Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Combining AI and Crispr Will Be Transformational

News Feed
Tuesday, November 26, 2024

In 2025, we will see AI and machine learning begin to amplify the impact of Crispr genome editing in medicine, agriculture, climate change, and the basic research that underpins these fields. It’s worth saying upfront that the field of AI is awash with big promises like this. With any major new technological advance there is always a hype cycle, and we are in one now. In many cases, the benefits of AI lie some years in the future, but in genomics and life science research we are seeing real impacts right now.In my field, Crispr gene editing and genomics more broadly, we often deal with enormous datasets—or, in many cases, we can’t deal with them properly because we simply don’t have the tools or the time. Supercomputers can take weeks to months to analyze subsets of data for a given question, so we have to be highly selective about which questions we choose to ask. AI and machine learning are already removing these limitations, and we are using AI tools to quickly search and make discoveries in our large genomic datasets.Science NewsletterYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Delivered on Wednesdays.In my lab, we recently used AI tools to help us find small gene-editing proteins that had been sitting undiscovered in public genome databases because we simply didn’t have the ability to crunch all of the data that we’ve collected. A group at the Innovative Genomics Institute, the research institute that I founded 10 years ago at UC Berkeley, recently joined forces with members of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (EECS) and Center for Computational Biology, and developed a way to use a large language model, akin to what many of the popular chatbots use, to predict new functional RNA molecules that have greater heat tolerance compared to natural sequences. Imagine what else is waiting to be discovered in the massive genome and structural databases scientists have collectively built over the recent decades.These types of discoveries have real-world applications. For the two examples above, smaller genome editors can help with more efficient delivery of therapies into cells, and predicting heat-stable RNA molecules will help improve biomanufacturing processes that generate medicines and other valuable products. In health and drug development, we have recently seen the approval of the first Crispr-based therapy for sickle cell disease, and there are around 7,000 other genetic diseases that are waiting for a similar therapy. AI can help accelerate the process of development by predicting the best editing targets, maximizing Crispr's precision and efficiency, and reducing off-target effects. In agriculture, AI-informed Crispr advancements promise to create more resilient, productive, and nutritious crops, ensuring greater food security and reducing the time to market by helping researchers focus on the most fruitful approaches. In climate, AI and Crispr could open up new solutions for improving natural carbon capture and environmental sustainability.It's still early days, but the potential to appropriately harness the joint power of AI and Crispr, arguably the two most profound technologies of our time, is clear and exciting—and it’s already started.

The genome-editing technology can be supercharged by artificial intelligence—and the results are already being felt.

In 2025, we will see AI and machine learning begin to amplify the impact of Crispr genome editing in medicine, agriculture, climate change, and the basic research that underpins these fields. It’s worth saying upfront that the field of AI is awash with big promises like this. With any major new technological advance there is always a hype cycle, and we are in one now. In many cases, the benefits of AI lie some years in the future, but in genomics and life science research we are seeing real impacts right now.

In my field, Crispr gene editing and genomics more broadly, we often deal with enormous datasets—or, in many cases, we can’t deal with them properly because we simply don’t have the tools or the time. Supercomputers can take weeks to months to analyze subsets of data for a given question, so we have to be highly selective about which questions we choose to ask. AI and machine learning are already removing these limitations, and we are using AI tools to quickly search and make discoveries in our large genomic datasets.

Science Newsletter

Your weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Delivered on Wednesdays.

In my lab, we recently used AI tools to help us find small gene-editing proteins that had been sitting undiscovered in public genome databases because we simply didn’t have the ability to crunch all of the data that we’ve collected. A group at the Innovative Genomics Institute, the research institute that I founded 10 years ago at UC Berkeley, recently joined forces with members of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (EECS) and Center for Computational Biology, and developed a way to use a large language model, akin to what many of the popular chatbots use, to predict new functional RNA molecules that have greater heat tolerance compared to natural sequences. Imagine what else is waiting to be discovered in the massive genome and structural databases scientists have collectively built over the recent decades.

These types of discoveries have real-world applications. For the two examples above, smaller genome editors can help with more efficient delivery of therapies into cells, and predicting heat-stable RNA molecules will help improve biomanufacturing processes that generate medicines and other valuable products. In health and drug development, we have recently seen the approval of the first Crispr-based therapy for sickle cell disease, and there are around 7,000 other genetic diseases that are waiting for a similar therapy. AI can help accelerate the process of development by predicting the best editing targets, maximizing Crispr's precision and efficiency, and reducing off-target effects. In agriculture, AI-informed Crispr advancements promise to create more resilient, productive, and nutritious crops, ensuring greater food security and reducing the time to market by helping researchers focus on the most fruitful approaches. In climate, AI and Crispr could open up new solutions for improving natural carbon capture and environmental sustainability.

It's still early days, but the potential to appropriately harness the joint power of AI and Crispr, arguably the two most profound technologies of our time, is clear and exciting—and it’s already started.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Lack of fluoride, dentists leaves rural America at risk

Two recent polls have found that the largest share of Americans support fluoridation, but a sizable minority does not. Utah just became the first state to ban it.

In the wooded highlands of northern Arkansas, where small towns have few dentists, water officials who serve more than 20,000 people have for more than a decade openly defied state law by refusing to add fluoride to the drinking water.For its refusal, the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority has received hundreds of state fines amounting to about $130,000, which are stuffed in a cardboard box and left unpaid, said Andy Anderson, who is opposed to fluoridation and has led the water system for nearly two decades. This Ozark region is among hundreds of rural American communities that face a one-two punch to oral health: a dire shortage of dentists and a lack of fluoridated drinking water, which is widely viewed among dentists as one of the most effective tools to prevent tooth decay. But as the anti-fluoride movement builds unprecedented momentum, it may turn out that the Ozarks were not behind the times after all.“We will eventually win,” Anderson said. “We will be vindicated.”Fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, keeps teeth strong when added to drinking water, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association. But the anti-fluoride movement has been energized since a government report last summer found a possible link between lower IQ in children and consuming amounts of fluoride that are higher than what is recommended in American drinking water. asaDozens of communities have decided to stop fluoridating in recent months, and state officials in Florida and Texas have urged their water systems to do the same. Last week, Utah became the first state to ban it in tap water.Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long espoused fringe health theories, has called fluoride an “industrial waste” and “dangerous neurotoxin” and said the Trump administration will recommend it be removed from all public drinking water.Separately, Republican efforts to extend tax cuts and shrink federal spending may squeeze Medicaid, which could deepen existing shortages of dentists in rural areas where many residents depend on the federal insurance program for whatever dental care they can find.Dental experts warn that the simultaneous erosion of Medicaid and fluoridation could exacerbate a crisis of rural oral health and reverse decades of progress against tooth decay, particularly for children and those who rarely see a dentist.“If you have folks with little access to professional care and no access to water fluoridation,” said Steven Levy, a dentist and leading fluoride researcher at the University of Iowa, “then they are missing two of the big pillars of how to keep healthy for a lifetime.”Many already are.James Flanagin, the only dentist in the tiny Arkansas town of Leslie, treats patients in the back of an antique store and, with hand-painted lettering, advertises his clinic and himself as a “pretty good dentist.” (Katie Adkins for KFF Health News)Katie AdkinsOverlapping ‘dental deserts’ and fluoride-free zonesNearly 25 million Americans live in areas without enough dentists — more than twice as many as prior estimates by the federal government — according to a recent study from Harvard University that measured U.S. “dental deserts” with more depth and precision than before.Hawazin Elani, a Harvard dentist and epidemiologist who co-authored the study, found that many shortage areas are rural and poor, and depend heavily on Medicaid. But many dentists do not accept Medicaid because payments can be low, Elani said.The ADA has estimated that only a third of dentists treat patients on Medicaid.“I suspect this situation is much worse for Medicaid beneficiaries,” Elani said. “If you have Medicaid and your nearest dentists do not accept it, then you will likely have to go to the third, or fourth, or the fifth.”The Harvard study identified over 780 counties where more than half of the residents live in a shortage area. Of those counties, at least 230 also have mostly or completely unfluoridated public drinking water, according to a KFF analysis of fluoride data published by the CDC. That means people in these areas who can’t find a dentist also do not get protection for their teeth from their tap water.A Flourish data visualizationThe KFF Health News analysis does not cover the entire nation because it does not include private wells and 13 states do not submit fluoride data to the CDC. But among those that do, most counties with a shortage of dentists and unfluoridated water are in the south-central U.S., in a cluster that stretches from Texas to the Florida Panhandle and up into Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.In the center of that cluster is the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority, which serves the Arkansas counties of Boone, Marion, Newton, and Searcy. It has refused to add fluoride ever since Arkansas enacted a statewide mandate in 2011. After weekly fines began in 2016, the water system unsuccessfully challenged the fluoride mandate in state court, then lost again on appeal.Anderson, who has chaired the water system’s board since 2007, said he would like to challenge the fluoride mandate in court again and would argue the case himself if necessary. In a phone interview, Anderson said he believes that fluoride can hamper the brain and body to the point of making people “get fat and lazy.”“So if you go out in the streets these days, walk down the streets, you’ll see lots of fat people wearing their pajamas out in public,” he said.Nearby in the tiny, no-stoplight community of Leslie, Arkansas, which gets water from the Ozark system, the only dentist in town operates out of a one-man clinic tucked in the back of an antique store. Hand-painted lettering on the store window advertises a “pretty good dentist.”James Flanagin, a third-generation dentist who opened this clinic three years ago, said he was drawn to Leslie by the quaint charms and friendly smiles of small-town life. But those same smiles also reveal the unmistakable consequences of refusing to fluoridate, he said.“There is no doubt that there is more dental decay here than there would otherwise be,” he said. “You are going to have more decay if your water is not fluoridated. That’s just a fact.”Flanagin, the only dentist in the tiny Ozark town of Leslie, Arkansas, runs his clinic in the back of an antique store. He says the town suffers from high levels of tooth decay because the local drinking water is not fluoridated.(Katie Adkins for KFF Health News)Fluoride seen as a great public health achievementFluoride was first added to public water in an American city in 1945 and spread to half of the U.S. population by 1980, according to the CDC. Because of “the dramatic decline” in cavities that followed, in 1999 the CDC dubbed fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.Currently more than 70% of the U.S. population on public water systems get fluoridated water, with a recommended concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter, or about three drops in a 55-gallon barrel, according to the CDC.Fluoride is also present in modern toothpaste, mouthwash, dental varnish, and some food and drinks — like raisins, potatoes, oatmeal, coffee, and black tea. But several dental experts said these products do not reliably reach as many low-income families as drinking water, which has an additional benefit over toothpaste of strengthening children’s teeth from within as they grow.Two recent polls have found that the largest share of Americans support fluoridation, but a sizable minority does not. Polls from Axios/Ipsos and AP-NORC found that 48% and 40% of respondents wanted to keep fluoride in public water supplies, while 29% and 26% supported its removal.Chelsea Fosse, an expert on oral health policy at the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, said she worried that misguided fears of fluoride would cause many people to stop using fluoridated toothpaste and varnish just as Medicaid cuts made it harder to see a dentist.The combination, she said, could be “devastating.”“It will be visibly apparent what this does to the prevalence of tooth decay,” Fosse said. “If we get rid of water fluoridation, if we make Medicaid cuts, and if we don’t support providers in locating and serving the highest-need populations, I truly don’t know what we will do.”Multiple peer-reviewed studies have shown what ending water fluoridation could look like. In the past few years, studies of cities in Alaska and Canada have shown that communities that stopped fluoridation saw significant increases in children’s cavities when compared with similar cities that did not. A 2024 study from Israel reported a “two-fold increase” in dental treatments for kids within five years after the country stopped fluoridating in 2014.Despite the benefits of fluoridation, it has been fiercely opposed by some since its inception, said Catherine Hayes, a Harvard dental expert who advises the American Dental Association on fluoride and has studied its use for three decades.Fluoridation was initially smeared as a communist plot against America, Hayes said, and then later fears arose of possible links to cancer, which were refuted through extensive scientific research. In the ‘80s, hysteria fueled fears of fluoride causing AIDS, which was “ludicrous,” Hayes said.More recently, the anti-fluoride movement seized on international research that suggests high levels of fluoride can hinder children’s brain development and has been boosted by high-profile legal and political victories.Last August, a hotly debated report from the National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program found “with moderate confidence” that exposure to levels of fluoride that are higher than what is present in American drinking water is associated with lower IQ in children. The report was based on an analysis of 74 studies conducted in other countries, most of which were considered “low quality” and involved exposure of at least 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water — or more than twice the U.S. recommendation — according to the program.The following month, in a long-simmering lawsuit filed by fluoride opponents, a federal judge in California said the possible link between fluoride and lowered IQ was too risky to ignore, then ordered the federal Environmental Protection Agency to take nonspecified steps to lower that risk. The EPA started to appeal this ruling in the final days of the Biden administration, but the Trump administration could reverse course.The EPA and Department of Justice declined to comment. The White House and Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions about fluoride.Despite the National Toxicology Program’s report, Hayes said, no association has been shown to date between lowered IQ and the amount of fluoride actually present in most Americans’ water. The court ruling may prompt additional research conducted in the U.S., Hayes said, which she hoped would finally put the campaign against fluoride to rest.“It’s one of the great mysteries of my career, what sustains it,” Hayes said. “What concerns me is that there’s some belief amongst some members of the public — and some of our policymakers — that there is some truth to this.”Not all experts were so dismissive of the toxicology program’s report. Bruce Lanphear, a children’s health researcher at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, published an editorial in January that said the findings should prompt health organizations “to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”“The people who are proposing fluoridation need to now prove it’s safe,” Lanphear told NPR in January. “That’s what this study does. It shifts the burden of proof — or it should.”Cities and states rethink fluorideAt least 14 states so far this year have considered or are considering bills that would lift fluoride mandates or prohibit fluoride in drinking water altogether. In February, Utah lawmakers passed the nation’s first ban, which Republican Gov. Spencer Cox told ABC4 Utah he intends to sign. And both Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller have called for their respective states to end fluoridation.“I don’t want Big Brother telling me what to do,” Miller told The Dallas Morning News in February. “Government has forced this on us for too long.”Additionally, dozens of cities and counties have decided to stop fluoridation in the past six months — including at least 16 communities in Florida with a combined population of more than 1.6 million — according to news reports and the Fluoride Action Network, an anti-fluoride group.Stuart Cooper, executive director of that group, said the movement’s unprecedented momentum would be further supercharged if Kennedy and the Trump administration follow through on a recommendation against fluoride.Cooper predicted that most U.S. communities will have stopped fluoridating within years.“I think what you are seeing in Florida, where every community is falling like dominoes, is going to now happen in the United States,” he said. “I think we’re seeing the absolute end of it.”If Cooper’s prediction is right, Hayes said, widespread decay would be visible within years. Kids’ teeth will rot in their mouths, she said, even though “we know how to completely prevent it.”“It’s unnecessary pain and suffering,” Hayes said. “If you go into any children’s hospital across this country, you’ll see a waiting list of kids to get into the operating room to get their teeth fixed because they have severe decay because they haven’t had access to either fluoridated water or other types of fluoride. Unfortunately, that’s just going to get worse.”Methodology: How We CountedThis KFF Health News article identifies communities with an elevated risk of tooth decay by combining data on areas with dentist shortages and unfluoridated drinking water. Our analysis merged Harvard University research on dentist-shortage areas with large datasets on public water systems published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The Harvard research determined that nearly 25 million Americans live in dentist-shortage areas that span much of rural America. The CDC data details the populations served and fluoridation status of more than 38,000 public water systems in 37 states. We classified counties as having elevated risk of tooth decay if they met three criteria:--More than half of the residents live in a dentist-shortage area identified by Harvard.--The number of people receiving unfluoridated water from water systems based in that county amounts to more than half of the county’s population.--The number of people receiving unfluoridated water from water systems based in that county amounts to at least half of the total population of all water systems based in that county, even if those systems reached beyond the county borders, which many do.Our analysis identified approximately 230 counties that meet these criteria, meaning they have both a dire shortage of dentists and largely unfluoridated drinking water.But this total is certainly an undercount. Thirteen states do not report water system data to the CDC, and the agency data does not include private wells, most of which are unfluoridated.KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this article.

World's Glaciers Are Losing Record Ice as Global Temperatures Climb, U.N. Says

By Alexander Villegas(Reuters) - Glaciers around the globe are disappearing faster than ever, with the last three-year period seeing the largest...

(Reuters) - Glaciers around the globe are disappearing faster than ever, with the last three-year period seeing the largest glacial mass loss on record, according to a UNESCO report released on Friday. The 9,000 gigatons of ice lost from glaciers since 1975 are roughly equivalent to "an ice block the size of Germany with the thickness of 25 meters," Michael Zemp, director of the Switzerland-based World Glacier Monitoring Service, said during a press conference announcing the report at the UN headquarters in Geneva.The dramatic ice loss, from the Arctic to the Alps, from South America to the Tibetan Plateau, is expected to accelerate as climate change, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, pushes global temperatures higher. This would likely exacerbate economic, environmental and social problems across the world as sea levels rise and these key water sources dwindle.  The report coincides with a UNESCO summit in Paris marking the first World Day for Glaciers, urging global action to protect glaciers around the world.Zemp said that five of the last six years registered the largest losses, with glaciers losing 450 gigatons of mass in 2024 alone.The accelerated loss has made mountain glaciers one of the largest contributors to sea level rise, putting millions at risk of devastating floods and damaging water routes that billions of people depend on for hydroelectric energy and agriculture.Stefan Uhlenbrook, the director of water and cryosphere at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), said that about 275,000 glaciers remain globally which, along with the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, comprise about 70% of the world's freshwater."We need to advance our scientific knowledge, we need to advance through better observing systems, through better forecasts and better early warning systems for the planet and the people," Uhlenbrook said.About 1.1 billion people live in mountain communities, which suffer the most immediate impacts of glacier loss, due to the increasing risks with natural hazards and unreliable water sources. The remote locations and difficult terrains also make cheap fixes difficult to come by.Rising temperatures are expected to worsen droughts in areas that rely on snowpack for freshwater, while increasing both the severity and frequency of hazards like avalanches, landslides, flash floods and glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs).One Peruvian farmer living downstream of a retreating glacier has taken the issue to court, suing German energy giant RWE for a portion of the glacial lake's flood defenses proportionate to its historic global emissions."The changes we see in the field are literally heartbreaking," glaciologist Heidi Sevestre, secretariat at the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, told Reuters outside the UNESCO headquarters in Paris on Wednesday.    "Things in certain regions are happening actually much faster than we anticipated," Sevestre added, noting a recent trip to the Rwenzori Mountains, located in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in East Africa, where glaciers are now expected to disappear by 2030.Sevestre has worked with the region's indigenous Bakonzo communities who believe a deity called Kitasamba lives in the glaciers."Can you imagine the deep spiritual connection, this strong attachment they have towards the glaciers and what it might mean for them that their glaciers are disappearing?" Sevestre said.Glacial melt in East Africa has led to increased local conflicts over water, according to the new UNESCO report, and while the impact on a global scale is minimal, the trickle of melting glaciers around the world is having a compounding impact.    Between 2000 and 2023, melting mountain glaciers have caused 18 millimeters of global sea level rise, about 1 mm per year. Every millimeter can expose up to 300,000 people to annual flooding, according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service. "Billions of people are connected to glaciers, whether they know it or not, and that will require billions of people to protect them," Sevestre said.(Reporting by Alexander Villegas; Editing by Gloria Dickie and Aurora Ellis)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Controversy erupts over claims Microsoft invented a new state of matter

This discovery could change the computing world entirely. But many are skeptical of their claims

The matter making up the world around us has long-since been organized into three neat categories: solids, liquids and gases. But last month, Microsoft announced that it had allegedly discovered another state of matter originally theorized to exist in 1937.  This new state of matter called the Majorana zero mode is made up of quasiparticles, which act as their own particle and antiparticle. The idea is that the Majorana zero mode could be used to build a quantum computer, which could help scientists answer complex questions that standard computers are not capable of solving, with implications for medicine, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. In late February, Sen. Ted Cruz presented Microsoft’s new computer chip at a congressional hearing, saying, “Technologies like this new chip I hold in the palm of my hand, the Majorana 1 quantum chip, are unlocking a new era of computing that will transform industries from health care to energy, solving problems that today's computers simply cannot.” However, Microsoft’s announcement, claiming a “breakthrough in quantum computing,” was met with skepticism from some physicists in the field. Proving that this form of quantum computing can work requires first demonstrating the existence of Majorana quasiparticles, measuring what the Majorana particles are doing, and creating something called a topological qubit used to store quantum information. But some say that not all of the data necessary to prove this has been included in the research paper published in Nature, on which this announcement is based. And due to a fraught history of similar claims from the company being disputed and ultimately rescinded, some are extra wary of the results. Although the paper describes the structure and architecture that could potentially be used to build a topological quantum computer, it’s not clear if all of these ingredients can be put together to actually construct the system, said Dr. Jelena Klinovaj, a theoretical physicist at the University of Basel who studies topology of quantum.  "Discourse and skepticism are all part of the scientific process." “In this Microsoft paper, they cannot show that they can really operate it,” Klinovaj told Salon in a video call. “They did not show in a peer-reviewed publication that it is really a topological state because some objects could have exactly the same properties in experiments.” Despite Microsoft’s announcement, one of the peer-review files accompanying the Nature paper also states, “The editorial team wishes to point out that the results in this manuscript do not represent evidence for the presence of Majorana zero modes in the reported devices.” Dr. Chetan Nayak, Microsoft Station Q Director, said in an email that prior work published in Nature “confirms the existence of [Majorana zero modes] and demonstrates the basic operation needed for a topological qubit.” “Since then, we have fabricated and tested topological qubits, building on this prior work and further confirming the existence of [Majorana zero modes],” Nayak wrote. A Microsoft spokesperson said in an email that the company has made significant progress since the paper was submitted and has been able to demonstrate “the basic native operations in a measurement-based topological qubit.” Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. “Discourse and skepticism are all part of the scientific process,” they wrote. “That is why we are dedicated to the continued open publication of our research, so that everyone can build on what others have discovered and learned.” It’s not the first time there has been controversy in this research field. In 2018, a study partially funded by Microsoft but conducted by an independent university reported that they had detected the presence of Majorana zero-modes. Later, it was retracted by Nature, the journal that published it after a report from independent experts put the findings under more intense scrutiny. In the report, four physicists not involved in the research concluded that it did not appear that the authors had intentionally misrepresented the data, but instead seemed to be “caught up in the excitement of the moment.” Establishing the existence of these particles is extremely complex in part because disorder in the device can create signals that mimic these quasiparticles when they are not actually there.  "Me and many other experts do not think they have demonstrated even the basic science behind it." Modern computers in use today are encoded in bits, which can either be in a zero state (no current flowing through them), or a one state (current flowing.) These bits work together to send information and signals that communicate with the computer, powering everything from cell phones to video games. Companies like Google, IBM and Amazon have invested in designing another form of quantum computer that uses chips built with “qubits,” or quantum bits. Qubits can exist in both zero and one states at the same time due to a phenomenon called superposition.  However, qubits are subject to external noise from the environment that can affect their performance, said Dr. Paolo Molignini, a researcher in theoretical quantum physics at Stockholm University. “Because qubits are in a superposition of zero and one, they are very prone to errors and they are very prone to what is called decoherence, which means there could be noise, thermal fluctuations or many things that can collapse the state of the qubits,” Molignini told Salon in a video call. “Then you basically lose all of the information that you were encoding.” It’s necessary to correct errors that creep in with this noise, and in order to do so, you need to add many more qubits to the system. Within the last six months, Amazon announced it had built a computer chip that used five qubits, and Google announced that it had built one with 105 qubits. In December, Google said its quantum computer could perform a calculation that a standard computer could complete in 10 septillion years — a period far longer than the age of the universe — in just under five minutes.  However, a general-purpose computer would require billions of qubits, so these approaches are still a far cry from having practical applications, said Dr. Patrick Lee, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who co-authored the report leading to the 2018 Nature paper's retraction. Microsoft is taking a different approach to quantum computing by trying to develop  a topological qubit, which has the ability to store information in multiple places at once. Topological qubits exist within the Majorana zero states and are appealing because they can theoretically offer greater protection against environmental noise that destroys information within a quantum system. Think of it like an arrow, where the arrowhead holds a portion of the information and the arrow tail holds the rest, Lee said. Distributing information across space like this is called topological protection. “If you are able to put them far apart from each other, then you have a chance of maintaining the identity of the arrow even if it is subject to noise,” Lee told Salon in a phone interview. “The idea is that if the noise affects the head, it doesn’t kill the arrow and if it affects only the tail it doesn’t kill your arrow. It has to affect both sides simultaneously to kill your arrow, and that is very unlikely if you are able to put them apart.” In a Microsoft press release announcing the Majorana 1, the company says the chip could calculate catalysts that break down plastic pollutants and “lead to self-healing materials that repair cracks in bridges or airplane parts, shattered phone screens or scratched car doors.” “Enzymes, a kind of biological catalyst, could be harnessed more effectively in healthcare and agriculture, thanks to accurate calculations about their behavior that only quantum computing can provide,” it states. “This could lead to breakthroughs helping to eradicate global hunger: boosting soil fertility to increase yields or promoting sustainable growth of foods in harsh climates.” Yet Dr. Sergey Frolov, an associate professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh whose analysis of the 2018 study data led to its subsequent investigation and retraction, argues that the paper does not demonstrate the existence of a topological qubit which is critical in establishing the quantum computing system they say they are creating. “The long story short is that me and many other experts do not think they have demonstrated even the basic science behind it, let alone the leap into technology of scaling up, production, etc.,” Frolov told Salon in a phone interview.  Nevertheless, Lee believes that even if the data doesn’t entirely prove that topological qubits exist in the Majorana zero-state, it still represents a scientific advancement. But he noted that several important issues need to be solved before it has practical implications. For one, the coherence time of these particles — or how long they can exist without being affected by environmental noise — is still very short, he explained. “They make a measurement, come back, and the qubit has changed, so you have lost your coherence,” Lee said. “With this very short time, you cannot do anything with it.” It could be that some form of engineering is necessary to incrementally improve the coherence of the qubits to solve this problem, Lee said. Or, it could require other major scientific breakthroughs that change the way we think about them, he said.  Nayak said the company plans to present these findings at the American Physical Society’s Global Physics Summit later this month. But it’s yet to be seen if all of the pieces necessary to make this form of quantum computer will come together into something with practical implications. “As far as the press announcement that they have a topological qubit, I would say most scientists would dispute that,” Lee said. “They are far from having a working qubit.” In the meantime, some are concerned that the back and forth on the topic within the field could cast a shadow on future developments in topological quantum computing. “I just wish they were a bit more careful with their claims because I fear that if they don’t measure up to what they are saying, there might be a backlash at some point where people say, ‘You promised us all these fancy things and where are they now?’” Molignini said. “That might damage the entire quantum community, not just themselves.” Read more about technology

Rain gave Australia’s environment a fourth year of reprieve in 2024 – but this masks deepening problems: report

Favourable short-term conditions kept Australia’s environmental scorecard high in 2024 – but long-term problems are worsening.

Lauren Henderson/ShutterstockFor the fourth year running, the condition of Australia’s environment has been relatively good overall. Our national environment scorecard released today gives 2024 a mark of 7.7 out of 10. You might wonder how this can be. After all, climate change is intensifying and threatened species are still in decline. The main reason: good rainfall partly offset the impact of global warming. In many parts of Australia, rainfall, soil water and river flows were well above average, there were fewer large bushfires, and vegetation continued to grow. Overall, conditions were above average in the wetter north and east of Australia, although parts of the south and west were very dry. But this is no cause for complacency. Australia’s environment remains under intense pressure. Favourable conditions have simply offered a welcome but temporary reprieve. As a nation we must grasp the opportunity now to implement lasting solutions before the next cycle of drought and fire comes around. This snapshot shows the environmental score for a range of indicators in Australia. Australia’s Environment Report 2024, CC BY-NC-ND Preparing the national scorecard For the tenth year running, we have trawled through a huge amount of data from satellites, weather and water measuring stations, and ecological surveys. We gathered information about climate change, oceans, people, weather, water, soils, plants, fire and biodiversity. Then we analysed the data and summarised it all in a report that includes an overall score for the environment. This score (between zero and ten) gives a relative measure of how favourable conditions were for nature, agriculture and our way of life over the past year in comparison to all years since 2000. This is the period we have reliable records for. While it is a national report, conditions vary enormously between regions and so we also prepare regional scorecards. You can download the scorecard for your region at our website. Different jurisdictions had quite different environmental scores in 2024. Australia’s Environment Report 2024, CC BY-NC-ND Welcome news, but alarming trends continue Globally, 2024 was the world’s hottest year on record. It was Australia’s second hottest year, with the record warmest sea surface temperatures. As a result, the Great Barrier Reef experienced its fifth mass bleaching event since 2016, while Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia also experienced bleaching. Yet bushfire activity was low despite high temperatures, thanks to regular rainfall. National rainfall was 18% above average, improving soil condition and increasing tree canopy cover. States such as New South Wales saw notable improvements in environmental conditions, while conditions also improved somewhat in Western Australia. Others experienced declines, particularly South Australia, Victoria, and Tasmania. These regional contrasts were largely driven by rainfall – good rains can hide some underlying environmental degradation trends. Favourable weather conditions bumped up the nation’s score this year, rather than sustained environmental improvements. Mapping the environmental condition score to local government areas reveals poor (red) conditions in the west and the south, with good scores (blue) in the east and north. White is neutral. Australia’s Environment Explorer, CC BY-NC-ND A temporary respite? The past four years show Australia’s environment is capable of bouncing back from drought and fire when conditions are right. But the global climate crisis continues to escalate, and Australia remains highly vulnerable. Rising sea levels, more extreme weather and fire events continue to threaten our environment and livelihoods. The consequences of extreme events can persist for many years, like we have seen for the Black Summer of 2019–20. To play our part in limiting global warming, Australia needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Progress is stalling: last year, national emissions fell slightly (0.6%) below 2023 levels but were still higher than in 2022. Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions per person remain among the highest in the world. Biodiversity loss remains an urgent issue. The national threatened species list grew by 41 species in 2024. While this figure is much lower than the record of 130 species added in 2023, it remains well above the long-term average of 25 species added per year. More than half of the newly listed or uplisted species were directly affected by the Black Summer fires. Meanwhile, habitat destruction and invasive species continue to put pressure on native ecosystems and species. The Threatened Species Index captures data from long-term threatened species monitoring. The index is updated annually but with a three-year lag due largely to delays in data processing and sharing. This means the 2024 index includes data up to 2021. The index revealed the abundance of threatened birds, mammals, plants, and frogs has fallen an average of 58% since 2000. But there may be some good news. Between 2020 and 2021, the overall index increased slightly (2%) suggesting the decline has stabilised and some recovery is evident across species groups. We’ll need further monitoring to confirm whether this represents a lasting turnaround or a temporary pause in declines. This graph shows the relative abundance of different categories of species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act since 2000, as collated by the Threatened Species Index. Australia’s Environment Report 2024, CC BY-NC-ND What needs to happen? The 2024 Australia’s Environment Report offers a cautiously optimistic picture of the present. Without intervention, the future will look a lot worse. Australia must act decisively to secure our nation’s environmental future. This includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions, introducing stronger land management policies and increasing conservation efforts to maintain and restore our ecosystems. Without redoubling our efforts, the apparent environmental improvements will not be more than a temporary pause in a long-term downward trend. Australia’s Environment Report is produced by the ANU Fenner School for Environment & Society and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), which is enabled by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. Albert Van Dijk receives or has previously received funding from several government-funded agencies, grant schemes and programs. Shoshana Rapley is a Research Assistant and PhD candidate at the Australian National University and has received funding from the Ecological Society of Australia and BirdLife Australia. Tayla Lawrie is a current employee of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

California bill would restore wetlands protections in wake of Supreme Court ruling

A Supreme Court ruling placed limits on federal protections for many streams and wetlands. A bill in California's Legislature seeks to restore safeguards.

California lawmakers are proposing legislation that aims to reestablish safeguards for the state’s streams and wetlands in response to a Supreme Court ruling limiting federal clean water regulations. Supporters say the legislation has taken on heightened urgency as the Trump administration begins to scale back protections for many streams and wetlands, making them vulnerable to pollution and worsening water quality. “We need clean water to drink, to grow our food, to safely bathe and swim in, to support healthy ecosystems and the environment,” said state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who introduced the bill. “It’s about protecting our water supply, and it’s a common-sense measure that simply restores the protections that our waterways have always enjoyed since 1948.”Federal standards have since 1948 limited pollution discharges into waterways. Such standards later became a central part of the federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972.In Sackett vs. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that Clean Water Act protections don’t apply to many wetlands and ephemeral streams, which flow when it rains but otherwise sit dry much of the time. The court ruled that the law’s protections for the “waters of the United States” apply only to wetlands and streams that are directly connected to navigable waterways.The decision was supported by groups representing developers and the agriculture industry, who say the EPA had overstepped its authority by restricting private property owners from developing their land.California officials and clean water advocates counter that the rollback of protections will jeopardize vital water sources and ecosystems throughout the arid West.“It should be recognized as not just a threat to water quality but overall quality of life, and frankly, a threat to our state,” said Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San José), the bill’s co-author. Kalra said the court ruling has stripped federal protections “from many of our most precious wetlands and streams, each a crucial linkage in a complex water network that undergirds every animal, every plant, every human being in our state.”The bill, SB 601, would restore previous protections for California’s wetlands and streams by requiring permits for pollution discharges from businesses and construction projects. The measure calls for state standards that meet or exceed the regulations previously in place during the Biden administration.“This was a system that was working well,” Allen said. “We’ve got to step up.”The legislation, he said, effectively rolls back the clock prior to the court decision to maintain protections, and “enshrines a new framework into state law.” Under the bill, titled the Right to Clean Water Act, the State Water Resources Control Board would be tasked with implementing and enforcing the rules. A cormorant presides over what’s left of a snorkeling pool in the drying Kern River in Bakersfield. (Gary Kazanjian / For The Times) “It’s critical that our state protects our waterways in the same way that we have over the last 50 years,” said Sean Bothwell, executive of the group California Coastkeeper Alliance, which is supporting the legislation.He called the Supreme Court ruling misguided, saying it was biased toward waterways in the wetter East Coast climate, and doesn’t fit California’s reality, where many streams flow only when it rains.“Our Mediterranean climate doesn’t allow for our rivers and streams, and the creeks that flow into them, to flow permanently,” Bothwell said. “What this bill does is it maintains the protections that Californians have enjoyed.”While the legislation is being discussed in Sacramento, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has begun to revise the so-called Waters of the United States rule to bring regulations into line with the Supreme Court ruling.Announcing plans for the regulatory rollback last week, the EPA said the agency, acting together with the Army Corps of Engineers, will “move quickly to ensure that a revised definition follows the law, reduces red-tape, cuts overall permitting costs, and lowers the cost of doing business.” The EPA said it will begin its review by seeking input from stakeholders.“We want clean water for all Americans supported by clear and consistent rules,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in the announcement. He said the previous version of the regulations “placed unfair burdens on the American people and drove up the cost of doing business.”The EPA has also announced plans to roll back more than two dozen other regulations, which environmentalists say would severely harm the nation’s progress in addressing air and water pollution.Bothwell said the EPA’s new rule, once adopted, might go beyond the Supreme Court ruling and make it “more sweeping than it already was.”Without the state legislation, he said, the combination of the court decision and the Trump administration’s pullback of regulations will leave seasonal streams and many wetlands without Clean Water Act protections. “We can no longer rely upon the federal government to protect and provide clean and affordable water,” Bothwell said.State officials and environmental advocates have said because about 90% of California’s wetlands have already been drained and destroyed, strong protections for those that remain are vital.Whether protective measures are in place could affect the state’s aquatic ecosystems. There are nearly 4,000 freshwater species in California, and researchers at the Public Policy Institute of California said in a report last year that there are no protections in place for many species that are threatened.“Our waters are connected. Our freshwater ecosystems, groundwater aquifers, rivers, wetlands and other waterways are all interconnected,” said Ashley Overhouse, a water policy advisor for the nonprofit group Defenders of Wildlife.She said when pollution flows into wetlands or streams, the effects on threatened species and water quality can be widespread, harming ecosystems that are also suffering from the effects of climate change.The bill would provide “clarity and efficient protections for the state at a time of regulatory and political uncertainty,” Overhouse said.The ultimate goal, she said, is to ensure “a future where clean, healthy water is guaranteed for all communities and all wildlife.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.