The Planetary News Radio – Episode 10: Ancient North Siberians, Octopuses as Lab Rats, and Microplastics Invade Deep Sea

Hello. Welcome to the Planetary News Radio Episode Number 10 with your host, Bryan White. I’m going to be doing a Science in the News segment today, which is a brief summary of trending science news articles. I haven’t reed or researched most of these articles unless it was something controversial. So I’m just giving background information based on the headline. So depending how good the headlines are kind of influences how much information I can give about the article.

First up, I have here “DNA from 31,000 year old milk teeth leads to the discovery of a new group of ancient Siberians”. Ancient humans. This is a really exciting area of research because we found out that pretty much anything say, around the last 50,000 years, we can get DNA from now if we can find bones and the bones haven’t been completely fossilized. There’s still organic material in the bones. We can extract DNA and do genetic and genomic analysis on these bones and teeth are a great example of that. [There is] lots of organic material inside of teeth. And so we’ve discovered there’s several species of ancient humans in Eastern Europe, across through Russia, and Siberia, and in Asia. And so while there were radiations of humans out of Africa multiple times, some of those radiations included ancient humans that migrated into Siberia and Asia. In Europe, some of those became Neanderthals. [In Russia and Asia,] some of those became Denisovans, and I don’t know if this new species has been named yet [(Ancient North Siberians)]. This is really considered a subspecies of [ancient human, which are still considered Homo sapiens sp.].

Most of these species would have been able to interbreed with each other. So a good rule of thumb for mammals is if the divergence time for two groups is less than 200,000 years, then hybridization was most likely possible. So modern humans and Neanderthals were [able to hybridize, which] we know it’s proven for a fact that they hybridized because we have genomic data. Using [just] the rule of thumb, we know that Neanderthals and modern humans diverged about 300,000 years ago, and when they met again in Europe, they were only separated by about 200,000 years of evolution, and so they were able to hybridize. So the same thing with this [newly discovered group whose] teeth are only 31,000 years, so certainly these would have been able to hybridize and interbreed with modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.

So [this is] just more evidence of new, different groups of ancient humans. And why is that important? Well, it helps paint the picture of the migration and really the prolific amount of adaptation that modern humans underwent in terms of evolutionary change over the last 200,000 years. We really had our own adaptive radiation, just like birds and reptiles and dinosaurs. Humans are one of our own great adaptive radiation stories in terms of evolutionary history, so it’s always cool when we find new human species or unique genetic groups.

So let’s see, we [have] another StarLink article. “Astronomers call for urgent action on you on SpaceX’s StarLink satellites”. Apparently, astronomers are still concerned over the magnitude of the number of satellites that Elon Musk is going to be putting out into orbit around. [It will be] 12,000 satellites [in total], and this is now still a trending story every week for the last couple weeks since the initial launch has occurred. Like I said last time, I think it’s a fair criticism, but it also forces us to think about space junk in general, which is good. So Maybe Elon Musk is doing us a favor by forcing the conversation, and hopefully there’s some resolution with these satellites and [policies towards “space junk”].

Here’s another interesting evolution biology topic or medical two. The newest lab rat has eight arms octopuses, big brains and unique behaviour spur basic research. Why would octopuses be a really good animal to use in the lab as a research subject? Well, let’s think about rats. Rats are intelligent. They’re small. They’re relatively easy to cultivate. You could have a colony [colony of rats]. They reproduce in the lab. They have a short lifespan, and that life span is about the time that it takes most experiments to perform. But what are the problems with rats? There’s a lot of problems with rats. One of them is that rats get cancer very easily, [upwards of 80% in some cases]. At least in lab stocks of rats, as opposed to wild rats. We’ve been cultivating rats for so long in the lab in a lab setting that they’re very, very likely to get cancer over the course of a two year life span. And so, if you want to do a cancer study on rats, that’s a problem because most of these rats will inevitably get cancer no matter what, whether they’re being exposed to something that is actually increasing their cancer risk or if they’re just living over the course of a normal life span.

[What are some reasons octopuses might make good lab animals?] Octopuses are less cultivated in the lab, [or at least were used in lab experiments more recently], so we probably don’t have very many generations worth of octopus evolution happening in a lab. It would be easier to collect them from the wild and generate a new stock [to improve and maintain lab-strain genetics]. Since lab rats are so domesticated compared to their wild counterparts, it would be problematic to intermix lab rats with wild rats, especially because you have the problem of aggression. So you don’t want to create really aggressive lab rats. It might improve their genetic stock, but then again, you have a problem of having more wild, aggressive rats.

Octopus can be aggressive, but it’s different. They’re a very different animal in terms of behavior. They’re contained in a marine environment. They’re probably not really being handled by the researchers. In other words, an octopus is less likely to reach around and bite a researcher because the environment that the octopus is being stored in isn’t going to be one where the researchers are routinely handling them with their hands. I imagine you can create these lab complexes for octopus to live in, where the researchers don’t really have to interact with them, and they don’t have to worry about getting bit. Octopuses do have a beak that could hurt a human. It could draw blood. But again, they’re not really aggressive, they’re mostly defensive animals, so octopus is not really threatened. Even a wild octopus shouldn’t be a problem. Now they will try to escape, but that’s part of their intelligence. So you have this animal that has a really fast generation time, it has a genetic stock could be easily replenished from the wild, it’s highly intelligent, it’s probably smarter than rats. It’s not really aggressive [compared to rats]. On the negative side, it’s probably more expensive to cultivate because you need all the marine equipment. But stuff like that is coming down in terms of pricing because of advances in material science. So as material science advances, it becomes easier to cultivate an animal like an octopus and then for sets of experiments that will work on an octopus. In other words, if you’re not trying to test a [mammal-specific] hormone, obviously that won’t work. Or it might if you could genetically engineer octopus to do something like a mammal. So maybe we can even test human medicine on octopuses if it’s easy to genetically modify them.

The great dying nearly erased life on Earth. Scientists see similarities today, the great dying, of course, being the Permian extinction, where 90 percent of marine life went extinct at the end of the Permian period around 300,000,000 years ago. And I think maybe 70% of all land life went extinct. And so we see Similar is of that today because of the rapid extinction rates that were seen on the Earth. And so we know that the Permian extinction was accompanied by rapid changes in climate, and a lot of those changes would have been recorded in the geological history in the fossils in the rocks around that time. So we’re probably seen similar patterns of a very rapid global climate change too rapid for animals to adapt, especially marine animals that tend to be more sensitive.

Apparently, the Mars lander Insight is having a problem with its instruments. So “NASA finally has a plan to free Insight’s extremely stuck probe”. So it sounds like the heat probe on Insight os stuck. Insight is an interesting probe on Mars because it’s not a robotic rover like Opportunity [and Spirit were]. It is a It is a stationary probe whose primary mission is to study the geology and geologic activity of Mars. So it has a seismometer that is actually measuring earthquakes on Mars and some other types of thermal instruments. So the fact that one of its probes are stuck is not good, but maybe this can be resolved.

Here’s another controversial topic. “Microplastics have invaded the deep ocean and the food chain”. That’s not good. So micro plastics real problem, because we’re finding out now that it’s permeated our entire water system, including the ocean and freshwater. These are microscopic bits of plastic that now we know we’re drinking and eating, and not just us [(humans)]. All life on earth now potentially being exposed to this. We don’t know the cumulative effects or long term effects of this because it’s just recently happened [the article says we are] finding out that microplastics have permeated all the way down to the deep sea, which means the entire oceanic ecosystem can be impacted from this all the way from the bottom up. So [some of] the primary producers in the ocean are phytoplankton or very tiny, tiny animals [(zooplankton)]. Phytoplankton are photosynthesizing organisms that float up and down in the water. And so now it sounds like, they’re saying, is that microplastics have permeated the entire oceanic column, which means primary producers will be affected as well as secondary producers and secondary consumers.

So if the oceanic ecosystem has been permeated to this degree with microplastic suggests that there could be a cumulative effect and this could lead to an ecosystem collapse. And so I think that’s kind of what we’re waiting for right now. In terms of conservation biology, we’re waiting to start seeing signs of these major ecosystem crashes. We already see signs of top level consumers [being harmed, such as] whales, sea turtles, things like that that are eating fish all the way up the food chain. We already see that they’re being impacted because they’re getting the worst degree of bio-accumulation because they’re eating fish and crustaceans that even in phytoplankton have been absorbing microplastics. So, you know, at the highest level we already get an impact. We get birds stomachs filled with plastic, things like that. So this microplastic problem is really scary. And hopefully my guess is that there will be some extreme measures taken, probably in the next five years to alleviate this. That’s my hope. But I think that it will happen because I think we’ll start seeing more direct [negative] impacts of it that will drive some of those changes.

All right, and that’s all I had today for this Science in the News segment. That’s Bryan White signing out the Planetary News Radio. Thanks for listening. If you’d like to support this podcast that had a patreon going, the link for that is in the feed. The transcripts for all of these podcasts are also on the website, so there’s a link to the website in the feed, and if you would like to join a discord chat, that link is also there. Hopefully, we get people asking questions and things like that in the discord, so thanks for listening. Have a great day.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.

The Planetary News Radio – Episode 8: New Fracking Methods, a Hidden Ocean on Pluto, and Other Science News

Hello. Welcome to The Planetary News Radio Episode 8 with your host, Bryan White. Today I’m going to do a segment called Science in the News, and this is kind of like taking the pulse of the internet in regard to science. What I have is just a list of headlines of recent science based trending articles and I haven’t researched the articles, I haven’t read them. All I’m doing is I’m just looking at headlines, and I’m taking the pulse. I just want to know what’s going on in a general sense, just to get an idea of where things are at with popular topics in science and so I don’t miss anything major or important.

The first thing up on this list is “PhD Programs drop standardized exam”. That’s important because PhD [(and other graduate)] programs historically have required a GRE (graduate record examination) to get into graduate. It’s a standardized way to measure capacity or ability and there’s been a lot of criticism about using standardized tests and measure graduate level capacity. And so you see a lot of institutions are dropping GREs entirely for [entry into] graduate programs. One of the first places to do this was UC Berkeley, which dropped the GRE for its biology program and now presumably we are seeing more schools dropping this, and I see that is a good thing for science. I think that if you create a standardized test and people train themselves to pass and do well on standardised tests, then all you end up with our people who are really good at doing standardized tests. So I’m glad to see that a lot of institutions or shifting away from this and maybe taking a more holistic approach to graduate entry, let’s see what’s next.

“Elon Musk’s 12,000 StarLink satellite network has a big problem”. I’ve been seeing a lot about this. So Elon Musk wants to create a satellite Internet called Starling and could presumably have hundreds or thousands of satellites. He’s launched 60 so far, so there’s a string of 60 satellites now orbiting around the earth, and they’re in a very low orbit right now. And so I believe the orbit slowly adjusts itself, but right now they’re in a low orbit, and so you can see the satellite’s fairly easily from the ground, so that’s a problem. It’s [potentially] very distracting for astronomers, and you see a lot of complaints about this network. So the concern is that when the full system is 12,000 satellites long, how much of the sky will be blocked out by this network? So it’s a legitimate concern, but we don’t really know yet. Some other uses of the network might offset that. For example, Elon Musk has said that this network would also be capable of removing space junk. So maybe as the satellites age, they can be repurposed to collect and bring down other pieces of debris in orbit and maybe balance out total space junk floating around Earth. So in general, space junk is a problem. That’s really good topic to talk about later.

Astronomers spot Forbidden Planet in Neptunian Desert”. So this is a planet that’s been spotted where it’s not supposed to exist, and that probably means that the planet is too close to its star. In other words, it hasn’t been obliterated by the star. That’s interesting, because planets that are close to their stars lose matter and mass slowly gets stripped away by radiation, so you see planets [that orbit to close] slowly getting absorbed by their stars. So you would not expect a planet to persist for very long in that range. That suggests, interesting things about this planet. Either there’s something strange about the star or something strange about the planet, and I don’t know, So this makes me curious. I want to go look at it more. But right now I’m not. This is just the headlines, So this isn’t really interesting thing to go look at later. [Scientists hypothesize either the planet began much larger than it currently is or it only recently migrated into the Neptunian zone (< ~1 million years ago)].

“Watch the first solar eclipse ever captured on film”. A year 1900 total solar eclipse. The oldest one ever [recorded]. So there’s a video of a solar eclipse, but not only a solar eclipse, the first ever video of a solar eclipse, has been released. That’s interesting because the year was 1900 and it kind of makes you think for a minute how long humans have been doing astronomy, much before film was invented. We already had a sophisticated understanding of astronomy, and so we think this film is something hi tech [compared to a simple 1900’s telescope], but astronomy, in all of its complexity, really needed only a low tech solution [(telescope)] to collect data. And so we’ve had telescopes for hundreds of years but only movies for only 100 years. That’s an interesting fact to know.

[This story again, “Ancient supernova prompted human ancestors to walk upright”. I talked about that an entire episode last time, which, if you missed, is the idea that a supernova caused a increase risk in forest fires or an increased rate of forest fires. And that might have driven humans to walk upright in ancient humans to walk upright. And so a new theory in the arena of human by P does and theories so that I would expect to develop more.

The James Webb telescope emerges successfully from final thermal vacuum test. So the James Webb telescope is going to be the new Hubble, the new most advanced telescope that we put into orbit around the Earth. So the fact that that’s getting close to being completed is really important and hopefully will begin to see amazing results from that fairly quickly.

Now here’s an interesting one, “Swapping water for CO2 could make fracking greener and more effective”, fracking being a short word for hydraulic fracturing, which is the act of injecting high pressure fluids under ground in order to cause fractures. So it’s a hydraulic fracture, and as those fractures are caused, then oil and gas will seep through into the cracks, and then that oil and gas could be extracted from the rock, but only under the [presence] of that fracturing. And so how you do that fracturing? Historically it has been done with water. So you inject the ground with water and what this article is suggesting that that could be done with carbon dioxide instead of water.

Why is that important? Well, for one hydraulic fracturing absolutely wrecks the water and ecosystem anywhere that it’s done at, because once you use the water, you can’t just dump it back in to a river or a stream. That water is now toxic, so you need two things: You need, one a source of water, and that water cannot go back, and then: Two, you need a place to put the water because not only can you not put the water back, it’s now toxic, and so it’s worse than just being used up. It’s completely unusable for some period of time, so there’s all sorts of ways that this could be done. Either the water is reused and could be used multiple times, but then presumably eventually the chemistry of the water would be altered such that it can only be reused a certain number of times and eventually has to be stored somewhere. And the other way is to just store the water in a pool and wait for to evaporate. And so when you do that, all the chemicals are left behind which creates a waste pit that is highly toxic. And a lot of these toxic components, like radio nuclides bio-accumulate in the environment. So if that pit leaks, if ground water leaks from that and carries the concentrated toxins from the hydraulic fracturing, that will bio-accumulate because fish will absorb the radionuclides and then animals eat the fish, so on and so forth [up the food chain].

These waste pits really jeopardize entire ecosystems. So hydraulic fracturing is really damaging to the ecosystem outside of the [actual] fracturing [itself]. So on top of all of that [above-ground] damage, you’re also cracking the earth in a way that can cause earthquakes. The idea that the water component might be able to be removed, if we could use a CO2 instead of water as the fracturing material, that would be great. As I discussed previously, it’s really tough to make moral change in America’s current political spectrum. So the moral issue here being that hydraulic fracturing is bad for the environment and things that are bad for the environment are bad. But we can’t stop because we need the oil and we need the gas because our economy depends on it. But if we could do something small, like shift away from water and [use CO2 instead], that could help offset some of that damage. That would be great. So I support that. If that is the case, that could be done. That’s great. We could see an immediate lessening of the damage of hydraulic fracturing. You’re still causing permanent damage to the ground. We don’t know what the long term effects will because it’s only been done for the past, say, 50 years routinely, so we don’t know the long term damage of fracturing these rocks underground. We do know that short term they do cause earthquakes.

All right, let’s look at what’s next. “Mysterious SpaceX crew dragon explosion is still being investigated”, so the SpaceX Crew Dragon is SpaceX’s human piloted, reusable component of the SpaceX fleet. There was an explosion recently during the testing of this module, which is maybe a setback on the timeline for when that module will become usable. We don’t know this [happened and it] is still being investigated. It’s not necessarily good or bad news. You would expect explosions that happen during early testing phases, although with a crew module of an explosion happening is really bad because you will have people in the system. So this system has to be way better than the automated ones. The automated ones might crash all the time, or more frequently. That’s fine. There’s no people on there. The risk of loss of life is much more important. So hopefully SpaceX will be able to achieve the same result as it has with its automated systems as with its crewed systems, and so that we can have safe crewed spaceflight again, which we haven’t had, really, at least in the United States. We have been dependent on other countries, mostly Russia, since the space shuttle program was ended which has probably been 10 years now, or something like that.

So what else? “Sonic black holes produced Hawking radiation may confirm famous theory”. So hawking radiation is really interesting because when black holes were first discovered, the idea that the black hole would infinitely continue increasing in Mass was really it was important to know if that were the case. And so eventually hawking decided or determined that it’s not the case that black holes actually do lose energy in the form of radiation. They named Hawking radiation after Stephen Hawking’s theory that black hole could even evaporate eventually. So a very large black hole that’s still gaining mass is not going to evaporate, but a small one, [or shrinking one], once it goes past a certain point, if it’s not gaining any more mass, it’s only losing energy through hawking radiation energy being converted from mass, [at which point it could evaporate]. The very small black hole might evaporate very quickly, and so that’s interesting that hawking radiation is being confirmed. We’re always looking for empirical confirmations of these theoretical concepts, especially with theoretical physics.

Here’s another one, “Ammonia detected on the surface of Pluto’s hints at subterranean water”. This is really interesting because we keep finding out that planets and moons and dwarf moons and even large asteroids might have water on them. Not just water in the rocks but actual underwater oceans or frozen surface oceans frozen, and now Pluto is in the list of celestial bodies that might have an underground ocean along with Europa and a few others.

And that’s a good segue way to this next one, “Without a champion Europa Lander falls to NASA’s back burner, and another one on that big space challenges could put NASA’s European missions on ice”. That is not good to hear. Europa, as I just mentioned, is one of the first moons in this in our solar system that has water has an ocean under its surface. So we really want to explore Europa. That’s one of the places we think has a high probability of having at least microbial life. Even there on the surface or underwater in the ocean. So Europa should be a really high priority target. It sounds like NASA’s losing that priority. Maybe moon missions are being pushed up. So we should track that we should follow up on that.

“Your sea floor may be destined to become diamonds”. Well, that makes sense because the sea floor rotates and subducts under the continents and goes down to the core of the Earth, where it would presumably undergo conditions to form diamonds in some cases. So I’m not sure why it may be I’d have to look at the article again. I’m just looking at the headline and just going off, the headline says. And what I would think about it. And so my question now would be why, with the sea floor not become diamonds, that’s my question.

What’s next? “NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover finds a clay cache”. Oh, that’s interesting. Why would play be important? So one of the theories for the origins of life is focused around clay because clay has some interesting electromagnetic properties that might allow things like ions and it’s early cellular proto-cell structures to develop [into cells]. The other, more popular, theory being hydrothermal vents. So the clay itself could be [considered an] organic material. So if you think of clay as something that is related to organic materials, if Mars has a cache of clay, that could be a cache of organic materials. It could also contain bio-materials. So that’s why finding clay would be really interesting. And presumably Mars should have clay because it had a water cycle. If there’s some exposed clay on the surface, that would be a really lucky find.

And it looks like that’s all I had on my list today. So thanks for listening again. I’m going to keep mentioning these two things. That’s Bryan White signing off with The Planetary News Radio. Thanks for listening.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.

The Planetary News Radio – Episode 5: Fear and Censorship in Scientific Communication

Hello. Welcome to the Planetary News Radio Episode. The date is May 30th. It’s a cloudy day in Corvallis, but not raining. Enjoying the temperature. [Let’s talk today about] popular science and censorship. So a great example of censorship in science recently has been climate science. And this is it’s kind of scary how well accepted it is that the censorship is occurring. Strange things like purging the word climate from government documents put out by environmental agencies. So it’s very strange to experience, a blatant, systematic censorship like that by the government, well, specifically by the Trump administration. Attempts to quantify that [censorship] and paint a picture of how widespread that actually is are even more disturbing. I’m looking at an article here that counts the number of times that federal departments and agencies were involved in an act of censorship and sense put out by a group, Columbia Climate Law. So I don’t know if that’s associated with Columbia University or what that is. I haven’t really researched it. I’m just looking at a Scientific American article here, but before I talk about those numbers, let’s talk about my own personal experience with censorship [link to Columbia Climate Law Silencing Science Tracker].

When I was a graduate student, I worked in environmental genetics and the agencies that were interested in environmental genetics were sanitation departments and water districts, at least for the ones that I worked for. More broadly, the U.S. Geological Survey was interested in environmental DNA (eDNA) as a way to track fish or aquatic mammals or other vertebrates. And so I spent a lot of time working on informatics methods to identify species using genetics. And this was really one of those projects in science, which happens quite a bit where we all think we have a really good idea of what is going on. We have a hypothesis. We can test a hypothesis, but maybe it’s something that we’ve already known for years. And so when we went in to test the hypothesis that using genetics to identify species improves are our ability to identify a pollution in a stream, we were reasonably confident that this would be the case, and so it wasn’t really expected it not to be better. It was more of the question, “Could we do it?” And so a lot of what we did were methods studies, and so really, it was developing a method to apply this theory that we already thought would be good.

Some publications had represented data that would suggest using genetics to identify impacted streams. I shouldn’t just say polluted streams, [but streams] that were impacted by either human modification or by pollution or something like that, and it did make sense that genetics would improve our ability to do that because the way that we identify those streams, the way that was historically done was to identify species by looking at them visually. And so we know that some percentages species, especially insects, cannot be identified visually. So we knew there are more species out there. And so the idea was that if we’ve confined more species, then we’ll have a more sensitive tool. So it wasn’t really a question of, well, this will be better. It was more of a question of “How much does it cost? And can we do it? Is it practical?” And so we set out to answer those questions at the group that I was working for, and so I spent about three years working on that project. But every time we found a example where we would find more species or find specific species at different sites, this was always ignored. And so we thought that we had done a good job developing a tool that could improve our ability to detect human impact in the environment, but this was ignored by the supporting agencies of our group.

Not really ignored [outright], but ridiculously high standards were put on us, much higher than other studies. So everything was scrutinized. Money, sensitivity. Any mistake was highlighted. And so it’s overall if you add up everything. This was an act of censorship, and so individually the acts were not censorship. In other words, nobody ever said, “Oh, you can’t publish that result”. All right. Nobody has ever told me you cannot publish that result, however, I have had results that were scrutinized not because not for their scientific validity but for their philosophical impact. So we had many empirically correct results that suggested this would be a better method, and those results were ignored for philosophical questions. So I have experienced censorship and it was government censorship, and that was during the Obama administration. But this is not unusual in biology. Biology is one of the most censored scientific fields in modern times because of the philosophical component, because of the way that it makes people feel uncomfortable about their [world view].

It was not surprising to me that that study did not take off or that those methods were not implemented. And as far as my knowledge, those methods that we were developing are still not implemented by the United States government routinely. Now, there is one thing that has been implemented, and that is the use of eDNA. In that case, the cost of benefit argument worked in favor of the science.The ability to go out and collect a sample of water from a stream and be able to know what species of fish are in that stream based on the DNA and the water is a very powerful analysis because it can be done relatively inexpensively. Now the question is, well, why do you want to know what species are in the stream? And the second question is, Do you need to know how many? Because there’s a very specific limitation of the technology in genomic sequencing. And so the same technology that’s used to sequence a genome is the one that will be used to sequence water to identify DNA in that water sample.

There’s a limitation of that [genomic sequencing] technology that makes it very difficult to determine the abundance, the original abundance of the animals that created the DNA, and so the challenge of the eDNA work was to be able to determine abundance from the sample, and that has been worked on four years for five years now. eDNA is being implemented by the U.S. Geological Service in the United States. And so that’s a federal government agency acknowledging the usefulness of genetics for environmental monitoring. Now, as I read the article that I just read, the conclusion of the article is that developing this on a wide scale would be cost prohibitive. So again, is that an act of censorship? By saying that this technology that allows you two very quickly and rapidly assess the community structure of a stream using genetics is to cost prohibitive? Maybe, Maybe not. I don’t think so. I don’t believe that that is true [that it is more expensive]. The sequencing technology, the cost of DNA sequencing is almost negligible for the amount of sequencing [needed to conduct a routine stream sample]. So really the cost here it would be the labor to conduct the analysis. And so then the question is, what is the labor cost to conduct a genomic analysis versus the labor cost to conduct a visual analysis? And so when someone says that is to cost prohibitive to conduct genetic analysis, you’re saying that it costs more for someone to go out and collect a bottle of water from a stream and put it in their car and drive back to the lab or collect 10 bottles of water and put him in there in a in a cooler and drive those back to the lab later in the day, that it cost more to do that than it does to send a team of 20 people out to count fish visually in a stream. And not only that, but that the extra information gained by doing the genetic analysis is not useful at all has no monetary value.

So that’s what the federal state governments will say, is that genetic testing is to cost prohibitive. And so, let’s see. Let’s look at numbers here that have been published by this group. 51 Instances of Censorship in the Environmental Protection Agency, 35 by The Department of Interior, 25 of the White House, 17 by Health and Human Services, 16 by The Energy Department, 6 at NASA. [The reason] for these [censorship acts] could be science is told they can’t talk publicly, studies discounted in policy making budget cuts for scientific research programs, removing scientists visit from positions limiting the teaching of theories, self censorship, the research hindrance. So the censorship that I experienced would be classified under was self censorship by the scientists that I was working with because they all knew what not to say to avoid budget cuts. [Ultimately, that] research program was defunded.

[Listing types of censorship from the article]

We could not get funding, to research genetics. Some forced personnel changes were experienced that might have been considered censorship. [I didn’t see any] overt interference with education. That’s something you would expect to happen, [for example], at the EPA. [If I wanted to] put out a pamphlet or informational document on environmental DNA and [some authority in the] government said, “Well, you can’t put that out” or if I wanted to put out something on climate change and the government said, “No, you can’t do that”. Well, [we were never specifically told not put out educational materials]. So we tried, and spent a lot of time trying to educate people about [environmental] genetic testing. And so then it became apparent, though it didn’t matter how much people understood they were. Still, there was still a fear of the technology. And so in some cases you didn’t need to censor it because the people who would be making the decisions about money we’re so already inherently biased, and were already afraid of the implications, or just didn’t know just didn’t understand the implications [of adopting the technology], even if we tell them “Look, these are good implications for science, the scientific method will let us improve our current systems”. It didn’t matter. They’re afraid. And so fear is a big driver of censorship, and fear is a human is part of humanity.

We always have a tendency to fear the unknown, and that is part of what being a scientist is: Knowing that the unknown is scary. Particle physics is potentially scary. Genomics is scary. All of these things have impacts that we don’t understand. We don’t know how CRISPr gene modification is going to affect humanity in the next 10 years. We hope that it’s used for good, but it could be used for bad. We don’t know how particle physics is going to affect us in the next 10 years. If we discover a new particle that could modify gravity, that would be amazing. It could be terrifying. We don’t know. We don’t know enough about subatomic physics to conjecture what will happen with the development of new technologies. So does that mean we shouldn’t do it? Should we not investigate neutrinos because we might develop anti-gravity technology? No. I and so that’s why being a scientist is being an adventurer because it’s an adventure. We don’t know where genomics is going to bring us, but we should explore it.

So while fears a big part of, human nature, so is exploration. And so when you have a government entity, the highest levels of the government, continually systematically censoring good science, that’s a problem. And really, this is hindering not just the United States but the entire planet. All of humanity is going to suffer because of the censorship, the anti-science climate in America, because we are the greatest, well, we’re the largest producer of scientific research still, to this day, out of all the countries that produce science. We have a responsibility to conduct the scientific method in a way that is open and fair. And so again, I’ll link back to how I’ve talked about moral consistency. It’s difficult for us to criticize China for its government, censoring its citizens, controlling its science, when we’re now doing the same thing here. So I don’t view the Trump administration as taking a different stance then the ruling administration in China in terms of science censorship. Now, sure, China’s more ingrained. They have the great firewall. They have control over Google in that country. But arguably the United States has a very be strong control of the entire Internet.

While the censorship isn’t [exactly] the same [between the US and China], It’s potentially as effective. So if you have a scientist in the United States who’s the top researcher in climate, and they are barred from speaking at a international scientific conference, then you have effectively stopped the transmission of that idea. And that’s the same thing that China is doing, stopping the transmission of ideas, or at least controlling the transmission. I’m sure that within China ideas are shared freely, and so the scientific research that is being done there is probably very advanced [regarding what’s] known within the country, and what’s published outside of the country is probably much more [limited/controlled]. These are different types of censorship, but, I imagine, that in some ways a scientist working for the government in China almost has more freedom. They’ve given up their ability to transmit ideas internationally, but China is very well aware of the fact that they have a climate problem. And so I imagine that the ruling class in China is very concerned about pollution and, I can imagine that a scientist working on pollution in China is potentially very highly regarded. Their work, if successful, might not be published broadly, at least not initially, because they’re very competitive and they want to use that within the country to promote the ruling class [first].

Whereas in America you see something almost worse, because now you’re telling a scientist you cannot tell anyone about your work. You cannot even tell your friends, and to me, that’s scary. If I can’t tell my friends about genetic testing, that is scary. If I can’t talk about but something that I believe is an empirical fact on climate, that’s scary. And so the regime that is in charge of the greatest scientific producer of scientific work in the history of the Earth is conducting a scary level of censorship. And I’m not trying to scare people by saying that, I’m using an emotive term, and what I mean is that we should be aware that that’s what’s going on. While I have never been barred from a scientific conference, I can imagine what it would feel like to be barred from a conference. I have been questioned for ideas that are well accepted in the scientific community. But again, I’ve never been personally barred from a conference. And so the conclusion here is censorship in the United States. It’s disturbing. I don’t know if I would use the word scary. I suppose I could, it depends on how you you feel about the year 2050. If you plan on being alive in the next 30 or so years, I would say that climate change could be scary. It should be. You should have a healthy, fearful respect for what could happen to the Earth in 30 years.

I think that think the presence of censorship is scary. So I think we should allow ourselves a little bit of fear and use that as motivation. And so maybe that’s the conclusion here is censorship should motivate us, and that’s what motivates me. So this project, aside from all the other things that I’ve talked about, this is a project about censorship as well, and so hopefully I will not be censored. Hopefully, my ideas are relevant, valid, and not censored, but maybe, hopefully my ideas are worth being censored because someone has to take a stance, and a lot of government employed scientists are not in that position. So that’s also kind of where I see is my position is, that since I’m not employed by the government, I can’t really be censored. It would be difficult for the government to censor me. In other words, I’m not going to lose my job over this podcast. This podcast is my job. So that’s my goal. To say what I think scientists can’t say in America. I want to be the voice of people that are being censored. So, if what I’m saying is something that’s worthy of being censored, that would make me proud.

[On that note,] I will sign off for the day. This is Bryan White with The Planetary News Radio, and I hope you enjoy this podcast. Thanks for listening.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.

The Planetary News Radio – Episode 4: Logical Consistency and Science Driven Policy in the US

Hello. Welcome to the Planetary News Radio Episode 4 with your host Bryan White. It’s a beautiful day here in Corvallis, Oregon. So where are we at today? I want to talk a little bit about news. I’ve been talking a lot about projects. Today’s news topic is agriculture and agriculture is a science today, so it falls under the category of science news. So what’s going on in agriculture? America has an interesting relationship with agriculture. I suppose it’s one of our biggest industries, one of our biggest export industries. Historically it’s been something that’s really driven the growth of the American economy. Agriculture is central to the success of the American economy, the development of the economy, and feeding its own people who live here and feeding people around the world.

But that’s been changing in the last decade or so. Agriculture has more [uses] than just feeding people. Now, for example, we have renewable resources like ethanol, you’ll see a drive towards growing some crops that can both be used as food and also converted into ethanol fuel. And there’s some crops that can be used only for ethanol fuel. So we see farmers now having to make decisions. Do they grow a crop that will feed people, feed themselves? Will they grow a crop that can only be sold for fuel, or will they grow something that could be both? Like corn, corn can be used as a food, and it can be converted into bioethanol. Switchgrass, which can’t really be eaten but could be used maybe industrially as well, can [only be used for fuel]. So it’s a very complex decision process that farmers have to go through when they make a decision on what they will plant for the season.

Another example is soybeans. Soybeans are an amazing crop. They could be used for food and industrial purposes, but they’re not only just human food, they’re food for animals. So the decision to plant soybeans is generally a good decision. We know based on market supply and demand information about how much total demand there will be for soybeans between either people, industrial, or agricultural purposes, and so farmers could decide what crop they want to grow, or what [set of crops they] want to grow more of each season based on market information, and that’s great. That’s how a business should be run. And that continues today, with America being a leader in agriculture. Now that could become problematic if farmers begin to make decisions that are not based on market information. And so, for example, if a farmer knows that he or she will make a certain amount of money for growing soybeans, no matter what, whether or not those soybeans are sold or used by anyone, then that farmer has an incentive to grow soybeans because they know at a minimum they will make this amount of money.

Now they could choose to grow something else. They could choose to grow corn this year as their primary crop, but they might lose money because they might not be able to sell off the corn, and so they could instead take the safe bat and say, “Well, I’m going to grow soybeans. I know that the government will reimburse me if I’m not able to sell my crop or my crop fails”. And this is generally how farm subsidies have been working for decades since the Great Depression. America has a system in place to support its agriculture industry, and that’s great. That’s fine. I think the issue that I would take on this matter is a logical consistency issue. And so, really, what a farm subsidy is is a type of socialism. You have the government stepping in and saying that regardless of market, you will make this amount of money. And so then that is not capitalism, that is socialism.

The absence of an economy based on market information would, by definition, at a minimum, not be capitalism. It could be something else. It sounds to me like socialism. It’s not communism because farmers still are independent. They have the option to grow something else. They’re not being told what to grow by the government. They’re not working for the government. They’re simply receiving a subsidy, a reimbursement the same way that a individual might receive a reimbursement for health care from the government or a reimbursement for food or welfare or education. And so all of these things, when we reimburse people from the government, we perform a redistribution of wealth act, and that is a type of socialism. So I would make the argument that the agriculture industry in America is highly socialized, and we see that continue regardless of the administration that is in the White House.

So that’s where my issue would arise. And I’ll say this as many times as they can. My stance on politics will always be moral consistency, so I’ll criticize any side of the political spectrum for being morally inconsistent. And so farming is a great example where I see moral inconsistency because you have a very right wing administration continually criticizing left wing principles like socialism while at the same time engaging in socialism.

That is what I define as moral inconsistency, or at least logical inconsistency. Moral suggests there would be a right or wrong, certainly it is a logical inconsistency to support socialism on one hand and deny it on the other on the principle of it being socialism. In other words, if I go out and I say, “Well, I’m not going to support a thing because it’s socialism” and then I support some things that are socialism and some things that aren’t, at a minimum, [I would be] logically inconsistent. Potentially, I’m morally inconsistent.

Another example, there would be oil drilling. If I say that my goal is to preserve and protect the environment, and then I go and I engaged in the act of extracting oil and gas from beneath the earth, thereby causing damage to the environment, I am again, at a minimum, logically inconsistent, potentially morally inconsistent because I’m saying my goal is to do something good. I want to protect the environment. And on the other hand, my goal is to do something bad, and destroy the environment. It’s an empirical fact that engaging in extracting industries causes permanent damage to the environment. That’s a empirically logical inconsistency. And again, this is regardless of political spectrum. Extracting industries continued under the Obama administration. Certainly they might have been more limited, less lands might have been opened for oil leases and more lands might have been protected. But the existence of an extraction industry still persists in the United States, and so the collective moral conscience of the United States is inconsistent, and that’s okay. That’s a struggle like the civil rights movement has been a struggle and will be a struggle, so being morally consistent will always be a struggle with humanity.

Now you could go the other end of the spectrum and say, “Well, the Nazis were morally consistent”. Their morals were terrible, but they were consistent. And so that’s scary.c Hopefully we don’t have those types of things happen. So I have to be careful of my own consistencies, right? So if I define something that’s good as being something that’s morally consistent, well, then potentially a fallacy could occur there, which would lead my own logic to determine that the Nazis were good, and yet it is uniformly acknowledged that the Nazis were bad. If I say something is good, if it’s morally consistent, that would only be under the condition that the moral itself is good. And that would lead me as the person making that judgment to have to make a moral decision. And so I have to decide in the example of the environment two things. One, I have to decide – Are my views consistent? Is my worldview consistent in my applying logic consistently across the board.  And [the second decision is], are my morals good.

Now this is a tricky decision, and potentially a dangerous decision. If I wanted to remain completely objective, then I would never make any moral decision ever, or I would never acknowledge anything moral, good or bad. Making a moral decision inherently forces you to choose a side on an argument, and so I have to decide what is good. And so my question would be, “Why do other people not also decide that protecting the environment is good?” What you have in this scenario is you have two things. One, you have moral consistency and the other you have moral direction, so moral direction is important. So in the case of the extraction industries, what I see with the right wing is two flaws. One, I see a moral inconsistency. I see the official platform of the Republican Party being that their goal is to promote and protect the environment. And at the same time I see their official goal to be to expand extraction industries. And those two things are empirically in opposition to each other. It is cognitive dissonance, and then, on the other hand, I also see moral direction. So I see the decision to increase extraction industries as a bad moral. So I view that as being wrong.

Now on the other side, I look at the left platform, say, for example, of the Obama administration. I see the morally inconsistency of the continued persistence of extraction industries. Another was Obama didn’t come in and say, “Well, I’m president now. Hydraulic fracturing is over.” The Democratic Party has the problem of moral inconsistency, the same as the Republican Party. However, I see the moral direction as being good. I see that Obama would be in opposition to the expansion of the extraction industries if it were up to him. So his own moral decision is that expanding extraction industries is wrong. However, given this constraints of the American political system, it is impossible for him to take the position that extraction cannot continue. Potentially, the American economy would collapse due to the lack of oil. So that’s a moral decision as well. That’s a utilitarian decision.

Well, [we know that] extracting oil is wrong, but we cannot stop because our lives depend on it. And so then looping back to agriculture. [We might] view the subsidization of agricultural products based on the whims of a political party as potentially wrong, or at least I view that is wrong. In other words, a sophisticated market analysis is not guiding the growth of food in America. Under a utilitarian perspective, we cannot stop the status quo because it would be too disruptive to the industry. So I understand that. So what’s the take home here? Well, if we had a way of presenting evidence based market analysis of what crops were needed to grow and present it in a way that was factual and scientific, and could be debated, but that ultimately an evidence based decision would be made that all sides of the political spectrum could agree on, then we wouldn’t have this problem.

In other words, right now we’re trusting the whims of an unknown. Again, the take home is moral consistency, [logical consistency], and moral direction, and [trying to look at] political events in an objective fashion. And so how do you do that? You use the language that I’m using, which is to talk about consistency and direction [- a framework]. And so the point of this is not to simply criticize the right because they’re the current administration, and the point is to not say that the left could do a better job. The point is to look at what’s happening right now in an objective fashion and learn from what is happening. What we might see now is a surplus of soybeans, for example, in the next year, and so we might see farmers having to destroy crops because they can’t sell them and then be reimbursed for those crops. And then we might see later in the same day, the administration that reimbursed those farmers for destroying crops, we might see the same administration reduce reimbursements for education and health care. And so when the inconsistency becomes apparent in that way, then we can talk about making progress in the American political system. And that’s my goal.

Ultimately, integrate the scientific method and the political method, and that should happen in voting and in the way that these types of economic decisions are made. And I’m not an economist, but I do know a thing or two about the scientific method, and so we’ll talk more about that theme again. I suppose these first few episodes are introducing themes and sort of the way that I will talk about things. Again, I hope this was interesting. Kind of getting a little more into my own personal thoughts on politics, and the way that I approach politics, being a scientist and trying to remain objective. So again, if you have questions, I have a Discord now, which is a chat. Yeah, and there will be a link to that on the feed, and I also in creating a Patreon so that I will be able to have support for this effort. So if you’d like to support me, if you’d like to ask questions or talk, visit the links in the feed and yeah. I hope you enjoyed this and enjoy talking about science and politics. So have a good day. That’s Bryan White signing off with the Planetary News. Bye.

Join the discussion on Discord at: https://discord.gg/5HQj8eC.

Support on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/planetarynews.