescopes: While HST’s range overlaps slightly with JWST, it can see all the way up into ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths. HST was launched in 1990, seven years late and billions of dollars over budget. Its 2.4 meter primary element needed to be one of the most precisely ground mirrors ever made, because it was intended to be diffraction limited at UV wavelengths. Famously, avoidable problems in the testing process led to it being very precisely figured to a slightly wrong shape, leading to spherical aberration preventing it from coming to sharp focus.

Fortunately the telescope was designed from the start to be serviceable, and even returned to Earth for repairs by the Space Shuttle if necessary. In the end though, NASA opticians were able to design and build a set of corrective optics to solve the problem, and the COSTAR system was installed by astronauts on the first servicing mission. Over the years, NASA sent up three more servicing missions, to upgrade or repair components, and install new instruments.

Illustration of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope. Credits: NASA

HST could be one of the most successful scientific instruments ever built. Since 1990, it has been the subject of approximately 1200 science press releases, each of which was read more than 400 million times. The more than 46,000 scientific papers written using HST data have been cited more than 900,000 times! And even in its current degraded state, it still provided data for 1435 papers in 2023 alone.

JWST also ran over time and over budget, but had a far more successful deployment. Despite having a much larger mirror, with more than six times the collecting area of HST, the entire observatory only weighs half as much as HST. Because of its greater sensitivity, and the fact that it can see ancient light redshifted into IR wavelengths, it can see far deeper into the Universe than HST. It is these observations, of galaxies formed when the Universe was extremely young (100 – 180 million years), that created such excitement shortly after it was deployed.

As valuable as these telescopes are, they will not last forever. JWST is located deep in space, some 1.5 million kilometers from Earth near the L2 Lagrange point. When it eventually fails, it will become just another piece of Solar System debris orbiting the Sun in the vast emptiness of the Solar System. HST, however, is in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and suffers very slight amounts of drag from the faint outer reaches of the atmosphere. Over time it will gradually lose speed, drifting downwards until it enters the atmosphere proper and crashes to Earth. Because of its size, it will not burn up completely, and large chunks will smash into the surface.

Because it cannot be predicted where exactly it will re-enter, mission planners always intended to capture it with the Space Shuttle and return it to Earth before this happened. Its final resting place was supposed to be in display in a museum, but unfortunately the shuttle program was cancelled. The current plan is to send up an uncrewed rocket which will dock with the telescope (a special attachment was installed on the final servicing mission for this purpose), and deorbit it in a controlled way to ensure that its pieces land safely in the ocean.

You can find the original paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01187

The post Hubble and Webb are the Dream Team. Don't Break Them Up appeared first on Universe Today.

On November 26th, 2018, NASA’s Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy, and Heat Transport (InSight) mission landed on Mars. This was a major milestone in Mars exploration since it was the first time a research station had been deployed to the surface to probe the planet’s interior. One of the most important instruments InSight would use to do this was the Heat Flow and Physical Properties Package (HP3) developed by the German Aerospace Center (DLR). Also known as the Martian Mole, this instrument measured the heat flow from deep inside the planet for four years.

The HP3 was designed to dig up to five meters (~16.5 ft) into the surface to sense heat deeper in Mars’ interior. Unfortunately, the Mole struggled to burrow itself and eventually got just beneath the surface, which was a surprise to scientists. Nevertheless, the Mole gathered considerable data on the daily and seasonal fluctuations below the surface. Analysis of this data by a team from the German Aerospace Center (DLR) has yielded new insight into why Martian soil is so “crusty.” According to their findings, temperatures in the top 40 cm (~16 inches) of the Martian surface lead to the formation of salt films that harden the soil.

The analysis was conducted by a team from the Microgravity User Support Center (MUSC) of the DLR Space Operations and Astronaut Training Institution in Cologne, which is responsible for overseeing the HP3 experiment. The heat data it obtained from the interior could be integral to understanding Mars’s geological evolution and addressing theories about its core region. At present, scientists suspect that geological activity on Mars largely ceased by the late Hesperian period (ca. 3 billion years ago), though there is evidence that lava still flows there today.

The “Mars Mole,” Heat Flow and Physical Properties Package (HP³). Credit: DLR

This was likely caused by Mars’ interior cooling faster due to its lower mass and lower pressure. Scientists theorize that this caused Mars’ outer core to solidify while its inner core became liquid—though this remains an open question. By comparing the subsurface temperatures obtained by InSight to surface temperatures, the DLR team could measure the rate of heat transport in the crust (thermal diffusivity) and thermal conductivity. From this, the density of the Martian soil could be estimated for the first time.

The team determined that the density of the uppermost 30 cm (~12 inches) of soil is comparable to basaltic sand – something that was not anticipated based on orbiter data. This material is common on Earth and is created by weathering volcanic rock rich in iron and magnesium. Beneath this layer, the soil density is comparable to consolidated sand and coarser basalt fragments. Tilman Spohn, the principal investigator of the HP3 experiment at the DLR Institute of Planetary Research, explained in a DLR press release:

“To get an idea of the mechanical properties of the soil, I like to compare it to floral foam, widely used in floristry for flower arrangements. It is a lightweight, highly porous material in which holes are created when plant stems are pressed into it... Over the course of seven Martian days, we measured thermal conductivity and temperature fluctuations at short intervals.

“Additionally, we continuously measured the highest and lowest daily temperatures over the second Martian year. The average temperature over the depth of the 40-centimetre-long thermal probe was minus 56 degrees Celsius (217.5 Kelvin). These records, documenting the temperature curve over daily cycles and seasonal variations, were the first of their kind on Mars.”

NASA’s In­Sight space­craft land­ed in the Ely­si­um Plani­tia re­gion on Mars on 26 Novem­ber 2018. Credit: Credit: NASA-JPL/USGS/MOLA/DLR

Because the encrusted Martian soil (aka. “duricrust”) extends to a depth of 20 cm (~8 inches), the Mole managed to penetrate just a little more than 40 cm (~16 inches) – well short of its 5 m (~16.5 ft) objective. Nevertheless, the data obtained at this depth has provided valuable insight into heat transport on Mars. Accordingly, the team found that ground temperatures fluctuated by only 5 to 7 °C (9 to 12.5 °F) during a Martian day, a tiny fraction of the fluctuations observed on the surface—110 to 130 °C (230 to 266 °F).

Seasonally, they noted temperature fluctuation of 13 °C (~23.5 °F) while remaining below the freezing point of water on Mars in the layers near the surface. This demonstrates that the Martian soil is an excellent insulator, significantly reducing the large temperature differences at shallow depths. This influences various physical properties in Martian soil, including elasticity, thermal conductivity, heat capacity, the movement of material within, and the speed at which seismic waves can pass through them.

“Temperature also has a strong influence on chemical reactions occurring in the soil, on the exchange with gas molecules in the atmosphere, and therefore also on potential biological processes regarding possible microbial life on Mars,” said Spohn. “These insights into the properties and strength of the Martian soil are also of particular interest for future human exploration of Mars.”

What was particularly interesting, though, is how the temperature fluctuations enable the formation of salty brines for ten hours a day (when there is sufficient moisture in the atmosphere) in winter and spring. Therefore, the solidification of this brine is the most likely explanation for the duricrust layer beneath the surface. This information could prove very useful as future missions explore Mars and attempt to probe beneath the surface to learn more about the Red Planet’s history.

Further Reading: DLR

The post Scientists Have Figured out why Martian Soil is so Crusty appeared first on Universe Today.

Before Mesopotamian people invented writing, they used cylinder seals to press patterns into wet clay – and some of the symbols used were carried over into proto-writing

Researchers are warning that artificial intelligence tools gaining popularity in the fields of genetics and medicine can lead to flawed conclusions about the connection between genes and physical characteristics, including risk factors for diseases like diabetes.

Zinc nanoparticles, a common sunscreen ingredient, can make plants more resilient to climate change – in a surprising way

Zinc nanoparticles, a common sunscreen ingredient, can make plants more resilient to climate change – in a surprising way

A surprising reversal of our usual understanding of the second law of thermodynamics shows that it may be possible for heat to move in the “wrong” direction, flowing from a cold area to a warm one

Although the COP16 summit in Colombia ended with some important agreements, countries still aren’t moving fast enough to stem biodiversity loss

BiomedGPT is a new a new type of artificial intelligence (AI) designed to support a wide range of medical and scientific tasks. This new study is described in the article as 'the first open-source and lightweight vision -- language foundation model, designed as a generalist capable of performing various biomedical tasks.'

A new study details how climate change transforms coastal wetlands in North Carolina from forest to marshland or even open water, and how satellite imagery may help better direct conservation efforts to preserve those areas.

The unique properties of baseball's famed 'magic' mud, which MLB equipment managers applied to every ball in the World Series, have never been scientifically quantified -- until now. Researchers now reveal what makes the magic mud so special.

The gravitational field of a rotating black hole is powerful and strange. It is so powerful that it warps space and time back upon itself, and it is so strange that even simple concepts such as motion and rotation are turned on their heads. Understanding how these concepts play out is challenging, but they help astronomers understand how black holes generate such tremendous energy. Take, for example, the concept of frame dragging.

Black holes form when matter collapses to be so dense that spacetime encloses it within an event horizon. This means black holes aren’t physical objects in the way they are used to. They aren’t made of matter, but are rather a gravitational imprint of where matter was. The same is true for the gravitational collapse of rotating matter. When we talk about a rotating black hole, this doesn’t mean the event horizon is spinning like a top, it means that spacetime near the black hole is twisted into a gravitational echo of the once rotating matter. Which is where things get weird.

Suppose you were to drop a ball into a black hole. Not orbiting or rotating, just a simple drop straight down. Rather than falling in a straight line toward the black hole, the path of the ball will shift toward an orbital path as it falls, moving around the black hole ever faster as it gets closer. This effect is known as frame dragging. Part of the “rotation” of the black hole is transferred to the ball, even though the ball is in free fall. The closer the ball is to the black hole, the greater the effect.

This view of the M87 supermassive black hole in polarized light highlights the signature of magnetic fields. (Credit: EHT Collaboration)

A recent paper on the arXiv shows how this effect can transfer energy from a black hole’s magnetic field to nearby matter. Black holes are often surrounded by an accretion disk of ionized gas and dust. As the material of the disk orbits the black hole, it can generate a powerful magnetic field, which can superheat the material. While most of the power generated by this magnetic field is caused by the orbital motion, frame dragging can add an extra kick.

Essentially, a black hole’s magnetic field is generated by the bulk motion of the accretion disk. But thanks to frame dragging, the inner portion of the disk moves a bit faster than it should, while the outer portion moves a bit slower. This relative motion between them means that ionized matter moves relative to the magnetic field, creating a kind of dynamo effect. Thanks to frame dragging, the black hole creates more electromagnetic energy than you’d expect. While this effect is small for stellar mass black holes, it is large enough for supermassive black holes that we might see the effect in quasars through gaps in their power spectrum.

Reference: Okamoto, Isao, Toshio Uchida, and Yoogeun Song. “Electromagnetic Energy Extraction in Kerr Black Holes through Frame-Dragging Magnetospheres.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12684 (2024).

The post Another Way to Extract Energy From Black Holes? appeared first on Universe Today.

Rongoā Māori is the “indigenous way of healing”: a combination of herbal and spiritual medicine used by the Māori of New Zealand.  As The Encyclopedia of New Zealand notes, there were both supernatural and human illnesses, with the former treated through spiritual means (e.g., prayers, dunking in water, and other treatments described below), and the latter through herbal remedies. Here, for example, are the supernatural maladies and remedies:

Mate atua – supernatural illnesses

Mate atua were supernatural afflictions, sometimes caused by malevolent spirits when a person had broken a tapu (religious restriction). Dealing with mate atua required a tohunga (priest). His first job was to determine the hara (transgression) committed, and to identify the spirit. The tohunga took a thorough case history of all the patient’s actions before they got ill, sometimes including the patient’s and family’s dreams.

A tohunga’s job

Tohunga were experts in various fields, including the arts, agriculture, fishing, warfare and healing. They were also seen as the earthly medium of the gods, and were intensively trained in whare wānanga (houses of higher learning). Tohunga held a position of authority and respect, but also had the huge responsibility of keeping their people healthy.

Finding the cause was the first stage of treatment, followed by exorcism of the spirit that had possessed the patient. The next stage was a whakahoro (purificatory rite) to remove the effects of the tapu. This usually involved dipping the patient in a stream while the tohunga performed a karakia (prayer) or incantation.

Mariunga

The Ngāti Porou leader Tuta Nihoniho described the mariunga – a wand of wood such as karamū, māpou or maire, which was touched to the body of an invalid and received their essence. It was then taken to a tohunga, who could tell whether the patient would recover.

Takutaku rite

Another rite, the takutaku, involved touching the patient with a karamū leaf, which was then floated downstream. The malevolent spirit would be carried to sea and then to Te Waha o te Parata (a huge whirlpool, caused by a great monster), and finally to the underworld. Freed of the spirit, the patient was then sprinkled with, or immersed in, water.

The site also lists a number of herbal plants used for “human” illnesses, although, as far as I know, none of them have been tested by the gold standard of modern medicine: controlled, randomized, and double-blind testing. I have no doubt that some of these plants do work, but in the absence of testing we won’t really know which ones, and how efficacious they are.

As Wikipedia notes, these forms refer. .

. . . . to the traditional Māori medicinal practices in New Zealand. Rongoā was one of the Māori cultural practices targeted by the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, until lifted by the Maori Welfare Act 1962. In the later part of the 20th century there was renewed interest in Rongoā as part of a broader Māori renaissance.

Rongoā can involve spiritual, herbal and physical components. Herbal aspects used plants such as harakeke, kawakawa, rātā, koromiko, kōwhai, kūmarahou, mānuka, tētēaweka and rimu.

The practice of Rongoā is only regulated by the Therapeutics Products Bill in the case of commercial or wholesale production so that “Māori will continue using and making rongoā just as they have for generations.”

The Tohunga Suppression Act outlawed traditional medicine in favor of “Western” medicine, but, as the note above shows, the ban lasted just 55 years, and Rongoā Māori is now again legal, though its practitioners often realize that they need to send patients to modern doctors if a traditional cure doesn’t look propitious.

However, there seems to be a move afoot to make Rongoā Māori coequal to modern medicine, if not in curative properties at least in “deep mutual respect.” But, those two items are not independent, for how can a modern physician respect medicines that haven’t been properly tested, much less have any respect for supernatural cures?

What is bad about the attempt to get “deep respect” for indigenous medicine that hasn’t been properly vetted, is that with medicine, unlike with incorporating other indigenous ways of knowing into teaching (e.g., Māātauranga Māori), human lives and health are at stake, so I do have issues with the article below in the ANZ Journal of Surgery (click to read for free).

This study is really an anecdotal one, and with a very small and geographically limited sample, too. The authors recruited four colorectal “Western” surgeons (WS) from the Christchurch region of New Zealand, all of whom had expressed interest in Rongoā Māori (RM). Likewise, the authors recruited seven Rongoā Māori practitioners, four of whom volunteered to be part of the study. Therefore we have a total of eight subjects, all of whom were asked their views about the medicine practiced by the other group. The interviews took place once, and were 30-60 minutes long.  The actual study thus lasted a maximum of eight hours.

The upshot:

Western surgeons’ perspectives on RM

The results are no surprise: the doctors didn’t know much about RM. But they were “open to collaboration”, though it wasn’t clear what kind of collaboration. (I can understand that a Māori patient might want a Māori RM practitioner around, at least for solace and cultural comfort.)  And of course the doctors thought that, in general, there needs to be better communication between practitioners of modern and of indigenous medicine. Finally, the surgeons cited “systemic barriers, such as bureaucratic hurdles and the absence of clear referral pathways” as impediments to collaboration or “integration”.

Rongoa practitioners’ perspectifes on modern medicine

The indigenous doctors “often feel overlooked within the healthcare system.  And this leads to the article’s theme: that modern medicine must be infused in some way with indigenous medicine: a “genuine collaboration”. For instance we read this:

Rongoā practitioners often feel overlooked within the healthcare system. This highlights the need for initiatives that aim to raise the profile of Rongoā Māori within New Zealand’s healthcare system (Table 1). One practitioner mentioned ‘collaboration is minimal, at this stage like the non-Māori community certainly don’t even know that Rongoā exists or anything about it and so that’s not being referred’.

. . . Formulating a genuinely collaborative approach requires recognition of Rongoā Māori as a an option in the patient care journey. ‘Building relationships is key… maybe starting with shared learning experiences,’ one practitioner suggested, proposing foundational steps towards effective collaboration.

. . . . This perspective challenges the healthcare sector to move beyond tokenistic inclusion, advocating for a genuine integration of Rongoā Māori that honours its potential to contribute to improved health outcomes, particularly for Māori patients.

. . . Understanding Rongoā Māori in its full depth requires acknowledging and valuing its comprehensive approach to health, which integrates the spiritual, mental, and physical dimensions of well-being.

The problem here is that we do not know the potential of RM to contributed to improved health outcomes–not without scientific testing of RM remedies, especially the “spiritual” ones. The article refers repeatedly to “mutual respect” of the two types of medicine, as well as the advantage of RM in being “holistic” (presumably meaning it uses spiritual cures as well as medical ones).

The conclusion, which was inevitable, is that modern medicine should collaborate with RM in curing patients. I quote from the paper (bolding is mine):

As identified in the interviews, it is imperative that a curriculum for healthcare professionals encompasses not only the theoretical concepts but also the practical applications of Rongoā Māori. This requires a willingness to move beyond a cursory acknowledgement of Indigenous practices within the medical education system to embedding it as a vital component of healthcare training. It was proposed that an effective educational initiative could take the form of an immersive wānanga on a marae, where tauira (students) and tākuta (doctors) would have the opportunity to learn directly from Rongoā practitioners in a setting that honours the roots of the mātauranga.28–30 In addition to this, incorporating placement based learning would further enable Western practitioners to observe the holistic model of care first hand. This aligns with the insights from the interviews where it was emphasized that Rongoā Māori is dynamic in its practice and does not follow a prescribed regimen.17 By having the opportunity to experience this personalized approach, healthcare professionals can better appreciate the value of nurturing this collaborative relationship.

. . .Recognizing the immense benefits that a holistic model of healthcare offers, there is an unequivocal need to navigate and dismantle the systemic barriers that Rongoā practitioners are faced with. This necessitates a concerted push to ensuring Indigenous healing practices are formally recognized within healthcare frameworks to facilitate a collaborative coexistence with Western medical practices. Moreover, establishing structural support to facilitate funding and infrastructure is an essential component to enhancing the capacity of the current healthcare system to address a diverse range of health needs and allowing this to thrive. It is paramount that this collaboration is guided by Rangatira and Tohunga in this field to ensure the delivery of health services is culturally congruent and responsive. The move towards an inclusive healthcare system that respects the diversity of cultures aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi’s principles, honouring Māori sovereignty and self-determination over their health.

“Te Teriti,” of course, is the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, which made England the sovereign government of New Zealand, conferred on the Māori British citizenship with all the attending rights, and allowed Māori to keep their lands and possessions. But there is nothing about health in that treaty at all, though of course anybody can “self determine” whether they get care, and whether they get RM care, modern medicine, or both. But the Treaty of Waitangi has assumed an almost sacred position in New Zealand culture, now viewed as mandating that all aspects of Māori culture and “ways of knowing” must be considered coequal in the country. Right now there’s a big battle about how far Māori “ways of knowing” are taught as coequal to science in schools, and the indigenous people seem to be winning that fight. This article is just a salvo in the battle for medicinal hegemony.

But before they win the Battle of Medicine, any RM-based cures, whether they be based on plants or supernaturalism, must be tested—and tested according to the best procedures of modern medicine, usually double-blind, randomized, and controlled trials. Without those trials, you simply can’t be sure that a treatment works. Saying “our tradition shows that it works” is not sufficient, nor is the claim “well, it worked for me!”  We all know the power of confirmation bias and of the placebo effect, and the kind of testing described above is designed to eliminate these effects. (As Richard Feynman famously said, “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”)

So no: there cannot be deep mutual respect between indigenous medicine and modern (aka “Western”) medicine until indigenous treatments are tested according to the standards of Western medicine. It will not work the other way around.

I am heartened that some RM practitioners recognize when herbs and superstition won’t work, and summarily hand their patients over to modern doctors.  But I don’t think RM should be integrated with modern medicine, or treated with great respect.  Until it’s proven efficacious, the null hypothesis should be that the untested treatments of RM comprise quackery

The continuing release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a major driver of global warming and climate change with increased extreme weather events. Researchers have now presented a method for effectively converting carbon dioxide into ethanol, which is then available as a sustainable raw material for chemical applications.

Nanoscale 3D transistors made from ultrathin semiconductor materials can operate more efficiently than silicon-based devices, leveraging quantum mechanical properties to potentially enable ultra-low-power AI applications.

Nanoscale 3D transistors made from ultrathin semiconductor materials can operate more efficiently than silicon-based devices, leveraging quantum mechanical properties to potentially enable ultra-low-power AI applications.