STOCKHOLM—Supporters says it'll be an eye-catching landmark and a powerful symbol of this city's ties to the most prestigious awards in the world. The proposed new Nobel Center, to be built in central Stockholm, would draw 600,000 visitors a year, provide a splendid new venue for Nobel award ceremonies, and become a hub for science, education, and literature.
But opponents say the bronze, steel, and glass box is too big, ugly, and in the wrong place—and they're determined to stop it. They say the center would forever mar Stockholm's historic skyline.
Construction of the eight-story, $140 million building is set to begin in the small peninsula of Blasieholmen in 2017 and finish 2 years later. But the debate about it is far from over. The City Council approved a detailed construction plan last April, but a group called Bevara Blasieholmen - Flytta Nobelbygget (Preserve Blasieholmen - Move the Nobel Center) is appealing the decision in court, together with owners of buildings adjoining the site. (The group is also planning to hold a rally—one of many—in Blasieholmen tomorrow.)
A new report on how the next U.S. president should manage the nation’s science portfolio comes with an invisible sticker on its cover: Open and read immediately if Donald Trump is elected.
The 20-page report, by former Clinton science adviser Neal Lane and colleagues at Rice University in Houston, Texas, is directed at the winner of the November election. Its explicit message is simple: The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the position of the president’s science adviser should be retained. Left unspoken is the fear that Republican standard-bearer Trump, unlike Democrat Hillary Clinton, may decide to dismantle the present structure, which has existed for decades under both Democratic and Republican presidents.
“The status quo is not always a bad thing,” quipped Lane during a briefing today on the report at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. “There are many things about OSTP and the science adviser’s job that have been shown to work pretty well over the years. And there’s nothing that came up that would suggest there are problems” with how the Obama administration has used its science adviser, John Holdren, and his office.
The Milky Way has been mapped in greater detail than ever before. And a first quick look indicates that our home galaxy is larger in extent than scientists had thought before, says Gisella Clementini, an astronomer at the Astronomical Observatory of Bologna in Italy.
Today, at the European Space Astronomy Centre in Madrid, the European Space Agency (ESA) released the first data from its €750 million Gaia star-mapping mission. The new catalog contains sky positions for 1.1 billion stars, 400 million of which have never been seen before. For many stars, the positional accuracy is 300 microarcseconds—the width of a human hair, seen from a distance of 30 kilometers—positions that will help astronomers better determine the 3D layout of the galaxy. “This is far better than anything we’ve ever had before,” says project scientist Timo Prusti of ESA’s science and technology center ESTEC in Noordwijk, the Netherlands. “It’s a milestone.”
The Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation announced its annual awards today, honoring research into how humans adapt to available oxygen, how the hepatitis C virus (HCV) replicates, and how cells copy DNA. Often referred to as “America’s Nobels,” the prizes highlight scientific work that helps diagnose and treat human disease. Winning a Lasker is sometimes a precursor to winning a Nobel Prize.
For its basic research award, the foundation picked the work of biomedical researchers William Kaelin Jr. of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Peter Ratcliffe of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, and Gregg Semenza of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. The researchers dug into the complexities of a seemingly basic life function—breathing. More specifically, how a genetic transcription factor called hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) helps our bodies adapt to low-oxygen environments, and how modifying that factor could help treat anemia and cancers.
“You can think of HIF as being the conductor for a symphony,” Kaelin says in a Lasker Foundation interview. HIF regulates genes that dictate how the human body responds to a lack of oxygen, he said, but it can also affect genes that determine whether a cell divides and how that cell can affect neighboring cells. Therapies could seek to increase or decrease the amount of HIF to deliver more oxygen to anemic cells or suppress cancerous growth.
Ask Donald Trump (R) about climate change, and he’ll talk about “limited financial resources” and suggest that eradicating malaria and increasing global food production may be higher priorities for his administration. Ask Hillary Clinton (D) the same question, and she’ll spell out the key elements of her $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge aimed at making the United States a “clean energy superpower.”
The candidates have spoken on science, thanks to ScienceDebate.org, a coalition determined to tease out the science-related policy positions of those vying to be the next U.S. president. And the candidates have done so in ways that are consistent with how they won their party’s nomination and what they are saying on the campaign trail. For Clinton, that means a raft of new initiatives based on detailed arguments. Trump’s answers reflect his skepticism of the federal government’s ability to solve problems and his reticence to explain what lies beneath his sweeping generalizations.
The coalition’s name derives from its initial push in 2008 for presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain to hold a debate devoted to science. That never materialized, but the group didn’t fold its tent. In the past month Trump, Clinton, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein submitted answers to 20 questions crafted and posed by the coalition. Of the major candidates, only Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party did not respond.
BEIJING—An éminence grise in particle physics, Nobel laureate Chen Ning Yang, has come out strongly against plans to build the world’s largest particle accelerator in China. His comments come at a critical time for the Circular Electron Positron Collider (CEPC), one contender to succeed the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland. Debate is now intensifying over whether the CEPC’s science questions are compelling enough to justify the estimated $6 billion price tag, 70% of which China would bear with as-yet unidentified partners covering the rest.
Leading the charge for the CEPC is the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ (CAS’s) Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) here. For 30 years, the institute has operated the Beijing Electron Position Collider (BECP), a small machine that put China on the map in high-energy physics. With the BECP set to shut down in 2022, researchers here for the past decade have been mulling a successor. In September 2012, 2 months after the LHC announced the discovery of the Higgs particle, IHEP proposed the CEPC and an even more ambitious upgrade down the road. However, its request for about $120 million over 5 years for conceptual design work on the CEPC failed to win approval earlier this year from China’s National Development and Reform Commission; instead, the project received some $5 million for preliminary study.
On 4 September, Yang, in an article posted on the social media platform WeChat, says that China should not build a supercollider now. He is concerned about the huge cost and says the money would be better spent on pressing societal needs. In addition, he does not believe the science justifies the cost: The LHC confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson, he notes, but it has not discovered new particles or inconsistencies in the standard model of particle physics. The prospect of an even bigger collider succeeding where the LHC has failed is “a guess on top of a guess,” he writes. Yang argues that high-energy physicists should eschew big accelerator projects for now and start blazing trails in new experimental and theoretical approaches.
Earlier this year, scientists announced the detection of gravitational waves—Einstein’s ripples in spacetime—for the first time on Earth. Those ripples are now reverberating through NASA, nudging the agency to mend fences with the European Space Agency (ESA) and rejoin an ambitious mission, called the Laser Interferometry Space Antenna (LISA), to study gravitational waves from space.
This week, at the 11th LISA symposium in Zürich, Switzerland, a NASA official said he was ready to rejoin the LISA mission, which the agency left in 2011. Meanwhile, ESA says it is trying to move the launch of the mission up several years from 2034. “This is a very important meeting,” says David Shoemaker, a gravitational wave physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. “It feels like a turning point.”
Plans for LISA date back more than 2 decades. Three separate spacecraft, flying millions of kilometers apart from each other at the vertices of a giant triangle, would precisely measure their mutual separations using sensitive lasers, and thus be capable of detecting low-frequency ripples in spacetime. The objects causing these low-frequency ripples—such as orbiting supermassive black holes at the centers of distant galaxies—would be different from the higher frequency ripples, emitted by collisions of much smaller black holes, that have so far been detected on Earth.
The internet is often hailed as a liberating technology. No matter who you are or what kind of country you live in, your voice can be amplified online and heard around the world. But that assumes that people can get on the internet in the first place. Research has shown that poverty and remoteness can prevent people from getting online, but a new study out today also shows that just belonging to a politically marginalized group can translate to poorer access. The study, published online today in Science, provides the first global map of the people being left behind by the internet revolution.
Mapping the internet is hard. Although it is true that every computer with a connection has a real-world location, no one actually knows where they all are. Rather than being organized top-down, the world's computers are connected to each other by a bushy, redundant network of servers. Each country builds and maintains its own infrastructure for connecting citizens to the wider internet. The decision to expand and maintain the infrastructure in one region and not another is up to those in power. And therein lies the problem: Ethnic and religious minorities who are excluded from their country's political process may also be systematically excluded from the global internet.
The new study began as an examination of protest movements and how they depend on internet connectivity, says lead author Nils Weidmann, a political scientist at the University of Konstanz in Germany. "I have fine-grained protest data, but no fine-grained estimates for internet penetration." So he struck up a collaboration with computer scientists at the science and technology university ETH Zurich in Switzerland who were working on a solution to exactly this problem. Their method worked so well that he realized it could be used to map the internet access gap across the world.
The French had less confidence in the safety of vaccines than the residents of 66 other countries recently surveyed by researchers.
A team lead by anthropologist Heidi Larson of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine conducted what it contends is “the largest survey on confidence in immunization to date,” interviewing more than 65,000 people. As the researchers report online in EBioMedicine today, 41% of respondents in France disagreed with the assertion that vaccines are safe. On average, just 12% of respondents in other nations disagreed with this statement.
“I didn’t expect France to be as negative as it was,” says Larson, who runs The Vaccine Confidence Project, a nonprofit that monitors public concerns about immunization. At the other end of the scale, only 0.2% of the respondents in Bangladesh had similar safety misgivings.
Depending on whom you ask, yesterday’s U.S. government workshop on the state of nonhuman primate research was either a raging success or a complete fiasco. The event, held at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, brought together dozens of scientists, veterinarians, and bioethicists to discuss how research on monkeys and related animals is contributing to human medicine and to review the welfare policies that surround this work. But observers differed widely on whether it accomplished what Congress had in mind when it told NIH to hold the event.
“It was a great showcase of the importance nonhuman primates have played and continue to play in human health,” says Anne Deschamps, a senior science policy analyst at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, one of several scientific organizations that signed onto a white paper released in advance of the meeting that promoted the use of these animals in biomedical research. She contends that research on these animals has been critical for our understanding of HIV and the human brain.
But the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), whose lobbying efforts led to the workshop, says the meeting was supposed to determine whether monkeys and their relatives belong in laboratories in the first place. “It was an infomercial for the use of monkeys in experiments,” says PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo in Norfolk, Virginia. “It was a wasted opportunity.”