Tag: science

Curious Grad Student Accidentally Discovers Shape-Changing Liquid That Bends the Laws of Thermodynamics

University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers have discovered a surprising “shape-changing” liquid that seems to bend the laws of thermodynamics.

The strange compound—made of oil, water, and magnetic nickel particles—was first assembled by a graduate student who was merely curious to see what might happen. To his surprise, when the liquid was shaken, the magnetic particles quickly reformed into a shape resembling a Greek urn.

Emulsion and Thermodynamics

“Imagine your favorite Italian salad dressing,” says Thomas Russell, Silvio O. Conte Distinguished Professor of Polymer Science and Engineering at UMass Amherst and one of the paper’s senior authors. “It’s made up of oil, water and spices, and before you pour it onto your salad, you shake it up so that all the ingredients mix.”

While water and oil normally separate, they can combine through a process called emulsion, where small bits of a third material enter the mix, reducing surface tension between the two normally incompatible substances. The emulsion process works as described by the laws of thermodynamics.

Playing Around in the Lab

A wide range of technologies and applications make use of emulsification. While experimenting with emulsions in the lab, UMass Amherst graduate student Anthony Raykh mixed magnetized nickel with oil and water just to see what might happen.

“Because you can engineer all sorts of interesting materials with useful properties when a fluid contains magnetic particles,” says Raykh. “And, in a complete surprise, the mixture formed this beautiful, pristine urn-shape.”

Despite repeated, vigorous shaking, the mixture consistently returned to a shape resembling an urn. Even altering the size of the magnetic particles did not change the effect.

“I thought ‘what is this thing?’ So, I walked up and down the halls of the Polymer Science and Engineering Department, knocking on my professors’ doors, asking them if they knew what was going on,” Raykh continued.

None of the UMass Amherst researchers could immediately explain the phenomenon. Two of Raykh’s professors, David Hoagland and Thomas Russell, took an interest and joined the investigation.

Investigating a Perplexing Liquid

As the small team began conducting experiments, they expanded their collaboration to include researchers from Tufts and Syracuse universities for help with simulations. The growing team of experts across the Northeast ultimately concluded that strong magnetism was behind the liquid’s unusual behavior.

“When you look very closely at the individual nanoparticles of magnetized nickel that form the boundary between the water and oil,” says Hoagland, “you can get extremely detailed information on how different forms assemble. In this case, the particles are magnetized strongly enough that their assembly interferes with the process of emulsification, which the laws of thermodynamics describe.”

The liquid’s magnetic action reverses the normal emulsion process. Instead of decreasing the tension between oil and water, as normally occurs when introducing a third particle, the magnets increase the surface tension. As a result, the boundary separating the oil and water forms a curve.

Keep reading

The Return of the Dire Wolf

Romulus and Remus are doing what puppies do: chasing, tussling, nipping, nuzzling. But there’s something very un-puppylike about the snowy white 6-month olds—their size, for starters. At their young age they already measure nearly 4 ft. long, tip the scales at 80 lb., and could grow to 6 ft. and 150 lb. Then there’s their behavior: the angelic exuberance puppies exhibit in the presence of humans—trotting up for hugs, belly rubs, kisses—is completely absent. They keep their distance, retreating if a person approaches. Even one of the handlers who raised them from birth can get only so close before Romulus and Remus flinch and retreat. This isn’t domestic canine behavior, this is wild lupine behavior: the pups are wolves. Not only that, they’re dire wolves—which means they have cause to be lonely.

The dire wolf once roamed an American range that extended as far south as Venezuela and as far north as Canada, but not a single one has been seen in over 10,000 years, when the species went extinct. Plenty of dire wolf remains have been discovered across the Americas, however, and that presented an opportunity for a company named Colossal Biosciences. 

Relying on deft genetic engineering and ancient, preserved DNA, Colossal scientists deciphered the dire wolf genome, rewrote the genetic code of the common gray wolf to match it, and, using domestic dogs as surrogate mothers, brought Romulus, Remus, and their sister, 2-month-old Khaleesi, into the world during three separate births last fall and this winter—effectively for the first time de-extincting a line of beasts whose live gene pool long ago vanished. TIME met the males (Khaleesi was not present due to her young age) at a fenced field in a U.S. wildlife facility on March 24, on the condition that their location remain a secret to protect the animals from prying eyes.

The dire wolf isn’t the only animal that Colossal, which was founded in 2021 and currently employs 130 scientists, wants to bring back. Also on their de-extinction wish list is the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger. Already, in March, the company surprised the science community with the news that it had copied mammoth DNA to create a woolly mouse, a chimeric critter with the long, golden coat and the accelerated fat metabolism of the mammoth.

If all this seems to smack of a P.T. Barnum, the company has a reply. Colossal claims that the same techniques it uses to summon back species from the dead could prevent existing but endangered animals from slipping into extinction themselves. What they learn restoring the mammoth, they say, could help them engineer more robust elephants that can better survive the climatic ravages of a warming world. Bring back the thylacine and you might help preserve the related marsupial known as the quoll. Techniques learned restoring the dire wolf can similarly be used to support the endangered red wolf.

Keep reading

Science Stopped Believing in Porn Addiction. You Should, Too

Though porn addiction is not diagnosable, and never has been, there is a large self-help industry surrounding the concept. Mostly online (though in religious areas, such as Utah, there are numerous in-person treatment sites), this industry promotes the idea that modern access to the Internet, and the porn that thrives there, has led to an epidemic of dysregulated, out-of-control porn use, and significant life problems as a result.

Over recent years, numerous studies have begun to suggest that there is more to the story than just porn. Instead, we’ve had growing hints that the conflicts and struggles over porn use have more to do with morality and religion, rather than pornography itself. I’ve covered this surge of research in numerous posts and articles.

Now, researchers have put a nail in the coffin of porn addiction. Josh Grubbs, Samuel Perry and Joshua Wilt are some of the leading researchers on America’s struggles with porn, having published numerous studies examining the impact of porn use, belief in porn addiction, and the effect of porn on marriages. And Rory Reid is a UCLA researcher who was a leading proponent gathering information about the concept of hypersexual disorder for the DSM-5. These four researchers, all of whom have history of neutrality, if not outright support of the concepts of porn addiction, have conducted a meta-analysis of research on pornography and concluded that porn use does not predict problems with porn, but that religiosity does.

The researchers lay out their argument and theory extremely thoroughly, suggesting that Pornography Problems due to Moral Incongruence (PPMI) appear to be the driving force in many of the people who report dysregulated, uncontrollable, or problematic pornography use. Even though many people who grew up in religious, sexually conservative households have strong negative feelings about pornography, many of those same people continue to use pornography. And then they feel guilty and ashamed of their behavior, and angry at themselves and their desire to watch more.

Keep reading

US Peanut Allergy Epidemic Sprang From Experts’ Exactly-Wrong Guidance

In the 1980s, peanut allergies were almost entirely unheard-of. Today, the United States has one of the highest peanut-allergy rates in the world. Disturbingly, this epidemic was precipitated by institutions that exist to promote public health. The story of their malpractice illuminates the fallibility of respected institutions, and confirms that public health’s catastrophically incorrect guidance during the Covid-19 pandemic wasn’t an isolated anomaly.

The roots of this particular example of expert-inflicted mass suffering can be found in the early 1990s, when the existence of peanut allergies — still a very rare and mostly low-risk phenomenon at the time — first came to public notice. Their entry into public consciousness began with studies published by medical researchers. By the mid-1990s, however, major media outlets were running attention-grabbing stories of hospitalized children and terrified parents. The Great Parental Peanut Panic was on.

As fear and dread mounted, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a professional association of tens of thousands of US pediatricians, felt compelled to tell parents how to prevent their children from becoming the latest victims. “There was just one problem: They didn’t know what precautions, if any, parents should take,” wrote then-Johns Hopkins surgeon and now-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary in his 2024 book, Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.

Ignorance proved no obstacle. Lacking humility and seeking to bolster its reputation as an authoritative organization, the AAP in 2000 handed down definitive instructions: Parents should avoid feeding any peanut product to children under 3 years old who were believed to have a high risk of developing a peanut allergy; pregnant and lactating mothers were likewise cautioned against consuming peanuts.

The AAP noted that “the ability to determine which infants are at high risk is imperfect.” Indeed, simply having a relative with any kind of allergy could land a child or mother in the “high risk” category. Believing they were erring on the side of caution, pediatricians across the country started giving blanket instructions that children shouldn’t be fed any peanut food until age 3; pregnant and breastfeeding mothers were told to steer clear too.

What was the basis of the AAP’s pronouncement? The organization was simply parroting guidance that the UK Department of Health had put forth in 1998. Makary scoured that guidance for a scientific rationale, and found a declaration that mothers who eat peanuts were more likely to have children with allergies, with the claim attributed to a 1996 study. When he checked the study, however, he was shocked to find the data demonstrated no such correlation. The study’s author, Irish pediatric professor Jonathan Hourihane, was himself shocked to see his study used to justify the policy. “It’s ridiculous,” he told Makary. “It’s not what I wanted people to believe.”

Despite the policy’s lack of scientific foundation, the US government’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) fully endorsed the AAP guidance. In time, it would be all too apparent that — as with public health’s later response to Covid-19 — the experts weren’t erring on the side of caution, they were erring on the side of catastrophe.

Keep reading

The 3 Myths Supporting NIH Funding

The Trump administration’s proposal to cut National Institutes of Health (NIH) indirect funds has been widely attacked, with heated claims it will annihilate biomedical scientific research in the United States. Leading with a picture of a 12-year-old child with muscular dystrophy, Shetal Shah, a neonatology professor, argued in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that the cuts would “hobble” vital medical research, and a Time magazine interviewee went as far as to call it the “apocalypse” of U.S. science writ large. While the funding cut has been blocked by federal judges for now, the future fiscal status of the NIH, and the university researchers that depend on it, remains uncertain.

Pundits discussing the cuts nearly universally agree that federally funded science is a crucial component of lifesaving medical therapies, innovative technology, and the ongoing status of the U.S. as a scientific superpower. These assertions are repeated ad nauseam despite history telling a different story. Promulgating three core myths, advocates for maintaining the status quo of public funding have been active in the media, but none of their key assertions withstand considering the historical record.

Keep reading

After Trump’s Election, Several NSF-Funded Censorship Tools Go Missing

The National Science Foundation (NSF) claims to be the place “where discoveries begin” — but it funded programs where free speech ends. When The Federalist asked if it still funds anti-“misinformation” tools, a representative simply pointed to its public grants database, which lists censorship projects funded during the Biden administration.

The public-interest law firm Alliance Defending Freedom sent NSF records requests in February to uncover any coordination between the federal agency and internet communications monopolies such as Google and Facebook.

NSF funds one-quarter of all federally funded academic fundamental research projects at U.S. higher education institutions, and funds technology development at approximately 400 “small businesses” each year. It has an annual budget of $8.5 billion. It also funds programs that exclude recipients based on race, according to an NSF factsheet.

The NSF’s “Convergence Accelerator,” which funds special research projects, launched a “cohort track” in 2021 for “Trust & Authenticity in Communication Systems.” Recipients developed software to control online speech labeled “misinformation” about politically sensitive topics including Covid-19 treatments and election integrity.

Twelve “teams” were selected for “phase 1” of the project, according to the House Judiciary Committee, and six were selected for “phase 2” funding at $5 million each. In total, the NSF awarded $39 million total to projects in this “track” of the program.

The NSF-funded projects include the Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust (ARTT), Co-Designing for Trust, Co:Cast, Co-Insights, CommuniTies, CourseCorrect, Expert Voices Together, Search Lit, TrustFinder, and WiseDex. Projects had ties to infamous pro-censorship organizations including Google, Meta, Snopes, Wikimedia, the World Economic Forum, and the World Health Organization.

The Federalist asked NSF how much total funding each project received from the agency, and if there have been any “cohorts dedicated to developing anti-misinformation projects since ‘track F.’” An NSF spokesman replied that, “in recent years,” Congress asked NSF to “identify and address issues of safety, ethics and adversarial influence online” through funding bills and the IOGAN Act. So the Convergence Accelerator “initiated Track F.”

“This program has not made an award since 2021 and will not be making any awards in the future,” the representative said. “NSF invests in research, innovation, and workforce development that accelerates the development, testing, and understanding of technology. NSF plays no role in content policies nor content regulations.”

The Federalist again asked “how much total NSF funding each project received” and “whether NSF helped develop other anti-misinformation projects aside from Track F.” The spokesman simply pointed to the agency’s “award search page,” and said, “[o]ther than that, I don’t have anything else to add.” A search for active NSF awards regarding “misinformation” yields more than 100 results.

ADF also filed public records requests for documents regarding the NSF Convergence Accelerator, as The Federalist previously reported. Mathew Hoffman, legal counsel for ADF’s Center for Free Speech, said at the time the group was investigating “where our tax dollars are being spent to fund censorship” — and “if anyone’s rights have been violated by the censorship-industrial complex, that litigation will certainly be an option.”

Keep reading

Ethically sourced “spare” human bodies could revolutionize medicine

Why do we hear about medical breakthroughs in mice, but rarely see them translate into cures for human disease? Why do so few drugs that enter clinical trials receive regulatory approval? And why is the waiting list for organ transplantation so long? These challenges stem in large part from a common root cause: a severe shortage of ethically sourced human bodies. 

It may be disturbing to characterize human bodies in such commodifying terms, but the unavoidable reality is that human biological materials are an essential commodity in medicine, and persistent shortages of these materials create a major bottleneck to progress.

This imbalance between supply and demand is the underlying cause of the organ shortage crisis, with more than 100,000 patients currently waiting for a solid organ transplant in the US alone. It also forces us to rely heavily on animals in medical research, a practice that can’t replicate major aspects of human physiology and makes it necessary to inflict harm on sentient creatures. In addition, the safety and efficacy of any experimental drug must still be confirmed in clinical trials on living human bodies. These costly trials risk harm to patients, can take a decade or longer to complete, and make it through to approval less than 15% of the time. 

There might be a way to get out of this moral and scientific deadlock. Recent advances in biotechnology now provide a pathway to producing living human bodies without the neural components that allow us to think, be aware, or feel pain. Many will find this possibility disturbing, but if researchers and policymakers can find a way to pull these technologies together, we may one day be able to create “spare” bodies, both human and nonhuman.

Keep reading

‘Impossible’ Device Physicists Said Wouldn’t Work Just Generated Electricity from the Earth’s Rotation

Scientists from Princeton University and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have invented a device that seemingly generates electricity from the Earth’s rotation.

Although generally accepted theories show that generating electricity from a uniform field like Earth’s magnetic field is impossible, the team believes they have found a “loophole” that allows their device to generate tiny but measurable amounts of electricity.

If independent reviews can confirm the team’s work, they say the next steps to building a practical energy-generating device would involve miniaturization and scaling efforts, as proposed in a new paper detailing their current efforts.

Device That Generates Electricity from the Earth’s Rotation Joins Alternative Energy Revolution

The research joins a list of promising new approaches to generating electricity, ranging from “extreme enzymes” or other living organisms to “smart” windows and triboelectric-driven “rain panels” that generate electricity from raindrops.

Other efforts include generating electricity from radio waves, sweat, advanced metamaterials, and ocean waves, including an effort to produce energy from waves at the grid scale. One particularly novel concept uses the classic “drinking bird” toy to generate power with each dip of its beak.

In an email to The Debrief, Princeton University Professor Christopher Chyba noted that his previous work with study co-author and co-inventor, JPL’s Dr. Kevin Hand, was designed to explore the possible electromagnetic heating of astrophysical objects. That theoretical work, Chyba explained, was not intended to have any practical application.

“Curiosity-driven basic research is often what later leads to practical applications,” the professor said. “A lot of basic research initially seems disconnected from our daily lives—but it’s a key component underlying American science and technology.”

However, Chyba explained that as those theoretical studies progressed, the work “led us to begin asking questions that we then realized could be investigated in the laboratory.”

Keep reading

World’s first pig to human liver transplant is carried out in major breakthrough

A pig’s liver has been transplanted into a human recipient for the first time in a ‘milestone’ for organ transfers between animals and people.

Scientists in China used a liver taken from a seven-month old Bama miniature pig which had been genetically modified to reduce the risk of rejection.

Once removed, it was kept ‘alive’ using a medical solution and chilled to 0-4C.

During the nine-hour-long surgery the recipient – a 50-year-old clinically dead man whose family had authorised the procedure – had the donor liver stitched to his blood vessels in his abdomen alongside his own liver. 

Over the next 10 days, the donor liver successfully produced bile and maintained a stable blood flow.

The team hope that rather than a long-term solution, their procedure could one day be used as a temporary treatment for patients with liver failure while they wait for a human donor.

In the UK, there are more than 11,000 deaths due to liver disease each year. Around 700 people are currently on the waiting list for a transplant, and the average wait is three to four months.

The announcement follows a slew of recent breakthroughs, including transplanting a pig’s heart into a man and a woman currently living with a pig’s kidney.

Professor Lin Wang, one of the study’s authors from the Fourth Military Medical University in Xi’an, said: ‘The liver collected from the modified pig functioned very well in the human body.

‘It’s a great achievement. This surgery was really successful.

‘We examined the blood flow in the different vessels and arteries. The flow is very smooth. It functioned very well.’

The experiment was terminated after 10 days because of requests made by the patient’s family members.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest modified livers can survive and function in human bodies, but further research on long-term outcomes is needed.

‘We have the opportunity in the future to solve the problem of a patient with severe liver failure,’ Professor Wang added.

‘It is our dream to make this achievement. The pig liver could survive together with the original liver of the human being and maybe it will give it additional support.’

He also expressed a desire to conduct further research on living, non-brain-dead human beings in the future, but stressed the complications and ‘many rules’ around this.

Keep reading

The bulk of credible science finds vaccines ‘can and do’ cause autism

It’s amazing how many media figures remain so uninformed on the proven links between vaccines and autism. Without knowing the subject thoroughly, they keep falsely claiming the links have been “debunked.”

Quite the opposite.

I understand, because I was surprised, too, at what I learned when I was first assigned to cover the subject of vaccine safety at CBS News in 2001. At the time, I knew nothing about how vaccines work, scientific studies linking them to autism and many side other effects, or the medical and industry complex set up to defend them at any cost.

As an investigative reporter looking into this topic independently for more than two decades, I have helped expose a lot of what many are desperate to cover up. Some of my work on the topic has received journalism awards, and it has been cited favorably in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The news that’s been revealed in this time period, including compelling studies, testimony, court cases, and other evidence, is now easily accessible to any reporter who knows better than to simply google and get the industry and medical establishment approved narratives; or rely upon information from the vast network of groups, organizations, and fake “fact checkers,” ultimately set up by industry to spin us all.

With Donald Trump about to enter a second term in office, appointing and relying upon figures in public health who are familiar with the facts on these controversies (and willing to act upon them), we are already being exposed to incessant and increasingly desperate propaganda.

The propagandists have important connections and plenty of money to spend to wield influence, as they long have, with federal agencies, members of Congress, and in media. They support fake “fact check” groups like Health Feedback and Science Feedback, dominate social media narratives, provide “journalism resources” that give false information, control medical information distributed by our once-esteemed public health agencies, influence medical associations, and back nonprofits that are designed to sound independent but put out industry misinformation.

They have proven they will go to any lengths to protect their billion dollar profits and to try to stop any disruption of the corrupt medical establishment built to support them.

Keep reading