Researchers seem to have solved the puzzle of LK-99. Scientific detective work has unearthed evidence that the material is not a superconductor, and clarified its actual properties. Nature: The conclusion dashes hopes that LK-99 -- a compound of copper, lead, phosphorus and oxygen -- marked the discovery of the first superconductor that works at room temperature and ambient pressure. Instead, studies have shown that impurities in the material -- in particular, copper sulfide -- were responsible for the sharp drops in electrical resistivity and partial levitation over a magnet, which looked similar to properties exhibited by superconductors. "I think things are pretty decisively settled at this point," says Inna Vishik, a condensed-matter experimentalist at the University of California, Davis.

The LK-99 saga began in late July, when a team led by Sukbae Lee and Ji-Hoon Kim at the Quantum Energy Research Centre, a start-up firm in Seoul, published preprints claiming that LK-99 is a superconductor at normal pressure and temperatures up to at least 127C (400 kelvin). All previously confirmed superconductors function only at extreme temperatures and pressures. The extraordinary claim quickly grabbed the attention of the science-interested public and researchers, some of whom tried to replicate LK-99. Initial attempts did not see signs of room-temperature superconductivity, but were not conclusive. Now, after dozens of replication efforts, many experts are confidently saying that the evidence shows LK-99 is not a room-temperature superconductor. The South Korean team based its claim on two of LK-99's properties: levitation above a magnet and abrupt drops in resistivity. But separate teams in Beijing, at Peking University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), found mundane explanations for these phenomena.

Another study, by US and European researchers, combined experimental and theoretical evidence to demonstrate how LK-99's structure made superconductivity infeasible. And other experimenters synthesized and studied pure samples of LK-99, erasing doubts about the material's structure and confirming that it is not a superconductor, but an insulator. The only further confirmation would come from the Korean team sharing their samples, says Michael Fuhrer, a physicist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. "The burden's on them to convince everybody else," he says. Perhaps the most striking evidence for LK-99's superconductivity was a video taken by the Korean team that showed a coin-shaped sample of silvery material wobbling over a magnet. The team said the sample was levitating because of the Meissner effect -- a hallmark of superconductivity in which a material expels magnetic fields. Multiple unverified videos of LK-99 levitating subsequently circulated on social media, but none of the researchers who initially tried to replicate the findings observed any levitation.

In a neighborhood in Seoul there's an ordinary red-brick, four-story building, reports Bloomberg — but there's something unique about the building's basement office. It's somehow the registered address of the Centre "whose extraordinary claims about a breakthrough in superconductor technology have shocked the scientific community and captivated the world."

Bloomberg also reports that:

- "No one responded when a Bloomberg News reporter knocked on the center's locked doors or reached out via LinkedIn."

- "Goods including bottles of sparkling water delivered to the center's address have been left untouched outside the office's entrance."

- "Multiple attempts to reach the scientists at the Quantum Energy Research Centre were not answered."

- "The center's website has also been closed and says it is 'under construction.'"

However, Kim Hyun Tak, one of the authors of the papers who is a research professor of physics at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, said the skeptical reaction is expected. "It's common practice when a new crucial discovery or invention is made public that there are more people who say that it's not credible," Kim said in a Zoom interview. "It's a natural thing for some people to laugh at it because it's the first time, and they don't even know what it is, but as time passes, they start to believe it...."

In response to questions about why the Quantum Energy Research Centre hasn't provided the materials to other scientists, Kim said that it doesn't have enough inventory of the LK-99 compound nor time to recreate it, and that the researchers have been distracted by the number of journalists trying to contact them. "You know that the office is extremely small and in a poor state." he said. "It's so small, and you need the money to make the compounds. That's why they cannot mass-produce it."

Despite the questions, he remained defiant that the research was sound. "The experimental data speaks for itself," Kim said. "We know it because we're the ones who synthesized it and conducted the studies."
"The claim has been met with widespread excitement globally," adds Bloomberg, "sending related stocks soaring in South Korea and China, but also skepticism as past claims had been later proven wrong."

Following months of intense scrutiny of his scientific work, Marc Tessier-Lavigne announced Wednesday that he would resign as president of Stanford University after an independent review of his research found significant flaws in studies he supervised going back decades. From a report: The review, conducted by an outside panel of scientists, refuted the most serious claim involving Dr. Tessier-Lavigne's work -- that an important 2009 Alzheimer's study was the subject of an investigation that found falsified data and that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had covered it up. The panel concluded that the claim, published in February by The Stanford Daily, the campus newspaper, "appear to be mistaken" and that there was no evidence of falsified data, or that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had otherwise engaged in fraud.

But the review also stated that the 2009 study, conducted while he was an executive at the biotech company Genentech, had "multiple problems" and "fell below customary standards of scientific rigor and process," especially for a paper of such potential consequences. As a result of the review, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne said he would retract a 1999 paper that appeared in the journal Cell and two others that appeared in Science in 2001. Two other papers published in Nature, including the 2009 Alzheimer's study, would also undergo what was described as comprehensive correction. Stanford is known for its leadership in scientific research, and even though the claims involved work published before Dr. Tessier-Lavigne's arrival at the university in 2016, the allegations reflected poorly on the university's integrity.

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: An article in Nature Sustainability suggests that models may have underestimated the impact of warming on ecosystems. Two main reasons for this are the difficulty in accounting for variability and combining climate change with other pressure factors: for instance, pollution, excessive exploitation of species, deforestation due to increased demographics growth and meat consumption, ecosystem fragmentation, also harm wildlife.
After using software to simulate over 70,000 ecosystem scenarios, the two professors and a postdoctoral researcher issued this warning in The Conversation: Around the world, rainforests are becoming savanna or farmland, savanna is drying out and turning into desert, and icy tundra is thawing. Indeed, scientific studies have now recorded "regime shifts" like these in more than 20 different types of ecosystem where tipping points have been passed. Around the world, more than 20% of ecosystems are in danger of shifting or collapsing into something different.

These collapses might happen sooner than you'd think. Humans are already putting ecosystems under pressure in many different ways — what we refer to as stresses. And when you combine these stresses with an increase in climate-driven extreme weather, the date these tipping points are crossed could be brought forward by as much as 80%. This means an ecosystem collapse that we might previously have expected to avoid until late this century could happen as soon as in the next few decades. That's the gloomy conclusion of our latest research, published in Nature Sustainability.

Human population growth, increased economic demands, and greenhouse gas concentrations put pressures on ecosystems and landscapes to supply food and maintain key services such as clean water. The number of extreme climate events is also increasing and will only get worse. What really worries us is that climate extremes could hit already stressed ecosystems, which in turn transfer new or heightened stresses to some other ecosystem, and so on. This means one collapsing ecosystem could have a knock-on effect on neighbouring ecosystems through successive feedback loops: an "ecological doom-loop" scenario, with catastrophic consequences...

There is no way to restore collapsed ecosystems within any reasonable timeframe. There are no ecological bailouts. In the financial vernacular, we will just have to take the hit.

Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues. From a report: A 25-year science wager has come to an end. In 1998, neuroscientist Christof Koch bet philosopher David Chalmers that the mechanism by which the brain's neurons produce consciousness would be discovered by 2023. Both scientists agreed publicly on 23 June, at the annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC) in New York City, that it is an ongoing quest -- and declared Chalmers the winner. What ultimately helped to settle the bet was a study testing two leading hypotheses about the neural basis of consciousness, whose findings were unveiled at the conference.

"It was always a relatively good bet for me and a bold bet for Christof," says Chalmers, who is now co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness at New York University. But he also says this isn't the end of the story, and that an answer will come eventually: "There's been a lot of progress in the field." Consciousness is everything that a person experiences -- what they taste, hear, feel and more. It is what gives meaning and value to our lives, Chalmers says. Despite a vast effort, researchers still don't understand how our brains produce it, however. "It started off as a very big philosophical mystery," Chalmers adds. "But over the years, it's gradually been transmuting into, if not a 'scientific' mystery, at least one that we can get a partial grip on scientifically."

[...] The goal was to set up a series of 'adversarial' experiments to test various hypotheses of consciousness by getting rival researchers to collaborate on the studies' design. "If their predictions didn't come true, this would be a serious challenge for their theories," Chalmers says. The findings from one of the experiments -- which involved several researchers, including Koch and Chalmers -- were revealed on Friday at the ASSC meeting. It tested two of the leading hypotheses: integrated information theory (IIT) and global network workspace theory (GNWT). IIT proposes that consciousness is a 'structure' in the brain formed by a specific type of neuronal connectivity that is active for as long as a certain experience, such as looking at an image, is occurring. This structure is thought to be found in the posterior cortex, at the back of the brain. GNWT, by contrast, suggests that consciousness arises when information is broadcast to areas of the brain through an interconnected network. The transmission, according to the theory, happens at the beginning and end of an experience and involves the prefrontal cortex, at the front of the brain.

Carl Zimmer writes in The New York Times: In its first week, a fertilized human egg develops into a hollow ball of 200 cells and then implants itself on the wall of the uterus. Over the next three weeks, it divides into the distinct tissues of a human body. And those crucial few weeks remain, for the most part, a black box. "We know the basics, but the very fine details we just don't know," said Jacob Hanna, a developmental biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Dr. Hanna and a number of other biologists are trying to uncover those details by creating models of human embryos in the lab. They are coaxing stem cells to organize themselves into clumps that take on some of the crucial hallmarks of real embryos.

This month, Dr. Hanna's team in Israel, as well as groups in Britain, the United States and China, released reports on these experiments. The studies, while not yet published in scientific journals, have attracted keen interest from other scientists, who have been hoping for years that such advances could finally shed light on some of the mysteries of early human development. Ethicists have long cautioned that the advent of embryo models would further complicate the already complicated regulation of this research. But the scientists behind the new work were quick to stress that they had not created real embryos and that their clusters of stem cells could never give rise to a human being. "We do it to save lives, not create it," said Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, a developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology, who led another effort. [...]

If scientists can create close, reliable models of embryos, they will be able to run large-scale experiments to test potential causes of pregnancy failures, such as viral infections and genetic mutations. The models could lead to other medical advances too, noted Insoo Hyun, a member of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics who was not involved in the new studies. "Once you get the embryo models in place and you can rely on them, that can be an interesting way to screen drugs that women take when they're pregnant," he said. "That would be an enormous benefit." Dr. Hanna [...] also saw a possibility of using embryo models as a new form of stem-cell treatment for diseases such as cancer.

Researchers in the Hybrid Quantum Systems Group at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have put a sapphire crystal weighing 16 micrograms in a quantum-mechanical superposition of two vibrational states. The researchers "excited the crystal into vibrations such that its atoms oscillated back and forth simultaneously and in two opposite directions -- putting the entire crystal in what is known as a state of quantum superposition," reports Scientific American. From the report: As the research group reports in Science, this condition is much like that of the cat in the famous thought experiment of physicist Erwin Schrodinger. In Schrodinger's quantum-mechanical scenario, a cat is simultaneously alive and dead, depending on the decay of an atom that releases a vial of poison. The sapphire crystal in the new experiment has been put in the macroscopic equivalent of that "cat state." Such states can help scientists fathom how and why the laws of the quantum world transition into the rules of classical physics for larger objects.

To get the sapphire, which consists of about 10^17 atoms, to behave like a quantum-mechanical object, the research group set it to oscillate and coupled it to a superconducting circuit. (In the terms of the original thought experiment, the sapphire was the cat, and the superconducting circuit was the decaying atom.) The circuit was used as a qubit, or bit of quantum information that is simultaneously in the states "0" and "1." The circuit's superposition was then transferred to the oscillation of the crystal. Thus, the atoms in the crystal could move in two directions at the same time -- for example, up and down -- just as Schrodinger's cat is dead and alive at the same time. Importantly, the distance between these two states (alive and dead or up and down) had to be greater than the distance ascribed to the quantum uncertainty principle, which the ETH Zurich scientists confirmed. Using the superconducting qubit, the researchers succeeded in determining the distance between the crystal's two vibrational states. At about two billionths of a nanometer, it's tiny -- but still large enough to distinguish those two states from each other beyond doubt.

These findings have "pushed the envelope on what can be considered quantum mechanical in an actual lab experiment," says Shlomi Kotler, a physicist who studies quantum mechanical circuits at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Kotler did not participate in the study. [...] Kotler notes that finding larger cat states is a way of "stretching the limit" of observed quantum-mechanical objects -- in this case, by demonstrating that something as massive as 16 micrograms can exist in this state. (Though, to be clear, 16 micrograms is still microscopic.)

From a Science magazine report, shared by schwit1: When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was "shocked" by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010 -- and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers' group report. "It is just too hard to believe" at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. It's as if "somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic." His findings underscore what was widely suspected: Journals are awash in a rising tide of scientific manuscripts from paper mills -- secretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship.

"Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff," says Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist who studies fraudulent publishing practices. A 2 May announcement from the publisher Hindawi underlined the threat: It shut down four of its journals it found were "heavily compromised" by articles from paper mills. Sabel's tool relies on just two indicators -- authors who use private, noninstitutional email addresses, and those who list an affiliation with a hospital. It isn't a perfect solution, because of a high false-positive rate. Other developers of fake-paper detectors, who often reveal little about how their tools work, contend with similar issues. Still, the detectors raise hopes for gaining the advantage over paper mills, which churn out bogus manuscripts containing text, data, and images partly or wholly plagiarized or fabricated, often massaged by ghost writers.

Some papers are endorsed by unrigorous reviewers solicited by the authors. Such manuscripts threaten to corrupt the scientific literature, misleading readers and potentially distorting systematic reviews. The recent advent of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT has amplified the concern. To fight back, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM), representing 120 publishers, is leading an effort called the Integrity Hub to develop new tools. STM is not revealing much about the detection methods, to avoid tipping off paper mills. "There is a bit of an arms race," says Joris van Rossum, the Integrity Hub's product director. He did say one reliable sign of a fake is referencing many retracted papers; another involves manuscripts and reviews emailed from internet addresses crafted to look like those of legitimate institutions. Twenty publishers -- including the largest, such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley -- are helping develop the Integrity Hub tools, and 10 of the publishers are expected to use a paper mill detector the group unveiled in April.

For the first time, the American Psychological Association (APA) has issued guidelines for teenagers, parents, teachers and policymakers on how to use social media, with the aim of reducing the rate of depression, anxiety and loneliness in adolescents. NPR reports: The 10 recommendations in the report summarize recent scientific findings and advise actions, primarily by parents, such as monitoring teens' feeds and training them in social media literacy, even before they begin using these platforms. But some therapists and clinicians say the recommendations place too much of the burden on parents. To implement this guidance requires cooperation from the tech companies and possibly regulators.

While social media can provide opportunities for staying connected, especially during periods of social isolation, like the pandemic, the APA says adolescents should be routinely screened for signs of "problematic social media use." The APA recommends that parents should also closely monitor their children's social media feed during early adolescence, roughly ages 10-14. Parents should try to minimize or stop the dangerous content their child is exposed to, including posts related to suicide, self-harm, disordered eating, racism and bullying. Studies suggest that exposure to this type of content may promote similar behavior in some youth, the APA notes.

Another key recommendation is to limit the use of social media for comparison, particularly around beauty -- or appearance-related content. Research suggests that when kids use social media to pore over their own and others' appearance online, this is linked with poor body image and depressive symptoms, particularly among girls. As kids age and gain digital literacy skills they should have more privacy and autonomy in their social media use, but parents should always keep an open dialogue about what they are doing online. The report also cautions parents to monitor their own social media use, citing research that shows that adults' attitudes toward social media and how they use it in front of kids may affect young people.

The APA's report does contain recommendations that could be picked up by policy makers seeking to regulate the industry. For instance it recommends the creation of "reporting structures" to identify and remove or deprioritize social media content depicting "illegal or psychologically maladaptive behavior," such as self-harm, harming others, and disordered eating. It also notes that the design of social media platforms may need to be changed to take into account "youths' development capabilities," including features like endless scrolling and recommended content. It suggests that teens should be warned "explicitly and repeatedly" about how their personal data could be stored, shared and used.

For years Google published scientific research that helped jump-start its competitors. But now it's lurched into defensive mode. From a report: In February, Jeff Dean, Google's longtime head of artificial intelligence, announced a stunning policy shift to his staff: They had to hold off sharing their work with the outside world. For years Dean had run his department like a university, encouraging researchers to publish academic papers prolifically; they pushed out nearly 500 studies since 2019, according to Google Research's website. But the launch of OpenAI's groundbreaking ChatGPT three months earlier had changed things. The San Francisco start-up kept up with Google by reading the team's scientific papers, Dean said at the quarterly meeting for the company's research division. Indeed, transformers -- a foundational part of the latest AI tech and the T in ChatGPT -- originated in a Google study.

Things had to change. Google would take advantage of its own AI discoveries, sharing papers only after the lab work had been turned into products, Dean said, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private information. The policy change is part of a larger shift inside Google. Long considered the leader in AI, the tech giant has lurched into defensive mode -- first to fend off a fleet of nimble AI competitors, and now to protect its core search business, stock price, and, potentially, its future, which executives have said is intertwined with AI. In op-eds, podcasts and TV appearances, Google CEO Sundar Pichai has urged caution on AI. "On a societal scale, it can cause a lot of harm," he warned on "60 Minutes" in April, describing how the technology could supercharge the creation of fake images and videos. But in recent months, Google has overhauled its AI operations with the goal of launching products quickly, according to interviews with 11 current and former Google employees, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private information.

A NASA instrument to provide unprecedented resolution of monitoring major air pollutants -- down to four square miles -- lifted off on its way to geostationary orbit at 12:30 a.m. EDT Friday. The Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution (TEMPO) instrument will improve life on Earth by revolutionizing the way scientists observe air quality from space. From a report: "The TEMPO mission is about more than just studying pollution -- it's about improving life on Earth for all. By monitoring the effects of everything from rush-hour traffic to pollution from forest fires and volcanoes, NASA data will help improve air quality across North America and protect our planet," said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. [...] From a fixed geostationary orbit above the equator, TEMPO will be the first space-based instrument to measure air quality over North America hourly during the daytime and at spatial regions of several square miles -- far better than existing limits of about 100 square miles in the U.S. TEMPO data will play an important role in the scientific analysis of pollution, including studies of rush hour pollution, the potential for improved air quality alerts, the effects of lightning on ozone, the movement of pollution from forest fires and volcanoes, and even the effects of fertilizer application.

TEMPO's observations will dramatically improve the scientific data record on air pollution -- including ozone, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and formaldehyde -- not only over the continental United States, but also Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the Bahamas, and part of the island of Hispaniola. "Our TEMPO slogan is 'It's about time,' which hints at TEMPO's ability to provide hourly air pollution data," said Xiong Liu, deputy principal investigator for TEMPO at the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "After working on the TEMPO for more than 10 years, it is about time to launch TEMPO to produce real TEMPO data and start the new era of air quality monitoring over North America."

Bruce66423 shares a report from Nature: The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature has learned. Researchers say they are disappointed that the investigation isn't going ahead, because understanding how the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 first infected people is important for preventing future outbreaks. But without access to China, there is little that the WHO can do to advance the studies, says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. "Their hands are really tied." [...]

"There is no phase two," Maria Van Kerkhove, an epidemiologist at the WHO in Geneva, Switzerland, told Nature. The WHO planned for work to be done in phases, she said, but "that plan has changed." "The politics across the world of this really hampered progress on understanding the origins," she said. Researchers are undertaking some work to pin down a timeline of the virus's initial spread. This includes efforts to trap bats in regions bordering China in search of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2; experimental studies to help narrow down which animals are susceptible to the virus and could be hosts; and testing of archived wastewater and blood samples collected around the world in late 2019 and early 2020. But researchers say that too much time has passed to gather some of the data needed to pinpoint where the virus originated. "The ending of the investigation is not a surprise," adds Bruce66423. "But why 'quietly'?"

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Scientists working on an experimental anti-ageing therapy claim to have broken a record by extending the lifespan of a lab rat called Sima. Named after the Hindi word for "limit" or "boundary", Sima is the last remaining survivor from a group of rodents that received infusions of blood plasma taken from young animals to see if the treatment prolonged their lives. Sima, who was born on February 28, 2019, has lived for 47 months, surpassing the 45.5 months believed to be the oldest age recorded in scientific literature for a female Sprague-Dawley rat, the researchers say. So far, Sima has outlived her closest rival in the study by nearly six months. "We have the oldest living female Sprague Dawley rat," said Dr Harold Katcher, a former biology professor at the University of Maryland, now chief scientific officer at Yuvan Research, a California-based startup.

Researchers have rushed to produce and trial therapies based on young blood plasma after numerous experiments found that infusions could reinvigorate aging organs and tissues. But while studies have found benefits for rodents, there is no evidence to date that the somewhat vampiric approach to youthfulness will help humans dodge the passage of time, despite the best wishes of Silicon Valley. The results from Katcher's latest study will be written up when Sima dies, but data gathered so far suggests that eight rats that received placebo infusions of saline lived for 34 to 38 months, while eight that received a purified and concentrated form of blood plasma, called E5, lived for 38 to 47 months. They also had improved grip strength. Rats normally live for two to three years, though a contender for the oldest ever is a brown rat that survived on a restricted calorie diet for 4.6 years.

A patent filing on the potential therapy describes how plasma from young mammals is purified and concentrated before use. Some components, such as platelets, are removed, as they can trigger immune reactions. The patent names pigs, cows, goats, sheep and humans as possible donors. The amount of plasma needed to produce a single concentrated dose is at least as much as the recipient has in their entire body, it states. If the therapy ever shows promise in humans -- large trials are needed in more animals first -- Katcher believes the plasma could be collected from pigs at abbatoirs.

The forest carbon offsets approved by the world's leading provider and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation. The Guardian: The research into Verra, the world's leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits -- among the most commonly used by companies -- are likely to be "phantom credits" and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.

The analysis raises questions over the credits bought by a number of internationally renowned companies -- some of them have labelled their products "carbon neutral," or have told their consumers they can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse. But doubts have been raised repeatedly over whether they are really effective. The nine-month investigation has been undertaken by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation. It is based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra's rainforest schemes. It has also drawn on dozens of interviews and on-the-ground reporting with scientists, industry insiders and Indigenous communities. The findings -- which have been strongly disputed by Verra -- are likely to pose serious questions for companies that are depending on offsets as part of their net zero strategies.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: An artificial-intelligence (AI) chatbot can write such convincing fake research-paper abstracts that scientists are often unable to spot them, according to a preprint posted on the bioRxiv server in late December1. "I am very worried," says Sandra Wachter, who studies technology and regulation at the University of Oxford, UK, and was not involved in the research. "If we're now in a situation where the experts are not able to determine what's true or not, we lose the middleman that we desperately need to guide us through complicated topics," she adds. Researchers are divided over the implications for science. The chatbot, ChatGPT, creates realistic and intelligent-sounding text in response to user prompts. It is a 'large language model', a system based on neural networks that learn to perform a task by digesting huge amounts of existing human-generated text. Software company OpenAI, based in San Francisco, California, released the tool on November 30, and it is free to use.

Since its release, researchers have been grappling with the ethical issues surrounding its use, because much of its output can be difficult to distinguish from human-written text. Scientists have published a preprint2 and an editorial3 written by ChatGPT. Now, a group led by Catherine Gao at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, has used ChatGPT to generate artificial research-paper abstracts to test whether scientists can spot them. The researchers asked the chatbot to write 50 medical-research abstracts based on a selection published in JAMA, The New England Journal of Medicine, The BMJ, The Lancet and Nature Medicine. They then compared these with the original abstracts by running them through a plagiarism detector and an AI-output detector, and they asked a group of medical researchers to spot the fabricated abstracts.

The ChatGPT-generated abstracts sailed through the plagiarism checker: the median originality score was 100%, which indicates that no plagiarism was detected. The AI-output detector spotted 66% the generated abstracts. But the human reviewers didn't do much better: they correctly identified only 68% of the generated abstracts and 86% of the genuine abstracts. They incorrectly identified 32% of the generated abstracts as being real and 14% of the genuine abstracts as being generated. Wachter says that, if scientists can't determine whether research is true, there could be "dire consequences". As well as being problematic for researchers, who could be pulled down flawed routes of investigation, because the research they are reading has been fabricated, there are "implications for society at large because scientific research plays such a huge role in our society". For example, it could mean that research-informed policy decisions are incorrect, she adds. On the contrary, Arvind Narayanan, a computer scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey, says: "It is unlikely that any serious scientist will use ChatGPT to generate abstracts." He adds that whether generated abstracts can be detected is "irrelevant."

"The question is whether the tool can generate an abstract that is accurate and compelling. It can't, and so the upside of using ChatGPT is minuscule, and the downside is significant," he says.

One of the latest trends in boutique fitness is electrifying. Literally. From a report: Called whole-body electrical muscle stimulation, or EMS, the technique requires users to wear an electrode-studded suit that attaches to a machine. The suit delivers electrical impulses that make each exercise more difficult as muscles fight against the impulses. The result is a more efficient way to build muscle mass and strength, say proponents, who claim that one 20-minute session of whole-body zapping achieves the same benefits as two and half hours of conventional strength training.

In the U.S., the workouts are offered by about 400 fitness centers, spas and other outlets, and do-it-yourself home training kits are proliferating online. Yet whole-body EMS isn't a shortcut to a Marvel hero's physique, scientists say. Regulators have warned the equipment can be dangerous, with risks including muscle damage or burns. Whole-body EMS is attracting more attention from researchers studying whether the technique might benefit people who don't or can't exercise. Some doctors are investigating whether it can decrease inflammation in the obese and frailty in older people. A small study presented at an American Heart Association conference in November suggested that whole-body EMS might benefit the heart.

Twenty-four young, healthy adults who did 20 minutes a week of squats, lunges and bicep curls using electrical stimulation recorded greater improvements in waist and hip measurements, cholesterol levels, aerobic capacity and other indicators of cardiac health than a second group that did the same exercises without stimulation, according to the findings, which haven't been published in a scientific journal. Small studies like this suggest the approach might hold promise as a supplemental treatment for cardiac patients who don't get the exercise they need, says Jaskanwal Sara, the Mayo Clinic doctor who conducted the research.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: Most people have two sex chromosomes, either two X's or an X and a Y, which give rise to female or male biological attributes on a spectrum. Studies suggest these chromosomes also have much broader effects, contributing to processes that include immune system function, neuronal development, disease susceptibility and reactions to drugs. But scrutinizing the specific role of X and Y chromosomes is challenging. With current tools, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of genes versus hormones, for example. Now scientists have devised a tool that could overcome this obstacle -- by generating XX and XY cells from a single person for the first time. This unique set of cells could help researchers tackle long-standing questions about how sex chromosomes affect disease and the role they play in early development.

Benjamin Reubinoff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hadassah Medical Center in Israel, and his team began the project to overcome barriers facing investigations of sex differences in humans. Currently there are two major ones, according to Reubinoff: the difficulty of separating chromosomal and hormonal effects and the inability to pinpoint the effects of X and Y chromosomes while ruling out contributions from the rest of a person's genetic makeup. "The main reason for doing this study was the lack of a good model to study differences between males and females in humans," Reubinoff says. "There have been animal models, but a model in humans was not available." To create such a model, Reubinoff, his former M.D. and Ph.D. student Ithai Waldhorn and their colleagues first obtained white blood cells previously collected from a person with Klinefelter syndrome, a condition in which male individuals are born with an extra X chromosome. The cells came from the repositories of the Coriell Institute for Medical Research, where people donate samples for use in a wide range of biomedical research projects. The donor had a rare "mosaic" form of the condition, in which some of their cells had three sex chromosomes (XXY), some had two X chromosomes, and some had one X and one Y. The researchers reprogrammed all three cell types into induced pluripotent stem cells, which have the capacity to self-renew and to develop into neurons, muscle cells or other cell types.

Ultimately the team generated XX and XY cells that -- apart from their sex chromosomes -- were genetically identical. The researchers then conducted a series of experiments replicating findings from prior studies with other models. For example, they confirmed previously reported differences in genes that were turned on in XX or XY cells. They also coaxed their stem cells to develop into immature versions of neurons and found evidence of previously reported sex differences in early neural development. "It was reassuring to see that the model really shows differences between the sexes that were reported from other systems," Reubinoff says. The findings were published last month in Stem Cell Reports. "This is a very well-designed study that validates the notion that sex differences start early in development -- and that they depend on the sex chromosomes because that's the only thing that can account for those differences," says Nora Engel, a professor of cancer and cell biology at Temple University.

The Viking 1 lander arrived on the Martian surface 46 years ago to investigate the planet. It dropped down into what was thought to be an ancient outflow channel. Now, a team of researchers believes they've found evidence of an ancient megatsunami that swept across the planet billions of years ago, less than 600 miles from where Viking landed. Gizmodo reports: In a new paper published today in Scientific Reports, a team identified a 68-mile-wide impact crater in Mars' northern lowlands that they suspect is leftover from an asteroid strike in the planet's ancient past. "The simulation clearly shows that the megatsunami was enormous, with an initial height of approximately 250 meters, and highly turbulent," said Alexis Rodriguez, a researcher at the Planetary Science Institute and lead author of the paper, in an email to Gizmodo. "Furthermore, our modeling shows some radically different behavior of the megatsunami to what we are accustomed to imagining."

Rodriguez's team studied maps of the Martian surface and found the large crater, now named Pohl. Based on Pohl's position on previously dated rocks, the team believes the crater is about 3.4 billion years old -- an extraordinarily long time ago, shortly after the first signs of life we know of appeared on Earth. According to the research team's models, the asteroid impact could have been so intense that material from the seafloor may have dislodged and been carried in the water's debris flows. Based on the size of the crater, the team believes the impacting asteroid could have been 1.86 miles wide or 6 miles wide, depending on the amount of ground resistance the asteroid encountered. The impact could have released between 500,000 megatons and 13 million megatons of TNT energy (for comparison, the Tsar Bomba nuclear test was about 57 megatons of TNT energy.) "A clear next step is to propose a landing site to investigate these deposits in detail to understand the ocean's evolution and potential habitability," Rodriguez said. "First, we would need a detailed geologic mapping of the area to reconstruct the stratigraphy. Then, we need to connect the surface modification history to specific processes through numerical modeling and analog studies, including identifying possible mud volcanoes and glacier landforms."

Federal U.S. agencies (including the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) have been asked to develop a five-year "scientific assessment of solar and other rapid climate interventions." As the Daily Beast sees it, the U.S. government is signalling that it's looking into "one of the most controversial and consequential climate change-fighting tactics yet," suggesting the report will look at a technique "that essentially involves spraying fine aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. The idea is that, once it's reflected, there'll be less heat and temperatures will go down."

It seems like that's a subset of the "solar and other rapid climate interventions" being mentioned in the federal document. But for what it's worth, here's an official statement from the American Meteorological Society on "large-scale efforts to intentionally modify the climate system to counteract the consequences of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.... now commonly referred to as climate intervention (also called geoengineering)..." Proposals to intervene in the climate system generally fall into two broad categories: 1) actively removing CO2 (and possibly other greenhouse gases) from the atmosphere, known as carbon dioxide removal; 2) exerting a cooling influence on Earth by reflecting sunlight (known as solar radiation management) or altering thermal emissions to space by thinning cirrus clouds. These proposals differ widely in their potential to reduce impacts, create new risks, and redistribute risks among nations.

Techniques that remove CO2 directly from the air would confer global benefits by directly addressing the source of the climate problem. However, it may not be feasible to rapidly remove CO2 at a scale that will significantly limit warming. The effects of CO2 removal approaches are not fully understood and could create adverse local and global impacts. Reflecting sunlight would reduce Earth's average surface temperature but would not offset all aspects of climate change and would produce a different set of risks than those resulting from unmitigated warming.

The American Meteorological Society recommends an accelerated and robust climate intervention research program, and associated governance framework, to inform public policies. This should not include the development of deployment platforms but needs to include study of the feasibility of different deployment scenarios and strategies and how they would affect climate risk.... The desired outcome is for society to have the best possible information in hand to assess different options for reducing the risks of climate change and to decide if actions should include intentional climate intervention. Comprehensive Earth system model simulations will play a critical role in quantifying the regional to global impacts of different climate intervention approaches.... Sustained monitoring of the Earth system and targeted field campaigns will be critical, not only to improve our understanding of key processes but for establishing an observational baseline of the system behavior prior to any intervention. Monitoring and field studies would also be needed for quantifying impacts should an intervention be implemented.

These studies will yield additional benefits in our understanding of atmospheric processes and the climate system, with implications beyond what is needed for decisions related to climate intervention, such as improved weather predictions and climate projections.

The climate crisis must be addressed by ending net emissions of greenhouse gases, and at the same time, adapting to changes already happening. While it is currently premature to either advocate for or rule out climate interventions, these decisions, when they are made, must be based on the best scientific and technical information. With this goal in mind, AMS calls for a robust program of research with a strong governance framework to assess climate interventions. Such a program should be designed to provide the knowledge base to support decisions that may need to be made within the next decade regarding the inclusion of climate intervention among our responses to global warming.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader cstacy for submitting the article.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: With a few notable exceptions -- such as during the 1918 influenza pandemic, World War II and the HIV crisis -- life expectancy in the U.S. has had gradual upward trajectory over the past century. But that progress has steeply reversed in the past two years as COVID and other tragedies have cut millions of lives short. U.S. life expectancy fell by a total of 2.7 years (PDF) between 2019 and 2021 to 76.1 years -- the lowest it has been since 1996, according to provisional data recently released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The drop was 3.1 years for male individuals and 2.3 years for female ones. Non-Hispanic Native American and Alaska Native peoples saw the biggest decline -- a staggering 6.6 years. But every racial and ethnic group suffered: life expectancy decreased by 4.2 years in the Hispanic population, by four years in the non-Hispanic Black population, by 2.4 years in the non-Hispanic white population and by 2.1 years in the non-Hispanic Asian population.

"Basically, all the gains between 1996 and 2019 are as if they never happened," says Elizabeth Arias, director of the U.S. life table program at the NCHS and co-author of a report on the new data. COVID deaths drove much of the decline as the country grappled with the world's worst pandemic in a century. But unintentional injuries -- largely driven by drug overdoses -- also played a significant role, the data show. Increases in deaths from heart disease, chronic liver disease and suicide also contributed. "This isn't supposed to happen," says Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, who studies demographic trends and inequality. "I think it's a wake-up call for us ... that we can't put public health on autopilot; that we don't have this invisible hand of development just raising living standards over time." The drop in life expectancy would have been even more stark if it had not been partially offset by declines in influenza and pneumonia deaths, which were likely reduced by pandemic-related precautions such as masking and social distancing.