While this isn’t one of my usual areas of interest, there is a personal element for me (more about that at the end). Some people earn their living as subjects for drug tests; it’s called guinea pigging. (There’s more here in a July 1, 2015 posting; see the first three paragraphs after the information about cross-posting and the circumstances under which I wrote the article.)
Earlier this fall (2024), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) released a documentary, Bodies for Rent, focusing on two guinea piggers. Here’s more from a September 25, 2024 CBC online article about their documentary,
Before a drug becomes available on the market, it must undergo rigorous testing and multiple levels of clinical trials to ensure its functionality and safety. Every year, thousands of people in Canada and the U.S. take part in these trials, and may receive financial compensation for doing so.
A new documentary highlights how some volunteers are attempting to earn a living by putting their bodies on the line. Bodies for Rent follows two men who spend their days searching for eligible clinical studies, and shows the lengths they’ll go to in order to complete a trial and get paid.
A way to make a ‘living’
Participating in a trial for a medical drug still under development involves reporting any side effects. It’s a potentially dangerous “job,” but for many volunteers, the rewards outweigh the risks.
“I think I’ve done more than 40 studies,” says 55-year-old “Franco,” who conceals his real identity with makeup in the documentary. “I was struggling to pay my rent. And I saw an ad at the subway in Toronto, and they said, ‘Would you like to make up to $1,200 over a weekend?'”
“I usually make [$30,000] to 40,000 a year. Before, I was making, like, $18,000 working at a factory.”
Raighne, an artist living in Minneapolis, was raised by a single mother and grew up on welfare. “I’ve done about 20 or 30 drug trials,” he says in the film. “And nothing makes money like clinical studies.”
Trying to get out of debt and manage an unstable business, Raighne sometimes spends days or weeks away from home while participating in a study. “I had a friend describe it as, like, ‘drug jail,'” he says. “Because you’re trapped for a set amount of time. You’re under observation.”
From testing on prisoners to testing on the poor
Before the 1970s, most Phase I clinical trials — which look at a drug’s safety, determine the safe dosage range and see if there are any side effects — were conducted on prisoners. This allowed researchers to control and monitor every aspect of participants’ lives.
“These studies did the most unimaginably horrible things you can think of to prisoners there,” says Carl Elliott, a University of Minnesota bioethicist featured in Bodies for Rent and the author of The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No [emphasis mine].
“For example, they injected inmates with herpes. They injected them with asbestos. They even tested chemical warfare agents on them.”
Public outcry and new reforms eventually made research in prisons much more difficult. “The question was, ‘Well, who do we do Phase I trials on now?’ We can’t do them on prisoners anymore,” says Elliott.
“The answer is poor people.”
‘A financial incentive to lie’
When testing in prisons stopped and financial incentives were introduced, students and people impacted by poverty became more common test subjects. However, the promise of money at the completion of a trial has added complications.
“When I started doing studies, I used to be very honest,” says Franco. “I [would] tell all the side effects that I was going through.”
But after reporting severe migraines during one study, Franco says he was forced to leave — with less than 20 per cent of the promised payout. He says he was also blocked from doing further studies with that company.
“I [was] being penalized for being honest. So, after that, I kind of learned my lesson and I decided to tone down the side effects,” he says.
…
Once in a study, the risks persist. Franco says that after participating for nearly two months in a study worth around $20,000 to him, he received a call from the clinic saying he had inflammation in his pancreas. The study manager told him he was being removed from the study, and later, the clinic advised him to go to an emergency room immediately.
“I hope it’s not permanent. If it’s permanent, then I’m gonna be upset,” Franco says to the camera in the documentary. “I was supposed to get around $20,000. If I don’t get the full amount because I am getting side effects, I think that it’s unfair.”
In the end, Franco was paid $9,000.
…
The September 25, 2024 CBC online article also includes an embedded video about testing on prisoners. “Bodies for Rent” can be viewed on CBC Gem. (You do have to create an account in order to view the documentary or anything else on CBC Gem.)
A walk down memory lane for Remembrance Day 2024
When my father was in basic training for the Canadian army and preparing to fight in World War II, he participated in some kind of experiment. The details are fuzzy as he didn’t talk about it much but he did insist that some of his medical problems (specifically, the problems he had with his skin) were directly due to his experience as a guinea pig and that he should be compensated by the Canadian government. If memory serves, he felt the army had misled him into participating in the experiment. .
Papa was 15 1/2 when he lied his way into the army. Not too long after, the army realizing its mistake kept him back from the front (in some training camp in the Prairies), which is when he became a medical experiment for a time. On reaching the age of 18 the Canadian army shipped him overseas.
When he finally did try to speak up about his experience as a guinea pig it was the late 1960s and he didn’t pursue the matter for long being of the opinion that no one would pay much attention. He wasn’t wrong.
It wasn’t until details about the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study were revealed that there was serious discussion about informed consent (about 1972) in the United States. I don’t know when it became a serious discussion in Canada. Even then, some of the research from the 1970s is stomach churning as I found on stumbling across a study from that period. The researchers were conducting an experiment with a drug they knew was not going to work and that had bad side effects as was noted in the abstract. The testing took place on patients in a hospital ward.
There is still a long ways to go as evidenced by the “Bodies for Rent” documentary and Elliott’s 2024 book “The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No”. I hope there are changes to how drug testing is done as a consequence of added awareness but it’s a long hard road to change.
For my father on Remembrance Day 2024: you were right; what they did to you was wrong. And still, you went and fought. Thank you.
An October 30, 2024 Concordia University news release by Vanessa Hauguel announces the upcoming theatre season, which features a focus on how current technology and historical narratives intersect, Note: Links have been removed,
The Concordia Department of Theatre recently announced its 2024-25 season, featuring a diverse lineup of scripted and devised works. The program delves into themes relevant to today’s world, from artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfakes to the timeless human experiences and societal change.
Two upcoming productions highlight the department’s wide range of creative approaches. The first is Concord Floral by Jordan Tannahill, directed by Emma Tibaldo. The second is a devised adaptation of La vida es sueño (Life is a Dream), based on Pedro Calderón de la Barca’s classic play, directed by Peter Farbridge.
While these two productions kick off the season, additional performances are planned throughout the year until April 2025, continuing the department’s exploration of contemporary and classic themes. Directors Farbridge and Tibaldo, as well as this season’s artistic producer, Noah Drew, share the creative vision behind the shows and the thematic connections between them.
Modern ghost story
Concord Floral, by Canadian playwright Tannahill, is a modern ghost story set in an abandoned greenhouse where a group of teenagers face a buried secret. Directed by Tibaldo, a Concordia theatre graduate, 99, and artist-in-residence, it incorporates cutting-edge technology to navigate themes of guilt, adolescence and the weight of collective silence.
“Concord Floral is a play that sticks with you,” Tibaldo explains. “It speaks to growing up, discovering yourself and grappling with your accountability to others. The haunting or ‘plague’ in the play is represented through movement, lighting and sound, creating a visceral embodiment of guilt and regret.”
The play draws on The Decameron as a point of reference, adding a sense of timelessness to the teenage experience. “During our teen years, we often react or make impulsive decisions, as we’re discovering or aiming to break boundaries, and sometimes they come with lasting consequences,” Tibaldo says. “This play will resonate strongly with many, as it captures that intense, confusing period of early adulthood.”
La vida es sueño: mixing AI, deepfakes & philosophy
Meanwhile, La vida es sueño offers a reimagining of Calderón de la Barca’s work, making allusions to contemporary issues like AI deepfakes. Farbridge, MA 22, explores the philosophical themes of illusion and reality in this adaptation, examining how modern technology manipulates perception.
“At the heart of the play is the idea that our lives are shaped by false narratives, a timeless concept that feels increasingly relevant in today’s world,” Farbridge says.
“Our adaptation looks at how political systems manipulate truth on a massive scale. And the deeper question we’re asking is, if belief in what we see and hear in online media collapses, where will we land?”
Farbridge’s production will use a combination of video screens, shadow-play and physical performance to explore these themes. “We’re experimenting with form and trying to find new ways of engaging with the audience. It’s an exciting process, and unnerving too, as we won’t know the full impact of it until the public is in the theatre with us..”
A season of learning and innovating
As this season’s artistic producer, Drew sees the productions as essential learning experiences for students. “A big part of students’ education has to come from ‘stage time’ — those moments when a live audience is experiencing their work,” the associate professor says.
“These two productions offer a chance to engage with classic stories radically reinvented —Concord Floral reinterprets The Decameron, while La vida es sueño rethinks a Spanish Golden Age play. I hope it gives students the opportunity to see how historical narratives can connect with today’s issues, and grasp a deeper, more personal understanding of how history loops and cycles.”
Drew also points out the importance of technology in both productions.
“Lighting, sound and video are used all the time in many forms of art and entertainment media. What’s special about their use in theatre is that audiences get to see them in a real three-dimensional space interacting with our species’ original ‘technology’ — the human body. This liveness and immediacy can create almost-hallucinatory images that make audiences rub their eyes and wonder if the haunting moments in Concord Floral or the manipulations of truth in La vida es sueño are illusions or are really happening.”
Reflecting on the broader significance of theatre, Drew believes that storytelling plays a vital role in addressing the challenges of today’s rapidly changing world.
“We live in a time of war, climate crises, political polarization, flawed AI, and many forms of injustice,” he says. “Theatre can help us step outside of our routines, wake up, and yearn for more. It’s a way to make sense of a complicated world and spark inspiration.”
La vida es sueño (Life is a Dream) runs from November 14 to 16 [2024] in room 240 of the Molson (MB) Building, 1450 Guy Street.
Concord Floral runs November 27 to 30 [2024] at the Concordia Theatre in the Henry F. Hall (H) Building, 1455 Boulevard De Maisonneuve West.
Should you be in Montréal and able to attend the performances, you can find more details via Concordia University’s PUBLIC PERFORMANCES 2024-25 webpage.
This call for abstracts from Arizona State University (ASU) for the Twelfth Annual Governance of Emerging Technologies and Science (GETS) Conference was received via email,
GETS 2025: Call for abstracts
Save the date for the Twelfth Annual Governance of Emerging Technologies and Science Conference, taking place May 19 and 20, 2025 at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University in Phoenix, AZ. The conference will consist of plenary and session presentations and discussions on regulatory, governance, legal, policy, social and ethical aspects of emerging technologies, including:
National security
Nanotechnology
Quantum computing
Autonomous vehicles
3D printing
Robotics
Synthetic biology
Gene editing
Artificial intelligence
BiotechnologyGenomicsInternet of things (IoT)
Autonomous weapon systems
Personalized medicine
Neuroscience
Digital health
Human enhancement
Telemedicine
Virtual reality
Blockchain
Call for abstracts: The co-sponsors invite submission of abstracts for proposed presentations. Submitters of abstracts need not provide a written paper, although provision will be made for posting and possible post-conference publication of papers for those who are interested.
Abstracts are invited for any aspect or topic relating to the governance of emerging technologies, including any of the technologies listed above
Abstracts should not exceed 500 words and must contain your name and email address
Abstracts must be submitted by Friday, January 31, 2025, to be considered
An October 9, 2024 notice from Dr. Andrew Maynard, Professor, School for the Future of Innovation in Society At Arizona State University (ASU) about one of his latest projects, a podcast, popped into my emailbox,
My apologies if this is a duplicate email, but I wanted to let you know that we’ve just launched a new podcast through the ASU [Arizona State University] Future of Being Human initiative that you may be interested in:
The podcast’s available on Apple Podcasts and pretty much everywhere else you listen to your favorite podcasts. Hosted by myself and my colleague Sean Leahy, it’s a conversational podcast that explores the intersection between emerging technologies, society and the future in what we hope is an authentic, nuanced and entertaining way.
Please do check it out if you have a moment (or are an avid podcast listener), and if you enjoy it, please do spread the word, subscribe, and even leave us a review.
We believe there’s a real hunger for nuanced and balanced discussions in this area, and are expecting the podcast to have considerable reach — but every bit helps us in achieving this.
I listened to the episode, “The Pilot – Exploring the Future of Being Human” and it was an engaging 22 mins. The two hosts, Andrew Maynard and his colleague, Dr. Sean Leahy, obviously like and get along well with each other. Here are some episode notes, from https://modem-futura.simplecast.com/episodes (click on the Pilot episode for the notes),
In this pilot episode of Modem Futura, hosts Sean Leahy and Andrew Maynard explore the intersection of technology, society, and the human experience. They discuss the origins of the podcast, the significance of the Future of Being Human Initiative, and the importance of inclusive conversations about the future. The episode highlights personal journeys into futurism, the need for diverse voices in discussions about emerging technologies, and the wonder of scientific exploration. The hosts also tease future topics and themes for upcoming episodes, emphasizing the podcast’s goal of inspiring curiosity and dialogue.
Key takeaways
The podcast aims to explore the intersection of technology and humanity.
Modems symbolize the translation of complex signals into understandable insights.
The Future of Being Human Initiative seeks to create inclusive conversations about the future.
Personal experiences shape our understanding of futurism and technology.
Everyone has valuable insights to contribute to discussions about the future.
Creating spaces for difficult conversations is essential in a polarized world.
Science and wonder can coexist in discussions about the future.
The podcast will cover a wide range of intriguing topics.
Engaging with diverse voices enriches the conversation about the future.
Sean and Andrew are excited to explore the unknown and challenge conventional thinking.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to Modem Futura
01:53 The Concept of Modems and Futures
04:51 The Future of Being Human Initiative
08:41 Personal Journeys into Futurism
12:21 The Importance of Inclusive Conversations
16:24 Exploring the Intersection of Science and Wonder
19:05 Looking Ahead: Topics and Themes for Future Episodes
Modem Futura is a production of the Future of Being Human initiative at Arizona State University.
We are a unique community of bold, audacious and visionary thinkers who are inspired by what it might mean to be human in a technologically transformed future and who are passionate about exploring how this influences our thinking and actions in the present.
…
We create and curate ways of bringing people together to explore compelling questions and transformative ideas around the future of being human.
Some of these are intimate informal hangouts, others are cutting edge online discussions. And some are high profile public events and even retreats.
We are even developing educational opportunities unlike anything you’ll find anywhere else!
All of these are driven by a passion to bring together audacious, original and passionate thinkers to push the boundaries of how we imagine the future of being human in a technologically complex world, and how this can inform our ideas, aspirations, and actions, in the present.
…
As a community we are captivated andinspired by compelling questions around the how emerging technologies may challenge and transform what it means to be human.
Questions like:
Will we live our future lives in a computer simulation?
Will aging one day become a thing of the past?
Will artificial intelligence upend our notions of personhood and autonomy?
Could cryopreservation transform how we think about the future?
What will life in a post-scarcity future look like?
Will we be able to design and create synthetic consciousness in the future?
How will quantum computing change our understanding of ourselves and what is possible?
How could atomically precise manufacturing transform our lives?
Will we be able to upload our memories and personalities to the cloud in the future?
How will advanced technologies transform the future of travel?
Could advanced gene editing allow us to radically rethink our biological selves?
How do we successfully navigate Advanced Technology Transitions?
Is longtermism a viable approach to designing the future?
Will future technologies radically catalyze our creative potential?
I got a bit of a jolt from this September 12, 2024 essay by Peter A Noble, affiliate professor of microbiology at the University of Washington, and Alex Pozhitkov, senior technical lead of bioinformatics, Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences at City of Hope, for The Conversation (h/t Sept. 12, 2024 item on phys.org), Note: Links have been removed,
Life and death are traditionally viewed as opposites. But the emergence of new multicellular life-forms from the cells of a dead organism introduces a “third state” that lies beyond the traditional boundaries of life and death.
Usually, scientists consider death to be the irreversible halt of functioning of an organism as a whole. However, practices such as organ donation highlight how organs, tissues and cells can continue to function even after an organism’s demise. This resilience raises the question: What mechanisms allow certain cells to keep working after an organism has died?
We are researchers who investigate what happens within organisms after they die. In our recently published review, we describe how certain cells – when provided with nutrients, oxygen, bioelectricity or biochemical cues – have the capacity to transform into multicellular organisms with new functions after death.
Life, death and emergence of something new
The third state challenges how scientists typically understand cell behavior. While caterpillars metamorphosing into butterflies, or tadpoles evolving into frogs, may be familiar developmental transformations, there are few instances where organisms change in ways that are not predetermined. Tumors, organoids and cell lines that can indefinitely divide in a petri dish, like HeLa cells [cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks without her knowledge], are not considered part of the third state because they do not develop new functions.
However, researchers found that skin cells extracted from deceased frog embryos were able to adapt to the new conditions of a petri dish in a lab, spontaneously reorganizing into multicellular organisms called xenobots [emphasis mine]. These organisms exhibited behaviors that extend far beyond their original biological roles. Specifically, these xenobots use their cilia – small, hair-like structures – to navigate and move through their surroundings, whereas in a living frog embryo, cilia are typically used to move mucus.
Xenobots are also able to perform kinematic self-replication, meaning they can physically replicate their structure and function without growing. This differs from more common replication processes that involve growth within or on the organism’s body.
Researchers have also found that solitary human lung cells can self-assemble into miniature multicellular organisms that can move around. These anthrobots [emphasis mine] behave and are structured in new ways. They are not only able to navigate their surroundings but also repair both themselves and injured neuron cells placed nearby.
Taken together, these findings demonstrate the inherent plasticity of cellular systems and challenge the idea that cells and organisms can evolve only in predetermined ways. The third state suggests that organismal death may play a significant role in how life transforms over time.
…
I had not realized that xenobots are derived from dead frog embryos something I missed when mentioning or featuring them in previous stories, the latest in a September 13, 2024 posting, which also mentions anthrobots. Previous stories were published in a June 21, 2021 posting about xenobots 2.0 and their ability to move and a June 8, 2022 posting about their ability to reproduce. Thank you to the authors for relieving me of some of my ignorance.
For some reason I was expecting mention, brief or otherwise, of ethical or social implications but the authors offered this instead, from their September 12, 2024 essay, Note: Links have been removed,
Implications for biology and medicine
The third state not only offers new insights into the adaptability of cells. It also offers prospects for new treatments.
For example, anthrobots could be sourced from an individual’s living tissue to deliver drugs without triggering an unwanted immune response. Engineered anthrobots injected into the body could potentially dissolve arterial plaque in atherosclerosis patients and remove excess mucus in cystic fibrosis patients.
Importantly, these multicellular organisms have a finite life span, naturally degrading after four to six weeks. This “kill switch” prevents the growth of potentially invasive cells.
A better understanding of how some cells continue to function and metamorphose into multicellular entities some time after an organism’s demise holds promise for advancing personalized and preventive medicine.
I look forward to hearing about the third state and about any ethical or social issues that may arise from it.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Museum is hosting its annual Cambridge Science Festival according to a September 18, 2024 news release (received via email),
The MIT Museum has released the full program guide for this year’s Cambridge Science Festival, an annual week-long celebration of ingenuity, creativity and innovation featuring more than 300 free programs across Cambridge and Greater Boston between Monday, September 23 and Sunday, September 29, 2024.
“Cambridge Science Festival is a touchpoint for everyone to find joy, meaning, and human connections” said Keelin Caldwell, Director of Engagement and Cambridge Science Festival at the MIT Museum. “Take the time to explore the many options for free programming all across Cambridge and find your inner scientist, no matter what your background is.”
Michael John Gorman, the new Mark R. Epstein (Class of 1963) Director of the MIT Museum, and Yi-An Huang, Cambridge City Manager, recently met at the MIT Museum to reflect on the importance of Cambridge Science Festival throughout the community.
“The Cambridge Science Festival represents an opportunity for inquisitive visitors of all ages to celebrate our diverse, creative community and experience our rich innovation,” said Yi-An Huang, Cambridge City Manager. “This has become one of Cambridge’s signature events of the year and we are thrilled to once again partner with the MIT Museum for this special week-long showcase.”
The Cambridge Science Festival showcases the newest ideas and innovations in science, art, technology, engineering, design, and more, that spark conversations about the role of science and innovation in our society and for all humankind. The festival includes four thematic days as well as a slate of one-time events that are presented by organizations and venues across Greater Boston and are designed for a wide range of audiences. All Cambridge Science Festival events are free of charge, and in addition, the MIT Museum will also provide free admission to all during the week of the festival.
FESTIVAL SERIES & EVENTS
Below are a sampling of some of our exciting programs; explore the full list of 300 programs here.
Monday, September 23 – Sunday, September 29 | City-wide
100+ festival events taking place in neighborhoods across the city, in local libraries, open labs and a whole host of public spaces. Workshops, panels, lectures and more. Highlights include:
There has been widespread discussion of the potential dangers posed by AI to our democratic processes, but are there ways in which AI could actually help democracy? Hear from global experts Former Minister of Digital Affairs of Taiwan Audrey Tang, Professor of Media Arts and Sciences Deb Roy and Founder and CEO of DemocracyNext Claudia Chwalisz in conversation with MIT Museum Director Michael John Gorman and experience the promise of shared listening and deliberation.
Wednesday, September 25, 6pm | Broad Discovery Center
You are invited to a night of discovery, celebration, and scientific wonders at “Discovery After Dark,” brought to you by the Broad Discovery Center and BroadIgnite. This is an exclusive, after-hours party during the week of the Cambridge Science Festival. Space is limited. Pre-registration is required. This year’s party is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Broad Institute.
Bitesize lunchtime events throughout the city. Topics range from renewable energy to medical science, AR experiences to digital music, astrophysics and more. Highlights include:
Monday, September 23, 12pm | Harvard Museum of the Ancient Near East
Step into history with The Art of Intimidation: Journey to Ancient Assyria – an augmented-reality Snapchat lens that brings to life the royal palaces of ancient Nineveh and Nimrud (in what is now Iraq). Witness a variety of scenes, from the celebratory to the violent: all designed to demonstrate the political landscape around 640 BC. Use your phone to try the app in the galleries, then meet the curator to discuss this unique blend of science, history, and creativity.
Tuesday, September 24, 12pm | Marlar Lounge, MIT Building 37
At this Lunch and Learn event, come listen to researchers and post-docs from the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Sciences share short and interesting stories about their research! Each presenter will give a 5-10 minute talk on their research covering topics from exoplanets to stars to galaxies and beyond. There will be an opportunity for attendees to ask questions of any/all of the presenters.
Join an experiential after-hours session at the MIT Museum, offering the full spectrum of game-related activities, from the scientific to the downright silly. Meet Tik-Tok bio-engineers Malik and Miles George, enjoy a performance from MIT’s innovative laptop orchestra, try out a giant size strategy game and more.
Thursday, September 26, 6-7pm | MIT List Visual Arts Center
Join artist Jeremy Couillard and researcher Mikael Jakobsson for an exciting and timely conversation on the social value of play. Their conversation will explore why games are important, from both a critical and design point of view, and delve into the anthropological consequences of gamified technology.
Two days of space-themed events and activities for all ages, co-curated by The Space Consortium, organizers of Massachusetts Space Week. From lab tours to book signings, panel discussions to star-gazing, opportunities to ‘ask-an-astronaut’ and more. Highlights include:
Friday, September 27, 6pm | Aeronaut Brewery and Taproom
Visit the Aeronaut for an entertaining evening of space-themed activities. Enjoy a captivating talk and Q&A session with former astronaut Jeffrey Hoffman on the possibility of life on Mars with Happy Hour from 6-7pm, followed by a Space Trivia event from 8-9pm. Co-hosted by Astronomy on Tap Boston and The Boston Space Network. Age 21+.
This expert panel explores the latest research and theories about the existence of extraterrestrial life, the tools we use to search for it, and what discovering life beyond Earth could mean for humanity. Featuring Sara Seager from MIT AeroAstro, Kim Arcand from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Michael Hecht from the MIT Haystack Observatory. Moderated by Alissa J. Haddaji, planetary protection expert and founder/director of The Space Consortium and Massachusetts Space Week.
CSF teams up with Boston Fashion Week and AFFOA – Advanced Functional Fabrics of America to co-curate an exploratory day of discovery and demonstration. Join industry leaders from the fashion, fabric and wearable-tech worlds, meet the next generation of artists, designers and engineers, and experience the cutting-edge innovations that will define what we wear in the coming decades.Highlights include:
Generating imagery, video and music with AI is already commonplace, but how are garment designers using AI tools to enhance their creative process? This inspiring panel introduces the leading-edge in AI-assisted fashion design, exploring the many possibilities presented by generative technology. Find out how AI is already influencing artists and creators, and join the discussion about what’s coming next.
Moderated by Fiorenzo Omenetto (Tufts, Silklab). Panelists include: Norma Kamali (Designer), Behnaz Farahi (MIT Media Lab), Onur Yüce Gün (New Balance), Zoey Zhu (IDEO).
Join leading thinkers, designers and engineers as they imagine the future of fashion. Will climate conditions dictate the evolving priorities of the fashion and fabric industries? Will wearable tech enter the mainstream? Will fast-fashion fall out of favor, and will AI contribute to new models and ways of thinking?
Moderated by MIT Museum Director Michael John Gorman. Panelists include: Sasha Stolyarov (AFFOA), Petra Slinkard (Peabody Essex Museum), Norma Kamali (Designer), Randall Harward (Reju), Diana Jaye Coluntino (UMass Lowell Fabric Discovery Center).
Sunday, September 29, 12-4pm | Kendall/MIT Open Space
A family-friendly science extravaganza, Carnival is a beloved regular fixture of CSF and annually attracts more than 15,000 visitors. Featuring over 100 activity booths, demonstrations, live music and events, Carnival is a STEAM-themed playground for inquisitive visitors of all ages – we can’t wait to see you there and celebrate our diverse, creative community together.
A June 26, 2024 news item on ScienceDaily describes the research, which resulted in the graphic you see in the above,
New analyses from the Annenberg Public Policy Center find that public perceptions of scientists’ credibility — measured as their competence, trustworthiness, and the extent to which they are perceived to share an individual’s values — remain high, but their perceived competence and trustworthiness eroded somewhat between 2023 and 2024. The research also found that public perceptions of scientists working in artificial intelligence (AI) differ from those of scientists as a whole.
…
A June 26, 2024 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania news release (also on EurekAlert and also received by email), which originated the news item, describes a series of surveys, how the information was gathered, and offers more detail about he results, Note 1: All links removed; Note 2: You can find links and citations for papers mentioned in the news release at the end of this posting.
…
From 2018-2022, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania relied on national cross-sectional surveys to monitor perceptions of science and scientists. In 2023-24, APPC moved to a nationally representative empaneled sample to make it possible to observe changes in individual perceptions.
The February 2024 findings, released today to coincide with the address by National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt on “The State of the Science,” come from an analysis of responses from an empaneled national probability sample of U.S. adults surveyed in February 2023 (n=1,638 respondents), November 2023 (n=1,538), and February 2024 (n=1,555).
Drawing on the 2022 cross-sectional data, in an article titled “Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives’ and liberals’ support for funding science,” published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (September 2023), Annenberg-affiliated researchers Yotam Ophir (State University of New York at Buffalo and an APPC distinguished research fellow), Dror Walter (Georgia State University and an APPC distinguished research fellow), and Patrick E. Jamieson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center isolated factors that underlie perceptions of scientists (Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation, or FASS). These factors predict public support for increased funding of science and support for federal funding of basic research.
The five factors in FASS are whether science and scientists are perceived to be credible and prudent, and whether they are perceived to overcome bias, correct error (self-correcting), and whether their work benefits people like the respondent and the country as a whole (beneficial). In a 2024 publication titled “The Politicization of Climate Science: Media Consumption, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Support for Policy” (May 26, 2024) in the Journal of Health Communication, the same team showed that these five factors mediate the relationship between exposure to media sources such as Fox News and outcomes such as belief in anthropogenic climate change, perception of the threat it poses, and support for climate-friendly policies such as a carbon tax.
Speaking about the FASS model, Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and director of the survey, said that “because our 13 core questions reliably reduce to five factors with significant predictive power, the ASK survey’s core questions make it possible to isolate both stability and changes in public perception of science and scientists across time.” (See the appendix for the list of questions.)
The new research finds that while scientists are held in high regard, two of the three dimensions that make up credibility – perceptions of competence and trustworthiness – showed a small but statistically significant drop from 2023 to 2024, as did both measures of beneficial. The 2024 survey data also indicate that the public considers AI scientists less credible than scientists in general, with notably fewer people saying that AI scientists are competent and trustworthy and “share my values” than scientists generally.
“Although confidence in science remains high overall, the survey reveals concerns about AI science,” Jamieson said. “The finding is unsurprising. Generative AI is an emerging area of science filled with both great promise and great potential peril.”
The data are based on Annenberg Science Knowledge (ASK) waves of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024. The findings labeled 2023 are based on a February 2023 survey, and the findings labeled 2024 are based on combined ASAPH survey half-samples surveyed in November 2023 and February 2024.
For further details, download the toplines and a series of figures that accompany this summary.
Perceptions of scientists overall
In the FASS model, perceptions of scientists’ credibility are assessed through perceptions of whether scientists are competent, trustworthy, and “share my values.” The first two of those values slipped in the most recent survey. In 2024, 70% of those surveyed strongly or somewhat agree that scientists are competent (down from 77% in 2023) and 59% strongly or somewhat agree that scientists are trustworthy (down from 67% in 2023). (See figure 1 [see the first item in this post], and figs. 2-4 for other findings.)
The survey also found that in 2024, fewer people felt that scientists’ findings benefit “the country as a whole” and “benefit people like me.” In 2024, 66% strongly or somewhat agreed that findings benefit the country as a whole (down from 75% in 2023). Belief that scientists’ findings “benefit people like me,” also declined, to 60% from 68%. Taken together those two questions make up the beneficial factor of FASS. (See fig. 5.)
The findings follow sustained attacks on climate and Covid-19-related science and, more recently, public concerns about the rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence.
Comparing perceptions of scientists in general with climate and AI scientists
Credibility: When asked about three factors underlying scientists’ credibility, AI scientists have lower credibility in all three values. (See fig. 6.)
Competent: 70% strongly/somewhat agree that scientists are competent, but only 62% for climate scientists and 49% for AI scientists.
Trustworthy: 59% agree scientists are trustworthy, 54% agree for climate scientists, 28% for AI scientists.
Share my values: A higher number (38%) agree that climate scientists share my values than for scientists in general (36%) and AI scientists (15%). More people disagree with this for AI scientists (35%) than for the others.
Prudence: Asked whether they agree or disagree that science by various groups of scientists “creates unintended consequences and replaces older problems with new ones,” over half of those surveyed (59%) agree that AI scientists create unintended consequences and just 9% disagree. (See fig. 7.)
Overcoming bias: Just 42% of those surveyed agree that scientists “are able to overcome human and political biases,” but only 21% feel that way about AI scientists. In fact, 41% disagree that AI scientists are able to overcome human political biases. In another area, just 23% agree that AI scientists provide unbiased conclusions in their area of inquiry and 38% disagree. (See fig. 8.)
Self-correction: Self-correction, or “organized skepticism expressed in expectations sustaining a culture of critique,” as the FASS paper puts it, is considered by some as a “hallmark of science.” AI scientists are seen as less likely than scientists or climate scientists to take action to prevent fraud; take responsibility for mistakes; or to have mistakes that are caught by peer review. (See fig. 9.)
Benefits: Asked about the benefits from scientists’ findings, 60% agree that scientists’ “findings benefit people like me,” though just 44% agree for climate scientists and 35% for AI scientists. Asked about whether findings benefit the country as a whole, 66% agree for scientists, 50% for climate scientists and 41% for AI scientists. (See fig. 10.)
Your best interest: The survey also asked respondents how much trust they have in scientists to act in the best interest of people like you. (This specific trust measure is not a part of the FASS battery.) Respondents have less trust in AI scientists than in others: 41% have a great deal/a lot of trust in medical scientists; 39% in climate scientists; 36% in scientists; and 12% in AI scientists. (See fig. 11.)
The data from ASK surveys have been used to date in four peer-reviewed papers:
Using 2019 ASK data: Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231-19236.
Using 2022 ASK data: Ophir, Y., Walter, D., Jamieson, P. E., & Jamieson, K. H. (2023).Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives’ and liberals’ support for funding science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(38), e2213838120.
Using 2024 ASK data: Lupia, A., Allison, D. B., Jamieson, K. H., Heimberg, J., Skipper, M., & Wolf, S. M. (2024). Trends in US public confidence in science and opportunities for progress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(11), e2319488121.
Using Nov 2023 and Feb 2024 ASK data: Ophir, Y., Walter, D., Jamieson, P. E., & Jamieson, K. H. (2024). The politicization of climate science: Media consumption, perceptions of science and scientists, and support for policy. Journal of Health Communication, 29(sup1): 18-27.
APPC’s ASAPH survey
The survey data come from the 17th and 18th waves of a nationally representative panel of U.S. adults, first empaneled in April 2021, conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. These waves of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) knowledge survey were fielded February 22-28, 2023, November 14-20, 2023, and February 6-12, 2024, and have margins of sampling error (MOE) of ± 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. In November 2023, half of the sample was asked about “scientists” and the other half “climate scientists.” In February 2024, those initially asked about “scientists” were asked about “scientists studying AI” and the other half “scientists.” This provided two half samples addressing specific areas of study, while all panelists were asked about “scientists” generally. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.
…
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, maternal health, climate change, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for over three years. In addition to Jamieson, the APPC team includes Shawn Patterson Jr., who analyzed the data; Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, who developed the questions; and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research, who supervised the fielding of the survey.
Using 2019 ASK data: Signaling the trustworthiness of science by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Marcia McNutt, Veronique Kiermer, and Richard Sever.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 116 (39), 19231-19236 September 23, 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116
Using 2024 ASK data: Trends in US public confidence in science and opportunities for progress by Arthur Lupia, David B. Allison, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Jennifer Heimberg, Magdalena Skipper, and Susan M. Wolf.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 121 (11), e2319488121 March 4, 2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319488121
The 2019 paper ‘Signaling …’ has been featured here before in a September 30, 2019 posting, “Do you believe in science?” In addition to some of my comments, I embedded Adam Lambert’s version of Cher’s song ‘Do You Believe in Love?’ where you’ll see Cher brush away a few tears as she listens to her dance hit made love ballad.
Lynn L. Bergeson’s and Carla N. Hutton’s July 3, 2024 posting on their (US) National Law Review blog announces something I haven’t seen in a while, a nanotechnology workshop incorporating a social sciences perspective,
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) are convening a July 24, 2024, workshop, “Responsible Development, Social Science, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative: A Workshop to Explore Past and Future Intersections.” According to NNI, the workshop will bring together federal experts in nanotechnology with social scientists with expertise on specific tools and frameworks relevant to the responsible development of emerging technologies.
Responsible Development, Social Science, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative: A Workshop to Explore Past and Future Intersections
Since its inception, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has emphasized the importance of responsible development, and social scientists have played important roles in the interdisciplinary research that supports fundamental and applied research in nanotechnology. Following this tradition, the NNI and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) are convening a workshop to bring together federal experts in nanotechnology with social scientists with expertise on specific tools and frameworks relevant to the responsible development of emerging technologies. The agenda will include a presentation about the recently released “Blueprint for the Use of Social and Behavioral Science to Advance Evidence-Based Policymaking,” introductions to key nanotechnology case studies by federal experts, and flash talks by social scientists. The meeting will promote brainstorming new intersections between social science and nanotechnology R&D with the goals of i) integrating social science into future visions of interdisciplinary research, development, and training, and ii) reinvigorating networks that connect the NNI to the social science community.
Meeting Location:
470 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 8001, Washington, DC 20024. Directions are available here.
Virtual participation is also available, but online attendees will not be able to contribute to small group discussions in the afternoon session. Questions may be collected from online participants to inform the meeting.
Nanotechnology Case Studies – Introductions by NSET agency representatives
2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Break
2:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Small-group discussions (rotating among case studies) [Note: this portion of the agenda unavailable to online participants]
4:30 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.
Report Out and Discussion
4:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Closing and Next Steps
…
For anyone curious about NSET (1:30 – 2:15 pm presentation), prepare yourself for a little ‘alphabet soup’, from the NNI’s NSET webpage, Note: A link has been removed,
Organization and Leadership
The NNI is coordinated under the auspices of the White House National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). While individual agencies direct and support specific activities in pursuit of their respective missions, the strength of the NNI stems from the connections and collaborations that bring these efforts together and support the entire nanotechnology research and development ecosystem.
The formal organizational structure for the NNI includes the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the NSTC, the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group, and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). The NSET Subcommittee is co-chaired by representatives from two agencies and from OSTP (the NNCO Director). NSET participants work together to develop shared goals and priorities for the NNI and to develop a comprehensive nanotechnology R&D program that leverages individual agency resources and investments. Agencies participating in the NEHI Working Group actively collaborate and leverage their respective authorities to advance the NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy. NNCO provides technical and administrative support to NSET and the interagency nanotechnology community.
A parent must decide whether to undergo a health screening when struggling to find time between work and childcare responsibilities amid worries about potential out-of-pocket costs from the procedure. A local non-profit is working to reduce community youth violence through a new program focused around mentorship and educational support. A mid-career professional is trying to decide if they should pursue additional skills training after an unexpected wave of layoffs in their industry. Federal program administrators are trying to find effective methods of ensuring that a new grant program is supporting a diverse array of communities and applicants, but receive fewer submissions than expected from historically-marginalized communities most in need of additional support.
The social and behavioral sciences examine if, when, and how fundamental human processes influence outcomes and decisions. Human behavior is a key component of every major national and global challenge we face. Infectious and chronic diseases, national security, public safety and trust, climate and disaster preparedness, economic opportunity, traffic safety, and educational and employment disparities are just a few examples. The success of all federal government initiatives relies on human behavior in some way.
…
The social and behavioral sciences play an essential role in fulfilling the promise of evidence-based policies that deliver these outcomes across America and among all Americans by informing the conceptualization, development, implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of interventions, programs, and policies that address each of our national priorities.4, 5 Successfully leveraging social and behavioral science allows the federal government to produce more efficient and effective efforts with more positive, meaningful, and equitable outcomes for all individuals. The failure to understand and address the social and behavioral dimensions of issues reduces effectiveness of policies, programs, and outcomes for the American public and risks unintended consequences.6 Without the effective integration of social and behavioral science, federal policies and programs simply cannot achieve their intended outcomes.
The social and behavioral sciences encompass a diverse array of disciplines that focus on how and why people act as they do. This includes understanding multiple levels of influence—from individuals and families to communities, organizations, and society. Through careful analysis of human behavior and its causes, social and behavioral science moves us beyond intuition and anecdotes toward a more complete, systematic, and representative understanding of the complex processes that govern how people and societies think and act in practice.
This Blueprint is a whole-of-government effort that aims to provide a resource to assist federal decision- makers in leveraging social and behavioral science to improve policy and program design and delivery …
Hopefully, there will be some input from ethicists, since using insights gained from the social sciences can be fraught. Edward Bernays’s story highlights just how fraught it can by, from his Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,
dward Louis Bernays (/bɜːrˈneɪz/ bur-NAYZ, German: [bɛʁˈnaɪs]; November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) was an American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, and referred to in his obituary as “the father of public relations”.[3] His best-known campaigns include a 1929 effort to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist “Torches of Freedom”, and his work for the United Fruit Company in the 1950s, connected with the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government in 1954. He worked for dozens of major American corporations, including Procter & Gamble and General Electric, and for government agencies, politicians, and nonprofit organizations. His uncle was psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. [emphases mine]
… he described the masses as irrational and subject to herd instinct—and he outlined how skilled practitioners could use crowd psychology and psychoanalysis to control them in desired ways [emphasis mine].[4][5] Bernays later synthesized many of these ideas in his postwar book, Public Relations (1945), which outlines the science of managing information released to the public by an organization, in a manner most advantageous to the organization. He does this by first providing an overview of the history of public relations, and then provides insight into its application.
…
In the 1930s, his critics became more harsh. As the leading figure in public relations and a notorious advocate of “propaganda”, Bernays was compared to European fascists such as Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler.[80] (Bernays wrote in his 1965 autobiography that Goebbels read and used his books. [emphasis mine])[81]
…
Finally, it looks like July 24, 2024 will be a long day for anyone attending the workshop.
It seems that physicists are having a moment in the pop culture scene and they are excited about two television series (Fallout and 3 Body Problem) televised earlier this year in US/Canada.
The world ends on Oct. 23, 2077, in a series of radioactive explosions—at least in the world of “Fallout,” a post-apocalyptic video game series that has now been adapted into a blockbuster TV show on Amazon’s Prime Video.
The literal fallout that ensues creates a post-apocalyptic United States that is full of mutated monstrosities, irradiated humans called ghouls and hard scrabble survivors who are caught in the middle of it all. It’s the material of classic Atomic Age sci-fi, the kind of pulp stories “Fallout” draws inspiration from for its retro-futuristic version of America.
But there is more science in this science fiction story than you might think, according to Pran Nath, Matthews distinguished university professor of physics at Northeastern University.
In the opening moments of “Fallout,” which debuted on April 10 [2024], Los Angeles is hit with a series of nuclear bombs. Although it takes place in a clearly fictional version of La La Land –– the robots and glistening, futuristic skyscrapers in the distance are dead giveaways –– the nuclear explosions themselves are shockingly realistic.
Nath says that when a nuclear device is dropped there are three stages.
“When the nuclear blast occurs, because of the chain reaction, in a very short period of time, a lot of energy and radiation is emitted,” Nath says. “In the first instance, a huge flash occurs, which is the nuclear reaction producing gamma rays. If you are exposed to it, people, for example, in Hiroshima were essentially evaporated, leaving shadows.”
Depending on how far someone is from the blast, even those who are partially protected will have their body rapidly heat up to 50 degrees Celsius, or 122 degrees Fahrenheit, causing severe burns. The scalded skin of the ghouls in “Fallout” are not entirely unheard of (although their centuries-long lifespan stretches things a bit).
The second phase is a shockwave and heat blast –– what Nath calls a “fireball.” The shockwave in the first scene of “Fallout” quickly spreads from the blast, but Nath says it would probably happen even faster and less cinematically. It would travel around the speed of sound, around 760 miles per hour.
The shockwave also has a huge amount of pressure, “so huge … that it can collapse concrete buildings.” It’s followed by a “fireball” that would burn every building in the blast area with an intense heatwave.
“The blast area is defined as the area where the shockwaves and the fireball are the most intense,” Nath says. “For Hiroshima, that was between 1 and 2 miles. Basically, everything is destroyed in that blast area.”
The third phase of the nuclear blast is the fallout, which lasts for much longer and has even wider ranging impacts than the blast and shockwave. The nuclear blast creates a mushroom cloud, which can reach as high as 10 miles into the atmosphere. Carried by the wind, the cloud spreads radioactivity far outside the blast area.
“In a nuclear blast, up to 100 different radioactive elements are produced,” Nath says. “These radioactive elements have lifetimes which could be a few seconds, and they could be up to millions of years. … It causes pollution and damage to the body and injuries over a longer period, causing cancer and leukemia, things like this.”
A key part of the world of “Fallout” is the Vaults, massive underground bunkers the size of small towns that the luckiest of people get to retreat into when the world ends. The Vaults are several steps above most real-world fallout shelters, but Nath says that kind of protection would be necessary if you wanted to stay safe from the kind of radiation released by nuclear weapons, particularly gamma rays that can penetrate several feet of concrete.
“If you are further away and you keep inside and behind concrete, then you can avoid both the initial flash of the nuclear blast and also could probably withstand the shockwaves and the heatwave that follows, so the survivability becomes larger,” Nath says.
But what about all the radioactive mutants wandering around the post-apocalyptic wasteland?
It might seem like the colossal, monstrous mutant salamanders and giant cockroaches of “Fallout” are a science fiction fabrication. But there is a real-world basis for this, Nath says.
“There are various kinds of abnormalities that occur [with radiation,]” Nath says. “They can also be genetic. Radiation can create mutations, which are similar to spontaneous mutation, in animals and humans. In Chernobyl, for example, they are discovering animals which are mutated.”
In the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, the genetics of wild dogs have been radically altered. Scientists hypothesize that thewolves near Chernobyl may have developed to be more resistant to radiation, which could make them “cancer resistant,” or at least less impacted by cancer. And frogs have adapted to have more melanin in their bodies, a form of protection against radiation, turning them black.
“Fallout” takes the horrifying reality of nuclear war and spins a darkly comic sci-fi yarn, but Nath says it’s important to remember how devastating these real-world forces are.
It’s estimated that as many as 146,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 people in Nagasaki were killed by the effects of the bombs dropped by the U.S. Today’s nuclear weapons are so much more powerful that there is very little understanding of the impact these weapons could have. Nath says the fallout could even exacerbate global warming.
“Thermonuclear war would be a global problem,” Nath says.
Although “Fallout” is a piece of science fiction, the reality of its world-ending scenario is terrifyingly real, says Pran Nath, Matthews distinguished university professor of physics at Northeastern University. Photo by Adam Glanzman/Northeastern University
Kudos to the photographer!
3 Body Problem (television series)
This one seems to have a lit a fire in the breasts of physicists everywhere. I have a number of written pieces and a video about this this show, which is based on a book by Liu Cixn. (You can find out more about Cixin and his work in his Wikipedia entry.)
“3 Body Problem,” Netflix’s new big-budget adaptation of Liu Cixin’s book series helmed by the creators behind “Game of Thrones,” puts the science in science fiction.
The series focuses on scientists as they attempt to solve a mystery that spans decades, continents and even galaxies. That means “3 Body Problem” throws some pretty complicated quantum mechanics and astrophysics concepts at the audience as it, sometimes literally, tries to bring these ideas down to earth.
However, at the core of the series is the three-body problem, a question that has stumped scientists for centuries.
What exactly is the three-body problem, and why is it still unsolvable? Jonathan Blazek, an assistant professor of physics at Northeastern University, explains that systems with two objects exerting gravitational force on one another, whether they’re particles or stars and planets, are predictable. Scientists have been able to solve this two-body problem and predict the orbits of objects since the days of Isaac Newton. But as soon as a third body enters the mix, the whole system gets thrown into chaos.
“The three-body problem is the statement that if you have three bodies gravitating toward each other under Newton’s law of gravitation, there is no general closed-form solution for that situation,” Blazek says. “Little differences get amplified and can lead to wildly unpredictable behavior in the future.”
In “3 Body Problem,” like in Cixin’s book, this is a reality for aliens that live in a solar system with three suns. Since all three stars are exerting gravitational forces on each other, they end up throwing the solar system into chaos as they fling each other back and forth. For the Trisolarans, the name for these aliens, it means that when a sun is jettisoned far away, their planet freezes, and when a sun is thrown extremely close to their planet, it gets torched. Worse, because of the three-body problem, these movements are completely unpredictable.
For centuries, scientists have pondered the question of how to determine a stable starting point for three gravitational bodies that would result in predictable orbits. There is still no generalizable solution that can be taken out of theory and modeled in reality, although recently scientists have started to find some potentially creative solutions, including with models based on the movements of drunk people.
“If you want to [predict] what the solar system’s going to do, we can put all the planets and as many asteroids as we know into a computer code and basically say we’re going to calculate the force between everything and move everything forward a little bit,” Blazek says. “This works, but to the extent that you’re making some approximations … all of these things will eventually break down and your prediction is going to become inaccurate.”
Blazek says the three-body problem has captivated scientific minds because it’s a seemingly simple problem. Most high school physics students learn Newton’s law of gravity and can reasonably calculate and predict the movement of two bodies.
Three-body systems, and more than three-body systems, also show up throughout the universe, so the question is incredibly relevant. Look no further than our solar system.
The relationship between the sun, Earth and our moon is a three-body system. But Blazek says since the sun exerts a stronger gravitational force on Earth and Earth does the same on the moon, it creates a pair of two-body systems with stable, predictable orbits –– for now.
Blazek says that although our solar system appears stable, there’s no guarantee that it will stay that way in the far future because there are still multi-body systems at play. Small changes like an asteroid hitting one of Jupiter’s moons and altering its orbit ever so slightly could eventually spiral into larger changes.
That doesn’t mean humanity will face a crisis like the one the Trisolarans face in “3 Body Problem.” These changes happen extremely slowly, but Blazek says it’s another reminder of why these concepts are interesting and important to think about in both science and science fiction.
“I don’t think anything is going to happen on the time scale of our week or even probably our species –– we have bigger problems than the instability of orbits in our solar system,” Blazek says. “But, that said, if you think about billions of years, during that period we don’t know that the orbits will stay as they currently are. There’s a good chance there will be some instability that changes how things look in the solar system.”
An April 12, 2024 news item on phys.org covers some of the same ground, Note: A link has been removed.
The science fiction television series 3 Body Problem, the latest from the creators of HBO’s Game of Thrones, has become the most watched show on Netflix since its debut last month. Based on the bestselling book trilogy Remembrance of Earth’s Past by Chinese computer engineer and author Cixin Liu, 3 Body Problem introduces viewers to advanced concepts in physics in service to a suspenseful story involving investigative police work, international intrigue, and the looming threat of an extraterrestrial invasion.
Yet how closely does the story of 3 Body Problem adhere to the science that it’s based on? The very name of the show comes from the three-body problem, a mathematical problem in physics long considered to be unsolvable.
Virginia Tech physicist Djordje Minic says, “The three-body problem is a very famous problem in classical and celestial mechanics, which goes back to Isaac Newton. It involves three celestial bodies interacting via the gravitational force—that is, Newton’s law of gravity. Unlike mathematical predictions of the motions of two-body systems, such as Earth-moon or Earth-sun, the three-body problem does not have an analytic solution.”
“At the end of the 19th century, the great French mathematician Henri Poincaré’s work on the three-body problem gave birth to what is known as chaos theory and the concept of the ‘butterfly effect.'”
Both the novels and the Netflix show contain a visualization of the three-body problem in action: a solar system made up of three suns in erratic orbit around one another. Virginia Tech aerospace engineer and mathematics expert Shane Ross discussed liberties the story takes with the science that informs it.
“There are no known configurations of three massive stars that could maintain an erratic orbit,” Ross said. “There was a big breakthrough about 20 years ago when a figure eight solution of the three-body problem was discovered, in which three equal-sized stars chase each other around on a figure eight-shaped course. In fact, Cixin Liu makes reference to this in his books. Building on that development, other mathematicians found other solutions, but in each case the movement is not chaotic.”
Ross elaborated, “It’s even more unlikely that a fourth body, a planet, would be in orbit around this system of three stars, however erratically — it would either collide with one or be ejected from the system. The situation in the book would therefore be a solution of the ‘four-body problem,’ which I guess didn’t have quite the right ring to use as a title.
“Furthermore, a stable climate is unlikely even on an Earth-like planet. At last count, there are at least a hundred independent factors that are required to create an Earth-like planet that supports life as we know it,” Ross said. “We have been fortunate to have had about 10,000 years of the most stable climate in Earth’s history, which makes us think climate stability is the norm, when in fact, it’s the exception. It’s likely no coincidence that this has corresponded with the rise of advanced human civilization.”
About Ross A professor of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering at Virginia Tech, Shane Ross directs the Ross Dynamics Lab, which specializes in mathematical modeling, simulation, visualization, and experiments involving oceanic and atmospheric patterns, aerodynamic gliding, orbital mechanics, and many other disciplines. He has made fundamental contributions toward finding chaotic solutions to the three-body problem. Read his bio …
About Minic Djordje Minic teaches physics at Virginia Tech. A specialist in string theory and quantum gravity, he has collaborated on award-winning research related to dark matter and dark energy. His most recent investigation involves the possibility that in the context of quantum gravity the geometry of quantum theory might be dynamical in analogy with the dynamical nature of spacetime geometry in Einstein’s theory of gravity. View his full bio …
For the last ‘3 Body Problem’ essay, there’s this April 5, 2023 article by Tara Bitran and Phillipe Thao for Netflix.com featuring comments from a physicist concerning a number of science questions,, Note: Links have been removed,
If you’ve raced through 3 Body Problem, the new series from Game of Thrones creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss and True Blood writer Alexander Woo, chances are you want to know more about everything from Sophons and nanofibers to what actually constitutes a three-body problem. After all, even the show’s scientists are stumped when they witness their well-known theories unravel at the seams.
But for physicists like 3 Body Problem’s Jin (Jess Hong) and real-life astrophysicist Dr. Becky Smethurst (who researches how supermassive black holes grow at the University of Oxford and explains how scientific phenomena work in viral videos), answering the universe’s questions is a problem they’re delighted to solve. In fact, it’s part of the fun. “I feel like scientists look at the term ‘problem’ more excitedly than anybody else does,” Smethurst tells Tudum. “Every scientist’s dream is to be told that they got it wrong before and here’s some new data that you can now work on that shows you something different where you can learn something new.”
The eight-episode series, based on writer Cixin Liu’s internationally celebrated Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy, repeatedly defies human science standards and forces the characters to head back to the drawing board to figure out how to face humanity’s greatest threat. Taking us on a mind-boggling journey that spans continents and timelines, the story begins in ’60s China, when a young woman makes a fateful decision that reverberates across space and time into the present day. With humanity’s future in danger, a group of tight-knit scientists, dubbed the Oxford Five, must work against time to save the world from catastrophic consequences.
Dr. Matt Kenzie, associate professor of physics at University of Cambridge and 3 Body Problem’s science advisor, sits down with Tudum to dive into the science behind the series. So if you can’t stop thinking about stars blinking and chaotic eras, keep reading for all the answers to your burning scientific questions. Education time!
What is a Cherenkov tank?
In Episode 1, the Oxford Five’s former college professor, Dr. Vera Ye (Vedette Lim), walks out onto a platform at the top of a large tank and plunges to her death in a shallow pool of water below. If you were wondering what that huge tank was, it’s called a particle detector (sometimes also known as a Cherenkov tank). It’s used to observe, measure, and identify particles, including, in this case, neutrinos, a common particle that comes largely from the sun. “Part of the reason that they’re kind of interesting is that we don’t really understand much about them, and we suspect that they could be giving us clues to other types of physics in the universe that we don’t yet understand,” Dr. Kenzie told Netflix.
When a neutrino interacts with the water molecules stored inside the tank, it sets off a series of photomultiplier tubes — the little circles that line the tank Vera jumps into. Because Vera’s experiment is shut down and the water is reduced to a shallow level, the fall ends up killing her.
…
What are nanofibers?
In the show, Auggie’s a trailblazer in nanofiber technology. She runs a company that designs self-assembling synthetic polymer nanofibers and hopes to use her latest innovation to solve world problems, like poverty and disease. But what are nanofibers and how do they work? Dr. Kenzie describes nanofiber technology as “any material with a width of nanometers” — in other words, one millionth of a millimeter in thickness. Nanofibers can be constructed out of graphene (a one-atom thick layer of carbon) and are often very strong. “They can be very flexible,” he adds. “They tend to be very good conductors of both heat and electricity.”
Is nanofiber technology real, and can it actually cut through human flesh?
Nanofiber technology does exist, although Dr. Kenzie says it’s curated and grown in labs under very specific conditions. “One of the difficulties is how you hold them in place — the scaffolding it’s called,” he adds. “You have to design molecules which hold these things whilst you’re trying to build them.”
After being tested on a synthetic diamond cube in Episode 2, we see the real horrors of nanofiber technology when it’s used to slice through human bodies in Episode 5. Although the nanofiber technology that exists today is not as mass produced as Auggie’s — due to the cost of producing and containing it — Dr. Kenzie says it’s still strong enough to slice through almost anything.
What can nanofiber technology be used for?
According to Dr. Kenzie, the nanofiber technology being developed today can be used in several ways within the manufacturing and construction industries. “If you wanted a machine that could do some precision cutting, then maybe [nanofiber] would be good,” he says. “I know they’re also tested in the safety of the munitions world. If you need to bulletproof a room or bulletproof a vest, they’re incredibly light and they’re incredibly strong.” He also adds that nanofiber technology is viewed as a material of the future, which can be used for water filtration — just as we see Auggie use it in the season finale.
…
The Bitran and Thao piece includes another description of the 3 Body Problem but it’s the first I’ve seen that describes some of the other science.
Also mentioned in one of the excerpts in this posting is The Science and Entertainment Exchange (also known as The Science & Entertainment Exchange or Science & Entertainment Exchange) according to its Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,
The Science & Entertainment Exchange[1] is a program run and developed by the United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to increase public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science and advanced science technology through its representation in television, film, and other media. It serves as a pro-science movement with the main goal of re-cultivating how science and scientists truly are in order to rid the public of false perceptions on these topics. The Exchange provides entertainment industry professionals with access to credible and knowledgeable scientists and engineers who help to encourage and create effective representations of science and scientists in the media, whether it be on television, in films, plays, etc. The Exchange also helps the science community understand the needs and requirements of the entertainment industry, while making sure science is conveyed in a correct and positive manner to the target audience.
Officially launched in November 2008, the Exchange can be thought of as a partnership between NAS and Hollywood, as it arranges direct consultations between scientists and entertainment professionals who develop science-themed content. This collaboration allows for industry professionals to accurately portray the science that they wish to capture and include in their media production. It also provides scientists and science organizations with the opportunity to communicate effectively with a large audience that may otherwise be hard to reach such as through innovative physics outreach. It also provides a variety of other services, including scheduling briefings, brainstorming sessions, screenings, and salons. The Exchange is based in Los Angeles, California.
…
I hadn’t realized the exchange was physics specific. Given the success with physics, I’d expect the biology and chemistry communities would be eager to participate or start their own exchanges.
Back in 2019 Canada was having a problem with Malaysia and the Phillipines over the garbage (this is meant literally) that we were shipping over to those counties, which is why an article about Chinese science fiction writer, Chen Qiufan and his 2013 novel, The Waste Tide, caught my attention and I pubisihed this May 31, 2019 posting, “Chen Qiufan, garbage, and Chinese science fiction stories.” There’s a very brief mention of Liu Cxin in one of the excerpts.
The world approaches an environmental tipping point, and our decisions now regarding energy, resources, and the environment will have profound consequences for the future. Despite this, most sustainable thought tends to be limited to the viewpoint of current generations.
In a study published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, researchers from Osaka University have revealed that adopting the perspective of “imaginary future generations” (IFGs) can yield fascinating insights into long-term social and technological trends.
The researchers organized a series of four workshops at Osaka University, with participants drawn from the faculty and student body of the Graduate School of Engineering. The workshops discussed the state of future society and manufacturing in general, and also looked at one technology in particular: hydrothermally produced porous glass. During the workshops, the participants were asked to think about this technology from the perspective of IFGs, to imagine how this technology might be adopted in the future and to assess its future potentiality.
“We chose hydrothermally produced porous glass for the case study because of the generational trade-offs involved,” says lead author of the study Keishiro Hara. “Porous glass is incredibly useful as either a filter for removing impurities or an insulator for buildings. Also, it can be recycled into new porous glass more or less indefinitely. The problem is that making it takes a lot of energy – both to pulverize waste glass and to heat water to very high temperatures. There’s a striking trade-off between costs now and gains in the future.”
In the workshops, the participants first looked at issues involving society and manufacturing from the perspective of the present and were then asked to imagine themselves in the shoes of their counterparts in 2040.
“The future the participants imagined was quite different from the future as seen from the perspective of the current generation,” explains Toshihiro Tanaka, senior author. “Most groups described a future in which sustainability has become a central concern for society. Meanwhile, advances in renewal energy mean that energy is abundant, as are resources, as frontiers such as the moon and deep ocean are opened to exploration. In this context, hydrothermally produced porous glass comes into its own as a sustainable way to recycle glass, and the energy needed to produce it is readily available.”
The participants were surveyed between workshops and asked to rank indicators related to the future potentiality of the technology. Interestingly, these rankings looked quite different after the workshops in which the participants were asked to take on the perspective of “imaginary future generations.”
“We noticed that when the “imaginary future generations” method, which has been proven to be effective in facilitating long-term thinking, was adopted, participants perceived the feasibility of this technology differently, and their adoption scenarios changed accordingly,” says Hara.
The study suggests that the simple act of putting ourselves in the position of future generations may provide new perspectives on issues of sustainability and technology, helping us to rethink our priorities and set new directions for research and development.