News Feeds

Floating solar photovoltaic panels could supply all the electricity needs of some countries, new research has shown. The researchers calculated the daily electrical output for floating photovoltaics (FPV) on nearly 68,000 lakes and reservoirs around the world, using available climate data for each location.

Nanoscale electron transfer (ET) in solids is fundamental to the development of multifunctional materials. However, ET in solids is not yet clearly understood. Now, researchers achieved a direct observation of solid-state ET through X-ray crystal analysis by fabricating a novel double-walled non-covalent crystalline nanotube, which can absorb electron donor molecules and maintain its crystalline structure during ET. This innovative approach can lead to the design of novel functional materials soon.

A newly described technology improves the clarity and speed of using two-photon microscopy to image synapses in the live brain.

Researchers uncover how the halogen bond can be exploited to direct sequential dynamics in the multi-functional crystals, offering crucial insights for developing ultrafast-response times for multilevel optical storage.

A perspective piece describes innovative strategies that significantly reduce both resource consumption and fossil fuel emissions.

A team used experiments and simulations to quantify and predict how knit fabric response can be programmed. By establishing a mathematical theory of knitted materials, the researchers hope that knitting -- and textiles in general -- can be incorporated into more engineering and manufacturing applications.

A team used experiments and simulations to quantify and predict how knit fabric response can be programmed. By establishing a mathematical theory of knitted materials, the researchers hope that knitting -- and textiles in general -- can be incorporated into more engineering and manufacturing applications.

Using artificial intelligence (AI), breast radiologists in Denmark have improved breast cancer screening performance and reduced the rate of false-positive findings.

Polarized light waves spin clockwise or counterclockwise as they travel, with one direction behaving differently than the other as it interacts with molecules. This directionality, called chirality or handedness, could provide a way to identify and sort specific molecules for use in biomedicine applications, but researchers have had limited control over the direction of the waves -- until now.

There are real benefits to a positive mindset, but the idea that we should always look on the bright side has gone too far. Research into toxic positivity can help restore balance

Among all scientific or medical journals, The Lancet is the most woke, and I’ve written about it several times before, once calling it the “medical Scientific American“. For a fuller account of its wokeness, which seems to be entirely the doing of editor Richard Horton, see this piece from the site The Daily Skeptic, which summarizes a lot of craziness in the journal.  The latest mishigass is the long (11-page set of “author guidelines” that you can read by clicking on the link below:

And right near the beginning, on page 2, you read the guidelines for using the terms “sex and gender”.  The bolding of the headers is theirs (I’ve put these in caps), but I’ve taken the liberty of putting in bold several select sections of the text.

REPORTING SEX-BASED AND GENDER-BASED ANALYSES 

Reporting guidance

For research involving or pertaining to humans, animals, model organisms, or eukaryotic cells, investigators should integrate sex-based and gender-based analyses into their research design according to evolving funder/sponsor requirements and best practices within a field. Authors should address their research’s sex and/or gender dimensions in their manuscript. In cases where they cannot, they should discuss this as a limitation to their research’s generalisability. With research involving cells and model organisms, researchers should use the term “sex”. With research involving humans, researchers should consider which terms best describe their data (see Definitions section below). Authors can refer to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) Guidelines and the SAGER guidelines checklist. They offer systematic approaches to the use and editorial review of sex and gender information in study design, data analysis, outcome reporting, and research interpretation. However, there is no single, universally agreed-upon set of guidelines for defining sex and gender or reporting sex-based and gender-based analyses.

DEFINITIONS

In human research, the term “sex” carries multiple definitions. It often refers to an umbrella term for a set of biological attributes associated with physical and physiological features (eg, chromosomal genotype, hormonal levels, internal and external anatomy). It can also signify a sex categorisation, most often designated at birth (“sex assigned at birth”) based on a newborn’s visible external anatomy. The term “gender” generally refers to socially constructed roles, behaviours, and identities of women, men, and gender-diverse people that occur in a historical and cultural context, and might vary across societies and over time. Gender influences how people view themselves and each other, how they behave and interact, and how power is distributed in society. Sex and gender are often incorrectly portrayed as binary (female/male or woman/man), concordant, and static. However, these constructs exist along a spectrum that includes additional sex categorisations and gender identities, such as people who are intersex/have differences of sex development (DSD), or identify as non-binary. In any given person, sex and gender might not align, and both can change. Sex and gender are not entirely discrete concepts and their definitions continue to evolve. Biology and society influence both, and many languages do not distinguish between them. Since the terms “sex” and “gender” can be ambiguous, authors should describe the methods they use to gather and report sex-related and/or gender-related data (eg, self-report or physician-report, specific biological attributes, current sex/gender, sex assigned at birth, etc) and discuss the potential limitations of those methods. This will enhance the research’s precision, rigor, and reproducibility, and avoid ambiguity or conflation of terms and the constructs to which they refer. Authors should use the term “sex assigned at birth” rather than “biological sex”, “birth sex” or “natal sex” as it is more accurate and inclusive. When ascertaining gender and sex, researchers should use a two-step process: (1) ask for gender identity allowing for multiple options and (2) if relevant to the research question, ask for sex assigned at birth. In addition to this defining guidance and the SAGER guidelines, you can find further information about reporting sex and gender in research studies on Elsevier’s diversity, equity, and inclusion in the publishing author guide available here.

Note that everything referred to here deals with HUMANS, as this is a medical journal. Note that the editors specify that “sex” has multiple definitions, but in so doing mix up the way sex is determined in humans (chromosomes carrying sex-determining genes), the way it is observed at birth (usually via genitalia), and the way it is defined (whether an individual has the apparatus for producing big, immobile gametes (“females”) or small, mobile gametes (“males”).

Biologists agree about the gametic definition of sex, which produces the sex binary that I’ve discussed so often, and that definition is not ambiguous. (Note that there are no cases of hermaphrodites in humans that are functional as both males and females, so even if you considere hermaphrodites to be members of a “third sex”, and I don’t, they don’t exist in our species.)

The editors also state twice that sex is “not static” and can change, but biological sex cannot change. What can change is gender—unless you use a hormonally-based definition of sex, which is not tenable and was used only to determine which group someone could compete in athletically. (The Olympics has now abandoned that approach.)

Finally, note that The Lancet recommends the term “sex assigned at birth,” which is simply wrong. Sex is not ASSIGNED at birth, it is observed at birth, but observed using characters like genitalia that are almost always concordant with biological sex but may not be infallible indicators of biological sex.  But regardless, sex is never “assigned” but exists.  The exceptions to the sex binary—individuals who are truly intersex—comprise about 0.018% of people, or about 1 in 5600. As I always say, “that’s as close to binary as you can come.”

Finally, why do the editorial guidelines imply that sex is not “static”?  There is only one reason I can think of, and that’s trying to push on the journal’s readers a gender-activist ideology.  If you truly believe that a transwoman is a woman in terms of biological sex, or a transman is a man in terms of biological sex, then yes, you can say that sex is malleable. But this is not accurate, for using the biological definitions of sex, a transwoman remains a biological man and a transman remains a biological women. (This of course is not to demean them or say that they’re somehow morally unequal to the rest of us; it’s just biology.) In the end, biological sex is not malleable but static.

As the Daily Skeptic notes at the end of its piece:

The Lancet’s guidelines on sex conclude by explicitly telling authors to use the term “sex assigned at birth” because it is “more accurate and inclusive”. I’m imagining a future Lancet article on Elizabeth Garrett Anderson: “She was the first person who’d been assigned ‘female’ at birth to qualify as a doctor in Britain, and she went on to found the first medical school to train people who’d been assigned ‘female’ at birth. All in all, she was a truly remarkable person who’d been assigned ‘female’ at birth.”

If this were some obscure Gender Studies periodical, it wouldn’t really matter. But we’re talking about the world’s second most cited medical journal. It’s read by doctors, surgeons, researchers and all the people to whom we’ve entrusted our health. How can they maintain our trust when they can’t seem to tell the difference between a man and a woman?

Indeed!

h/t: Luana

SpaceX is getting ready to launch its massive Starship rocket tomorrow and we have all the details on the mission

The Hubble Space Telescope has been shut down temporarily after one of its gyroscopes sent faulty telemetry readings back to Earth in late May. The venerable space-based observatory, which has been responsible for some of the most remarkable scientific advances of the last three decades, and stunning astrophotography that became a cultural mainstay, is in its thirty-fourth year of operation.

Hubble’s many and varied accomplishments have been achieved despite a plague of technical challenges over the years. Right out of the gate, it launched with blurry vision, due to an improperly polished lens. The problem was fixed with a space shuttle servicing mission in 1993, three years after launch. Four more servicing missions between 1997 and 2009 repaired and upgraded various parts of the spacecraft.

With the retirement of the space shuttle, the space telescope has now been operating for 15 years without servicing.

Pauses in science operations like the current one are common events for Hubble these days, occurring several times a year in recent times. Hubble’s gyroscopes are the usual culprit.

In fact, a faulty gyroscope previously caused a shutdown barely a month ago, in April 2024, and did the same back in November 2023. In every case, NASA was able to get the space telescope back up and running in short order.

That doesn’t mean there is no cause for concern. Gyroscopes help the telescope orient itself in space, keeping it stable to point at astronomical targets in the distant universe. The last servicing mission in 2009 left the telescope with six operational gyroscopes, but it has been running on three since 2018.

Hubble needs all three to operate at full capacity.

The end of a Hubble gyro reveals the hair-thin wires known as flex leads. They carry data and electricity inside the gyro, and their corrosion has caused gyroscope failures in the past. NASA

But having two wouldn’t necessarily be the end of the mission. It would reduce the area of the sky Hubble can observe, and slow down science operations.

Regardless of the outcome of the current troubles, NASA appears confident that this is not the end of the line, stating in a press release on May 31:

“NASA anticipates Hubble will continue making discoveries throughout this decade and possibly into the next, working with other observatories, such as the agency’s James Webb Space Telescope for the benefit of humanity.”

It doesn’t appear that that will be the last word on the subject, however. A press conference has been called for 4PM EDT on June 4, where NASA’s Director of the Astrophysics Division, Mark Clampin, and Hubble’s project Manager, Patrick Crouse, are expected to give an update on Hubble’s condition.

In the event that Hubble is reduced to two working gyroscopes, NASA recently indicated that it would likely put one of them into safe mode, relying on just one gyroscope and keeping the last in good working order for the future.

With just one gyroscope in operation, magnetometers, sun sensors, and star trackers will need to make up for the work that the other gyroscopes used to do. This takes more time, and would reduce Hubble’s working capacity by 20-25%. Hubble would no longer be able to look at objects closer to Earth than Mars, it would be less capable of catching transient events at a moment’s notice, and it would have to pause observations during parts of its orbit when the Moon and Earth get in the way of its star trackers.

But it would keep the mission alive longer, which is good news for astronomers and astronomy fans everywhere. There is even hope for a future Hubble repair mission, an idea proposed by Jared Isaacman, a private astronaut who will command the upcoming Polaris Dawn mission aboard SpaceX’s Dragon capsule. Currently, Dragon is incapable of docking with Hubble, leaving the idea firmly in the speculative stage for the moment.

As for more immediate plans, we’ll have to see what NASA has to say. Stay tuned for the press conference at 4PM June 4.

The post Hubble Pauses its Science Again appeared first on Universe Today.

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-based college admissions (which involved Harvard), and the likely illegality of hiring faculty based on race, colleges are beginning to ratchet back on DEI-based admissions and hiring. (Although nobody’s yet taken a college to court for requiring DEI statements, I’m betting that such statements would be banned for constituting compelled speech.)

Now that MIT banned DEI statements for faculty job applications, the other great school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard, has just followed suit. According to the two articles below, Harvard has banned diversity statements.

Previously, these statements were required by many private and public universities (the University of California was a notorious offender), and they nearly all required three components:  a summary of what you did to advance diversity before you applied for the job, a statement of your philosophy of diversity (and it had to be more than simply “I believe all students should be treated equally”) and, finally, a statement of how you’d increase diversity at the institution were you hired.

It’s clear that all of these initiatives meant racial diversity: if you wrote about “viewpoint diversity” or “socioeconomic diversity,” your application would most likely be tossed in the circular file. (This was in fact guaranteed by rubrics in some schools that evaluated candidates for their diversity statements before looking at the rest of their applications, giving numerical marks to the three parts above. If you didn’t exceed a threshold value for your DEI statement, your application was tossed, regardless of your academic merits.)

This story from the NYT report the deep-sixing of diversity statements at Harvard, though I suspect the statements are just going to be disguised, just as race-based admissions will remain, too, but now adopting application questions like, “Describe the challenges you have overcome before applying here.” This gives you every opportunity to mention race.

But I digress. Read the NYT article by clicking on the first headline, and the Harvard Crimson article by clicking on the second.

Here’s the NYT’s reportage, which is indented; my comments are flush left:

Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the university’s largest division, said on Monday that it would no longer require job applicants to submit diversity statements, the latest shift at the university after months of turmoil over its values and the role of equity initiatives in higher education.

Instead, the division will require only finalists for teaching jobs to describe their “efforts to strengthen academic communities” and discuss how they would promote a “learning environment in which students are encouraged to ask questions and share their ideas,” Nina Zipser, the dean for faculty affairs and planning, said in an email to colleagues.

. . . In a statement that echoed Dr. Zipser’s email, Harvard said the “updated approach” would acknowledge “the many ways faculty contribute to strengthening their academic communities, including efforts to increase diversity, inclusion, and belonging.” The university added that the decision amounted to “realigning the hiring process with longstanding criteria for tenured and tenure-track faculty positions.”

To me, the second and third paragraphs imply that this is just a workaround to maintain hiring based largely on race, but using the code words are “strengthening academic communities” including “efforts to increase diversity, inclusion, and belonging.”

One problem with DEI statements is that they purport to equate ethnic diversity with viewpoint diversity, and while that is true to a very limited extent, it also assumes, patronizingly, that different ethnic groups have different viewpoints but that within a group viewpoints are relatively homogenous.  If that were indeed the case, which it isn’t, then maximum viewpoint diversity would require equal (not proportional) number of students or faculty from each ethnic group. If you really wanted viewpoint diversity, you’d use a different set of criteria for both student admission and hiring: criteria based on viewpoints themselves, including ideological stands.

Here’s some pushback from a Harvard professor who apparently holds the false equation of ethnic diversity with viewpoint diversity:

Yet backers of the diversity statements at Harvard and elsewhere have framed them as contemporary methods to promote a range of views, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that ended race-conscious admissions.

“Furor over diversity statements in hiring is a red herring,” Edward J. Hall, a philosophy professor, wrote in The Harvard Crimson in April. He urged a redirection of anger toward “its proper target: not diversity statements themselves, but rather horribly distorted view that has taken hold about what they should contain.”

Well, I’m not sure what the “horribly distorted view” is, but the three components of a diversity statement mentioned above have been explicitly specified by several universities that use them.  And if you want to promote a range of views, are statements emphasizing racial diversity the best way? Why not ask people their views on various issues? Of course, if you’re looking for certain views, then you’re treading into the area of compelled speech. And, of course, most faculty, including those evaluating candidates, are liberals, which makes it hard for them to promote political or ideological diversity in the admissions process.

Finally, this statement disappointed me:

Last week, Harvard said that it would curb its statements about topics not “relevant to the core function of the university.” But it stopped short of fully embracing the notion of institutional neutrality, a principle promoted by the University of Chicago in which universities commit to staying out of political and social matters.

As I wrote recently, the Harvard statement on institutional neutrality, which is at this point only a proposal, is problematic in that its creators don’t seem to fully embrace neutrality but may be willing to make pronouncements about the “core function of a university” that really are statements more about politics or ideology. We really need to see Harvard’s final statement, which would have been much improved, I think, had Steve Pinker been put on the committee that wrote it.

Click to read the Crimson’s take:

The Crimson statement is pretty much the same as above, with Hall (now called “Ned” Hall), again defending the old-style statements:

Hall defended diversity statements as a way to understand how job candidates would educate classrooms of diverse students. But he criticized institutions’ expectations that candidates profess their dedication to “equity-based teaching” as a “horribly distorted view” of what such statements should contain.

Again, this distortion isn’t evident to me, and I’d like to know what Hall means when he says “classrooms of diverse students.”

Finally, Harvard waffles a bit again, leaving a little wiggle room for the traditional function of DEI statements:

Although language on DIB statements has been scrubbed from the appointment and promotion handbook, Zipser presented the changes as a way to balance facilitating diversity and inclusion with other priorities.

“This broader perspective acknowledges the many ways faculty contribute to strengthening their academic communities, including efforts to increase diversity, inclusion, and belonging,” she wrote.

(By the way, is there a difference between “inclusion” and “belonging”?)

The last bit of the second sentence is emphasized for a reason: this is the primary goal of the new statements, but Harvard can’t say it explicitly.  Now I may be being cynical here, and I hope so, but the admission of colleges that they’ll find workarounds for the Supreme Court;s decision makes me think that they’ll find related workarounds for faculty DEI statements.

I have less than a week’s worth of photos left, so please send me your good ones. Thanks!

Today we have part 4 of Ephraim Heller’s birding tour of Bhutan (part 1 is here, part 2 here, and part 3 here). His captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Here is installment #4 of photos from my April 2024 birding tour of Bhutan. We begin with a photo of a typical village home.

Today I post my photos of leafbirds (Chloropseidae). Descriptions of the species below are taken from Wikipedia. Leafbirds are found in the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia. Leafbirds are attractive birds and, combined with an attractive song and capacity to mimic sounds, they have become very popular cagebirds. The majority of the trade in this family is confined to Asia. Some populations have been locally depleted by the massive numbers captured for the trade. Leafbirds drop many body feathers when they are handled. This may confuse predators, especially snakes. We were lucky to be in Bhutan during the spring when many trees were blooming.

The golden-fronted leafbird (Chloropsis aurifrons):

The orange-bellied leafbird (Chloropsis hardwickii) is a bird native to the central and eastern Himalayas, Yunnan and northern parts of Southeast Asia. The scientific name commemorates the English naturalist Thomas Hardwicke. First, these males in beautiful but unidentified flowering trees:

These orange-bellied leafbird males are posing in a scarlet sterculia (Sterculia colorata) tree:

And now the orange-bellied leafbird females, also in a scarlet sterculia tree:

Equipment: All animal photos were shot using a Nikon Z9 camera and Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S lens. Landscape and architectural photos were shot either with a Nikon Z9 and Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S lens or with an iPhone 11.

You can see more of my photos here.

In recent years, China recalled pandas from three out of four US zoos that had the bears, signalling diplomatic tensions between the two countries – but this year China has offered two new pairs of giant pandas

Pulsars that emit radio waves “glitch” as they rotate – this seems to be caused by interruptions to swirling vortices inside these ultra-dense stars

The true history of a mythical place.

An AI that watches you while you eat can estimate how much you’re consuming, and could help people track their calorie intake

China says its Chang’e-6 spacecraft has gathered up soil and rocks from the far side of the moon and has lifted off from the surface, beginning a journey to bring the samples back to Earth. The probe’s payload represents the first lunar samples ever collected from the far side.

In a status update, the China National Space Administration said the Chang’e-6 ascent module successfully reached lunar orbit, where it’s due to transfer the samples to a re-entry capsule hooked up to the probe’s orbiter.

If all goes according to plan, the orbiter will leave the moon’s orbit, head back to Earth and drop off the re-entry capsule for retrieval in China’s Inner Mongolia region sometime around June 25.

This mosaic of color images was taken by the panoramic camera on China’s Chang’e-6 lander, looking toward the north. One of the lander’s legs is seen in the foreground of the fisheye view, and the upper part of the image shows Chaffee Crater, north of the landing site. (Credit: CLEP / CNSA)

Chang’e-6 was launched on its mission on May 3 and landed in the South Pole-Aitken Basin region on June 2 (Beijing time). Using its drill and its robotic arm, the lander collected as much as 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds) of rocks and soil from the landing site. Meanwhile, a mini-rover rolled out onto the surface and took pictures looking back at the lander.

CNSA said scientific readings were also collected, using a lunar mineral spectrometer, a negative ion analyzer, a radon detector and a lunar structure detector. An Italian-built retro-reflector, installed on the top of the lander, served as a position control point that can be used for distance measurement. Data and telemetry were transmitted back to Earth via China’s Queqiao-2 relay satellite.

“After the collection was completed, the five-star red flag carried by the Chang’e-6 lander was successfully unfolded on the far side of the moon,” CNSA said. “This is the first time that China has independently and dynamically displayed the national flag on the far side of the moon, The flag is made of new composite materials and special technology.”

Here's a taste of the sampling action from the past couple of days, since the Chang'e-6 landing late on June 1 UTC. pic.twitter.com/jw2DlPToVf

— Andrew Jones (@AJ_FI) June 4, 2024

The space agency said the Chang’e-6 ascent module lifted off at 7:38 a.m. June 4 Beijing time (11:38 p.m. GMT June 3) and fired its engine for about six minutes to reach lunar orbit. After the ascent module’s rendezvous with the orbiter and the transfer of the samples, the orbiter and the re-entry capsule will continue to circle the moon, “waiting for the right time to return for the lunar-to-Earth transfer,” CNSA said. The flight plan follows the model that was set in 2020 when Chang’e-5 brought back samples from the moon’s Earth-facing side.

The findings from Chang’e-6 could provide new insights about the moon’s south polar region. That area is of particular interest because it’s thought to contain water ice reserves that could support lunar settlement. NASA is targeting the south polar region for its upcoming VIPER rover mission — and for a crewed lunar landing that’s currently scheduled for 2026. China’s space program has its own ambitions for increased lunar exploration — including another robotic mission planned for 2026, known as Chang’e-7, and a crewed landing that it’s aiming to accomplish by 2030.

The lunar surface has been a popular destination for robotic probes over the past year or so. The successful missions include India’s Chandrayaan-3, Japan’s SLIM and Intuitive Machines’ Odysseus. Russia’s Luna 25, iSpace’s Hakuto-R and Astrobotic’s Peregrine were among the not-so-successful missions.

The post Chinese Probe Collects Moon Samples and Heads for Earth appeared first on Universe Today.