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.

Genetic ghosts suggest Covid’s market origins

News Feed
Thursday, September 19, 2024

Genetic ghosts suggest Covid’s market originsGetty ImagesRacoon dogs are implicated as one of the potential animals that could have been the source of CovidA team of scientists say it is “beyond reasonable doubt” the Covid pandemic started with infected animals sold at a market, rather than a laboratory leak.They were analysing hundreds of samples collected from Wuhan, China, in January 2020.The results identify a shortlist of animals – including racoon dogs, civets and bamboo rats – as potential sources of the pandemic.Despite even highlighting one market stall as a hotspot of both animals and coronavirus, the study cannot provide definitive proof.The samples were collected by Chinese officials in the early stages of Covid and are one of the most scientifically valuable sources of information on the origins of the pandemic.An early link with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was established when patients appeared in hospitals in Wuhan with a mystery pneumonia.The market was closed and teams swabbed locations including stalls, the inside of animal cages and equipment used to strip fur and feathers from slaughtered animals.Getty ImagesHuanan Seafood Wholesale Market was closed in the early days of the pandemicTheir analysis was published last year and the raw data made available to other scientists. Now a team in the US and France says they have performed even more advanced genetic analyses to peer deeper into Covid’s early days. It involved analysing millions of short fragments of genetic code – both DNA and RNA – to establish what animals and viruses were in the market in January 2020."We are seeing the DNA and RNA ghosts of these animals in the environmental samples, and some are in stalls where [the Covid virus] was found too," says Prof Florence Débarre, of the French National Centre for Scientific Research.The results, published in the journal Cell, highlight a series of findings that come together to make their case.It shows Covid virus and susceptible animals were detected in the same location, with some individual swabs collecting both animal and coronavirus genetic code. This is not evenly distributed across the market and points to very specific hotspots."We find a very consistent story in terms of this pointing - even at the level of a single stall - to the market as being the very likely origin of this particular pandemic," says Prof Kristian Andersen, from the Scripps Institute in the US.However, being in the same place at the same time is not proof any animals were infected.Getty ImagesThe masked palm civet was also identified at the market and played a role in the Sars virus outbreak (which is related to the virus that caused the pandemic).The animal which came up most frequently in the samples was the common raccoon dog. This has been shown to both catch and transmit Covid in experiments.Other animals identified as a potential source of the pandemic were the masked palm civet, which was also associated with the Sars outbreak in 2003, as well as hoary bamboo rats and Malayan porcupines. The experiments have not been done to see if they can spread the virus.The depth of the genetic analysis was able to identify the specific types of raccoon dogs being sold. They were those more commonly found in the wild in South China rather than those farmed for their fur. This gives scientists clues about where to look next. Reading the virus's codeThe research teams also analysed the genetic code of the viral samples found in the market, and compared them to samples from patients in the early days of the pandemic. Looking at the variety of different mutations in the viral samples also provides clues.The samples suggest, but do not prove, that Covid started more than once in the market with potentially two spillover events from animals to humans. The researchers say this supports the idea of the market as the origin, rather than the pandemic starting elsewhere with the market adding fuel to the fire in a superspreading event.The scientists also used the mutations to build the virus’s family tree and peer into its past.“If we estimate when do we believe most likely the pandemic started versus when do we believe most likely the outbreak at the market started, these two overlap, they’re one and the same,” says Prof Andersen.In their scientific publication, the full genetic diversity of coronavirus seen in the early days of the pandemic was found at the market.Prof Michael Worobey, of the University of Arizona, said: "Rather than being one small branch on this big bushy evolutionary tree, the market sequences are across all the branches of the tree, in a way that is consistent with the genetic diversity actually beginning at the market."He said this study, combined with other data – such as early cases and hospitalisations being linked to the market – all pointed to an animal origin of Covid.Prof Worobey said: “It's far beyond reasonable doubt that that this is how it happened”, and that other explanations for the data required "really quite fanciful absurd scenarios".“I think there's been a lack of appreciation even up until now about how strong the evidence is.”Did the pandemic start here?Getty ImagesThe Wuhan Institute of Virology campus in Hubei province, China.The lab-leak theory argues that instead of the virus spilling over from wildlife, it instead came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which has long studied coronaviruses.It is located a 40-minute drive away from the market. The US intelligence community was asked to weigh up the likelihood of a leak – either accidental or deliberate.In June 2023, all the agencies involved said either a leak or animal origins were plausible scenarios.The National Intelligence Council and four other agencies said animals were the likely source. The FBI and the Department of Energy thought it was more likely to be a laboratory incident.Prof Andersen said: "To many this seems like the most likely scenario - 'the lab is right there, of course it was the lab, are you stupid?'. I totally get that argument."However, he says there is now plenty of data that "really points to the market as the true early epicentre" and "even locations within that market".Identifying the animals that could have been the source of the pandemic does provide clues to where scientists could look for further evidence of an animal origin.However, because farms destroyed their animals in the early days of Covid it means there may no longer be any evidence left to find."In all likelihood, we missed our chance," says Prof Worobey.Prof Alice Hughes, from the University of Hong Kong, who was not involved in the analysis, said it was a “good study”.“[But] without swabs from the actual animals in the market, which were not collected, we cannot obtain any higher certainty."Prof James Wood, the co-director of Cambridge Infectious Diseases, said the study provided “very strong evidence” of the pandemic starting in wildlife stalls at the market. However, he said it could not be definitive because the samples were collected after the market closed, and the pandemic probably started weeks earlier.And he warned "little or nothing" was being done to limit the live trade in wildlife, and "uncontrolled transmission of animal infections poses a major risk of future pandemics".

A team of scientists say it is "beyond reasonable doubt" the Covid pandemic started with infected animals.

Genetic ghosts suggest Covid’s market origins

Getty Images A mother racoon dog attending to her offspringGetty Images

Racoon dogs are implicated as one of the potential animals that could have been the source of Covid

A team of scientists say it is “beyond reasonable doubt” the Covid pandemic started with infected animals sold at a market, rather than a laboratory leak.

They were analysing hundreds of samples collected from Wuhan, China, in January 2020.

The results identify a shortlist of animals – including racoon dogs, civets and bamboo rats – as potential sources of the pandemic.

Despite even highlighting one market stall as a hotspot of both animals and coronavirus, the study cannot provide definitive proof.

The samples were collected by Chinese officials in the early stages of Covid and are one of the most scientifically valuable sources of information on the origins of the pandemic.

An early link with the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was established when patients appeared in hospitals in Wuhan with a mystery pneumonia.

The market was closed and teams swabbed locations including stalls, the inside of animal cages and equipment used to strip fur and feathers from slaughtered animals.

Getty Images Picture showing the closed and empty Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China.Getty Images

Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was closed in the early days of the pandemic

Their analysis was published last year and the raw data made available to other scientists. Now a team in the US and France says they have performed even more advanced genetic analyses to peer deeper into Covid’s early days.

It involved analysing millions of short fragments of genetic code – both DNA and RNA – to establish what animals and viruses were in the market in January 2020.

"We are seeing the DNA and RNA ghosts of these animals in the environmental samples, and some are in stalls where [the Covid virus] was found too," says Prof Florence Débarre, of the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

The results, published in the journal Cell, highlight a series of findings that come together to make their case.

It shows Covid virus and susceptible animals were detected in the same location, with some individual swabs collecting both animal and coronavirus genetic code. This is not evenly distributed across the market and points to very specific hotspots.

"We find a very consistent story in terms of this pointing - even at the level of a single stall - to the market as being the very likely origin of this particular pandemic," says Prof Kristian Andersen, from the Scripps Institute in the US.

However, being in the same place at the same time is not proof any animals were infected.

Getty Images A masked palm civet sitting in a treeGetty Images

The masked palm civet was also identified at the market and played a role in the Sars virus outbreak (which is related to the virus that caused the pandemic).

The animal which came up most frequently in the samples was the common raccoon dog. This has been shown to both catch and transmit Covid in experiments.

Other animals identified as a potential source of the pandemic were the masked palm civet, which was also associated with the Sars outbreak in 2003, as well as hoary bamboo rats and Malayan porcupines. The experiments have not been done to see if they can spread the virus.

The depth of the genetic analysis was able to identify the specific types of raccoon dogs being sold. They were those more commonly found in the wild in South China rather than those farmed for their fur. This gives scientists clues about where to look next.

Reading the virus's code

The research teams also analysed the genetic code of the viral samples found in the market, and compared them to samples from patients in the early days of the pandemic. Looking at the variety of different mutations in the viral samples also provides clues.

The samples suggest, but do not prove, that Covid started more than once in the market with potentially two spillover events from animals to humans. The researchers say this supports the idea of the market as the origin, rather than the pandemic starting elsewhere with the market adding fuel to the fire in a superspreading event.

The scientists also used the mutations to build the virus’s family tree and peer into its past.

“If we estimate when do we believe most likely the pandemic started versus when do we believe most likely the outbreak at the market started, these two overlap, they’re one and the same,” says Prof Andersen.

In their scientific publication, the full genetic diversity of coronavirus seen in the early days of the pandemic was found at the market.

Prof Michael Worobey, of the University of Arizona, said: "Rather than being one small branch on this big bushy evolutionary tree, the market sequences are across all the branches of the tree, in a way that is consistent with the genetic diversity actually beginning at the market."

He said this study, combined with other data – such as early cases and hospitalisations being linked to the market – all pointed to an animal origin of Covid.

Prof Worobey said: “It's far beyond reasonable doubt that that this is how it happened”, and that other explanations for the data required "really quite fanciful absurd scenarios".

“I think there's been a lack of appreciation even up until now about how strong the evidence is.”

Did the pandemic start here?

Getty Images Aerial view shows the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in China's central Hubei province Getty Images

The Wuhan Institute of Virology campus in Hubei province, China.

The lab-leak theory argues that instead of the virus spilling over from wildlife, it instead came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which has long studied coronaviruses.

It is located a 40-minute drive away from the market. The US intelligence community was asked to weigh up the likelihood of a leak – either accidental or deliberate.

In June 2023, all the agencies involved said either a leak or animal origins were plausible scenarios.

The National Intelligence Council and four other agencies said animals were the likely source. The FBI and the Department of Energy thought it was more likely to be a laboratory incident.

Prof Andersen said: "To many this seems like the most likely scenario - 'the lab is right there, of course it was the lab, are you stupid?'. I totally get that argument."

However, he says there is now plenty of data that "really points to the market as the true early epicentre" and "even locations within that market".

Identifying the animals that could have been the source of the pandemic does provide clues to where scientists could look for further evidence of an animal origin.

However, because farms destroyed their animals in the early days of Covid it means there may no longer be any evidence left to find.

"In all likelihood, we missed our chance," says Prof Worobey.

Prof Alice Hughes, from the University of Hong Kong, who was not involved in the analysis, said it was a “good study”.

“[But] without swabs from the actual animals in the market, which were not collected, we cannot obtain any higher certainty."

Prof James Wood, the co-director of Cambridge Infectious Diseases, said the study provided “very strong evidence” of the pandemic starting in wildlife stalls at the market. However, he said it could not be definitive because the samples were collected after the market closed, and the pandemic probably started weeks earlier.

And he warned "little or nothing" was being done to limit the live trade in wildlife, and "uncontrolled transmission of animal infections poses a major risk of future pandemics".

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

New Data Supports Animal Market Origins for COVID Pandemic

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Sept. 19, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- The Hunan Seafood Wholesale wet market in Wuhan, China, has long...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Sept. 19, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- The Hunan Seafood Wholesale wet market in Wuhan, China, has long been considered the most likely source of the coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.That theory is now supported by a new study analyzing more than 800 samples collected in and around the market in January 2020 as the pandemic began.Those samples show that animal species known to carry the COVID coronavirus were present in the market, according to results published Sept. 18 in the journal Cell.“This paper adds another layer to the accumulating evidence that all points to the same scenario: that infected animals were introduced into the market in mid- to late November 2019, which sparked the pandemic,” said study co-author Kristian Andersen, director of infectious disease genomics with Scripps Research.The common raccoon dog, a series susceptible to SARS-CoV, is closely linked to market wildlife stalls that contained SARS-CoV-2, researchers found.Genetic material from other species like masked palm civets, the Hoary bamboo rat and the Malayan porcupine were also associated with COVID, results show.“These are the same sorts of animals that we know facilitated the original SARS coronavirus jumping into humans in 2002,” said study co-author Michael Worobey, head of ecology and evolutionary biology with the University of Arizona.He said the scenario in late 2019 in Wuhan was a set-up for trouble.“This is the most risky thing we can do -- take wild animals that are teeming with viruses and then play with fire by bringing them into contact with humans living in the heart of big cities, whose population densities make it easy for these viruses to take hold,” Worobey said in a journal news release.China’s version of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention went into the wet market just hours after it was shut down. Investigators swabbed floors, walls and stall surfaces around the market, gathering hundreds of samples.The Chinese CDC team returned days later to focus on surfaces in stalls selling wildlife, such as cages and carts used to move animals. They also collected samples from drains and sewers.“Many of the key animal species had been cleared out before the Chinese CDC teams arrived, so we can’t have direct proof that the animals were infected,” noted study co-author Florence Debarre with the French National Center for Scientific Research.“We are seeing the DNA and RNA ghosts of these animals in the environmental samples, and some are in stalls where SARS-CoV-2 was found, too,” Debarre added. “This is what you would expect under a scenario in which there were infected animals in the market.”For the new study, an international research team performed genetic sequencing of the samples, to track the presence of SARS-CoV-2 and to create a list of the wildlife species at the market from which COVID likely jumped into humans.Evolutionary analysis of the earliest COVID pandemic strains implies that there were very few, if any, humans infected prior to the market outbreak. This is consistent with other events where animal viruses made the leap into humans, researchers said.“In this paper, we show that the sequences linked to the market are consistent with a market emergence,” Debarre said. “The main diversity of SARS-CoV-2 was in the market from the very beginning.”Figuring out the origins of the pandemic continues to be important, researchers argue, given the ongoing threat from animal-borne pathogens like avian flu.“There has been a lot of disinformation and misinformation about where SARS-CoV-2 originated,” Worobey said. “The reason it’s so important to find out is that this affects national security and public health, not just in the United States but around the world. And the truth is, since the pandemic started more than four years ago, although there has been an increased focus on lab safety, not much has been done to decrease the chance of a zoonotic scenario like this happening again.”SOURCE: Cell Press, news release, Sept. 19, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Mystery of Deep-Ocean ‘Biotwang’ Sound Has Finally Been Solved

A strange sound dubbed “biotwang” was first heard bouncing around the Mariana Trench 10 years ago, and scientists have finally figured out where it comes from

September 18, 20243 min readMystery of Deep-Ocean ‘Biotwang’ Sound Has Finally Been SolvedA strange sound dubbed “biotwang” was first heard bouncing around the Mariana Trench 10 years ago, and scientists have finally figured out where it comes fromBy Melissa HobsonA Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni). By Wildestanimal/Getty ImagesRecorded by microphones deep in the ocean, the unexplained sound—a low, sonorous grunting followed by a squeaky, mechanical echo, like a frog burping in space—first rumbled through a computer speaker about a decade ago. Baffled researchers called it the “biotwang.”“You’ve got this low-frequency portion, like a moan,” says Lauren Harrell, a data scientist at Google Research’s AI for Social Good, adding her own impression of a hearty groan. “Then you have the higher-frequency component that sounds, to me, like the original Star Trek Enterprise ship—the ‘bip boo, bip boo’ sound.”Autonomous underwater gliders first recorded the odd noise echoing through the miles-deep Mariana Trench in 2014. Researchers couldn’t identify a source, but they had some theories. “There’s enough other artificial, Star Wars–sounding whale calls that they guessed it was made by a baleen whale,” says Ann Allen, a research oceanographer at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But she notes that “anybody who’s not familiar with whales would never think this was made by an animal.”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.Hear the biotwang for yourself:Confirming which marine animal makes a peculiar noise isn’t easy, though: it requires a person on a boat to see and identify the source at exactly the same time the sound is heard. “It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort and a fair amount of luck,” Allen says.That’s how Allen, Harrell and their colleagues finally solved the biotwang mystery. While surveying whales off the Mariana Islands, an archipelago near the trench of the same name in the North Pacific Ocean, Allen and other NOAA researchers saw a mysterious species called the Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) 10 times. These whales are spread out far across the huge open ocean, so it’s hard for scientists to observe or study them. On nine of the occasions that Bryde’s whales turned up, the researchers also heard the biotwang. “Once, it’s a coincidence,” Allen says. “Twice is happenstance. Nine times, it’s definitely a Bryde’s whale.”After identifying the source, they reviewed years of audio data from underwater hydrophones to find out where this specific whale sound had previously been heard. But NOAA’s growing database has more than 200,000 hours of such recordings. “It’s so much data that it’s simply impossible to analyze [manually],” says Olaf Meynecke, who specializes in baleen whales as a research fellow at Griffith University in Australia and wasn’t involved in Allen’s new biotwang study, which was published on Wednesday in Frontiers in Marine Science.When analyzing audio data for another project, Allen had been “flabbergasted” by the huge volumes of data to slog through. At one point, she says, her dad suggested, “Just get Google to do it for you.” So Allen reached out to company staff, and, to her surprise, they agreed. The company provided AI tools that helped speed up analysis by transforming audio data into an image called a spectrogram and then training algorithms to look for certain frequencies using image recognition.The new study lays out the evidence associating biotwangs with Bryde’s whales in the western North Pacific. The data confirmed that the animals the researchers studied comprise a distinct Bryde’s whale population and showed where in the ocean they were found during different seasons and years—something that had previously been impossible because scientists couldn’t tell different populations of the mysterious whales apart. And in 2016, when a strong El Niño led to a shift in the location of the whales’ food (largely krill, sardines and anchovies), there were lots of biotwangs—even in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, an area these whales only ventured into under certain climate conditions. This could mean that their movements are at least partially determined by their prey’s distribution, which changes with environmental conditions."We seem to be so detached from, or simply have no access to, this amazing acoustic underwater world. I think it’s about time that we change that." - Olaf Meynecke, Griffith UniversityOnce scientists know where and when these whales travel, Harrell says, AI models could “connect that data to climate and environmental factors” and thus support protection efforts. As climate change worsens and there are possible changes to El Niño and its cold-water counterpart, La Niña, “these whales will have to travel further—and they may have to work a little harder in order to find food,” Allen says.The technology isn’t perfect. “These algorithms can only search for a frequency they know,” Meynecke says. Baleen whale vocalizations change over time and between populations. But because the tools are open-source, other scientists can use them to discover more about whale language. “We seem to be so detached from, or simply have no access to, this amazing acoustic underwater world,” he says. “I think it’s about time that we change that.”

The Madcap History of Mad Magazine Will Unleash Your Inner Class Clown

In a twist befitting its pages, the satirical, anti-establishment publication that delivered laughs and hijinks to generations of young readers gets the respect it always deserved with a new museum exhibition

In March 1976, a great American portrait debuted to an adoring public. It was a bicentennial appreciation of George Washington … of a sort. Inspired by The Athenaeum Portrait, Gilbert Stuart’s 1796 painting featured on the one-dollar bill, this rendering of the first president featured one distinction. The original showed Washington with swollen, tightly closed lips due to a new set of ill-fitting dentures, while the 1976 version had a gap-toothed smirk instantly recognizable to America’s middle school reprobates. Equally recognizable was the blank stare that those same kids knew evoked the iconic question: “What, Me Worry?” Drawn by 80-year-old illustrator Norman Mingo, Mad magazine mascot Alfred E. Neuman graced the cover of Issue No. 181 in a glorious powdered wig. It’s one of 275 original drawings—alongside 150 physical objects—on display in “What, Me Worry? The Art and Humor of Mad Magazine,” an exhibition running through October 27 at the Norman Rockwell Museum in western Massachusetts. It covers the full 72-year history of Mad, highlighted by the stretch from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, when the magazine pilloried mass culture—television, movies, politics and more—in a way that introduced satire to kids raised on tamer entertainment like “Leave It to Beaver.” Nothing was off-limits in Mad, a newsstand stalwart that would reach peak annual sales in the 1970s of 2.5 million issues by delivering belly laughs and self-satisfaction to America’s class clowns through cartoons, parodies, sarcastic characters and an unending stream of gross-out gags. Mad gave mainstream American teenagers license to thumb their nose at institutions in a way that had never really happened on a mass scale, a seismic change that would have a huge influence on pop culture through the likes of “Saturday Night Live,” David Letterman, Conan O’Brien and “Family Guy.” On a sunny August afternoon, I spent a few hours slowly wandering throughout the five galleries, reveling in the Mad days of my youth. At 53, I grew up falling in love with the magazine during the last years of its self-described “classic era.” Looking at all the amazing artwork, particularly the movie drawings of “The Odd Father” and “Jaw’d” by the legendary caricaturist Mort Drucker, took me back to the way-way-facing-the-rear-window-back of an Oldsmobile station wagon. In our family, Mad was strictly a road trip treat. Being immersed in all things Mad in the summer of 2024 transported me to 1980, thumbing through issues with my brothers while listening to Billy Joel and Queen on a battery-powered single-speaker eight-track player loop for the long trip from Montana to Los Angeles. In this illustration for Mad magazine #155 from 1972, cartoonist Mort Drucker sent up the massive hit The Godfather.  MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. Used with permission from Norman Rockwell Museum And I’m hardly alone in my adoration. The Tuesday I visited the museum was crowded, with more than a few tie-dyed gray-hairs audibly laughing at the subversive spreads once hidden under their mattresses. The exhibition is the best kind of memory lane stroll, one that thrilled co-curator Steve Brodner, who came of age in the magazine’s heyday. “In the period before puberty hits, you start to get an awareness of yourself in the world, and for kids wired a certain way you start questioning parents, teachers, other adults, and that’s what Mad did: It showed how important it was to be skeptical of institutions and so-called authority figures of all kinds,” says Brodner, whose own satirical art has appeared in a variety of publications over the last 50 years. “Mad was a cultural earthquake. It engaged us to consume newspapers, movies, political speeches, advertising, books and so on differently.” “It was the first place that told me, ‘This is a load of crap they are trying to sell you for their own self-interest, and you don’t have to buy it.’ Mad was encouraging what we now call critical thinking, which is a dangerous thing,” he adds. The antihero’s origin story Mad magazine had its beginnings in 1947, when publisher Maxwell Gaines’ death in an upstate New York boating accident left his Educational Comics company to his 25-year-old son, William Gaines. Under Maxwell, the comics featured stories of science, animals, history and Picture Stories From the Bible. When William took over, he quickly shifted gears to “Entertaining Comics” (EC for short) and started publishing romance, westerns, science fiction, war and horror stories, most notably Tales From the Crypt. Gaines the younger had more than laughs and frights on his mind, however; woven into EC Comics were progressive ideals around racial equality, pacifism, environmentalism and the existential nuclear-age dread rarely spoken of in the placid, conformist 1950s. In 1952, a comic book poking fun at other comic books debuted, but it would take four issues for Tales Calculated to Drive You MAD to take off. That fourth one featured the parody “Superduperman,” a blueprint for making hay of pop culture and politics. Amid a panic over youth corruption, inspired in part by EC’s other publications, editor Harvey Kurtzman convinced Gaines to retool Mad from a comic book into a magazine, and in July 1955 (Issue No. 24), a future mockery machine emerged. Mad quickly found an audience, which prompted Kurtzman to ask Gaines for majority ownership in the company. Denied, Kurtzman took his small stable of talent with him to launch a short-lived competitor. Undeterred, Gaines installed EC Comics veteran Al Feldstein as editor, a position he would hold for 29 years. Feldstein’s 2014 New York Times obituary described him as the guiding spirit who “gave Mad its identity as a smart-alecky, sniggering and indisputably clever spitball-shooter of a publication with a scattershot look.” Feldstein filled out the roster of artists and writers; the full-time staff was small, often just a half-dozen people give or take, so nearly every contributor worked freelance. Gaines paid good rates, and for freelancers, Mad was a steady side gig—plus, they could work from home, which was unique for the time. As publisher, Gaines created a hands-off atmosphere that let his creative team of artists’ freak flags fly. Mort Drucker was a Mad magazine legend, drawing illustrations for the publication for decades. Courtesy of the Normal Rockwell Museum “There were no rules at Mad. Everyone wrote whatever they wanted. Now whether it was accepted was a different thing, but [Gaines] left us to our own cockamamie ideas,” says Dick DeBartolo (aka “Mad’s Maddest Writer”), who successfully submitted in 1962 as a 17-year-old high schooler and went on to be featured in every issue for over 50 years. “I sent in a self-addressed stamped envelope, and six weeks later I received a piece of cardboard with a $100 check stapled to it with a note: ‘Thought your story was being returned?’” From its earliest days, Mad was steeped in a New York Jewish sensibility (the original Neuman is certainly in the “Seinfeld” DNA), so Gothamites would drop their work off at the Midtown Manhattan offices, but submissions came from all over the country. Writers and illustrators also didn’t work together. DeBartolo wrote movie parodies as actual screenplays, which were then sent to the artists. “[Gaines] was a father figure to a bunch of kids, sometimes delinquent, who created an atmosphere for artists and writers to thrive,” says DeBartolo. “All he cared about was that the magazine was funny. His approach is the reason Mad took off.” What it added up to was a publication put out eight times a year—Gaines thought some months, like near the start of school, would be bad for sales—that didn’t have the conformity of something put together by a staff forced to attend all those boring meetings. There were, of course, plenty of recurring features and characters, but page-to-page, the humor and style matched the whims of the talent and kept Mad from getting stale. “The movie parodies were more than humorous versions of the films—they were often analytical and critical deconstructions of huge box-office hits. Roger Ebert wrote an introduction to one of our collections and said, ‘I learned to be a movie critic by reading Mad magazine,’” says illustrator Sam Viviano, who made his Mad debut in 1981 with a J.R. Ewing-Alfred E. Neuman mashup cover and would go on to serve as art director. “Going back decades, Mad had fake ads hammering the tobacco industry and how awful cigarettes were, which came after Gaines quit and a lot of contributors followed suit. They were ahead of the times, saying, ‘Don’t believe what you’re told about smoking: It’s gross, harmful and certainly doesn’t make you look pretty,’ in hilarious fashion.” Cover illustration for Mad magazine No. 223, June 1981 MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission from Norman Rockwell Museum It was a Mad, Mad, Mad magazine world One of the most important, and beloved, magazine elements made its debut in April 1964, Issue No. 86, the one with the “Alfred of Arabia” cover: the “fold-in” back cover. Cartoonist Al Jaffee’s signature stroke of brilliance turned the Playboy centerfold inside-out. The “fold-in” required doing just that to the inside back cover, which Gaines loved because he thought diehards would buy two copies: one destroyed, the other kept pristine. Jaffee’s first effort, the first of 33 in black and white, was constructed around the torrid Liz Taylor-Richard Burton affair. The fold-ins went color in 1968, and Jaffee cranked them out until 2020, when he retired at the age of 99, having contributed to 500 of the 550 Mad issues overall. The Rockwell Museum exhibition covers the introduction of the fold-in, as well as other memorable regular features in the magazine’s pages. A “part leering wiseacre, part happy-go-lucky kid” was Kurtzman’s description of the nameless character whose first prominent appearance came in April 1956 (Issue No. 27). In December of that year, after Feldstein christened him Alfred E. Neuman, he appeared on the Mingo-drawn cover of Issue No. 30 as a write-in candidate for president, and he’s run in every election since. Similar looking gap-toothed imps had appeared in advertisements, playbills and elsewhere over the years, and a lawsuit filed by the widow of cartoonist Harry Spencer Stuff claiming Neuman had been copied from her husband’s cartoon, “the Original Optimist,” known as “Me-worry?” went nowhere. And by that time, Neuman had become synonymous with Mad. This Al Jaffee fold-in, "What Simple Pastime is Becoming a Luxury that Many Americans Can No Longer Afford?" appeared in issue #172 in 1979. Collection of Dr. Louis Kaminester MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission by Norman Rockwell Museum Another beloved feature came from the pen of Cuban artist Antonio Prohías. Forced to flee his native country after his cartoons took aim at Fidel Castro’s totalitarianism and he was accused of working for the CIA, Prohías would get his venganza in January 1961 (Issue No. 60), when he sold three drawings for $800. The world now knew the wordless Cold War enemies of espionage, the Black Spy and the White Spy, two interchangeable spooks hellbent on destroying one another. (The two were joined sporadically in the early years by the female Gray Spy, who didn’t have the face and beak of a crow and always outwitted her male counterparts.) Using a Morse code byline for “By Prohías,” the artist contributed 241 “Spy vs. Spy” cartoons, up until 1987, when the pen was handed off to other artists to keep the dynamite duo alive. Prohías died in Miami in 1998, knowing full well, as he told the Miami Herald 15 years prior, “The sweetest revenge has been to turn Fidel’s accusation of me as a spy into a money-making venture.” In October 1961 (Issue No. 66), another long-running staple debuted with Dave Berg’s “The Lighter Side of the Television Set.” These pieces were often sendups of the then-burgeoning suburban lifestyle: office life, parties, winter, Little League baseball, hippies, sex, shopping and so on. Berg, who also created bumbling, cranky, pipe-smoking, hypochondriac alter-ego Roger Kaputnik, would end up writing for 46 years, penning “The Lighter Side of …” for 365 issues before his death in 2002. Two reasons Mad had so many lifers were their personal loyalty to Gaines and their love of his lavish trips. Gaines was stingy with raises but generous with a huge perk: taking the staff and regular freelance contributors on elaborate vacations all over the globe. The first trip, taken in 1960 after hitting the million mark in sales, was to Haiti. It included a stop at the home of the island’s one lapsed subscriber. Gaines loaded up the crew in five jeeps, and they all got on their knees on his front lawn as the man received a renewal card. A neighbor saw the commotion and came over to check it out. Gaines proudly announced that they doubled their Haitian subscriber base. What began as weeklong trips to tropical islands grew into full-on multiweek adventures—eventually with spouses and partners—to Japan, France, Russia and Kenya. These weren’t really work trips, either; it was all for fun, excitement, jokes (presumably plenty that wouldn’t fly today), and so much food and drink, as Gaines had a major gourmand’s appetite and the build to match. “I went on my first trip in 1987, excited to go to Switzerland and Paris, but nervous I would have to sit at the kid’s table because these guys had been working together, and taking these vacations together, for a long time. But they embraced me with no hesitation, and I became a Mad guy for life,” says Viviano. “Gaines really was the Big Daddy, but he never forgot his roots. Well into the 1980s, he was still running it like a mom and pop comic books shop, using an old-fashioned check-writing machine. Anything to keep it from feeling corporate. DeBartolo pointed out Gaines had the clause that he ‘had the right to be unreasonable’ written into every contract, because nobody read them anyway.” “Raiders of a Lost Art” Gaines’ death in 1992, at the age of 70, was the beginning of Mad’s long, slow decline. DeBartolo says it wasn’t long before the “suits” came in and started cleaning up the place, starting with all the original art on the walls, which he thinks they sold for a couple million dollars. Gone were the days of white wine in the water cooler and a massive King Kong head hidden behind blinds in the boss’s office. After the mid-1970s, circulation dropped precipitously, down to 208,000 in 2001 when the magazine switched to color and started taking real advertisements. In 2017, Mad’s corporate owner, DC Comics, moved the offices to Burbank, California. Pay rates were cut, and none of the aging New Yorkers were interested in making a West Coast go of it. Six issues were published that year, but in 2019, after 67 years, Mad issues with original content were officially kaput. Originally conceived by Cuban dissident Antonio Prohías, "Spy vs. Spy" became yet another hallmark of Mad magazine, with two dueling characters finding inventive ways to one-up each other. Here, artist Peter Kuper with a version that appeared in a 2007 issue of Mad. Collection of the artist. MAD and all related elements © & ™ E.C. Publications. Courtesy of DC. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission. Technically, Mad is still being published, but it’s recycled material from the glory days with a new fold-in and cover. It’s a niche’s niche now, and kids like Bart Simpson who dreamed of meeting their Mad idols were left in the last century. (To wit, I sent my 13-year-old Swiftie daughter a postcard from the exhibition of the April 2024 issue featuring Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce to her sleepaway camp. She said nobody in the cabin had ever heard of Mad.) Given that the magazine’s readership peaked 50 years ago; that so many of the early Mad men—it was always a boy’s club—have died; and that Alfred E. Neuman is basically a museum artifact himself these days, an exhibition this year celebrating it makes perfect sense. The question is: What’s the connection between the folksy Norman Rockwell and the ribald Gang of Idiots? Turns out, it’s literal. “We are a museum fully dedicated to art of illustration, generally what is published in one form of mass communication or another,” says Stephanie Plunkett, the museum’s chief curator. “Rockwell, who drew 322 Saturday Evening Post covers, was a great humorist and a cartoonist in certain ways, so from a curatorial standpoint, I knew this is where a Mad exhibition of this size and scope belongs.” The show evolved out of conversations many years ago between Plunkett and Murray Tinkelman, an artist and historian who was crazy about the magazine. Whenever anyone involved in the pre-planning mentioned it, even in casual conversation, people’s eyes got as wide as a Don Martin bug-out. “People who knew Mad didn’t need any sort of explanation as to what the exhibit would be. You could see from the smiles they understood it and wanted to see it,” Plunkett says. “We thought that during challenging times, everyone could benefit from laughter. It’s mainly been middle-aged fans and up on a warm nostalgia trip, but we’ve had a dedicated viewership that’s driven higher attendance than usual.” The most entertaining wrinkle of the curation process is that it included its own Indiana Jones—or “Inbanana Jones,” to use Mad lingo—Ark of the Covenant moment. Buried in the archives were 1964 letters from Feldstein and art director John Putnam attempting to commission Norman Rockwell for “a definitive painting of the sly little elf, Alfred E. Neuman, who represents our mascot and ubiquitous presence.” Mad offered $3,000 for a charcoal print and a full-color oil painting. Rockwell made a note to ask for his standard $5,000, but in a short letter found in a private collection, the then-70-year-old eventually declined the offer, saying he and his wife thought better of it and, “I hate to be a quitter, but I’m afraid we would all get in a mess.” “We thought a correspondence between Mad and Rockwell was a long shot, so finding the back-and-forth letters made for an amazing day. Norman rarely did commissioned drawings to begin with. Both Marvel and Bob Dylan were turned down,” says Plunkett. They are certainly simpatico hanging on the wall. One of the exhibition’s highlights is Rockwell’s 1960 Triple Self Portrait side by side with its spoof, the 2002 Alfred E. Neuman rendering by Richard Williams. The stately paintings offer a nice contrast to some of the wilder bits of ephemera like the board game many of us played as kids (whoever goes broke is the winner), the Charles Schulz-drawn Peanuts panel with a special Mad guest, a roasting Christmas display and a nightmare-inducing clip of Fred Astaire hoofing it in full Alfred E. Neuman getup. The curators know who the target audience is: people who still get a kick out of decades-old barf japes. Richard WilliamsIn the exhibition, a famed Rockwell triple-self portrait hangs alongside a classic Alfred E. Neuman spoof, showing the grinning cover boy, also in triplicate. Courtesy of the Norman Rockwell Museum “In putting the show together, nobody mentioned Mad ever being considered high art. It was written to make kids laugh, all these artists and writers in a state of arrested development because they had to get into that mindset,” says Brodner, who posts new daily illustrations at The Greater Quiet. “This didn’t mean talking down to their audience. There were sophisticated political references like Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew burning subpoenas as the conmen from The Sting, but always with the understanding of what 11-year-olds find funny.” I was one of those 11-year-olds, and you couldn’t wipe the big, broad, goofy Alfred E. Neuman smile off my face at the Norman Rockwell Museum. And what do you get when you cross Mad magazine with the illustrator synonymous with 1950s Americana? The museum has an answer with a brand-new fold-in: “Freedom From Worry.” "What, Me Worry?" is on view at the Normal Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, through October 27, 2024. Get the latest Travel & Culture stories in your inbox.

Are kiwi and moa recent immigrants from Australia? Neither fossils nor genetic evidence support the story

A recent announcement that kiwi and moa are Australian immigrants is not borne out by available evidence. Working out when birds arrived in New Zealand requires both fossil evidence and genetics.

Marty Melville/AFP/Getty ImagesAotearoa New Zealand is a land of birds, from the smallest of wrens to the mightiest of moa. The ancestors of some species have been here for tens of millions of years, while others arrived only a few million years ago. So a recent suggestion that moa and kiwi are recent immigrants from Australia, while wrens and kākāpō are New Zealand’s truly ancient birds, was sure to ignite controversy. The contentious report was based on a scientific review of fossils found at St Bathans in Central Otago. However, putting dates on arrivals requires a combination of both physical fossil evidence in deposits of a known age and genetic dating techniques that determine when the birds we know today diverged from their closest relatives. Dating the arrival of birds in New Zealand New Zealand is part of the larger continent of Zealandia, which finished separating from the supercontinent Gondwana some 57 million years ago. Some familiar animals were likely present in proto-New Zealand at this time, including our unique silent frogs, the ancient tuatara and many invertebrates. Tens of millions of years of dispersal of both plants and animals followed. Fossils and DNA allow us to explore these dispersal events in detail. Fossils can preserve evidence for millennia longer than DNA molecules, but DNA can shed light on many processes even when fossils are rare. This quality is particularly valuable since the chance of finding fossils decreases the further back we look in time. Both approaches carry their own assumptions and biases that influence calculations of the range of arrival times. The ancestors of birds have been arriving in New Zealand for tens of millions of years. Adapted from Valente et al (2019), CC BY-SA Our team uses ancient DNA to date these arrivals, showing for example that the purple swamp hen ancestors of takahē and moho arrived in Aotearoa New Zealand around four million years ago from Australia, as part of a suite of open-habitat birds that included ancestors of the kakī black stilt, pouākai Haast’s eagle and kērangi Eyles’ harrier. Other genetic studies have shown the ancestors of New Zealand wrens, the most primitive of all perching birds, split off about 50 to 60 million years ago. Wren fossils are part of the wonders unearthed at St Bathans, alongside remains of both moa and kiwi. Genetic and morphological analyses of ratites (such as ostrich, kiwi, moa and elephant birds) suggest the ancestors of moa and kiwi reached Zealandia, separately, around 50 to 60 million years ago. Both groups filled the job vacancy in the ecosystem left by dinosaurs, becoming large and flightless. The kākāpō, meanwhile, along with the kākā and kea, belong to a family that split off from all other living parrots very early on; they, too, are an ancient group. But genetic dating of their arrival in Zealandia remains unresolved, with studies variously putting it between 20 to 80 million years ago. The genetic analysis of when kākāpō arrived in New Zealand remains unresolved. Chris Birmingham/Department of Conservation/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA Precise dating of these splits presents a significant challenge. Nevertheless, the range between 30 million and a few million ascribed to the moa and kiwi by the recent announcement is not borne out by available evidence – and neither group is Australian as reported. Moa are most closely related to the flying chicken-sized tinamous from South America, and kiwi are relatives of the giant extinct elephant birds from Madagascar. Indeed, Australia did not even exist as a discrete entity 50 to 60 million years ago; it was still firmly affixed to Antarctica and South America. Exactly what routes the ancestors of moa and kiwi took to reach Zealandia remains unknown. They were part of a group of flying birds with a worldwide distribution called Lithornids, which lost flight many times independently and evolved into the ratites we know today. The bones will speak The St Bathans fossil deposit has given us an indispensable window into prehistoric New Zealand, and in many ways it is familiar – the bones of moa, kiwi, parrots, wrens and bats provide a reassuring continuity. Excavating bird fossils at St Bathans. Nic Rawlence, CC BY-SA As the publication notes, though, there are also many strange things in the fossil deposit – crocodiles, a relative of flamingos and a giant turtle. There’s an Alice in Wonderland quality to St Bathans, and it’s a crucial piece of the story of Aotearoa New Zealand’s biological heritage. The presence of a bird’s fossil in the deposit indicates the lineage was present in New Zealand a long time ago. But how long ago, exactly? Most estimates put the age of the St Bathans lake sediments between 12 and 20 million years, but these estimates are imprecise, making definitive statements about the age of animal groups difficult. Even if a lineage was present in the St Bathans deposits, this still does not prove a continuous presence from that time to the present day. Whatever the age of St Bathans, it’s tempting to think remains found in the palaeo-lake are members of truly ancient lineages, while things that only arrived after the lake dried up are invaders, little more than wayward tourists that got off at the wrong stop. No matter when ancestors of birds arrived in New Zealand, their time on these isles has shaped their evolution in profound ways. Our team is working on determining arrival times and it’s looking increasingly dynamic, tied to environmental conditions. The ancestors of the majestic huia arrived here 27 million years ago, evolving distinct beak shapes in males and females and white-tipped feathers that were high-status symbols in Māori society. At the other end of the scale, the closest relative of the 16kg Haast’s eagle, whose ancestors arrived here a mere 2.5 million years ago, is the smallest eagle in the world – weighing only 1kg. Let’s continue to embrace and care for our amazing bird fauna – whatever their age, they all have a bit of Aotearoa New Zealand in them. Nic Rawlence receives funding from Royal Society Te Apārangi Marsden Fund. Alan Tennyson has been the recipient of Australian Research Council grants in the past that partly funded the St Bathans fossil excavations.Pascale Lubbe receives funding from Royal Society Te Apārangi Marsden Fund.

First large-scale UK onshore salmon project at risk over ‘factory farm’ claimss

Animal rights campaigners win a judicial review over pioneering £120m scheme at Grimsby portOn former railway sidings at Grimsby docks in Lincolnshire, the seafood industry is backing new plans for an onshore salmon farm that it claims will create jobs, cut emissions and help meet the nation’s huge demand for the fish.The scheme would be the UK’s first large-scale onshore salmon farm, with the fish growing to a weight of four or five kilograms. The project’s backer says the closed system would prevent disease and invasions of sea lice, which can blight open-net salmon farms. Continue reading...

On former railway sidings at Grimsby docks in Lincolnshire, the seafood industry is backing new plans for an onshore salmon farm that it claims will create jobs, cut emissions and help meet the nation’s huge demand for the fish.The scheme would be the UK’s first large-scale onshore salmon farm, with the fish growing to a weight of four or five kilograms. The project’s backer says the closed system would prevent disease and invasions of sea lice, which can blight open-net salmon farms.But the project is now at the centre of a legal battle between North East Lincolnshire council, which approved the scheme in November last year, and animal rights campaigners, who claim it is a “new form of factory farming”. The animal welfare charity Animal Equality UK has successfully sought permission for a judicial review over the scheme, which is supposed to produce about 5,000 tonnes of fish a year.Abigail Penny, the charity’s executive director, said: “To accommodate the extremely tight profit margins for a project of this nature, the fish must be crammed into crowded tanks and kept in artificial environments throughout their entire lives. Many similar farms have suffered mass mortality events, with thousands of fish dying due to failing equipment.”Councillors who approved the scheme last year were told that concerns about fish welfare should be noted, but “are not considered to be material land use planning considerations”.Animal Equality UK was granted permission for judicial review on 5 September after it argued animal welfare could be considered during the planning process and the councillors were misdirected by officials.UK consumers spend more than £1.2bn a year on salmon in supermarkets and large retailers, making it the nation’s most popular fish. Farmed salmon is one of the UK’s biggest exports, but the operators of open-net salmon farms have been accused of having a “catastrophic impact” on fish welfare and the environment.The proposed onshore salmon farm will be located at the docks in Grimsby, Lincolnshire. Photograph: AP S (uk)/AlamyCharities and conservation groups in January called for organic certification to be removed from open-net salmon and trout farms, because of the “negative environmental impacts”.The Scottish salmon industry says its farmers meet the highest international standards and are committed to protecting the marine environment.The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, a government agency, has highlighted the potential role of indoor tank systems, known as recirculating aquaculture systems.It says these “closed-loop systems” minimise the risks associated with conventional fish farming such as pollution, parasites and escapees. An English aquaculture strategy published in November 2020 said there was growing investor interest in the land-based production of Atlantic salmon close to large English cities.The proposed new £120m farm on the eastern outskirts of Grimsby docks is backed by the company AquaCultured Seafood. The business says the facility would “optimise” fish welfare and prevent disease or sea lice from entering the system. The scheme is supported by the Seafood Grimsby and Humber Alliance as a “stepping stone’ to UK food security.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA submission to the planning committee by Mark Borthwick, a doctoral fellow in salmon farming, warned the farm would require high stocking densities. He said salmon ranged widely with a strong migration drive and it was unknown how they would cope in the cramped conditions of an onshore farm.His submission stated: “The industry’s hope is that by doing the whole operation under factory conditions, they can control disease. However, as has been abundantly established in other farming environments, there is no truly biosecure factory farm and other diseases will emerge.”Edie Bowles, solicitor at Advocates for Animals, the legal firm representing Animal Equality UK in the case against the council, said: “I am delighted with the [judicial review] application being granted permission. It will hopefully be a wake-up call to other planning authorities that they need to follow the correct process.“This case is all about proper scrutiny being given for planning decisions that pose huge risks, including to animal welfare.”The council said it would not comment while legal proceedings were continuing. AquaCultured Seafood has been approached for comment.

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.