Categories
Life Style

Buried vases hint that ancient Americans might have drunk tobacco

[ad_1]

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00602-x

Subjects

Latest on:

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

A better way to charge a quantum battery

[ad_1]

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00652-1

Subjects

Latest on:

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

159 days of solitude: how loneliness haunts astronauts

[ad_1]

Cady Coleman looking out of the Soyuz.

In 2010, astronaut Cady Coleman left her husband and young son to go into space.Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls

Space: The Longest Goodbye Greenwich Entertainment Directed by Ido Mizrahy

Neither NASA nor the Chinese space agency are probably consulting screenwriters as they develop their plans to send humans to the Moon and Mars. But they need to take the problem of astronaut isolation seriously, as director Ido Mizrahy sets out in his heartfelt documentary Space: The Longest Goodbye. Released in cinemas and online this week, this thoughtful film shares first-hand accounts of how leaving family behind can wreak havoc on an astronaut’s well-being.

Any crewed trip to Mars, for example, will involve up to three years of spaceflight — a sea change in what humans have experienced so far. Russian cosmonaut Valery Polyakov holds the record for the longest-duration spaceflight: 437 consecutive days aboard the Mir space station from January 1994 to March 1995. He and other cosmonauts pioneered the study of how the human body responds to microgravity over time, from bone deterioration to muscle loss and vision changes.

Yet the psychological impacts of spaceflight are equally important, argues Al Holland, an operational psychologist at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, who drives much of the narrative for The Longest Goodbye. He and his colleagues studied NASA astronauts who flew on Mir, and used the lessons to try to improve astronauts’ mental health and well-being on board the International Space Station (ISS) during the 1990s. For example, carrying mechanical spare parts on board, which weren’t always stowed on Mir, reduced stress levels because astronauts knew that they had backups in case of an emergency.

Easing mental strain

Holland’s team developed ways to lessen the psychological strain of separation, such as by providing twice-weekly audio- or videoconferences between astronauts aboard the ISS and their families, and phone calls home whenever needed. The Longest Goodbye explores these long-distance conversations poignantly, through video recordings shared by Cady Coleman, a NASA astronaut who spent 159 days aboard the ISS in 2010–11.

As Coleman speaks with her husband and ten-year-old son from orbit, they mimic her, drifting across the screen as they pretend to float in microgravity. In another call, Coleman and her son play a flute duet. But after being separated from his mum for so long, he begins to act up. As she reads a story to him, he gets off the couch and makes faces at the camera. He is often like this just before joining calls with Coleman, her husband tells her. From her screen, Coleman can’t do much more than raise her eyebrows sternly.

Cady and son speaking while she's on the space station.

Coleman had frequent videoconferences with her son, but her absence was still hard on both of them.Credit: Cady Coleman

The video connection breaks up -repeatedly. Coleman cries on camera — a lot. In recent interviews for the film, her son talks about how he didn’t understand why she had to be gone for so long. It is a heartbreaking glimpse into the personal challenges of one of NASA’s most accomplished astronauts, and a warning for anyone thinking about taking a three-year trip to Mars. Being separated from your family for a long journey on Earth is challenging enough; being apart while enduring the unique stresses and dangers of spaceflight is much harder.

The film illuminates this while following the story of Kayla Barron, a NASA astronaut who flew aboard the ISS from November 2021 to May 2022. Barron is a former submariner who has experienced stressful military deployments, but says that going to space is very different. Just getting to orbit in the first place involves putting yourself atop a flaming rocket, she notes. “It’s the most dangerous thing you’ve ever done, and then you invite all of your family and friends to come watch it.” “My spouse is on top of this ball of fire,” her husband thinks.

The couple confronts the existential -question of whether, if she dies, she is doing what she wanted to be doing. In one scene, she rushes to shelter in a protected part of the ISS as an errant piece of space debris threatens to hit the station. Her husband sits helplessly at home, frantically trying to get updates.

Might spacefarers find other ways to -recreate human bonds? European Space Agency astronaut Matthias Maurer, who was on the ISS at the same time as Barron, is shown interacting with an artificial-intelligence assistant. It looks like a floating football and has a screen with a creepily simplified human face. Viewers are likely to be relieved when Maurer packs it away in its storage case.

Lessons on Earth

The film also recaps the rescue of 33 -Chilean miners in 2010, who had been trapped during a mine collapse and spent 69 days underground. Holland and other NASA employees advised the Chilean government on how to sustain the miners’ physical and psychological well-being during their extended isolation. They were told to eat and sleep on a strict schedule, and set up an illuminated area so they could transition between ‘day’ and ‘night’ while they awaited rescue. Lessons from space thus helped the miners to survive underground.

The Longest Goodbye doesn’t describe what might work best for astronauts on their way to Mars. But it does offer a poignant look at the isolation and loss of connection that so many astronauts feel in space, and that many of the rest of us might recognize a little from our own experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

Show off your science in Nature’s photo competition

[ad_1]

Nature’s 2024 photo competition is now live, providing a chance to celebrate the diverse, interesting, challenging, striking and colourful work that scientists do around the world.

Now in its fifth iteration, the competition is open to anyone who isn’t a professional photographer. It’s looking for images that showcase the work that scientists do — anywhere in the world.

To enter, e-mail your favourite picture to [email protected]. You can also use this address to ask any questions. And feel free to share your entry on social-media platforms X or Instagram with the hashtag #WorkingScientist. All entries must reach us by 00:01, UK time, on 28 March 2024.

Winners will be chosen by a panel of Nature staff, including representatives of the art and design team. Winning entries will appear in an April print issue and online. As well as being featured, winners will receive a full, year-long personal print and online subscription to Nature, plus £500 (or equivalent in a different currency) in Amazon vouchers; alternatively, we will make a donation of the same amount to a registered charity of your choice.

We need photos that are of sufficient quality to print — as a general rule, they should be at least 2,000 pixels on their longer edge.

If you need help or advice, read this feature on how to take great photos, written by one of Nature’s media editors (see ‘Capture the moment’). And check out Nature’s award-winning Where I Work section, a series of photo-led profiles of researchers in their workplaces.

Capture the moment

There are no hard and fast rules for taking great photographs, but professional photographers and media editors have some general advice for those who are new to working with a camera.

• Establish a connection with your subject. Make them feel comfortable for a candid shot.

• Understand the environment’s light. Use it to bring out detail in the scene.

• Capitalize on colours. Look for chromatic contrast, union and metaphor in colours.

• Use a tripod. Tools such as these stabilize your camera and will help to avoid blur or framing mistakes.

• Find a clean background. A busy background can distract from the subject.

• Play with camera angles and perspective. Try to be inventive, and look beyond standard ‘stock photography’ images.

• Photograph at the golden hour when shooting outdoors. A low angle of sunlight often creates warm, diffuse light and interesting shading.

• Remember the rule of thirds. Split your frame into thirds, and fill some — but not all — of them with your subject.

• Keep the subject’s eyes in focus. They’re often the best way to bring a viewer close to the subject.

• Shoot, check, re-compose, re-shoot. Take many photos using different angles and ideas to catch the best one.

More inspiration might come from the winners of our 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2022 competitions.

Full terms and conditions can be found in the Supplementary information.

Good luck, and we look forward to seeing your photos.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

China promises more money for science in 2024

[ad_1]

Chinese President Xi Jinping at the opening of the second session of the 14th Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Beijing.

President Xi Jinping at the opening of the second session of the 14th Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.Credit: Lintao Zhang/Getty

China’s spending on science and technology is set to rise this year, despite the country’s sluggish economic growth.

The government will spend 371 billion yuan (US$52 billion) on science and technology in 2024 — a 10% increase compared with the previous year — according to a draft budget report by China’s Ministry of Finance. The report was submitted at the annual meeting of the country’s legislative body, the National People’s Congress, this week. Of the total government spending, 98 billion yuan will go to basic research, an increase of 13%, according to the report.

“The government is showing that it is committed to giving scientists more resources to support their research,” says Albert Hu, an economist at the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai.

The increase in government spending on science and technology is the largest in five years, says Jing Qian, who heads the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis in New York City. With a drop of 9% in 2020, followed by two years of stalled growth, the government increased its spending by 2% last year.

The latest boost demonstrates the government’s “genuine commitment to its priorities”, says Qian. China has elevated science on the national agenda in recent years. Li Qiang, the premier of the State Council, reiterated that commitment in the written congress report presented at the opening session on 5 March. “We will move faster to boost self-reliance and strength in science and technology,” states the report.

Economic boost

The increase in money for science comes as the economy is struggling to meet growth targets. “China is in the midst of a structural transition,” says Hu. The country is moving from an economy based on long-established sectors such as real estate, to a greater emphasis on high-tech development, he says.

A race for technological supremacy with the United States is another motivating factor, say researchers. The United States has restricted China from accessing key technologies in areas such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors and quantum computing. This has spurred the country to invest in technological self-reliance, says Marina Zhang, who studies innovation with a focus on China at the University of Technology Sydney in Australia. “To win this game, China has to invest in science and technology, especially in basic research,” says Zhang.

Although the increased spending “represents a bigger commitment by the government towards science and technology”, it is still only a small fraction of the country’s total research and development expenditure, says Hu. Government spending accounts for around 11% of the 3.3 trillion yuan spent on R&D in China, according to official figures. R&D spending currently makes up about 2.6% of China’s overall gross domestic product; the corresponding figure in the United States in 2020 was 3.6%.

The congress session ends on 11 March and will be followed by a meeting of China’s political advisory body, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, next week.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

How a light touch registers on the skin

[ad_1]

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00651-2

Subjects

Latest on:

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

‘There is no cookie cutter female scientist’

[ad_1]

Julie Gould 00:0

Hello, and welcome to Working Scientist, a Nature Careers podcast. I’m Julie Gould. We’re starting off a new series of episodes where I’ll be sharing stories from female scientists in Latin America.

Working as a scientist in Latin America comes with its challenges, whatever gender you identify with. There’s a severe lack of funding for science. There are difficulties in getting reagents. And there’s a lot of political instability in many countries in the region.

And yet for women, there are many other difficulties. And sometimes the women that I’ve spoken to feel that they are invisible.

Yet in the face of the challenges that they have, female scientists in the region are making it work. They are forming alliances nationally and internationally to support each other so that they can each follow the career path that they’re on.

In this series of episodes, I’m going to share some of the ways in which female scientists in Latin America are finding things difficult. But also I want to look at how they are facing these challenges head on.

To start the series, I’m sharing part of a conversation that I had with Monica Stein.

Monica Stein: 01:29

So my name is Monica Stein. I’m the Vice Rector for research partnership and collaboration at Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, based in Guatemala City.

Julie Gould 01:40

Monica works closely with people all around the world to try and strengthen science and technology ecosystems in Guatemala and the region.

I reached out to her after I listened to a roundtable discussion hosted by Nature in 2022, about female scientists in Latin America. Monica spoke during this roundtable about the different frameworks that exist for supporting science and scientific research.

I wanted to find out more about what frameworks exist in Guatemala, for women, and how she believes that they can and need to change to offer further support for the female scientists that work there.

The interview starts with Monica giving us an overview of how the frameworks right now are not supporting women in science, and are creating an unequal playing field.

Monica Stein: 02:23

Frameworks are complex. If you want to develop both vocations, careers and success in science and technology.

So in order to have a vibrant and productive scientific community that encompasses different ethnicities and different genders, you need to be able to have funding for science. So that’s the people the one people always think about.

But you need to also have the administrative framework to assign that funding. You need to have talent that can access that funding and infrastructure to be able to work within.

And that all sounds nice. But let’s start with the talent part. If you want to do science, you have to start inspiring people and demonstrating to people that that’s achievable from a very young age.

In general, many Latin American countries have trouble inspiring vocations in science and technology, because math is an issue.

And that is very disparate between men and women in Latin America and in the entire world. So there’s cultural norms and perceptions. That’s one first issue, where women shouldn’t be scientists or women don’t have the talent to be scientists.

And so in whatever framework that you want to achieve this high end goal of women doing scientific research and publishing, etc, you have to start years before inspiring women and role modeling, through women that are already in science, that it’s achievable, that it’s fun, and that all women can be scientists, engineers, or what have you, if they want to.

So that that is a whole piece of work that has to do that has to happen during school. And during college.

Once you have those, those vocations, you’ve inspired enough people, you have to make them aware of the opportunity. So there’s an access issue.

So we already did cultural norms and perceptions. And now we’re talking about access.

Do women have equal access to education as men do in some countries? They do. In some countries, they don’t. What does access mean? Is it only that the university accepts men or women and they don’t discriminate?

No, it doesn’t mean that. It means you know, are there other roles in terms of caretaking or work or what have you that are different between men and women. Are their preferences for a family to invest more in the education of a son than a daughter?

Or do you, as a student have to pay for your own education? And how easy is it for a man versus a woman to get a job, and what’s the pay gap?

Most of our students, for example, work to pay for their studies. So if there’s a pay gap, which there is in Guatemala, between men and women, and if it’s easier for men to have a job over women, then it’s easier for men to study than women. So that there’s that access issue.

And then. let’s say that you finally inspire people, you’ve got access, they’re graduating. Now you really get into this systems, regulations, whether they’re legal, or, or other types of regulations that promote the success of women in science.

And what you see in the United States, and you’re starting to see in Latin America, and the statistics support that, is that we’re getting more women graduating from university than men. Also, in Latin America, as an average.

It’ll vary from country to country, but then less women in graduate school. In Latin America. In the United States, I think women in biological sciences are very high up in graduate school, but then there are very low and tenured professor positions.

And what happens is you get married and you start having kids. And there are no support systems in Latin America for child caring, no robust support systems, certainly not in Guatemala, and much less in scientific systems where there’s a tenure system, and you’re expected to maintain certain productivity in order to gain certain rewards.

And that reward could be a position, or it could be just maintaining your job, or it could be going up the ladder.

So we had, for example, interesting conversations with Argentinian scientists, where they have in some universities a tenure system. And they don’t stop the clock, when a woman has a child.

So the moment that you have a child and your responsibilities are split, which they shouldn’t be split. You should be able to care for your child for a little bit. But your responsibility, so split, men will have an advantage because they’re producing science more consistently, and the clock doesn’t stop for women.

So things like that are things that, if you have a framework of regulations, and and support systems at the scientific, you know, production level productivity level, when you’re already a working scientist, would help women achieve more success in science.

And then I think, finally, there’s data and evidence that sometimes women’s contributions or production gets ignored in, in collaborative research, or whether having a woman as a primary author gives you advantages or disadvantages.

There was a survey in Central America regarding how many women scientists had positions and were publishing.

And the big surprise was that in Guatemala it was pretty equal between men and women. But it wasn’t so in El Salvador, Honduras and other Central American countries.

So for some reason, in Guatemala, at the level of scientific production, meaning how many papers you’re publishing and and whether women have jobs as scientists, we’re doing pretty well, which, which was a surprise.

But I know that in other countries, there are more positions filled by men and more papers published by men.

Julie Gould 08:48

Thank you so much for that overview of the current situation. But what do you envision for the future?

What do you think these future supporting frameworks should look like? And how would you put them in place?

Monica Stein: 09:00

Well,I think that it’s all part of an educational journey. So if science and technology organizations want to create that framework, they have to collaborate with other instances, like in Guatemala ministries of education, or in the United States, education secretaries, etc.

So what do I dream of? I dream of a system that collaborates with educational institutions to inspire and promote scientific vocations. Whether it’s for women, for low income students, men or women for different ethnic groups.

I think that’s very important because we are not going to be able to solve these really complex social problems that we have in Central America and other Latin American countries, if you don’t have a diversity of perspectives.

I firmly believe that science can inform complex social problems because evidence-based decision making is the best kind of decision making. So we have to include people, I dream of a system that will facilitate access to education. =

And it’s not only whether I don’t discriminate in my admissions, it’s whether I am providing the pathways. For example, here in Guatemala, in the highlands, where there’s a larger indigenous population, our university has a high school, and you can get your scholarships from the high school level, so that you’re prepared and to go to university, and that transition is less difficult.

But that there’s geographical aspects to that, too. And parents naturally don’t want to send their kids far away for high school. They’re okay with university, but they’re not okay for high school.

So can we use technologies to facilitate access? How can we raise the level of science education in high school so that people don’t have to leave their homes to get an education. So how to facilitate access.

And then we can get into, you know, legal norms or regulations within our system of science and technology that will permit different groups to have more equitable standing, and a fair evaluation and assessment so that you can keep going up, whether it’s in your birth, your workplace, or in a science and technology system.

And then comes funding. Like, honestly, what we found is if we have talent, the funding will come. And it’s really nurturing that talent that were really, really bad at.

Julie Gould 11:33

That was really interesting, because I’ve almost heard the exact opposite, that you can’t attract the talent if you haven’t got the funding. So could you explain your thoughts a little bit more, please?

Monica Stein: 11:43

Okay, so yes, you can’t get the talent if you don’t have the funding, because you need the funding to make these, you know, broad level changes.

But what we have found at UVG, is that it’s not that much money that you need to make the changes. It’s, it’s willpower. And it’s time. And yes time is valuable.

So for example, taking the time to measure how many women are in your programs. We have this really successful women in engineering summer course, that started as an experience for 25 young women from Guatemala City to come and learn about engineering.

And after the pandemic became this big 600-woman course all over the country, where we send them their boxes of material that is made in our MakerSpace. And we do it virtual.

And sometimes we invite professors from MIT or other places to give them talks. And that’s $15,000.

Now, that may sound like a lot of money to some people, but in the grand scheme of an institution, it’s not that much money to inspire 600 women, or more every year.

We have a lot of help from donors. So I think one of the secrets of success of this university is partnering.

So being isolated is not a way to build a system. If you’re going to build a system and an ecosystem, you have to collaborate, you have to be open. And so we have donors that help along the way.

So I think that there’s a lot of little steps you can take to inspire people, and make them realize that they have a vocation, and get interested in science that are not very expensive.

Then there’s the issue of access. Yes, of course, you need scholarships for access. And I think it is a government’s responsibility to be able to provide access to education.

But as a university, you can advocate for access. You can also participate in how you structure that axis. You can connect donors.

And when I say I don’t think money is the problem is that really, when you get a lot of people together, and they each add a little bit, then the money comes.

If you have a vision that you can pitch, the money comes. For example, we have this amazing new program with MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And it’s a $15mi program funded by USAID to strengthen the university science technology ecosystem and entrepreneurship and innovation as well.

And how do you get that? By having a vision and by having these little success stories that show that there’s things you can do that are replicable, and that have an impact and are measurable, and then the funding comes? That’s my view on it.

Julie Gould 14:34

I love your positivity on this. But I know that not all institutions in Latin America are in a position where getting funding is as simple, especially those that are in countries where the political climate isn’t favoring science and education, or at least not favouring it as much as you’d hope.

So what advice would you have for them to build an ecosystem and to find funding and to build the infrastructure to support the scientists that are doing there.

Monica Stein: 15:01

I would like to clarify that the Guatemalan government is not giving the support that is necessary and that when you compare investment in science and technology, we are at point zero 3% of GDP.

So we’re one of the lowest in Latin America. I think that different Latin American countries have different regulatory frameworks. And that’s a big challenge.

For example, a challenge here that we have turned into an opportunity is that Guatemala is the only country in all of Latin America that does not have a higher education, supervision body.

So a quality supervision body. That’s horrible. All Latin American countries, and most countries in the world, some sort have some sort of state supervision entity that wants to improve quality.

We’ve turned that into an opportunity, because we’re able to be more innovative sometimes then other of our colleagues or other institutions, in some, especially South American countries, where it takes years to change the curriculum.

And it takes years to get a new program approved. So we’ve been able to innovate a lot easier. So I think those are the little challenges that get turned into opportunities.

Another thing that Guatemala has, because there is no government support for education (and higher education, for sure), but also high school education. Like there is in other countries.

We’ve had to look outside. So we’ve gotten quite good at writing grants for international donors. And there are a lot of colleagues that are still literally battling with their national funding system.

And if you don’t diversify your funding sources, you have less capability of saying yes or no to different things are charting your own path. And I think it’s hard to diversify your funding sources. But necessity is the mother of invention.

We’ve started. So at UVA we sell scientific cervices. And since 2010, to now 50%, of the operation of our research institute comes from sale of scientific services. Because we can survive on the overhead of grants.

We’ve been really, really bootstrapping this. And maybe that’s why I’m so optimistic. I think that challenges should be turned into opportunities. And I am very cognizant that there are a lot of hurdles in other countries where the regulatory frameworks are really, really rigid.

And Guatemala, because it is such a poor country, has more access to international funding than other countries that are more well off.

So my advice would be try to turn every challenge into an opportunity. Look outside the country, look at what that challenge can give you flexibility in another way. And, partner. We learned a lot of these things by talking to other people talking to people in developed countries, and in non developed countries partnering, this is the way to go. ,

Julie Gould 18:05

Okay, so with that in mind, what have you learned and incorporated from other countries, other institutions that you are using do work towards and build a framework that supports female scientists in your institution and in Guatemala?

Monica Stein: 18:19

Absolutely. I think one of the biggest things for us was learning from the development space, which is different from the scientific space. What a gender analysis do does, and how to do it, and how you change projects to include a gender perspective.

So they have dimensions of gender challenges, and ways of addressing them. And when we started incorporating those dimensions of gender analysis, and then actions that mitigate the effects of that disparity into what we did, we started getting results.

So we’ve learned from the development space in terms of how to streamline gender perspectives into what we do here at UBG.

In terms of regulation, I wish I could have a lot of success stories. It’s really hard to say, to change regulation. And we don’t have a merit system. In Guatemala, our national Secretariat of science and technology doesn’t even have a merit system, like in Mexico or Columbia.

So one of the things we’ve been doing as a university is trying to propose a merit system, so that scientists that have gone through more training or more projects can access bigger pots of funding, etc.

And I think that if you learn from other systems, like we’ve been learning from Colombia, from Argentina, etc. you can try to construct a better one.

You can, it’s not changing one but building one from scratch. That has been really hard. It’s been over 10 years in proposals and going back and forth and we still don’t have a clear system for measuring science output in different institutions from our Secretariat of science and technology.

We’ve partnered in some really cool initiatives. So we’ve partnered with European Union Initiatives for gender in Latin America, in educational institutions, also, with German cooperation, specifically for gender for science for STEM, Science and Technology, where we’ve been able to talk not only with the European see the European models, but talk to the different local models.

That’s been incredibly enriching. And it also creates a network of women that you can talk to and that are having the same challenges. And what most of them have done is, of course, raise awareness. So raising awareness is always the first step.

But gathering the data so that your awareness-raising is more impactful, and then piloting piloting different programs where they’re changing little parts.

So they’re changing how something is awarded, or they’re changing how they’re selecting participants, or they’re changing the topics that are approached in certain conferences, etc.

So all of that has been lessons learned. And I think it’s all very fluid and very dynamic. So we have WhatsApp groups, we have exchanges, sometimes we’ll have with the German cooperation, for example, a roundtable to keep that conversation going.

And I think that those linkages are what makes this fluid conversation advance.

Julie Gould 21:37

So I’m getting as a very prominent message under everything that you’ve said to me so far today, that networking is invaluable, both for individual women’s careers, but also for the job that you’re doing.

And that networking is one of the key tools that female scientists can have in a very large toolbox to help support their careers. Did I get that right?

Monica Stein: 21:59

Absolutely. And you said it really well. It’s not only your professional life, also your personal life, it’s not easy being a human. And it’s not easy being a woman. And I think that being able to connect with other people that are facing similar challenges, and they’re solving them in different ways, is incredibly valuable.

And we were asked recently, precisely by this German cooperation agency, who are setting up some other activities with women, female scientists, whether they should make them sectoral because of the language, you know, just Latin America, just Africa, just Asia.

And unanimously, all of us women from Africa, Asia, and Latin American said, No, we have to make them general, because we have learned so much about the different challenges different women in different cultures, face.

And in your personal life. of course, you need you need a village, you need a network of women, that it can be there for you in different aspects, even if it’s just listening, or if it’s helping out, giving out ideas. And you need to be there for them.

So we need to inspire other women, we need to mentor other women, we need to be available for conversations, we need to tell them it’s okay to say no to a project, because you’re pregnant, just giving birth, or your child is young, which is something that is so common here in Guatemala.

Women coming to me saying, If I don’t take this project, my career is dead, but I have a three month old. And being able to tell them “Don’t take the project.”

This happened to me, I didn’t take the project. And it didn’t affect you know, the the overall scheme of things and having them hear that from somebody that’s been there, gives them the courage to say okay, I’m going to set limits.

And I’m going to prioritize myself, as well as my career with the limits that I decided okay for me, because I know that in the end, I will be able to find another step or another path.

Julie Gould 24:01

So what are the other tools that female scientists should have, whether they’re in Latin America or anywhere else in the world?

Monica Stein: 24:07

Mentoiring is a big one. And it’s not exactly networking. It’s not exactly role models, but it’s a little bit of both put together. I think mentoring is very important. If you mentor a woman, or if you mentor two women or three women, you have a big multiplying effect. I think that working on axis is also very important, we already mentioned that.

And working on regulation. So you have to be able to propose and the changes you want to achieve are right, the grants that include the stipends, the scholarships, etc, that you are going to be then be able to give.

But I think motivation is the driver. I think inspiring people from when they’re very young is the biggest driver. And we can all do that.

And can I add something? We focus a lot on women But we forget the role men have in all of this. And if you role model to men and women, women in positions of power, men start recognizing that it’s normal to have women in positions of power.

If you sit women in decision making tables, then other men will start respecting female opinions more and more.

So I think there’s also work to be done in role modeling for men as well, women’s, women scientists, and also to intentionally include women in decision making roles and decision making bodies, to, to showcase that women do belong in the boardroom, in the CEO seat in, you know, the secretariat of science and technology.

Julie Gould 25:51

Okay, my final question for you, Monica, then is do you have any other advice for young female scientists?

Monica Stein: 26:00

I think the only thing left to say is that there’s no cookie cutter, woman scientist.

There’s no one single way to approach science and do science. That was a big one. For me. I thought there was a single path.

You got your PhD, you got your postdoc, you got your tenure, otherwise, you’re a failure. It’s okay to be a woman science in teaching, a woman scientist in teaching it’s okay to be a woman scientist in industry.

It’s okay to be a woman scientist in management. Because as long as you’re having impact, and that impact is fulfilling you and also contributing to building a better ecosystem, you are a woman in science.

And I think that’s very important that women internalize that there are many ways to be successful or what they want to be.

Julie Gould 26:49

Thank you to Monika Stein from UVG in Guatemala for speaking to us for this episode. There were many topics that Monica covered from funding to childcare to supporting the development and inspiration of female scientists at school level, and we will hear from women who are working on these things in the upcoming episodes.

Thanks for listening. I’m Julie Gould.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

Could AI-designed proteins be weaponized? Scientists lay out safety guidelines

[ad_1]

AlphaFold structure prediction for probable disease resistance protein At1g58602.

The artificial-intelligence tool AlphaFold can design proteins to perform specific functions.Credit: Google DeepMind/EMBL-EBI (CC-BY-4.0)

Could proteins designed by artificial intelligence (AI) ever be used as bioweapons? In the hope of heading off this possibility — as well as the prospect of burdensome government regulation — researchers today launched an initiative calling for the safe and ethical use of protein design.

“The potential benefits of protein design [AI] far exceed the dangers at this point,” says David Baker, a computational biophysicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is part of the voluntary initiative. Dozens of other scientists applying AI to biological design have signed the initiative’s list of commitments.

“It’s a good start. I’ll be signing it,” says Mark Dybul, a global health policy specialist at Georgetown University in Washington DC who led a 2023 report on AI and biosecurity for the think tank Helena in Los Angeles, California. But he also thinks that “we need government action and rules, and not just voluntary guidance”.

The initiative comes on the heels of reports from US Congress, think tanks and other organizations exploring the possibility that AI tools — ranging from protein-structure prediction networks such as AlphaFold to large language models such as the one that powers ChatGPT — could make it easier to develop biological weapons, including new toxins or highly transmissible viruses.

Designer-protein dangers

Researchers, including Baker and his colleagues, have been trying to design and make new proteins for decades. But their capacity to do so has exploded in recent years thanks to advances in AI. Endeavours that once took years or were impossible — such as designing a protein that binds to a specified molecule — can now be achieved in minutes. Most of the AI tools that scientists have developed to enable this are freely available.

To take stock of the potential for malevolent use of designer proteins, Baker’s Institute of Protein Design at the University of Washington hosted an AI safety summit in October 2023. “The question was: how, if in any way, should protein design be regulated and what, if any, are the dangers?” says Baker.

The initiative that he and dozens of other scientists in the United States, Europe and Asia are rolling out today calls on the biodesign community to police itself. This includes regularly reviewing the capabilities of AI tools and monitoring research practices. Baker would like to see his field establish an expert committee to review software before it is made widely available and to recommend ‘guardrails’ if necessary.

The initiative also calls for improved screening of DNA synthesis, a key step in translating AI-designed proteins into actual molecules. Currently, many companies providing this service are signed up to an industry group, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium (IGSC), that requires them to screen orders to identify harmful molecules such as toxins or pathogens.

“The best way of defending against AI-generated threats is to have AI models that can detect those threats,” says James Diggans, head of biosecurity at Twist Bioscience, a DNA-synthesis company in South San Francisco, California, and chair of the IGSC.

Risk assessment

Governments are also grappling with the biosecurity risks posed by AI. In October 2023, US President Joe Biden signed an executive order calling for an assessment of such risks and raising the possibility of requiring DNA-synthesis screening for federally funded research.

Baker hopes that government regulation isn’t in the field’s future — he says it could limit the development of drugs, vaccines and materials that AI-designed proteins might yield. Diggans adds that it’s unclear how protein-design tools could be regulated, because of the rapid pace of development. “It’s hard to imagine regulation that would be appropriate one week and still be appropriate the next.”

But David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University in California, says that scientist-led efforts are not sufficient to ensure the safe use of AI. “Natural scientists alone cannot represent the interests of the larger public.”

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

Roger Guillemin (1924–2024), neuroscientist who showed how the brain controls hormones

[ad_1]

Black and white portrait of Roger Guillemin pictured in 1977

Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty

Roger Guillemin identified the molecules in the brain that control the production of hormones in endocrine glands such as the pituitary and thyroid. His work led to a torrent of advances in neuroendocrinology, with far-reaching effects on studies of metabolism, reproduction and growth. For his discoveries on peptide-hormone production in the brain, Guillemin shared the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Andrew Schally and Rosalyn Yalow. He has died at the age of 100.

In the autumn of 1969, after analysing millions of sheep brains for more than a decade, Guillemin and his colleagues determined the structure of thyrotropin-releasing factor (TRF). This small peptide is produced in the hypothalamus, a small region at the base of the brain, and is transported to the anterior lobe of the nearby pituitary gland, where it triggers the release of the hormone thyrotropin. Thyrotropin, in turn, stimulates the thyroid gland to produce the hormone thyroxine, which regulates metabolic activity in nearly every tissue of the body. More than two dozen drugs use such hypothalamic hormones to treat endocrine disorders and cancers, and the worldwide market for these drugs is worth several billion dollars.

Guillemin was born in Dijon, France, and came of age at the end of the Second World War. He graduated from medical school in the University of Lyon, France, in 1949 and worked as a country doctor in the small commune of Saint-Seine-l’Abbaye in Burgundy. He found the work satisfying but intellectually limiting, noting that “in those days I could take care of all my patients with three prescriptions, including aspirin”. Fascinated by how the brain and pituitary gland control the body’s response to stress, he attended lectures in Paris by the Hungarian–Canadian endocrinologist Hans Selye, after which Selye accepted Guillemin’s request to spend a year doing research in his laboratory at the University of Montreal, Canada.

This turned into a four-year project, for which Guillemin was awarded a PhD in 1953. His studies with Selye were impactful, but it was meeting the UK physiologist Geoffrey Harris in Canada that would shape Guillemin’s subsequent science. Harris argued that the hypothalamus controls the anterior pituitary not through nerve signals, but rather through blood-borne factors that reach the pituitary through the capillaries of an interconnecting stalk. Recruited to the faculty of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, Guillemin decided to tackle Harris’s hypothesis head on. His initial aim was to purify and determine the structure of corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF), the hypothalamic hormone that stimulates the anterior pituitary to produce adrenocorticotropic hormone, the driver of the stress response described by Seyle. Progress towards this goal was slow, so Guillemin turned his attention to other putative releasing factors, including TRF.

The scale of his efforts at purification in the late 1950s and 1960s was enormous. These releasing factors were peptides — short chains of amino acids — present in only tiny amounts in the hypothalamus. Together with the fact that the hypothalamus is itself a small part of the brain, this meant that purification began with extracts prepared from millions of sheep hypothalami obtained from slaughterhouses. Peptides were separated on 3-metre-tall chromatography columns that extended through the lab’s ceiling. One set of columns was packed with the then-new resin Sephadex, released by the Stockholm-based biotechnology company Pharmacia in 1959. Guillemin sent a postdoc in his lab, Andrew Schally, that year to Sweden to procure much of the world’s supply of Sephadex.

Schally, who had worked on releasing factors for his PhD, joined the expanding team in Houston in 1957. He chafed under Guillemin’s leadership, however, viewing his years in Houston as a struggle in which he and Guillemin had a “very bitter, unpleasant relationship”. Guillemin suggested that Schally should move on, and himself accepted a simultaneous appointment at the Collège de France in Paris in 1960. Schally established his own competing research operation at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Guillemin and Schally would remain competitors for more than two decades, a state of affairs not changed by their shared Nobel Prize.

The Houston and New Orleans teams succeeded in purifying TRF and determining its amino-acid sequence at around the same time. Immediately thereafter, Guillemin moved his lab to the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. There, his team identified a raft of hypothalamic releasing factors, now referred to as hormones. These included gonadotropin-releasing hormone, which drives the release of hormones that stimulate the reproductive organs; somatostatin, which inhibits the release of growth hormones; and growth-hormone-releasing hormone. In 1981, a Salk Institute team headed by US endocrinologist Wylie Vale, who was a student of Guillemin, finally purified and sequenced the elusive CRF, Selye’s obsession and Guillemin’s initial target from the 1950s. Drugs built on these discoveries have proved to be among the farthest-reaching medical translations of research from the institute.

Guillemin was the recipient of multiple honours and awards as well as the Nobel Prize. He was a connoisseur of the wines of Burgundy, and during his tenure as president of the Salk Institute in 2007–09, white wine was served at lunchtime faculty meetings. Roger lived an art- and music-filled life, and was close to the artists Françoise Gilot and Niki de Saint Phalle. He cherished his ties to family, students, postdocs, colleagues and friends. He leaves a vibrant scientific legacy.

[ad_2]

Source Article Link

Categories
Life Style

the inside story of deception in a rising star’s physics lab

[ad_1]

In 2020, Ranga Dias was an up-and-coming star of the physics world. A researcher at the University of Rochester in New York, Dias achieved widespread recognition for his claim to have discovered the first room-temperature superconductor, a material that conducts electricity without resistance at ambient temperatures. Dias published that finding in a landmark Nature paper1.

Nearly two years later, that paper was retracted. But not long after, Dias announced an even bigger result, also published in Nature: another room-temperature superconductor2. Unlike the previous material, the latest one supposedly worked at relatively modest pressures, raising the enticing possibility of applications such as superconducting magnets for medical imaging and powerful computer chips.

Most superconductors operate at extremely low temperatures, below 77 kelvin (−196 °C). So achieving superconductivity at room temperature (about 293 K, or 20 °C) would be a “remarkable phenomenon”, says Peter Armitage, a condensed-matter researcher at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

But Dias is now infamous for the scandal that surrounds his work. Nature has since retracted his second paper2 and many other research groups have tried and failed to replicate Dias’s superconductivity results. Some researchers say the debacle has caused serious harm. The scandal “has damaged careers of young scientists — either in the field, or thinking to go into the field”, says Paul Canfield, a physicist at Iowa State University in Ames.

Previous reporting by The Wall Street Journal, Science and Nature’s news team has documented allegations that Dias manipulated data, plagiarized substantial portions of his thesis and attempted to obstruct the investigation of another paper by fabricating data.

Three previous investigations into Dias’s superconductivity work by the University of Rochester did not find evidence of misconduct. But last summer, the university launched a fourth investigation, led by experts external to the university. In August 2023, Dias was stripped of his students and laboratories. That fourth investigation is now complete and, according to a university spokesperson, the external experts confirmed that there were “data reliability concerns” in Dias’s papers.

Now, Nature’s news team reveals new details about how the scandal unfolded.

The news team interviewed several of Dias’s former graduate students, who were co-authors of his superconductivity research. The individuals requested anonymity because they were concerned about the negative impact on their careers. Nature’s news team verified student claims with corroborating documents; where it could not do so, the news team relied on the fact that multiple, independent student accounts were in agreement.

The news team also obtained documents relevant to the acceptance of the two Nature papers and their subsequent retractions. (Nature’s news and journal teams are editorially independent.)

The investigation unearths fresh details about how Dias distorted the evidence for room-temperature superconductivity — and indicates that he concealed information from his students, manipulated them and shut them out of key steps in the research process. The investigation also reveals, for the first time, what happened during the peer-review process for Dias’s second Nature paper on superconductivity. Dias did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Together, the evidence raises questions about why the problems in Dias’s lab did not prompt stronger action, and sooner, by his collaborators, by Nature’s journal team and by his university.

Zero resistance

Dias came to the University of Rochester in 2017, fresh from a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he worked under physicist Isaac Silvera. “He’s not only a very talented scientist, but he’s an honest person,” Silvera told Nature’s news team.

Once Dias settled at Rochester, he pursued high-temperature superconductivity. Three years earlier, the field had been electrified when researchers in Germany discovered superconductivity in a form of hydrogen sulfide with the formula H3S at 203 K (−70 °C) and at extremely high pressures3. This was a much higher temperature than any superconductor had achieved before, which gave researchers hope that room-temperature superconductivity could be around the corner.

Dias proposed that adding carbon to H3S might lead to superconductivity at even higher temperatures.

Ranga Dias, a professor of mechanical engineering and physics at University of Rochester whose team is doing superconductivity research, in 2023.

Ranga Dias at the University of Rochester, New York.Credit: Lauren Petracca/New York Times/Redux/eyevine

His former graduate students say they synthesized samples of carbon, sulfur and hydrogen (CSH), but did not take measurements of electrical resistance or magnetic susceptibility that showed superconductivity. When a superconducting material is cooled past a critical temperature, its electrical resistance drops sharply to zero, and the material displays a similarly sharp change in its magnetic properties, called the Meissner effect. Students say they did not observe these key signs of superconductivity in CSH.

Because of this, students say they were shocked when Dias sent them a manuscript on 21 July 2020 announcing the discovery of room-temperature superconductivity in CSH. E-mails seen by the news team show that the students had little time to review the manuscript: Dias sent out a draft at 5.13 p.m. and submitted the paper to Nature at 8.26 p.m. the same evening.

When the students asked Dias about the stunning new data, they say, he told them he had taken all the resistance and magnetic-susceptibility data before coming to Rochester. The news team obtained e-mails that show Dias had been making similar claims since 2014. In the e-mails, Dias says he has observed a sulfur-based superconductor with a temperature above 120 K — which is relatively high, but far from room temperature. The students recall that they felt odd about Dias’s explanation but did not suspect misconduct at the time. As relatively inexperienced graduate students, they say, they trusted their adviser.

During peer review, however, Dias’s claims about CSH met more resistance. Nature’s news team obtained the reports of all three referees who reviewed the manuscript. Two of the referees were concerned over a lack of information about the chemical structure of CSH. After three rounds of review, only one referee supported publication.

The news team showed five superconductivity specialists these reports. They shared some of the referees’ concerns but say it was not unreasonable for the Nature editors to have accepted the paper, given the strongly positive report from one referee and what was known at the time.

The paper was published on 14 October 2020 to fanfare. Dias and a co-author, Ashkan Salamat, a physicist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), also announced their new venture: Unearthly Materials, a Rochester-based company established to develop superconductors that operate at ambient temperatures and pressures.

At the time, students say, they trusted Dias’s explanations of where the resistance and magnetic-susceptibility data came from. Now, however, they no longer believe the result, or Dias’s explanation for the data. “I don’t think any of the other data was collected,” one student says.

Matters arise

Soon after the CSH paper was published, Jorge Hirsch, a condensed-matter theorist at the University of California, San Diego, began pressing Dias to release the raw magnetic-susceptibility data, which were not included in the paper. More than a year later, Dias and Salamat finally made the raw data public.

In January 2022, Hirsch and Dirk van der Marel, a retired professor at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, posted an analysis of the raw data on the preprint server arXiv4. They reported that the data points were separated by suspiciously regular intervals — each exactly a multiple of 0.16555 nanovolts. Hirsch and van der Marel stated that this feature was evidence of data manipulation.

Laser spectroscopy is used to trigger chemical reactions in experiments with room-temperature superconductivity in a University of Rochester lab.

Dias’s team used laser spectroscopy to measure the pressure of samples in diamond anvil cells.Credit: Lauren Petracca/New York Times/Redux/eyevine

Dias and Salamat responded in an arXiv preprint, arguing that the voltage intervals were simply a result of a background subtraction5 (the preprint was subsequently withdrawn by arXiv administrators). In high-pressure experiments, the signal of a sample’s superconductivity — a drop in voltage — can be drowned out by background noise. Researchers sometimes subtract this background, but the CSH paper did not mention the technique.

Questions about the data prompted Nature’s journal team to look further. In response to the concerns from Hirsch and van der Marel, editors at Nature asked four new referees to participate in a post-publication review of the CSH paper, which, like most peer review, was confidential.

Now, Nature’s news team has obtained the reports, which show that two of the anonymous referees found no evidence of misconduct. But two other reviewers, whom the news team can identify as physicists Brad Ramshaw at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and James Hamlin at the University of Florida in Gainesville, found serious problems with the paper.

In particular, Hamlin found evidence that led him to conclude the raw data had been altered. Nature applied an editor’s note to the CSH paper on 15 February 2022, alerting readers to concerns about the data.

On 4 March 2022, Dias and Salamat sent a rebuttal to the referees, denying data manipulation. But the rebuttal, seen by the news team, does not provide an explanation for the issues that Hamlin and Ramshaw found in the raw magnetic-susceptibility data. “I don’t know of any reasonable way this could come about,” Ramshaw wrote in a 13 March e-mail to Nature’s manuscript team in response to the rebuttal. “The simplest conclusion would be that these data sets are all generated by hand and not actually measured.”

On 27 March 2022, Hamlin sent Nature’s journal team his response to the rebuttal, which proposed an explanation for the odd data: rather than deriving the published data from raw data, Dias had added noise to the published data to generate a set of ‘raw’ data.

To assess the evidence for data fabrication, Nature’s news team last month asked two superconductivity specialists to review the post-publication reports. They said that Hamlin’s analysis gives credence to claims of misconduct.

In July 2022, using a different analysis, van der Marel and Hirsch independently came to the same conclusion and posted their findings on arXiv as an update to their original preprint. In it, they state that the raw data must have been constructed from the published data6.

In light of these concerns, Nature started the process of retracting the CSH paper. On 11 August, Nature editors sent an e-mail to all the co-authors asking them whether they agreed to the retraction. Students who spoke to the news team say that they were surprised by this, because Dias had kept them out of the loop about the post-publication review process. They remained unaware of any of the referees’ findings, including that there was evidence for data fabrication.

Nature retracted the CSH paper on 26 September 2022, with a notice that states “issues undermine confidence in the published magnetic susceptibility data as a whole, and we are accordingly retracting the paper”. Karl Ziemelis, Nature’s chief applied and physical sciences editor, says the journal’s investigation ceased as soon as the editors lost confidence in the paper, which “did leave other technical concerns unresolved”.

The retraction does not state what Hamlin and Ramshaw found in the post-publication review process instigated by Nature: that the raw data were probably fabricated. Felicitas Heβelmann, a specialist in retractions at the Humboldt University of Berlin, says misconduct is difficult to prove, so journals often avoid laying blame on authors in retractions. “A lot of retractions use very vague language,” she says.

Publicly, Dias continued to insist that CSH was legitimate and that the retraction was simply down to an obscure technical disagreement.

As Nature journal editors were investigating the CSH paper, the University of Rochester conducted two investigations into Dias’s work; a separate one followed the retraction. One of the university’s inquiries was in response to an anonymous report, which included some of the evidence indicating possible data fabrication that surfaced during Nature’s post-publication review.

The university told Nature’s news team that the three investigations regarding the CSH study did not find evidence of misconduct.

A spokesperson for Nature says that the journal took the university’s conclusions into account during its deliberations, but still decided to retract the paper.

The lack of industry-wide standards for investigating misconduct leaves it unclear whether the responsibility to investigate lands more on journals or on institutions. Ziemelis says: “Allegations of possible misconduct are outside the remit of peer review and more appropriately investigated by the host institution.”

Heβelmann says the responsibility to investigate can “vary from case to case”, but that there is a trend of more journals investigating misconduct, regardless of institutional action.

Funding agencies can also investigate alleged misconduct. In this case, Dias has received funding from both the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DoE). The DoE did not respond to questions from Nature’s news team about Dias’s grant. The NSF declined to say whether it is investigating Dias, but it noted that awards can be terminated and suspended in response to an investigation.

The students who spoke to Nature’s news team say that none of them were interviewed in the three investigations of the CSH work by the university, which they were not aware of at the time. “We were hoping someone would come talk to us,” one student says. “It never happened.”

A new claim

By the time the CSH paper came under scrutiny by Nature journal editors in early 2022, Dias’s graduate students were starting to grow concerned. In summer 2021, Dias had tasked them with investigating a compound of lutetium and hydrogen (LuH), which he thought might be a high-temperature superconductor.

They began testing commercially purchased samples of LuH and, before long, a student measured the resistance dropping to zero at a temperature of around 300 K (27 °C). Dias concluded the material was a room-temperature superconductor, even though there was extremely little evidence, several students told Nature. “Ranga was convinced,” one student says.

Physicist James Jeffrey Hamlin in his lab at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida in 2023.

Physicist James Hamlin raised concerns about data reported by the Rochester group.Credit: Zach Stovall for Nature

But the measurements were plagued by systematic errors, which students say they shared with Dias. “I was very, very concerned that one of the probes touching the sample was broken,” one student says. “We could be measuring something that looks like a superconducting drop, but be fooling ourselves.” Although students did see resistance drops in a few other samples, there was no consistency across samples, or even for repeated measurements of a single sample, they told Nature’s news team.

Students were also worried about the accuracy of other measurements. During elemental analysis of a sample, they detected trace amounts of nitrogen. Dias concluded that the samples included the element — and the resulting paper refers to nitrogen-doped lutetium hydride. But further analysis, performed after the paper was submitted, indicated that nitrogen was not incorporated into the LuH. “Ranga ignored what I was saying,” one student says.

Because they were not consulted on the CSH paper, the students say they wanted to make sure they were included in the process of writing the LuH paper. According to the students, Dias initially agreed to involve them. “Then, one day, he sends us an e-mail and says, ‘Here’s the paper. I’m gonna submit it,’” one student says.

E-mails seen by Nature’s news team corroborate the timeline. Dias sent out the first draft of the LuH paper in an e-mail at 2.09 a.m. on 25 April 2022. “Please send me your comments by 10.30 AM,” Dias wrote. “I am submitting it today.” The manuscript they received did not contain any figures, making it difficult to assess. The students convinced Dias to hold off on submitting until the next day, when they could discuss it in person.

One student was upset enough by the meeting that they wrote a memorandum of the events four days afterwards. The memo gives details of how students raised concerns and Dias dismissed them. Students worried that the draft was misleading, because it included a description of how to synthesize LuH; in reality, all the measurements were taken on commercially bought samples of LuH. “Ranga responded by pointing out that it was never explicitly mentioned that we synthesized the sample so technically he was not lying,” the student wrote.

The students say they also raised concerns about the pressure data reported in the draft. “None of those pressure points correspond to anything that we actually measured,” one student says. According to the memo, Dias dismissed their concerns by saying: “Pressure is a joke.”

Students say that Dias gave them an ultimatum: remove their names, or let him send the draft. Despite their worries, the students say they had no choice but to acquiesce. “I just remember being very intimidated,” one student says. The student says they regret not speaking up more to Dias. “But it’s scary at the time. What if I do and he makes the rest of my life miserable?”

Dias made some changes that the students requested, but ignored others; the submitted manuscript contained a description of a synthesis procedure that had not been used. He sent the LuH manuscript to Nature that evening.

Paper problems

After Nature published the LuH paper in March 2023, many scientists were critical of the journal’s decision, given the rumours of misconduct surrounding the retracted CSH paper. They wanted to know on what basis Nature had decided to accept it. (In the case of both papers, neither the peer-review reports nor the referees’ identities were revealed.) Nature’s news team obtained those reviews and can, for the first time, reveal what happened during the review process for the LuH paper. Nature editors received the manuscript in April 2022 (about a month after Nature received the CSH post-publication review reports) and sent it out to four referees.

Brad Ramshaw giving a talk while using a projector.

Physicist Brad Ramshaw, together with James Hamlin, investigated data questions surrounding Dias’s superconductivity research.Credit: Kim Modic

All four referees agreed that the findings, if true, were highly significant. But they emphasized caution in accepting the manuscript, because of the extraordinary nature of the claims. Referee 4 wrote that the journal should be careful with such extraordinary claims to avoid another “Schön affair”, referring to the extensive data fabrication by German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, which has become a cautionary tale in physics and led to dozens of papers being retracted, seven of them in Nature. Referees 2 and 3 also expressed concern about the results because of the CSH paper, which at the time bore an editor’s note of concern but had not yet been retracted. Referees raised a plethora of issues, from a lack of details about the synthesis procedure to unexplainable features in the data.

Although Dias and Salamat managed to assuage some of those concerns, referees said the authors’ responses were “not satisfactory” and the manuscript went through five stages of review. In the end, only one referee said there was solid proof of superconductivity, and another gave qualified support for publication. The other two referees did not voice support for publication, and one of them remained unsatisfied with the authors’ responses and wanted more measurements taken.

The news team asked five superconductivity specialists to review key information available to Nature journal editors when they were considering the LuH manuscript: the referee reports for the LuH paper and the reports indicating data fabrication in the CSH paper. All five said the documents raised serious questions about the validity of the LuH results and the integrity of the data.

“The second paper — from my understanding of timelines — was being considered after the Nature editors and a lot of the condensed-matter community were aware there were profound problems” with the CSH paper, Canfield says. The specialists also pointed to negative comments from some of the LuH referees, such as the observation by Referee 1 that “raw data does not look like a feature corresponding to superconducting transition”.

When asked why Nature considered Dias’s LuH paper after being warned of potential misconduct on the previous paper, Magdalena Skipper, Nature’s editor-in-chief, said: “Our editorial policy considers every submission in its own right.” The rationale, Skipper explains, is that decisions should be made on the basis of the scientific quality, not who the authors are.

Many other journals have similar policies, and guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics state that peer reviewers should “not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript”. But not all journals say they treat submissions independently. Van der Marel, who is the editor-in-chief of Physica C, says that he would consider past allegations of misconduct if he were assessing a new paper by the same author. “If you have good reasons to doubt the credibility of authors, you are not obliged to publish,” he says.

Under review

Soon after the LuH paper was published in March 2023, it came under further scrutiny. Several teams of researchers independently attempted to replicate the results. One group, using samples from Dias’s lab, reported electrical resistance measurements that it said indicated high-temperature superconductivity7. But numerous other replication attempts found no evidence of room-temperature superconductivity in the compound.

As previously reported in Science, Hamlin and Ramshaw sent Nature a formal letter of concern in May. Dias and Salamat responded to the issues later that month, but the students say they were not included in the response, and learnt about the concerns much later.

A recording of a 6 July 2023 meeting between Dias and his students, obtained by Nature’s news team, shows that Dias continued to manipulate the students. Throughout the hour-long meeting, Dias said he wanted to involve the students in deciding how the team would respond to concerns about the LuH paper. But he didn’t tell them that he and Salamat had already responded to the technical issues raised by Hamlin and Ramshaw.

A graduate student makes adjustments to a diamond anvil cell used for a superconductivity experiment in the University of Rochester lab.

One of Dias’s students adjusts a diamond anvil cell, which the team used in its experiments.Credit: Lauren Petracca/New York Times/Redux/eyevine

The recording also reveals how Dias tried to manipulate the Nature review, because he believed the process would turn against him once more. “We can pretend we’re going to cooperate and buy time for a month or so, and then gather some senior scientists from the community,” Dias says in the recording. Dias explains how he wants to use the credibility of senior scientists — or the University of Rochester — to pressure Nature and avert a retraction.

But Dias’s plans were thwarted. Later that month, the students received an e-mail from Nature’s editors that showed Dias and Salamat had, in fact, already responded to the concerns. The students realized that Dias had sent them a document with the dates removed, apparently to perpetuate the falsehood.

On 25 July 2023, the journal initiated a post-publication review and asked four new referees to assess the dispute. All of the referees agreed that there were serious problems with the data, and that Dias and Salamat did not “convincingly address” the issues raised by Hamlin and Ramshaw. A spokesperson for Nature says the journal communicated with University of Rochester representatives during the post-publication review.

Separately, Dias’s students were beginning to mobilize, re-examining the LuH data they were able to access. The students hadn’t done this before, because, they say, Dias produced almost all of the figures and plots in both of the Nature papers.

Several other researchers told the news team that the principal investigator does not typically produce all the plots. “That’s weird,” Canfield says.

The students say they were especially concerned about the magnetic susceptibility measurements — again, the raw data seemed to have been altered. Looking at the real raw data, one student says, the material does not look like a superconductor. But when Dias subtracted the background, the student says, that “basically flips that curve upside down and makes it look superconducting instead”.

They continued finding problems. For the resistance measurements, too, the alleged raw data didn’t match data actually taken in the lab. Instead, it had been tweaked to look neater. “Science can be really messy … some of these plots just look too good,” a student says.

Back to school

By this point, some students were deeply concerned about their careers. “My thesis is going to be full of fabricated data. How am I supposed to graduate in this lab?” one student says. “At that point, I was thinking of either taking a leave of absence, or of dropping out.”

During the summer, Dias began facing other issues. One of his papers in Physical Review Letters8 — unrelated to room-temperature superconductivity — was being retracted after the journal found convincing evidence of data fabrication. Around the same time, Dias was stripped of his students and the University of Rochester launched a fourth investigation — this time, the students say they were interviewed.

In late August, the students decided to request a retraction of the LuH paper and compiled their concerns about the data and Dias’s behaviour. Before they sent a letter to Nature, Dias apparently caught wind of it and sent the students a cease-and-desist notice, which the news team has seen. But, after consulting a university official who gave them the green light, the students sent their letter to Nature editors, precipitating the retraction process. Eight out of 11 authors, including Salamat, signed the letter and the LuH paper was retracted two months later, on 7 November.

According to multiple sources familiar with the company, Salamat left Unearthly Materials in 2023 and is under investigation at UNLV. He did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and a spokesperson for UNLV declined to comment publicly on personnel issues.

The scandal has also had an impact on Nature’s journal team. “This has been a deeply frustrating situation, and we understand the strength of feelings this has stirred within the community,” Ziemelis says. “We are looking at this case carefully to see what lessons can be learnt for the future.”

With the university’s investigation now complete, Dias remains at Rochester while a separate process for addressing “personnel actions” proceeds. He has no students, is not teaching any classes and has lost access to his lab, according to multiple sources. Dias’s prestigious NSF grant — which has US$333,283 left to pay out until 2026 — could also be in jeopardy if the NSF finds reason to terminate it.

Dias has not published any more papers about LuH, but on X (formerly Twitter), he occasionally posts updates about the material. In a 19 January tweet, Dias shared an image of data, which he said showed the Meissner effect — “definitive proof of superconductivity!”

[ad_2]

Source Article Link