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.

Do Scientists Make Good Presidents?

News Feed
Tuesday, June 11, 2024

This week, Mexico elected its first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo — a politician with a background in physics and environmental engineering. Despite her scientific pedigree, not all researchers are confident that she will have their interests at heart, given that her mentor and predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, cut science budgets and had a sometimes antagonistic relationship with the Mexican science community.Speculation now abounds about whether Sheinbaum Pardo will prioritize evidence-based decision-making.To get a view of what might come, Nature talked to historians and policy experts about how five other scientists-turned-world-leaders fared in office, and whether their backgrounds in science were a benefit — or a detriment.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Some say science expertise is a double-edged sword. Researchers “know very well how to gather information from various actors in society”, says Sayaka Oki, a historian of science at the University of Tokyo. But at the same time, if they rely too much on their own intellect instead of listening to constituents, they can get “trapped in their own self-righteousness”, she adds.Herbert Hoover, US president, 1929–33Herbert Hoover studied geology in the 1890s at the then-fledgling Stanford University in California, and went on to earn a fortune as an international mining consultant. While living in London at the outset of the First World War, he achieved fame setting up a food-relief programme for German-occupied Belgium. Later, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson, US president at the time, to manage US food supplies for the remainder of the conflict.Hoover became US Secretary of Commerce in 1921 and quickly solidified his reputation as an able technocrat. But that same technocratic bias might also have blinded him to the larger social, cultural and political concerns that arose as the country stumbled into the Great Depression, says David Cole, president of the Science History Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That recession, the worst in US history, began shortly after Hoover, a member of the Republican party, was elected president in 1929.Many of the government measures to create jobs and bring the country out of the depression were actually started under Hoover, Cole says. But he wasn’t able to sell his vision to the public, and voters ousted him after a single term. “Hoover worked himself almost to death trying to engineer the country out of the depression, but he was politically tone deaf,” Cole adds.Margaret Thatcher, UK prime minister, 1979–90Margaret Thatcher, who trained as a chemist, is probably one of the best-known and most divisive prime ministers that Britain has had. During her chemistry studies at the University of Oxford, UK, she spent a year investigating the structure of an antibiotic in the laboratory of Nobel prizewinning chemist Dorothy Hodgkin. Thatcher went on to work as a research chemist at a plastics company, and then at a food company, before quitting research for a life in politics.She led the United Kingdom’s right-wing Conservative party to electoral victory in 1979, following a wave of trade union strikes in which more than 4 million workers demanded pay rises higher than they were being offered. During her 11-year premiership, Thatcher privatized state-owned industries and public services — including water, gas and electricity — and cut spending on health care, education and housing. The funding cuts, along with surging unemployment, damaged her popularity. But her reputation got a boost in 1982, thanks to a UK victory against Argentina in a war over ownership of the Falkland Islands.Throughout her time in office, Thatcher did not seem to apply much of her scientific training to political leadership, says John Muellbauer , an economist at the University of Oxford. “She was a conviction politician, so she led by ideology and simple beliefs rather than evidence-driven policy,” Muellbauer says.A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, president of India, 2002–07Even before becoming president, Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen (A. P. J.) Abdul Kalam was a nationally recognized figure. As an aerospace scientist at the Indian Space Research Organisation, he oversaw the development of India’s first home-grown satellite launch vehicle, which in 1980 thrust the Rohini Satellite 1 into low-Earth orbit. “He did marvellous work,” says Venni Krishna, a science-policy researcher at the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, Australia. Kalam later moved to India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation, where he headed the country’s strategic ballistic missiles programme.In 2002, Kalam was elected India’s 11th president, with support from both the ruling and the opposition parties. The role of president in India is largely ceremonial — the prime minister is head of government — but Indian presidents have the power to reject bills passed by parliament. Kalam’s election was “hugely inspiring”, especially for young scientists, says Rohini Godbole, a particle physicist at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore.Kalam belonged to a generation of scientists who rose to prominence in an India that had become newly independent of British colonial rule. He had a vision of using home-grown science and technology to propel the country’s development, and injected “confidence in the scientific systems”, Godbole says.Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, 2005–21Trained as a quantum chemist, Angela Merkel was the first woman to become chancellor of Germany, when she was elected in 2005. By the time she left office as leader of the centre-right Christian Democrats, 16 years later, she had become Germany’s second-longest-serving head of government.Merkel obtained a PhD in quantum chemistry in 1986, studying reaction dynamics at the Academy of Sciences in Berlin–Adlershof, in what was then East Germany. As a political leader, she was known for her pragmatism in dealing with issues ranging from the European debt crisis to the phaseout of nuclear energy in Germany to the COVID-19 pandemic, says political scientist Matt Qvortrup at Coventry University, UK. “The way she approached political questions was by using a sort of scientific testing, seeing what theories might work and being willing to falsify them,” he says.Overall, her background in science “was definitely a virtue”, says Qvortrup, and it probably influenced her ability to work collaboratively. Her focus was on policy — how to solve a problem — rather than on politics, which is more about how to win an argument, he says, adding that as a result, she had high approval ratings among people in Germany.Yukio Hatoyama, prime minister of Japan, 2009–10Yukio Hatoyama’s time as the head of Japan’s government was short-lived, which some researchers attribute partly to an idealism that many scientists possess. Hatoyama, a leftist, was too “pure” and theoretical in his reasoning, says Oki at the University of Tokyo.Hatoyama received a PhD in industrial engineering from Stanford University. He worked as a researcher in applied probability, first at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and then at Senshu University in Tokyo, before launching his political career. Coming from a family of politicians, he was part of “a political genealogy”, says Yasushi Sato, who studies science policy at Niigata University in Japan.In September 2009, Hatoyama became Japan’s 93rd prime minister, following an election victory by his Democratic Party of Japan. The party immediately set to work cutting government spending, including funds for science programmes. But pushback from the scientific community preserved key projects, including a synchrotron radiation facility.Only eight months after taking office, Hatoyama resigned, having failed to fulfil his campaign pledge of relocating a controversial US military base from the island of Okinawa. Instead, he had agreed to move the base to a less crowded location on the island, which angered locals. Oki says public discourse at the time labelled Hatoyama as “naive” and lacking an understanding of the world.The upshot?Scientists who have succeeded in leading their countries tend to think first and foremost like politicians, says Mike Lubell, a physicist at the City College of New York, who tracks federal science-policy issues. With regard to Sheinbaum Pardo, he recommends that she draw on her scientific knowledge, but not depend on it. “Science is not the be-all and end-all in politics.”Many of Sheinbaum Pardo’s critics, including some scientists, worry about Mexican democracy, arguing that she has become too close to the increasingly powerful political machine built by her predecessor. “If I were advising her,” Lubell says, “I would say that making sure that Mexican democracy thrives is going to be essential to Mexico’s ability to advance in science and technology.”This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on June 6, 2024.

Following Mexico’s election of a woman with a scientific pedigree, Nature reviewed the legacy of well-known politicians with backgrounds in science and engineering.

This week, Mexico elected its first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo — a politician with a background in physics and environmental engineering. Despite her scientific pedigree, not all researchers are confident that she will have their interests at heart, given that her mentor and predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, cut science budgets and had a sometimes antagonistic relationship with the Mexican science community.

Speculation now abounds about whether Sheinbaum Pardo will prioritize evidence-based decision-making.

To get a view of what might come, Nature talked to historians and policy experts about how five other scientists-turned-world-leaders fared in office, and whether their backgrounds in science were a benefit — or a detriment.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Some say science expertise is a double-edged sword. Researchers “know very well how to gather information from various actors in society”, says Sayaka Oki, a historian of science at the University of Tokyo. But at the same time, if they rely too much on their own intellect instead of listening to constituents, they can get “trapped in their own self-righteousness”, she adds.

Herbert Hoover, US president, 1929–33

Herbert Hoover studied geology in the 1890s at the then-fledgling Stanford University in California, and went on to earn a fortune as an international mining consultant. While living in London at the outset of the First World War, he achieved fame setting up a food-relief programme for German-occupied Belgium. Later, he was invited by Woodrow Wilson, US president at the time, to manage US food supplies for the remainder of the conflict.

Hoover became US Secretary of Commerce in 1921 and quickly solidified his reputation as an able technocrat. But that same technocratic bias might also have blinded him to the larger social, cultural and political concerns that arose as the country stumbled into the Great Depression, says David Cole, president of the Science History Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. That recession, the worst in US history, began shortly after Hoover, a member of the Republican party, was elected president in 1929.

Many of the government measures to create jobs and bring the country out of the depression were actually started under Hoover, Cole says. But he wasn’t able to sell his vision to the public, and voters ousted him after a single term. “Hoover worked himself almost to death trying to engineer the country out of the depression, but he was politically tone deaf,” Cole adds.

Margaret Thatcher, UK prime minister, 1979–90

Margaret Thatcher, who trained as a chemist, is probably one of the best-known and most divisive prime ministers that Britain has had. During her chemistry studies at the University of Oxford, UK, she spent a year investigating the structure of an antibiotic in the laboratory of Nobel prizewinning chemist Dorothy Hodgkin. Thatcher went on to work as a research chemist at a plastics company, and then at a food company, before quitting research for a life in politics.

She led the United Kingdom’s right-wing Conservative party to electoral victory in 1979, following a wave of trade union strikes in which more than 4 million workers demanded pay rises higher than they were being offered. During her 11-year premiership, Thatcher privatized state-owned industries and public services — including water, gas and electricity — and cut spending on health care, education and housing. The funding cuts, along with surging unemployment, damaged her popularity. But her reputation got a boost in 1982, thanks to a UK victory against Argentina in a war over ownership of the Falkland Islands.

Throughout her time in office, Thatcher did not seem to apply much of her scientific training to political leadership, says John Muellbauer , an economist at the University of Oxford. “She was a conviction politician, so she led by ideology and simple beliefs rather than evidence-driven policy,” Muellbauer says.

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, president of India, 2002–07

Even before becoming president, Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen (A. P. J.) Abdul Kalam was a nationally recognized figure. As an aerospace scientist at the Indian Space Research Organisation, he oversaw the development of India’s first home-grown satellite launch vehicle, which in 1980 thrust the Rohini Satellite 1 into low-Earth orbit. “He did marvellous work,” says Venni Krishna, a science-policy researcher at the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, Australia. Kalam later moved to India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation, where he headed the country’s strategic ballistic missiles programme.

In 2002, Kalam was elected India’s 11th president, with support from both the ruling and the opposition parties. The role of president in India is largely ceremonial — the prime minister is head of government — but Indian presidents have the power to reject bills passed by parliament. Kalam’s election was “hugely inspiring”, especially for young scientists, says Rohini Godbole, a particle physicist at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore.

Kalam belonged to a generation of scientists who rose to prominence in an India that had become newly independent of British colonial rule. He had a vision of using home-grown science and technology to propel the country’s development, and injected “confidence in the scientific systems”, Godbole says.

Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, 2005–21

Trained as a quantum chemist, Angela Merkel was the first woman to become chancellor of Germany, when she was elected in 2005. By the time she left office as leader of the centre-right Christian Democrats, 16 years later, she had become Germany’s second-longest-serving head of government.

Merkel obtained a PhD in quantum chemistry in 1986, studying reaction dynamics at the Academy of Sciences in Berlin–Adlershof, in what was then East Germany. As a political leader, she was known for her pragmatism in dealing with issues ranging from the European debt crisis to the phaseout of nuclear energy in Germany to the COVID-19 pandemic, says political scientist Matt Qvortrup at Coventry University, UK. “The way she approached political questions was by using a sort of scientific testing, seeing what theories might work and being willing to falsify them,” he says.

Overall, her background in science “was definitely a virtue”, says Qvortrup, and it probably influenced her ability to work collaboratively. Her focus was on policy — how to solve a problem — rather than on politics, which is more about how to win an argument, he says, adding that as a result, she had high approval ratings among people in Germany.

Yukio Hatoyama, prime minister of Japan, 2009–10

Yukio Hatoyama’s time as the head of Japan’s government was short-lived, which some researchers attribute partly to an idealism that many scientists possess. Hatoyama, a leftist, was too “pure” and theoretical in his reasoning, says Oki at the University of Tokyo.

Hatoyama received a PhD in industrial engineering from Stanford University. He worked as a researcher in applied probability, first at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and then at Senshu University in Tokyo, before launching his political career. Coming from a family of politicians, he was part of “a political genealogy”, says Yasushi Sato, who studies science policy at Niigata University in Japan.

In September 2009, Hatoyama became Japan’s 93rd prime minister, following an election victory by his Democratic Party of Japan. The party immediately set to work cutting government spending, including funds for science programmes. But pushback from the scientific community preserved key projects, including a synchrotron radiation facility.

Only eight months after taking office, Hatoyama resigned, having failed to fulfil his campaign pledge of relocating a controversial US military base from the island of Okinawa. Instead, he had agreed to move the base to a less crowded location on the island, which angered locals. Oki says public discourse at the time labelled Hatoyama as “naive” and lacking an understanding of the world.

The upshot?

Scientists who have succeeded in leading their countries tend to think first and foremost like politicians, says Mike Lubell, a physicist at the City College of New York, who tracks federal science-policy issues. With regard to Sheinbaum Pardo, he recommends that she draw on her scientific knowledge, but not depend on it. “Science is not the be-all and end-all in politics.”

Many of Sheinbaum Pardo’s critics, including some scientists, worry about Mexican democracy, arguing that she has become too close to the increasingly powerful political machine built by her predecessor. “If I were advising her,” Lubell says, “I would say that making sure that Mexican democracy thrives is going to be essential to Mexico’s ability to advance in science and technology.”

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on June 6, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Landowners in England given £9bn in environment payments despite decline

Mandatory reports should be published on how taxpayers’ money is spent on environmental stewardship, says campaignerLandowners in England have been paid more than £9bn of taxpayers’ money in the past 30 years for environmental benefits, despite the decline in nature that has taken place during that time, data reveals.The nature campaigner and author Guy Shrubsole, who unearthed the data for his new book, The Lie of The Land, said large landowners should be forced to publish regular reports showing how they are stewarding their land for nature and carbon.The Lie of the Land is published on 12 September by HarperCollins. Continue reading...

Landowners in England have been paid more than £9bn of taxpayer’s money in the past 30 years for environmental benefits, despite the decline in nature that has taken place during that time, data reveals.Nature campaigner and author Guy Shrubsole, who unearthed the data for his new book The Lie of The Land, said large landowners should be forced to publish regular reports showing how they are stewarding their land for nature and carbon.This “ecological doomsday survey” would ensure that landowners are using the public money they are given to improve nature, rather than simply becoming rich by dint of owning more than 1,000 acres of land.Shrubsole argues that those who own these vast amounts of land should be held accountable over the nature and biodiversity crises and that estates of more than 1,000 acres should publish five-yearly reports on what they are doing to restore habitats, help wildlife recover and boost natural carbon sinks.Landowners and farmers in England were given £9.2bn in environmental stewardship grants between 1992 and 2022, equivalent to £12.5bn when adjusted for inflation. Despite this, nature’s health has plummeted in England, and only 39% of England’s sites of special scientific interest are in favourable condition, while farmland bird numbers have halved since 1970.These stewardship schemes include action to improve soil health, protect water from pollution, boost wildlife numbers, manage floods and provide public access to land.Shrubsole said: “For decades, the public has paid billions of pounds to landowners to be good stewards of nature. In some cases it’s worked – but too often, landowners have failed to deliver, leaving habitats and wildlife in near-terminal decline.“The definition of stewardship means looking after the land on behalf of someone else – us, the public. So, tell us what you’re doing to be a good steward. Let’s carry out an ecological doomsday survey: if you’re fortunate enough to own 1,000 acres or more, you should publish a map of your estate, a baseline ecological survey and a plan for how you’ll be restoring habitats, species and carbon over the next five years.“It’s time we made the 1% of the population who own half of England – and who often claim to be ‘custodians of the countryside’ – accountable to the public.”

Illegal Raves on Costa Rican Beaches Raise Concerns

Costa Rican beaches, known for their natural beauty, are increasingly being used as venues for illegal raves, sparking significant concern among local residents and environmentalists. These “jungle raves,” taking place in Santa Teresa, Manzanillo, Bello Horizonte, and Santiago, promise partygoers an immersive experience in nature but come at a high cost to the environment and […] The post Illegal Raves on Costa Rican Beaches Raise Concerns appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rican beaches, known for their natural beauty, are increasingly being used as venues for illegal raves, sparking significant concern among local residents and environmentalists. These “jungle raves,” taking place in Santa Teresa, Manzanillo, Bello Horizonte, and Santiago, promise partygoers an immersive experience in nature but come at a high cost to the environment and local communities. The Blue Zone Chamber of Tourism and Commerce (CATUZCA), which represents areas like Malpaís, Santa Teresa, and Playa Hermosa, reported 22 complaints related to these raves between November 2023 and May 2024. Residents are frustrated by the noise pollution that these events generate, with music blaring from as early as 11 p.m. until 8 or 9 a.m. the following morning. One resident noted that although the rave was a kilometer away, the sound was so loud it felt as if it were right next door. Attendees often spill onto the beach after the official rave ends, continuing their festivities into the morning hours, much to the dismay of those living nearby. These raves are not small gatherings; some attract as many as 600 people, transforming them into massive, unregulated events. Despite their size, these gatherings lack the necessary permits, including sanitary licenses and emergency medical teams, and fail to implement any safety measures for the attendees. This has led to increasing tensions between the organizers and local authorities. Cóbano Mayor Ronny Montero pointed out that property owners hosting these raves can earn between $6,000 and $7,000 per night, making it a lucrative business. However, this financial gain comes at the expense of the community and the environment. Some organizers even offer to pay potential fines upfront to ensure their events proceed without interruption. The environmental impact of these raves is particularly troubling. The loud music and large crowds disturb local wildlife, forcing animals out of their natural habitats and into populated areas, where they face increased risks from pets, traffic, and human activity. The lack of proper planning or consultation with wildlife specialists exacerbates the situation, potentially leading to long-term damage to the local ecosystem. Despite the growing number of complaints, the Municipality of Cóbano has struggled to impose fines or take significant action against the organizers. However, in response to the mounting concerns, the municipality is preparing its first judicial complaint, which will be submitted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in an effort to curb these illegal activities and protect the community and environment. The ongoing situation highlights the need for more stringent regulations and enforcement to prevent such events from continuing to disrupt the peace and harmony of Costa Rica’s beautiful coastal regions. The local community, along with formal businesses and government bodies, is calling for immediate action to address this pressing issue. The post Illegal Raves on Costa Rican Beaches Raise Concerns appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Wildlife boosted by England’s nature-friendly farming schemes, study finds

Areas where farmers provide good habitats show notable increase in butterflies, bees, bats and breeding birdsButterflies, bees and bats are among the wildlife being boosted by England’s nature-friendly farming schemes, new government research has found.Birds were among the chief beneficiaries of the strategy, particularly ones that largely feed on invertebrates. An average of 25% more breeding birds were found in areas with more eco-friendly schemes. Continue reading...

Butterflies, bees and bats are among the wildlife being boosted by England’s nature-friendly farming schemes, new government research has found.Birds were among the chief beneficiaries of the strategy, particularly ones that largely feed on invertebrates. An average of 25% more breeding birds were found in areas with more eco-friendly schemes.A shift away from eating meat will be required if agriculture in England is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as more land will need to be used to store nature and carbon, the peer-reviewed study by Natural England, the government advisory body, also warned.“Under the most ambitious climate change mitigation scenario, food production is expected to decline by up to 25%,” the report reads. “Ambitious combinations of measures, including reducing food waste, using arable land to grow crops for direct human consumption rather than livestock feed (and thus implying a dietary change), and increased productivity on remaining farmland, could fully mitigate expected reductions in food production.”After the UK left the EU, farmers were no longer part of the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies scheme, which paid land managers according to the acreage they farmed. Instead the devolved nations have set up their own farming payments system. In England, this is the sometimes controversial Environment Land Management Scheme (ELMS), which pays farmers to make room for nature by letting hedges grow wilder, or sowing wildflowers for birds and bees on field margins.Anecdotally, farmers taking part in the schemes have noticed more wildlife, but until now no data has been available. The new government studies found that more mobile creatures, such as butterflies, moths and hoverflies, fared better when larger areas of land – a large farm or multiple small neighbouring ones – were involved in the scheme.Surveyed squares with high levels of eco-friendly schemes in the surrounding landscape had on average 117 more butterflies (a 53% increase), compared with the average for squares with low scores for schemes in the surrounding landscape. There were an average of 12 more moth species in areas with more eco-friendly schemes. Smaller, less mobile insects were boosted in smaller, more local areas signed up to the schemes. Numbers of barbastelle and Daubenton’s bats were also found to respond positively to eco-friendly schemes at the landscape level.Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, told the Guardian: “The evidence in the Natural England report confirms what many nature-friendly farmers are finding: delivering good-quality habitats, supported by public money, is helping to stop nature’s decline or even reverse it. Many farmers are pleased that their hard work is showing positive results, and with the support of well-funded ELMS, more farmers can deliver or help reverse nature’s decline.”The report also modelled future land use, balancing the need to produce food with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making space for wildlife. It warns that “finite land is under pressure to deliver (among other things) food, timber and fuel production, climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. At present the land sector (agriculture, forestry and peatlands) is a substantial greenhouse gas emitter and contributor to climate change.”Nine land-use scenarios were explored, each representing an alternative UK land-use future, which saw up to 10 land-based climate change mitigation measures deployed in different combinations. Each scenario was run from a 2015 baseline to 2100, in five-year intervals. No scenario delivered strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or large increases in bird populations without significant drops in food production. Labour and the Conservatives have been reticent to say that people in the UK should eat less meat, but the previous food tsar Henry Dimbleby has said meat consumption should be reduced by 30% to make room for growing crops for human use rather than animal feed. The Climate Change Committee similarly recommends a 35% reduction in meat consumption by 2050.Farmers have recently warned that they will find it difficult to take part in ELMS if the amount they are paid falls, as they are having to repurpose land formerly used for food production to help wildlife, as well as facing additional pressures from extreme weather and price inflation. The schemes were put in place by the previous Conservative government, and the new Labour administration has refused to commit to the current £2.4bn annual budget.

Banksy Unveils Two New Animal Murals in Two Days

One piece features a goat perched on a ledge, while the other shows two elephants in windows

Banksy announced this mural featuring a goat on a ledge on August 5. Aaron Chown / PA Images via Getty Images The anonymous street artist Banksy has claimed credit for two murals that recently popped up on the sides of buildings in London. The first artwork, located on a wall in the town of Richmond, features a goat that appears to be perched on a narrow ledge. Besides it, painted rocks tumble to the ground. The artist also repositioned a nearby CCTV camera so that it pointed up at the goat, but the device has since been restored to its usual street-level position. Is there a larger message behind the work? Nobody is quite sure. According to the Telegraph, some think it was meant to be an environmental statement. Others wonder whether Banksy is referring to the acronym “greatest of all time.” Meanwhile, some Londoners who live nearby are excited to have a Banksy so close to home. “I think it’s incredible—we hope it stays here,” local resident Malcolm Taylor tells BBC News’ James W. Kelly and Harry Low. The second Banksy piece appeared in Chelsea, an area in west London not far from Richmond. It depicts two elephants sticking their heads out of two windows of a building, reaching towards each other with their trunks. Banksy unvieled a second mural on August 6 featuring two elephants poking their heads out of windows. Yui Mok / PA Images via Getty Images “Some have noted that one elephant is tusked while the other is not, perhaps representing a generational divide,” writes Time Out’s Amy Houghton. “Others reckon it has an ecological message.” This isn’t Banksy’s first work featuring elephants. At a Los Angeles exhibition in 2006, the artist brought in a real elephant and painted it to match the red and gold pattern of the room’s wallpaper. The real-life “elephant in the room” symbolized global issues that often go ignored. On his Instagram, Banksy revealed the goat mural on August 5, followed by the elephant mural on August 6. He did not provide an explanation for either of the pieces. Still, that didn’t stop art lovers from speculating. “The goat’s precarious position on the edge mirrors the fragile state of U.K. society, teetering on the brink of chaos due to the recent disturbances,” wrote one Instagram user on Monday. On Tuesday, another user offered an interpretation of the elephant artwork: “For me, this represents the individualized family, distanced and removed connection as the social rule, opposing the very nature of elephants as highly familial and connected creatures.” Banksy also did not say whether the two works are connected in any way. While it’s rare for the artist to unveil two new pieces in such close succession, this is not the first time he’s done so. In October 2013, he began a project called Better Out Than In in New York: Every day that month, he unveiled a new public artwork in a different part of the city. It’s also unclear if the goat and elephant stencils will be the only pieces Banksy reveals this week. Only time will tell. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Reimagining Earth’s History: New Study Challenges Long-Held Theories of Continent Formation

A recent study challenges traditional views on how Earth’s continents were formed, suggesting that subduction may not have been necessary. His findings propose that the...

New research proposes that Earth’s early continents could have formed through high-pressure melting of the crust rather than subduction, potentially delaying the start of plate tectonics and revising our understanding of Earth’s geological history and its impact on life.A recent study challenges traditional views on how Earth’s continents were formed, suggesting that subduction may not have been necessary. His findings propose that the melting of Earth’s crust could explain the formation of continents, casting doubt on when plate tectonics began and highlighting its impact on life’s origin.The formation of Earth’s continents billions of years ago created a foundation for life to flourish. However, scientists remain divided on how these landmasses came into existence and whether the geological processes involved are the same as those we observe today.A recent paper from the University of Illinois Chicago’s David Hernández Uribe in Nature Geoscience adds new information to that debate, poking holes in the leading theory of continent formation. Hernández Uribe used computer models to study the formation of magmas thought to hold clues to the origin of continents. Geological Processes and Zircon StudiesMagma is the molten substance that, when it cools, forms rocks and minerals. Hernández Uribe looked for magmas that match the compositional signature of rare mineral deposits called zircons that date back to the Archaean period of 2.5 to 4 billion years ago, when scientists believed that continents first formed.Last year, scientists from China and Australia published a paper arguing that Archaean zircons could only be formed by subduction — when two tectonic plates collide underwater, pushing land mass to the surface. That process still happens today, causing earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and reshaping the coasts of continents.But Hernández Uribe, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences, found that subduction was not necessary to create Archaean zircons. Instead, he found that the minerals could form through high pressure and temperatures associated with the melting of the Earth’s thick primordial crust.“Using my calculations and models, you can get the same signatures for zircons and even provide a better match through the partial melting of the bottom of the crust,” Hernández Uribe said. “So based on these results, we still do not have enough evidence to say which process formed the continents.”Implications on Plate Tectonics and Life on EarthThe results also raise uncertainty about when plate tectonics started on Earth. If Earth’s first continents formed by subduction, that meant that continents started moving between 3.6 to 4 billion years ago — as little as 500 million years into the planet’s existence. But the alternative theory of melting crust forming the first continents means that subduction and tectonics could have started much later.“Our planet is the only planet in the solar system that has active plate tectonics as we know it,” Hernández Uribe said. “And this relates to the origin of life, because how the first continents moved controlled the weather, it controlled the chemistry of the oceans, and all that is related to life.”Reference: “Generation of Archaean oxidizing and wet magmas from mafic crustal overthickening” by David Hernández-Uribe, , 11 July 2024, Nature Geoscience.DOI: 10.1038/s41561-024-01489-z

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.