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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

In the pandemic, we were told to keep 6 feet apart. There’s no science to support that.

News Feed
Sunday, June 2, 2024

The nation’s top mental health official had spent months asking for evidence behind the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s social distancing guidelines, warning that keeping Americans physically apart during the coronavirus pandemic would harm patients, businesses, and overall health and wellness.Now, Elinore McCance-Katz, the Trump administration’s assistant secretary for mental health and substance use, was urging the CDC to justify its recommendation that Americans stay six feet apart to avoid contracting covid-19 — or get rid of it.“I very much hope that CDC will revisit this decision or at least tell us that there is more and stronger data to support this rule than what I have been able to find online,” McCance-Katz wrote in a June 2020 memo submitted to the CDC and other health agency leaders and obtained by The Washington Post. “If not, they should pull it back.”The CDC would keep its six-foot social distance recommendation in place until August 2022, with some modifications as Americans got vaccinated against the virus and officials pushed to reopen schools. Now, congressional investigators are set Monday to press Anthony S. Fauci, the infectious-disease doctor who served as a key coronavirus adviser during the Trump and Biden administrations, on why the CDC’s recommendation was allowed to shape so much of American life for so long, particularly given Fauci and other officials’ recent acknowledgments that there was little science behind the six-foot rule after all.“It sort of just appeared, that six feet is going to be the distance,” Fauci testified to Congress in a January closed-door hearing, according to a transcribed interview released Friday. Fauci characterized the recommendation as “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, also privately testified to Congress in January that he was not aware of evidence behind the social distancing recommendation, according to a transcript released in May.Four years later, visible reminders of the six-foot rule remain with us, particularly in cities that rushed to adopt the CDC’s guidelines hoping to protect residents and keep businesses open. D.C. is dotted with signs in stores and schools — even on sidewalks or in government buildings — urging people to stand six feet apart.Experts agree that social distancing saved lives, particularly early in the pandemic when Americans had no protections against a novel virus sickening millions of people. One recent paper published by the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, concludes that behavior changes to avoid developing covid-19, followed later by vaccinations, prevented about 800,000 deaths. But that achievement came at enormous cost, the authors added, with inflexible strategies that weren’t driven by evidence.“We never did the study about what works,” said Andrew Atkeson, a UCLA economist and co-author of the paper, lamenting the lack of evidence around the six-foot rule. He warned that persistent frustrations over social distancing and other measures might lead Americans to ignore public heath advice during the next crisis.The U.S. distancing measure was particularly stringent, as other countries adopted shorter distances; the World Health Organization set a distance of one meter, or slightly more than three feet, which experts concluded was roughly as effective as the six-foot mark at deterring infections, and would have allowed schools to reopen more rapidly.The six-foot rule was “probably the single most costly intervention the CDC recommended that was consistently applied throughout the pandemic,” Scott Gottlieb, former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, wrote in his book about the pandemic, “Uncontrolled Spread.”It’s still not clear who at the CDC settled on the six-foot distance; the agency has repeatedly declined to specify the authors of the guidance, which resembled its recommendations on how to avoid contracting the flu. A CDC spokesperson credited a team of experts, who drew from research such as a 1955 study on respiratory droplets. In his book, Gottlieb wrote that the Trump White House pushed back on the CDC’s initial recommendation of 10 feet of social distance, saying it would be too difficult to implement.Perhaps the rule’s biggest impact was on children, despite ample evidence they were at relatively low risk of covid-related complications. Many schools were unable to accommodate six feet of space between students’ desks and forced to rely on virtual education for more than a year, said Joseph Allen, a Harvard University expert in environmental health, who called in 2020 for schools to adopt three feet of social distance.“The six-foot rule was really an error that had been propagated for several decades, based on a misunderstanding of how particles traveled through indoor spaces,” Allen said, adding that health experts often wrongly focused on avoiding droplets from infected people rather than improving ventilation and filtration inside buildings.Social distancing had champions before the pandemic. Bush administration officials, working on plans to fight bioterrorism, concluded that social distancing could save lives in a health crisis and renewed their calls as the coronavirus approached. The idea also took hold when public health experts initially believed that the coronavirus was often transmitted by droplets expelled by infected people, which could land several feet away; the CDC later acknowledged the virus was airborne and people could be exposed just by sharing the same air in a room, even if they were farther than six feet apart.“There was no magic around six feet,” Robert R. Redfield, who served as CDC director during the Trump administration, told a congressional committee in March 2022. “It’s just historically that’s what was used for other respiratory pathogens. So that really became the first piece” of a strategy to protect Americans in the early days of the virus, he said.It also became the standard that states and businesses adopted, with swift pressure on holdouts. Lawmakers and workers urged meat processing plants, delivery companies and other essential businesses to adopt the CDC’s social distancing recommendations as their employees continued reporting to work during the pandemic.Some business leaders weren’t sure the measures made sense. Jeff Bezos, founder of online retail giant Amazon, petitioned the White House in March 2020 to consider revising the six-foot recommendation, said Adam Boehler, then a senior Trump administration official helping with the coronavirus response. At the time, Amazon was facing questions about a rising number of infections in its warehouses, and Democratic senators were urging the company to adopt social distancing.“Bezos called me and asked, is there any real science behind this rule?” Boehler said, adding that Bezos pushed on whether Amazon could adopt an alternative distance if workers were masked, physically separated by dividers or other precautions were taken. “He said … it’s the backbone of trying to keep America running here, and when you separate somebody five feet versus six feet, it’s a big difference,” Boehler recalled. Bezos owns The Washington Post.Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokesperson, confirmed that Bezos called Boehler but said the Amazon founder’s focus was the discrepancy between the U.S. recommendation and the WHO’s shorter distance. The company soon said it would follow the CDC’s six-foot social distancing guidelines in its warehouses and later developed technologies to try to enforce those guidelines. “We did it globally everywhere because it was the right thing to do,” Nantel said.Boehler said he spoke with Redfield and Fauci about testing alternatives to the six-foot recommendation but that he was not aware of what happened to those tests or what they found. Fauci declined to comment. Redfield did not respond to requests for comment.But challenging the six-foot recommendation, particularly in the pandemic’s early days, was seen as politically difficult. Rochelle Walensky, then chief of infectious disease at Massachusetts General Hospital, argued in a July 2020 email that “if people are masked it is quite safe and much more practical to be at 3 feet” in many school settings.Five months later, incoming president Joe Biden would tap Walensky as his CDC director. Walensky swiftly endorsed the six-foot distance before working to loosen it, announcing in March 2021 that elementary school students could sit three feet apart if they were masked. Walensky declined to comment.The most persistent government critic of the social distancing guidelines may have been McCance-Katz, who did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Trump’s mental health chief had spent several years clashing with other Department of Health and Human Services officials on various matters and had few internal defenders by the time the pandemic arrived, hampering her message. But while her pleas failed to move the CDC, her warnings about the risks to mental health found an audience with Trump and his allies, who blamed federal bureaucrats for the six-foot rule and other measures.“What is this nonsense that somehow it’s unsafe to return to school?” McCance-Katz said in September 2020 on an HHS podcast, lamenting the broader shutdown of American life. “I do think that Americans are smart people, and I think that they need to start asking questions about why is it this way.”

Read more

The nation’s top mental health official had spent months asking for evidence behind the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s social distancing guidelines, warning that keeping Americans physically apart during the coronavirus pandemic would harm patients, businesses, and overall health and wellness.

Now, Elinore McCance-Katz, the Trump administration’s assistant secretary for mental health and substance use, was urging the CDC to justify its recommendation that Americans stay six feet apart to avoid contracting covid-19 — or get rid of it.

“I very much hope that CDC will revisit this decision or at least tell us that there is more and stronger data to support this rule than what I have been able to find online,” McCance-Katz wrote in a June 2020 memo submitted to the CDC and other health agency leaders and obtained by The Washington Post. “If not, they should pull it back.”

The CDC would keep its six-foot social distance recommendation in place until August 2022, with some modifications as Americans got vaccinated against the virus and officials pushed to reopen schools. Now, congressional investigators are set Monday to press Anthony S. Fauci, the infectious-disease doctor who served as a key coronavirus adviser during the Trump and Biden administrations, on why the CDC’s recommendation was allowed to shape so much of American life for so long, particularly given Fauci and other officials’ recent acknowledgments that there was little science behind the six-foot rule after all.

“It sort of just appeared, that six feet is going to be the distance,” Fauci testified to Congress in a January closed-door hearing, according to a transcribed interview released Friday. Fauci characterized the recommendation as “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”

Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, also privately testified to Congress in January that he was not aware of evidence behind the social distancing recommendation, according to a transcript released in May.

Four years later, visible reminders of the six-foot rule remain with us, particularly in cities that rushed to adopt the CDC’s guidelines hoping to protect residents and keep businesses open. D.C. is dotted with signs in stores and schools — even on sidewalks or in government buildings — urging people to stand six feet apart.

Experts agree that social distancing saved lives, particularly early in the pandemic when Americans had no protections against a novel virus sickening millions of people. One recent paper published by the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, concludes that behavior changes to avoid developing covid-19, followed later by vaccinations, prevented about 800,000 deaths. But that achievement came at enormous cost, the authors added, with inflexible strategies that weren’t driven by evidence.

“We never did the study about what works,” said Andrew Atkeson, a UCLA economist and co-author of the paper, lamenting the lack of evidence around the six-foot rule. He warned that persistent frustrations over social distancing and other measures might lead Americans to ignore public heath advice during the next crisis.

The U.S. distancing measure was particularly stringent, as other countries adopted shorter distances; the World Health Organization set a distance of one meter, or slightly more than three feet, which experts concluded was roughly as effective as the six-foot mark at deterring infections, and would have allowed schools to reopen more rapidly.

The six-foot rule was “probably the single most costly intervention the CDC recommended that was consistently applied throughout the pandemic,” Scott Gottlieb, former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, wrote in his book about the pandemic, “Uncontrolled Spread.”

It’s still not clear who at the CDC settled on the six-foot distance; the agency has repeatedly declined to specify the authors of the guidance, which resembled its recommendations on how to avoid contracting the flu. A CDC spokesperson credited a team of experts, who drew from research such as a 1955 study on respiratory droplets. In his book, Gottlieb wrote that the Trump White House pushed back on the CDC’s initial recommendation of 10 feet of social distance, saying it would be too difficult to implement.

Perhaps the rule’s biggest impact was on children, despite ample evidence they were at relatively low risk of covid-related complications. Many schools were unable to accommodate six feet of space between students’ desks and forced to rely on virtual education for more than a year, said Joseph Allen, a Harvard University expert in environmental health, who called in 2020 for schools to adopt three feet of social distance.

“The six-foot rule was really an error that had been propagated for several decades, based on a misunderstanding of how particles traveled through indoor spaces,” Allen said, adding that health experts often wrongly focused on avoiding droplets from infected people rather than improving ventilation and filtration inside buildings.

Social distancing had champions before the pandemic. Bush administration officials, working on plans to fight bioterrorism, concluded that social distancing could save lives in a health crisis and renewed their calls as the coronavirus approached. The idea also took hold when public health experts initially believed that the coronavirus was often transmitted by droplets expelled by infected people, which could land several feet away; the CDC later acknowledged the virus was airborne and people could be exposed just by sharing the same air in a room, even if they were farther than six feet apart.

“There was no magic around six feet,” Robert R. Redfield, who served as CDC director during the Trump administration, told a congressional committee in March 2022. “It’s just historically that’s what was used for other respiratory pathogens. So that really became the first piece” of a strategy to protect Americans in the early days of the virus, he said.

It also became the standard that states and businesses adopted, with swift pressure on holdouts. Lawmakers and workers urged meat processing plants, delivery companies and other essential businesses to adopt the CDC’s social distancing recommendations as their employees continued reporting to work during the pandemic.

Some business leaders weren’t sure the measures made sense. Jeff Bezos, founder of online retail giant Amazon, petitioned the White House in March 2020 to consider revising the six-foot recommendation, said Adam Boehler, then a senior Trump administration official helping with the coronavirus response. At the time, Amazon was facing questions about a rising number of infections in its warehouses, and Democratic senators were urging the company to adopt social distancing.

“Bezos called me and asked, is there any real science behind this rule?” Boehler said, adding that Bezos pushed on whether Amazon could adopt an alternative distance if workers were masked, physically separated by dividers or other precautions were taken. “He said … it’s the backbone of trying to keep America running here, and when you separate somebody five feet versus six feet, it’s a big difference,” Boehler recalled. Bezos owns The Washington Post.

Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokesperson, confirmed that Bezos called Boehler but said the Amazon founder’s focus was the discrepancy between the U.S. recommendation and the WHO’s shorter distance. The company soon said it would follow the CDC’s six-foot social distancing guidelines in its warehouses and later developed technologies to try to enforce those guidelines. “We did it globally everywhere because it was the right thing to do,” Nantel said.

Boehler said he spoke with Redfield and Fauci about testing alternatives to the six-foot recommendation but that he was not aware of what happened to those tests or what they found. Fauci declined to comment. Redfield did not respond to requests for comment.

But challenging the six-foot recommendation, particularly in the pandemic’s early days, was seen as politically difficult. Rochelle Walensky, then chief of infectious disease at Massachusetts General Hospital, argued in a July 2020 email that “if people are masked it is quite safe and much more practical to be at 3 feet” in many school settings.

Five months later, incoming president Joe Biden would tap Walensky as his CDC director. Walensky swiftly endorsed the six-foot distance before working to loosen it, announcing in March 2021 that elementary school students could sit three feet apart if they were masked. Walensky declined to comment.

The most persistent government critic of the social distancing guidelines may have been McCance-Katz, who did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Trump’s mental health chief had spent several years clashing with other Department of Health and Human Services officials on various matters and had few internal defenders by the time the pandemic arrived, hampering her message. But while her pleas failed to move the CDC, her warnings about the risks to mental health found an audience with Trump and his allies, who blamed federal bureaucrats for the six-foot rule and other measures.

“What is this nonsense that somehow it’s unsafe to return to school?” McCance-Katz said in September 2020 on an HHS podcast, lamenting the broader shutdown of American life. “I do think that Americans are smart people, and I think that they need to start asking questions about why is it this way.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Loss of bats to lethal fungus linked to 1,300 child deaths in US, study says

Because bats feed on crop pests, their disappearance led to a surge in pesticide use. Research found a rise in infant mortality in areas where the bats had been wiped outIn 2006, a deadly fungus started killing bat colonies across the United States. Now, an environmental economist has linked their loss to the deaths of more than 1,300 children.The study, published in Science on Thursday, found that farmers dramatically increased pesticide use after the bat die-offs, which was in turn linked to an average infant mortality increase of nearly 8%. Unusually, the research suggests a causative link between human and bat wellbeing. Continue reading...

In 2006, a deadly fungus started killing bat colonies across the United States. Now, an environmental economist has linked their loss to the deaths of more than 1,300 children.The study, published in Science on Thursday, found that farmers dramatically increased pesticide use after the bat die-offs, which was in turn linked to an average infant mortality increase of nearly 8%. Unusually, the research suggests a causative link between human and bat wellbeing.“That’s just quite rare – to get good, empirical, grounded estimates of how much value the species is providing,” said environmental economist Charles Taylor from the Harvard Kennedy School, who was not involved in the study. “Putting actual numbers to it in a credible way is tough.”The crisis for bat colonies began in 2006, when a fungus called Pseudogymnoascus destructans hitchhiked from Europe to the US. P destructans grows on hibernating bats in winter, sprouting as white fuzz on their noses. It can extinguish a bat colony in as little as five years.When Eyal Frank, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago, learned about the disease, called white-nose syndrome, he realised it provided a perfect natural experiment to demonstrate the value of a bat. Bats eat 40% or more of their bodyweight in insects every night, including many crop pests. What would their disappearance mean?In infected areas, he found, farmers compensated for the loss of bats by significantly increasing their use of insecticides – by 31.1% on average.Next, Frank looked at infant mortality – a metric commonly used to judge the impact of environmental toxins. Infected counties had an infant death rate 7.9% higher, on average, than counties with healthy bats, despite pesticide use being within regulatory limits. That equates to 1,334 extra infant deaths.A brown bat with white-nose syndrome caused by the Pseudogymnoascus destructans fungus in New York. Photograph: Ryan von Linden/APFrank tested other factors that might plausibly explain the rise in deaths: unemployment, the opioid epidemic, the weather, differences among mothers, or the introduction of genetically modified crops, but none explained the increase in pesticide use or the rise in infant deaths. He spent a year “kicking the tyres on the study”, and the results held. It provided “compelling evidence”, he said, “that farmers did respond to the decline in insect-eating bats, and that response had an adverse health impact on human infants”.It is unusual for a study of this type to suggest causation, not just correlation, said Taylor.“A lot of papers that try to link pesticides to outcomes are correlational in nature,” said Taylor. “People who are exposed to more pesticides, for example, might have other risk factors – like, farm workers are exposed to a whole host of other socioeconomic risks that could explain why there might be different health outcomes.”White-nose syndrome, however, essentially creates a randomised controlled trial: because the spread of white-nose syndrome was closely monitored, Frank could compare counties that had lost their bats with those the disease had not yet reached. “The bat disease wasn’t expected, and it shouldn’t have preferentially targeted certain groups over others,” Taylor said.A number of recent studies have shown how collapsing populations of wildlife can have unexpected knock-on effects for people. In June, Frank and another researcher estimated that the collapse of India’s vulture population may have resulted in 500,000 human deaths – because without the scavenging birds to eat rotting meat, rabies and other infections proliferated.The findings on pesticide use also echo previous research, including a study of Taylor’s. In the US, cicadas emerge en masse at intervals of 13 to 17 years. Taylor found that pesticide use increased in cicada seasons, as did infant mortality. People born in cicada years had lower test scores and were more likely to drop out of school.Columbia history professor David Rosner, who has spent his career investigating environmental toxins, said the study joins a body of evidence going back to the 1960s that pesticides adversely affect human health. “We’re dumping these synthetic materials into our environment, not knowing anything about what their impacts are going to be,” he said. “It’s not surprising – it’s just kind of shocking that we discover it every year.”Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

Science
Crisis
Health

Cutbacks to U.S. Antarctic Science Risk Geopolitical Shifts at the South Pole

Reductions to American research at the South Pole could affect the politics of the southernmost continent

Antarctica may be remote, but it hasn’t escaped the scans of Google Street View. If you digitally drop into McMurdo Station, the U.S.’s busiest Antarctic installation, and slide along the volcanic rock of Ross Island, you’ll find muddy, tire-tracked roads. Along their edges are cargo containers marked “USAP,” the U.S. Antarctic Program, run by the National Science Foundation (NSF); you may also see Ivan the Terra Bus, a substantial people mover with burly tires that are nearly six feet tall.But McMurdo—normally a humming hub of research—has gotten quieter. Amid budget concerns and delayed upgrades to the station’s aging infrastructure, the NSF has pulled back on the number of scientific projects and associated people it sends to the globe’s deepest south.As the U.S. presence has decreased, though, other countries have been pouring more resources into the Antarctic. And although it’s not a contest, some experts are sounding alarms about that disparity. Security researchers say that “presence equals influence” in Antarctica, and they’re worried that the U.S. may slip in both categories while setting its scientific work back. Adrop inU.S. influence could affect geopolitics in the region and potentially endanger the safeguards ensuring the peaceful use of the Antarctic.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.Antarctica, as a continent and an idea, isn’t just some icy backwater: it’s an important place environmentally, scientifically and politically. “People just think of Antarctica as really far away and that it doesn’t have any impact on them,” says Deneb Karentz, vice president for science at the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). The Southern Ocean’s circulation redistributes heat globally, and deep ocean currents also carry nutrients toward the equator. “It’s a really vital part of the whole ocean system and the way that the ocean interacts with the atmosphere,” Karentz says.Antarctica is also a prime place for space research. With its stable atmosphere and lack of electromagnetic interference from civilization, astronomers and physicists can seek faint signals from long-ago, faraway, mysterious parts of the universe—signals that may be hidden from instruments on busier continents. People come from all over the world to study the ice itself, which contains 90 percent of the world’s surface fresh water. And then there’s the geology, the sea life, the extremophiles and the changing climate.Karentz’s organization, SCAR, helps countries share scientific results of all sorts and collaborate on projects. In August the organization will bring the global community together in Chile for the SCAR Open Science Conference—the first in-person meeting since 2018. Carolina Merino, a biologist at the University of La Frontera in Chile, plans to be at the meeting. She’s a member of SCAR and studies how microbes survive Antarctica’s harsh conditions. “Understanding these processes can have significant implications for climate change science and environmental conservation,” she says. At the SCAR meeting, she’s hoping to bolster international collaboration on research.In addition, the group serves as science adviser to the Antarctic Treaty system—a treaty and related documents that govern existence on the continent. SCAR shares expertise about topics such as which areas should be protected or what’s going on with climate change lately.The Antarctic Treaty isn’t complicated. “There are two things in the treaty,” Karentz says: one, Antarctica is to be used only for science, and two, “it has to be peaceful,” she says. Militaries are allowed to provide logistical support; the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security do so for the U.S. The treaty also has an Environmental Protection Protocol that lays out conservation measures and environmental management policies.The treaty was originally signed in 1959 and entered force in 1961, with the conflicted superpowers of the U.S. and the Soviet Union both coming onboard. “They agreed at that time that expanding the cold war into the coldest continent was not a useful activity,” says William Muntean, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.Even with that enforced peace, though, Antarctica is geopolitically important: it contains, for instance, resources such as fisheries, minerals and natural gas that, because of the treaty, no one can exploit. It’s also geopolitically strange. “It’s not divvied up into countries or ownership in the way the rest of the world is,” says Muntean, who served as senior adviser for Antarctica at the U.S. Department of State and, in that role, led the nation’s delegation to Antarctic Treaty meetings. Before the treaty, seven countries had already made claims on the continent, but when they signed the agreement, they barred themselves from legally acting on those claims.That’s a sovereignty situation unlike any other on Earth—and one that many researchers don’t think about when they’re preparing neutrino detectors and ice corers for the South Pole. Few people in the United States focus on the politics of Antarctica, Muntean says. “You could find a lot of scientists who can talk about penguins and ice cubes and all that sort of stuff, but very few talk about the politics of it,” he adds.The science that they do, however, is twined with the politics. Research projects—and infrastructure such as McMurdo or the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station—exist not just for the sake of knowledge gathering but also for the sake of influence. “If you want to be influential in any capacity—be it diplomatically, economically, militarily, doesn’t matter—you need to be present in a region,” says Ryan Burke, a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the University of Alaska Fairbanks’s Center for Arctic Security and Resilience. That’s especially true in a place where military flexes, traditional ways for nations to establish both presence and influence, are prohibited. Muntean cites China and South Korea as countries that are increasing their Antarctic footprint and therefore their own influence.Burke and Muntean are both concerned that the U.S., meanwhile, has decreased its presence in Antarctica. In 2023 NSF announced that it was canceling more than half of the USAP projects and activities that had been funded for the 2023–2024 research season. In the two summers to follow, the announcement said, the agency would focus on already-funded projects. It did not solicit any new USAP proposals in 2024.Those changes came in part because McMurdo Station needed to be modernized for the 21st century and is in the midst of upgrades.The initial renovation was interrupted by the COVID pandemic, as were Antarctic trips in general. The disease and its disruptions delayed the work—a new dorm, for instance, is off schedule by three years—meaning there aren’t enough beds available for the typical number of scientists who would visit. Plus, as grocery stores on the mainland show, costs of all sorts have increased, meaning a given amount of money results in less renovation.Not taking new proposals in 2024 “allows NSF to focus resources on reducing the lingering backlog of projects affected by the pandemic and major upgrade work at McMurdo Station,” an NSF spokesperson says.The science agency also stated last year that it would only operate one research ship in the coming decades, rather than the two it has in the past, partially because of budgetary concerns. The Coast Guard, meanwhile, is experiencing problems with its Polar Security Cutter program, and acquisitions of new ships are delayed.All of that together, despite the logistical and financial constraints that make it seemingly necessary, has the effect of decreasing American presence in Antarctica and backing up the scientific pipeline. “It is an issue,” Karentz says, “and I think there’s legitimate concern about what it's doing to the future of the U.S. Antarctic Program.”Muntean worries about early-career researchers, whose research path might be more affected by delays due to the Antarctic slowdown and who could also face more competition because of the backup. “Right now it’s a little bit tough, I think, to say South Pole or Antarctic research has got a bright future,” he says.In Muntean’s view, U.S. planners aren’t thinking enough about pipelines in general, such as replacement plans for aging ships and planes that can move in that harsh environment. As with the on-land infrastructure, if you wait until vehicles face obsolescence, you often face a gap in capability. “The icebreaker that is currently operational—Polar Star—is almost as old as I am,” Muntean says, describing the ship that creates a channel through the ice to clear the way to McMurdo Sound. “This is not good for us.”An NSF spokesperson points to President Biden’s May 2024 National Security Memorandum on U.S. Policy on the Antarctic Region, “which reaffirms the importance of the Antarctic Treaty System ... [and] reiterates the long-standing mandate to maintain an ‘active and influential presence.’”But if the U.S. loses influence in Antarctica, there could be negative consequences for the dynamics of the region. “We have a nice, neutral, calming effect, usually, on the politics of Antarctica,” Muntean says.Burke agrees. “The U.S. is largely interested in maintaining the continent as a zone of peace and research,” he says—upholding the original tenets of the treaty, in other words.The current American pullback has led some to worry that, as Muntean put it in a recent commentary, other countries may be more likely to “pursue their individual interests rather than their collective interest.”The collective interest involves those “peace and science” ideals in the treaty, and individual interests perhaps include putting dual-use capabilities at Antarctic installations—instrumentation that’s useful both to scientists and to the military—or looking into using resources that have been set aside for conservation.Worries about countries pursuing individual interests are why treaties have enforcement mechanisms. The Antarctic Treaty has two. Countries can do unannounced inspections of other nations’ stations. “Countries show up and check out what’s happening to see whether countries are doing what they’re saying they’re doing,” Muntean says. Every state present in Antarctica also has to document their planned activities, equipment and in-person presence.A U.S. team slid in just before the pandemic in 2020 to perform recent inspections. It was led by Muntean, and members included officials from the Department of State, the Coast Guard, NSF and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “We were welcomed with open arms by all stations,” Muntean says.Over the entire lifetime of the treaty, however, only around 60 inspections have occurred—not exactly enough to keep a sharp eye on the goings-on. And in 2023 just 10 of 29 parties had done their required documentation every year for the past decade.Given all those fuzzy variables, Muntean believes that scientists who study the Antarctic shouldn’t just pay attention to their own projects and care about their own results. They also need to be part of the policy and the politics, especially if they want to ensure they get to continue to do their science at the levels they have in the past. “The U.S. needs to be thinking about how to make the platforms, and maintain the platforms, for decades to come in a manner that keeps us in the forefront of science [and] environmental protection,” Muntean says, “as well as the politics.”

Science
Climate
Water

Groundbreaking Antarctic Survey Reveals Hidden Patterns in Ice Shelf Melting

Scientists have used a submersible to map the underside of Antarctica’s Dotson Ice Shelf, revealing rapid melting and unusual patterns that contribute to understanding sea level rise. The research highlights the need for improved predictive models and continued exploration to comprehend future changes in ice shelf dynamics. The first detailed maps of the underside of [...]

A survey using a submersible named ‘Ran’ has mapped the underside of Antarctica’s Dotson Ice Shelf, revealing complex ice melt patterns that suggest faster melting and future sea level rise implications.Scientists have used a submersible to map the underside of Antarctica’s Dotson Ice Shelf, revealing rapid melting and unusual patterns that contribute to understanding sea level rise. The research highlights the need for improved predictive models and continued exploration to comprehend future changes in ice shelf dynamics. The first detailed maps of the underside of a floating ice shelf in Antarctica have unveiled crucial clues about future sea level rise. An international research team – including scientists from the University of East Anglia (UEA) – deployed an unmanned submersible beneath the Dotson Ice Shelf in West Antarctica. The underwater vehicle, ‘Ran’, was programmed to dive into the cavity of the 350-meter-thick ice shelf and scan the ice above it with an advanced sonar. Over 27 days, the submarine traveled more than 1000 kilometers back and forth under the shelf, reaching 17 kilometers into the cavity. Understanding Ice Shelf Dynamics An ice shelf is a mass of glacial ice, fed from land by tributary glaciers, that floats in the sea above an ice shelf cavity. Dotson Ice Shelf is part of the West Antarctic ice sheet – and next to Thwaites Glacier – which is considered to have a potentially large impact on future sea level rise due to its size and location. The researchers report their findings of this unique survey in a new paper published in the journal Science Advances. They found some things as expected, for example, the glacier melts faster where strong underwater currents erode its base. Using the submersible, they were able to measure the currents below the glacier for the first time and prove why the western part of the Dotson Ice Shelf melts so fast. They also found evidence of very high melt at vertical fractures that extend through the glacier. However, the team also saw new patterns on the glacier base that raised questions. The mapping showed that the base is not smooth, but there is a peak and valley ice-scape with plateaus and formations resembling sand dunes. The researchers hypothesize that these may have been formed by flowing water under the influence of Earth’s rotation. Insights from High-Resolution Mapping Lead author Anna Wåhlin, Professor of Oceanography at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, said: “We have previously used satellite data and ice cores to observe how ice shelves change over time. By navigating the submersible into the cavity, we were able to get high-resolution maps of the ice underside. It’s a bit like seeing the back of the moon for the first time.” The expedition was carried out in regions of drifting ice in West Antarctica in 2022 during a research cruise for the TARSAN project, a joint US-UK funded initiative that is part of the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration. The project is studying how atmospheric and oceanic processes are influencing the behavior of the Thwaites and Dotson Ice Shelves – neighboring ice shelves that are behaving differently. Co-author Dr Rob Hall, from UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences, co-led the cruise on the RV Nathaniel B Palmer, on which the observations were made from January to March 2022. He said: “Anna and her team successfully piloted their autonomous underwater vehicle ‘Ran’ over 1000 km under Dotson Ice Shelf collecting a huge range of data and samples, which will take several years to process and analyze. “The incredible high-resolution images of the underside of the ice shelf are the icing on the cake and will open up a whole new avenue of scientific research.” The Significance of Melting Ice Shelves Prof Karen Heywood, also from UEA and a co-author, is UK lead scientist on the TARSAN project. She said: “This has been such an exciting project to work on. When Anna sent round the first images of the underside of the Dotson ice shelf we were thrilled – nobody had ever seen this before. But we were also baffled – there were cracks and swirls in the ice that we weren’t expecting. It looked more like art! “We wondered what could be causing these. All of the glaciologists and the oceanographers in the TARSAN project got together to brainstorm ideas. It’s been like detective work – using fundamental ocean physics to test theories against the shape and size of the patterns under the ice. We’ve been able to show for the first time some of the processes that melt the underside of ice shelves. Prof Heywood added: “These ice shelves are already floating on the sea, so their melting doesn’t directly affect sea level. However, ultimately the melting of ice shelves causes the glaciers on land further upstream to flow faster and destabilize, which does lead to sea level rise, so these new observations will help the community of ice modelers to reduce the large uncertainties in future sea levels.” Scientists now realize there is a wealth of processes left to discover in future research missions under the glaciers. “The mapping has given us new data that we need to look at more closely. It is clear that many previous assumptions about the melting of glacier undersides are falling short. Current models cannot explain the complex patterns we see. But with this method, we have a better chance of finding the answers,” said Prof Wåhlin. “Better models are needed to predict how fast the ice shelves will melt in the future. It is exciting when oceanographers and glaciologists work together, combining remote sensing with oceanographic field data. This is needed to understand the glaciological changes taking place – the driving force is in the ocean.” In January 2024, the group returned with Ran to Dotson Ice Shelf to repeat the surveys, hoping to document changes. However, they were only able to complete one dive before Ran disappeared under the ice. “Although we got valuable data back, we did not get all we had hoped for,” said Prof Wåhlin. “These scientific advances were made possible thanks to the unique submersible that Ran was. This research is needed to understand the future of Antarctica’s ice sheet, and we hope to be able to replace Ran and continue this important work.” Reference: “Swirls and scoops: Ice base melt revealed by multibeam imagery of an Antarctic ice shelf” by Anna Wåhlin, Karen E. Alley, Carolyn Begeman, Øyvind Hegrenæs, Xiaohan Yuan, Alastair G. C. Graham, Kelly Hogan, Peter E. D. Davis, Tiago S. Dotto, Clare Eayrs, Robert A. Hall, David M. Holland, Tae Wan Kim, Robert D. Larter, Li Ling, Atsuhiro Muto, Erin C. Pettit, Britney E. Schmidt, Tasha Snow, Filip Stedt, Peter M. Washam, Stina Wahlgren, Christian Wild, Julia Wellner, Yixi Zheng and Karen J. Heywood, 31 July 2024, Science Advances.DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adn9188

Science
Water

MIT School of Science launches Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy

New center taps Institute-wide expertise to improve understanding of, and responses to, sustainability challenges.

The MIT School of Science is launching a center to advance knowledge and computational capabilities in the field of sustainability science, and support decision-makers in government, industry, and civil society to achieve sustainable development goals. Aligned with the Climate Project at MIT, researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy will develop and apply expertise from across the Institute to improve understanding of sustainability challenges, and thereby provide actionable knowledge and insight to inform strategies for improving human well-being for current and future generations.Noelle Selin, professor at MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems and Society and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, will serve as the center’s inaugural faculty director. C. Adam Schlosser and Sergey Paltsev, senior research scientists at MIT, will serve as deputy directors, with Anne Slinn as executive director.Incorporating and succeeding both the Center for Global Change Science and Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change while adding new capabilities, the center aims to produce leading-edge research to help guide societal transitions toward a more sustainable future. Drawing on the long history of MIT’s efforts to address global change and its integrated environmental and human dimensions, the center is well-positioned to lead burgeoning global efforts to advance the field of sustainability science, which seeks to understand nature-society systems in their full complexity. This understanding is designed to be relevant and actionable for decision-makers in government, industry, and civil society in their efforts to develop viable pathways to improve quality of life for multiple stakeholders.“As critical challenges such as climate, health, energy, and food security increasingly affect people’s lives around the world, decision-makers need a better understanding of the earth in its full complexity — and that includes people, technologies, and institutions as well as environmental processes,” says Selin. “Better knowledge of these systems and how they interact can lead to more effective strategies that avoid unintended consequences and ensure an improved quality of life for all.”    Advancing knowledge, computational capability, and decision supportTo produce more precise and comprehensive knowledge of sustainability challenges and guide decision-makers to formulate more effective strategies, the center has set the following goals:Advance fundamental understanding of the complex interconnected physical and socio-economic systems that affect human well-being. As new policies and technologies are developed amid climate and other global changes, they interact with environmental processes and institutions in ways that can alter the earth’s critical life-support systems. Fundamental mechanisms that determine many of these systems’ behaviors, including those related to interacting climate, water, food, and socio-economic systems, remain largely unknown and poorly quantified. Better understanding can help society mitigate the risks of abrupt changes and “tipping points” in these systems.Develop, establish and disseminate new computational tools toward better understanding earth systems, including both environmental and human dimensions. The center’s work will integrate modeling and data analysis across disciplines in an era of increasing volumes of observational data. MIT multi-system models and data products will provide robust information to inform decision-making and shape the next generation of sustainability science and strategy.Produce actionable science that supports equity and justice within and across generations. The center’s research will be designed to inform action associated with measurable outcomes aligned with supporting human well-being across generations. This requires engaging a broad range of stakeholders, including not only nations and companies, but also nongovernmental organizations and communities that take action to promote sustainable development — with special attention to those who have historically borne the brunt of environmental injustice.“The center’s work will advance fundamental understanding in sustainability science, leverage leading-edge computing and data, and promote engagement and impact,” says Selin. “Our researchers will help lead scientists and strategists across the globe who share MIT’s commitment to mobilizing knowledge to inform action toward a more sustainable world.”Building a better world at MITBuilding on existing MIT capabilities in sustainability, science, and strategy, the center aims to: focus research, education, and outreach under a theme that reflects a comprehensive state of the field and international research directions, fostering a dynamic community of students, researchers, and faculty;raise the visibility of sustainability science at MIT, emphasizing links between science and action, in the context of existing Institute goals and other efforts on climate and sustainability, and in a way that reflects the vital contributions of a range of natural and social science disciplines to understanding human-environment systems; andre-emphasize MIT’s long-standing expertise in integrated systems modeling while leveraging the Institute’s concurrent leading-edge strengths in data and computing, establishing leadership that harnesses recent innovations, including those in machine learning and artificial intelligence, toward addressing the science challenges of global change and sustainability.“The Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy will provide the necessary synergy for our MIT researchers to develop, deploy, and scale up serious solutions to climate change and other critical sustainability challenges,” says Nergis Mavalvala the Curtis and Kathleen Marble Professor of Astrophysics and dean of the MIT School of Science. “With Professor Selin at its helm, the center will also ensure that these solutions are created in concert with the people who are directly affected now and in the future.”The center builds on more than three decades of achievements by the Center for Global Change Science and the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, both of which were directed or co-directed by professor of atmospheric science Ronald Prinn.

Science
Climate
Energy

School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences welcomes nine new faculty

New professors join anthropology, economics, history, linguistics, music and theater arts, and philosophy departments, as well as the Program in Science, Technology, and Society.

Dean Agustín Rayo and the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences recently welcomed nine new professors to the MIT community. They arrive with diverse backgrounds and vast knowledge in their areas of research.Sonya Atalay joins the Anthropology Section as a professor. She is a public anthropologist and archaeologist who studies Indigenous science protocols, practices, and research methods carried out with and for Indigenous communities. Atalay is the director and principal investigator of the Center for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science, a newly established National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center. She has expertise in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and served two terms on the National NAGPRA Review Committee, first appointed by the Bush administration and then for a second term by the Obama administration. Atalay has produced a series of research-based comics in partnership with Native nations about repatriation of Native American ancestral remains, return of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony under NAGPRA law. Atalay earned her PhD in anthropology from the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley).Anna Huang SM ’08 joins the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and Music and Theater Arts as assistant professor. She will help develop graduate programming focused on music technology. Previously, she spent eight years with Magenta at Google Brain and DeepMind, spearheading efforts in generative modeling, reinforcement learning, and human-computer interaction to support human-AI partnerships in music-making. She is the creator of Music Transformer and Coconet (which powered the Bach Google Doodle). She was a judge and organizer for the AI Song Contest. Anna holds a Canada CIFAR AI Chair at Mila, a BM in music composition, a BS in computer science from the University of Southern California, an MS from the MIT Media Lab, and a PhD from Harvard University.Elena Kempf joins the History Section as an assistant professor. She is an historian of modern Europe with special interests in international law and modern Germany in its global context. Her current book project is a legal, political, and cultural history of weapons prohibitions in modern international law from the 1860s to the present. Before joining MIT, Kempf was a postdoc at the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law at UC Berkeley and a lecturer at the Department of History at Stanford University. Elena earned her PhD in history from UC Berkeley.Matthias Michel joins the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy as an assistant professor. Matthias completed his PhD in philosophy in 2019 at Sorbonne Université. Before coming to MIT, he was a Bersoff Faculty Fellow in the Department of Philosophy at New York University. His research is at the intersection between philosophy and cognitive science, and focuses on philosophical issues related to the scientific study of consciousness. His current work addresses questions such as how to distinguish entities with minds from those without, which animals are sentient, and which mental functions can be performed unconsciously.Jacob Moscona PhD ’21 is a new assistant professor in the Department of Economics. His research explores broad questions in economic development, with a focus on the role of innovation, the environment, and political economy. One stream of his research investigates the forces that drive the rate and direction of technological progress, as well as how new technologies shape global productivity differences and adaptation to major threats like climate change. Another stream of his research studies the political economy of economic development, with a focus on how variation in social organization and institutions affects patterns of conflict and cooperation. Prior to joining MIT, he was a Prize Fellow in Economics, History, and Politics at Harvard University. He received his BA from Harvard in 2016 and PhD from MIT in 2021. Outside of MIT, Jacob enjoys playing and performing music.Sendhil Mullainathan joins the departments of EECS and Economics as the Peter de Florez Professor. His research uses machine learning to understand complex problems in human behavior, social policy, and medicine. Previously, Mullainathan spent five years at MIT before joining the faculty at Harvard in 2004, and then the University of Chicago in 2018. He received his BA in computer science, mathematics, and economics from Cornell University and his PhD from Harvard.Elise Newman PhD ’21 is a new assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Her forthcoming monograph, “When arguments merge,” studies the ingredients that languages use to construct verb phrases, and examines how those ingredients interact with other linguistic processes such as question formation. By studying these interactions, she forms a hypothesis about how different languages’ verb phrases can be distinct from each other, and what they must have in common, providing insight into this aspect of the human language faculty. In addition to the structural properties of language, Newman also has expertise in semantics (the study of meaning) and first language acquisition. She returns to MIT after a postdoc at the University of Edinburgh, after completing her PhD in linguistics at MIT in 2021.Oliver Rollins joins the Program in Science, Technology, and Society as an assistant professor. He is a qualitative sociologist who explores the sociological dimensions of neuroscientific knowledge and technologies. His work primarily illustrates the way race, racialized discourses, and systemic practices of social difference impact and are shaped by the development and use of neuroscience. His book, “Conviction: The Making and Unmaking of The Violent Brain” (Stanford University Press, 2021), traces the evolution of neuroimaging research on antisocial behavior, stressing the limits of this controversial brain model when dealing with aspects of social inequality. Rollins’s second book project will grapple with the legacies of scientific racism in and through the mind and brain sciences, elucidating how the haunting presence of race endures through modern neuroscientific theories, data, and technologies. Rollins recently received an NSF CAREER Award to investigate the intersections between social justice and science. Through this project, he aims to examine the sociopolitical vulnerabilities, policy possibilities, and anti-racist promises for contemporary (neuro)science.Ishani Saraf joins the Program in Science, Technology, and Society as an assistant professor. She is a sociocultural anthropologist. Her research studies the transformation and trade of discarded machines in translocal spaces in India and the Indian Ocean, where she focuses on questions of postcolonial capitalism, urban belonging, material practices, situated bodies of knowledge, and environmental governance. She received her PhD from the University of California at Davis, and prior to joining MIT, she was a postdoc and lecturer at the University of Virginia.

Science
Technology
Climate

Suggested Viewing

Allergy Alert: Paranoia in Our Immune System

From peanuts and pollen to cats and dust mites, allergy rates are soaring dramatically all over the globe, with inoffensive substances triggering life-threatening physical responses. Experts are predicting that by 2050, one in two will suffer from an allergy. Why are our immune systems overreacting in this way? To stem the tide of the epidemic, scientists are investigating the interface between genetics, environmental factors and our modern lifestyle, and developing revolutionary new approaches to prevention and treatment.

Science
Crisis
Health

BlackWater

BlackWater is a documentary about protecting Florida Springs, focusing on the Ichetucknee River. The Florida Springs have been displaying a decline in quality and will continue to if we do not make a change. I encourage you to visit and experience the Florida Springs system, as it truly is a religious experience. Produced by Ethan Beckley, Annick Joseph, and Jiahui Shen.

Water
Conservation
Science

Salted Earth

"Salted Earth" plunges us into the heart of an invisible and creeping crisis that's transforming the Mid-Atlantic – the inexorable rise of sea levels. This hard-hitting, yet tenderly woven 20-minute documentary paints a vivid picture of an escalating environmental catastrophe, where the threat is not just the swelling sea, but the encroaching salt that kills forests and decimates arable land, but could also signal a return to the natural order of the Atlantic Coast. Our journey navigates the brackish waters of climate change alongside an intrepid team of scientists. Through their tireless work, they seek to unravel the intricacies of how salty water infiltrates groundwater and soils, with consequences as far-reaching as they are devastating. Their research is more than academic; it's a desperate quest for solutions that may help vulnerable communities adapt and even survive. "Salted Earth" is not only a saga of scientific discovery. It's also a story of human resilience and ingenuity. We venture into the heart of communities, the lifeblood of the Mid-Atlantic, whose existence is at stake. We see firsthand the farmers struggling to preserve their livelihoods, community leaders forging ahead with audacious resilience strategies, and everyday individuals battling the rising tide. Through intimate interviews with scientists, farmers, and community leaders, "Salted Earth" provides a sobering, yet inspiring look at the very real and present challenge of sea-level rise. It asks a question that affects us all: Can our strategy against the rising sea succeed, or are we fighting an unwinnable war? The answer may unsettle you, but the journey is one you cannot afford to miss. Watch "Salted Earth" and see the future of our world through a salt-streaked lens.

Water
Land Use
Science

STOPPING THE NEXT PANDEMIC

Stopping the next pandemic is a new challenge to the most prominent scientists. Their field studies around the world are showing that our health as humans depends on animal and environmental health. Diseases that occur in the remotest places are now our concern. We live in a connected world. We will have to preserve the environment to prevent future pandemics.

Health
Science

One Day We Will Dance With You

One Day We Will Dance with You tells the story of two women creating a dance to celebrate water. They imagine dance moves, and argue about science and whether a celebration can still be sad. As the community around them comes together to dance, they begin to imagine a future where the Water Molecule Dance and the celebration of water becomes a part of all our lives.

Dance
Science
Water

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.