Tag Archives: Columbia University

Copyright, artificial intelligence, and thoughts about cyborgs

I’ve been holding this one for a while and now, it seems like a good followup to yesterday’s, October 20, 2025 posting about “AI and the Art of Being Human,” which touches on co-writing and my October 13, 2025 posting and its mention of “Who’s afraid of AI? Arts, Sciences , and the Futures of Intelligence,” a conference and arts festival at the University of Toronto (scroll down to the “Who’s Afraid of AI …” subhead).

With the advent of some of the latest advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and its use in creative content, the view on copyright (as a form of property) seems to be shifting. In putting this post together I’ve highlighted a blog posting that focuses on copyright and AI as it is commonly viewed. Following that piece, is a look at N. Katherine Hayles’ concept of AI as one of a number of cognitive assemblages and the implications of that concept where AI and copyright are concerned.

Then, it gets more complicated. What happens when your neural implant has an AI component? It’s question asked by members of a Canadian legal firm, McMillan LLP, a business law firm in their investigation of copyright. (The implication of this type of cognitive assemblage is not explicitly considered in Hayles’ work.) Following on the idea of a neural implant enhanced with AI, cyborg bugs (they too can have neural implants) are considered.

Uncomplicated vision of AI and copyright future

Glyn Moody’s May 15, 2025 posting on techdirt.com provides a very brief overview of the last 100 years of copyright and goes on to highlight some of the latest AI comments from tech industry titans, Note: Links have been removed,

For the last hundred years or so, the prevailing dogma has been that copyright is an unalloyed good [emphasis mine], and that more of it is better. Whether that was ever true is one question, but it is certainly not the case since we entered the digital era, for reasons explained at length in Walled Culture the book (free digital versions available). Despite that fact, recent attempts to halt the constant expansion and strengthening of copyright have all foundered. Part of the problem is that there has never been a constituency with enough political clout to counter the huge power of the copyright industry and its lobbyists.

Until now. The latest iteration of artificial intelligence has captured the attention of politicians around the world [emphasis mine]. It seems that the latter can’t do enough to promote and support it, in the hope of deriving huge economic benefits, both directly, in the form of local AI companies worth trillions, and indirectly, through increased efficiency and improved services. That current favoured status has given AI leaders permission to start saying the unsayable: that copyright is an obstacle to progress [emphasis mine], and should be reined in, or at least muzzled, in order to allow AI to reach its full potential. …

In its own suggestions for the AI Action Plan, Google spells out what this means:

Balanced copyright rules, such as fair use and text-and-data mining exceptions, have been critical to enabling AI systems to learn from prior knowledge and publicly available data, unlocking scientific and social advances. These exceptions allow for the use of copyrighted, publicly available material for AI training without significantly impacting rightsholders and avoid often highly unpredictable, imbalanced, and lengthy negotiations with data holders during model development or scientific experimentation. Balanced copyright laws that ensure access to publicly available scientific papers, for example, are essential for accelerating AI in science, particularly for applications that sift through scientific literature for insights or new hypotheses.

… some of the biggest personalities in the tech world have gone even further, reported here by TechCrunch:

Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Square (now Block), sparked a weekend’s worth of debate around intellectual property, patents, and copyright, with a characteristically terse post declaring, “delete all IP law.”

X’s current owner, Elon Musk, quickly replied, “I agree.”

It’s not clear what exactly brought these comments on, but they come at a time when AI companies, including OpenAI (which Musk co-founded, competes with, and is challenging in court), are facing numerous lawsuits alleging that they’ve violated copyright to train their models.

Unsurprisingly, that bold suggestion provoked howls of outrage from various players in the copyright world. That was to be expected. But the fact that big names like Musk and Dorsey were happy to cause such a storm is indicative of the changed atmosphere in the world of copyright and beyond. Indeed, there are signs that the other main intellectual monopolies – patents and trademarks – are also under pressure. Calling into question the old ways of doing things in these fields will also weaken the presumption that copyright must be preserved in its current state.

Yes, it is interesting to see tech moguls such as Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk take a more ‘enlightened’ approach to copyright. However, there may be a few twists and turns to this story as it continues to develop..

Copyright and cognitive assemblages

I need to set the stage with something coming from N. Katherine Hayles’ 2025 book “Bacteria to AI; Human Futures with our Nonhuman Symbionts.” She suggests that we (humans) will be members in cognitive assemblages including bacteria, plants, cells, AI, and more. She then decouples cognition from consciousness and claims entities such as bacteria, etc. are capable of ‘nonconscious cognition’.

Hayles avoids the words ‘thinking’ and ‘thought’ by using cognition and providing this meaning for the word,

… “cognition is a process that interprets information within contexts that connect it with meaning” (Hayles 2017, 22 [in “Unthought: The power of the Cognitive Nonconscious”‘ University of Chicago Press]) Note: Hayles quotes herself on pp. 8-9 in 2025’s “Bacteria to AI ..”

Hayles then develops the notion of a cognitive assemblage made up of conscious (e.g. human) and nonconscious (e.g. AI agent) cognitions. The part that most interests me is where Hayles examines copyright and cognitive assemblages,

.. what happens to the whole idea of intellectual property when an AI has perused copyrighted works during its training and incorporated them into its general sense of how to produce a picture of X or a poem about Y. Already artists and stakeholders are confronting similar issues in the age of remixing and modifying existing content. how much of a picture, or a song, needs to be altered for it not to count as copyright infringement? As legal cases like this work their way through the courts, collective intelligence will doubt continue to spread through the cultures of developed countries, as more and more people come to rely on ChatGPT and similar models for more and more tasks. Thus our cultures edge toward the realization that the very idea of intellectual property as something owned by an individual who has exclusive rights to it may need to be rethought [emphasis mine] and reconceptualized on a basis consistent with the reality of collective intelligence [emphasis mine] and the pervasiveness of cognitive assemblages in producing products of value in the contemporary era. [pp. 226 – 227 in Hayles’ 2025 book, “Bacteria to AI …]

It certainly seems as if the notion of intellectual property as personal property is being seriously challenged (and not by academics alone) but this state of affairs may be temporary. In particular, the tech titans see a benefit to loosening the rules now but what happens if they see an advantage to tightening the rules?

Neurotechnology, AI, and copyright

Neuralink states clearly that AI is part of their (and presumably other company’s) products, from the “Neuralink and AI: Bridging the Gap Between Humans and Machines,” Note: Links have been removed,

The intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and human cognition is no longer a distant sci-fi dream—it’s rapidly becoming reality. At the forefront of this revolution is Neuralink, a neurotechnology company founded by Elon Musk in 2016, dedicated to creating brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that seamlessly connect the human brain to machines. With AI advancing at an unprecedented pace, Neuralink aims to bridge the gap between humans and technology, offering transformative possibilities for healthcare, communication, and even human evolution. In this article, we’ll explore how Neuralink and AI are reshaping our future, the science behind this innovation, its potential applications, and the ethical questions it raises.

Robbie Grant, Yue Fei, and Adelaide Egan (plus Articling Students: Aki Kamoshida and Sara Toufic) have given their April 17, 2025 article for McMillan LLP, a Canadian business law firm, a (I couldn’t resist the wordplay) ‘thought provoking’ title, “Who Owns a Thought? Navigating Legal Issues in Neurotech” for a very interesting read, Note 1: Links have been removed, Note 2: I’ve included the numbers for the footnotes but not the footnotes themselves,

The ongoing expansion of Neurotechnology (or “neurotech”) for consumers is raising questions related to privacy and ownership of one’s thoughts, as well as what will happen when technology can go beyond merely influencing humans and enter the realm of control {emphasis mine}.

Last year, a group of McGill students built a mind-controlled wheelchair in just 30 days.[1] Brain2Qwerty, Meta’s neuroscience project which translates brain activity into text, claims to allow for users to “type” with their minds.[2] Neuralink, a company founded by Elon Musk {emphasis mine}, is beginning clinical trials in Canada testing a fully wireless, remotely controllable device to be inserted into a user’s brain {emphasis mine}.[3] This comes several years after the company released a video of a monkey playing videogames with its mind using a similar implantable device.

The authors have included a good description of neurotech, from their April 17, 2025 article,

Neurotech refers to technology that records, analyzes or modifies the neurons in the human nervous system. Neurotech can be broken down into three subcategories:

    Neuroimaging: technology that monitors brain structure and function;

    Neuromodulation: technology that influences brain function; and

    Brain-Computer Interfaces or “BCIs”: technology that facilitates direct communication between the brain’s electrical activity and an external device, sometimes referred to as brain-machine interfaces.[5]

In the medical and research context, neurotech has been deployed for decades in one form or another. Neuroimaging techniques such as EEG, MRI and PET have been used to study and analyze brain activity.[6] Neuromodulation has also been used for the treatment of various diseases, such as for deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease[7] as well as for cochlear implants.[8] However, the potential for applications of neurotech beyond medical devices is a newer development, accelerated by the arrival of less intrusive neurotech devices, and innovations in artificial intelligence.

My interests here are not the same as the authors’, the focus in this posting is solely on intellectual property, from their April 17, 2025 article,

3.  Intellectual Property

As neurotech continues to advance, it is possible that it will be able to make sense of complex, subconscious data such as dreams. This will present a host of novel IP challenges, which stem from the unique nature of the data being captured, the potential for the technology to generate new insights, and the fundamental questions about ownership and rights in a realm where personal thoughts become part of the technological process.

Ownership of Summarized Data: When neurotech is able to capture subconscious thoughts, [emphasis mine] it will likely process this data into summaries that reflect aspects of an individual’s mental state. The ownership of such summaries, however, can become contentious. On the one hand, it could be argued that the individual, as the originator of their thoughts, should own the summaries. On the other hand, one could argue that the summaries would not exist but for the processing done by the technology and hence the summaries should not be owned (or exclusively owned) by the individual. The challenge may be in determining whether the summary is a transformation of the data that makes it the product of the technology, or whether it remains simply a condensed version of the individual’s thoughts, in which case it makes sense for the individual to retain ownership.

Ownership of Creative Outputs: The situation becomes more complicated if the neurotech produces creative outputs based on the subconscious thoughts captured by the technology. For example, if the neurotech uses subconscious imagery or emotions to create art, music, or other works, who owns the rights to these works? Is the individual whose thoughts were analyzed the creator of the work, or does the technology, which has facilitated and interpreted those thoughts, hold some ownership? This issue is especially pertinent in a world where AI-generated creations are already challenging traditional ideas of IP ownership. For example, in many jurisdictions, ownership of copyrightable works is tied to the individual who conceived them.[27] Uncertainty can arise in cases where works are created with neurotech, where the individual whose thoughts are captured may not be aware of the process, or their thoughts may have been altered or combined with other information to produce the works. These uncertainties could have significant implications for IP ownership, compensation, and the extent to which individuals can control or profit from the thoughts embedded in their own subconscious minds.

The reference to capturing data from subconscious thought and how that might be used in creative outputs is fascinating. This sounds like a description of one of Hayles’ cognitive assemblages with the complicating factor of a technology that is owned by a company. (Will Elon Musk be quite so cavalier about copyright when he could potentially own your thoughts and, consequently, your creative output?)

If you have the time (it’s an 11 minute read according to the authors), the whole April 17, 2025 article is worth it as the authors cover more issues (confidentiality, Health Canada oversight, etc.) than I have included here.

I also stumbled across the issue of neurotech tech companies and ownership of brain data (not copyright but you can see how this all begins to converge) in a February 29, 2024 posting “Portable and non-invasive (?) mind-reading AI (artificial intelligence) turns thoughts into text and some thoughts about the near future” where I featured this quote (scroll down about 70% of the way),

Huth [Alexander Huth, assistant professor of Neuroscience and Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin] and Tang [Jerry Tang, PhD student in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Texas Austin] concluded that brain data, therefore, should be closely guarded, especially in the realm of consumer products. In an article on Medium from last April, Tang wrote that “decoding technology is continually improving, and the information that could be decoded from a brain scan a year from now may be very different from what can be decoded today. It is crucial that companies are transparent about what they intend to do with brain data and take measures to ensure that brain data is carefully protected.” (Yuste [Rafael Yuste, a Columbia University neuroscientist] said the Neurorights Foundation recently surveyed the user agreements of 30 neurotech companies and found that all of them claim ownership of users’ brain data — and most assert the right to sell that data to third parties. [emphases mine]) Despite these concerns, however, Huth and Tang maintained that the potential benefits of these technologies outweighed their risks, provided the proper guardrails [emphasis mine] were put in place.

While I’m still with neurotech, there’s another aspect to be considered as noted in my April 5, 2022 posting “Going blind when your neural implant company flirts with bankruptcy (long read).” My long read is probably 15 mins. or more.

Ending on a neurotech device/implant note, here’s a November 20, 2024 University Hospital Network (UHN) news release burbling happily about their new clinical trial involving Neurolink

UHN is proud to be selected as the first hospital in Canada to perform a pioneering neurosurgical procedure involving the Neuralink implantable device as part of the CAN-PRIME study, marking a significant milestone in the field of medical innovation.

This first procedure in Canada represents an exciting new research direction in neurosurgery and will involve the implantation of a wireless brain-computer interface (BCI) at UHN’s Toronto Western Hospital, the exclusive surgical site in Canada.

“We are incredibly proud to be at the forefront of this research advancement in neurosurgery,” says Dr. Kevin Smith, UHN’s President and CEO. “This progress is a testament to the dedication and expertise of our world-leading medical and research professionals, as well as our commitment to providing the most innovative and effective treatments for patients.

“As the first and exclusive surgical site in Canada to perform this procedure, we will be continuing to shape the future of neurological care and further defining our track record for doing what hasn’t been done.”

Neuralink has received Health Canada approval to begin recruiting for this clinical trial in Canada.

The goal of the CAN-PRIME Study (short for Canadian Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface), according to the study synopsis, is “to evaluate the safety of our implant (N1) and surgical robot (R1) and assess the initial functionality of our BCI for enabling people with quadriplegia to control external devices with their thoughts [emphasis mine].”

Patients with limited or no ability to use both hands due to cervical spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), may be eligible for the CAN-PRIME Study.

“This landmark surgery has the potential to transform and improve outcomes for patients who previously had limited options,” says Dr. Andres Lozano, the Alan and Susan Hudson Cornerstone Chair in Neurosurgery at UHN and lead of the CAN-PRIME study at UHN.

The procedure, which combines state-of-the-art technology and advanced surgical techniques, will be carried out by a multidisciplinary team of neurosurgeons, neuroscientists and medical experts at UHN.

“This is a perfect example of how scientific discovery, technological innovation, and clinical expertise come together to develop new approaches to continuously improve patient care,” says Dr. Brad Wouters, Executive Vice President of Science & Research at UHN. “As Canada’s No. 1 research hospital, we are proud to be leading this important trial in Canada that has the goal to improve the lives of individuals living with quadriplegia or ALS.”

The procedure has already generated significant attention within the medical community and further studies are planned to assess its long-term effectiveness and safety.

UHN is recognized for finding solutions beyond boundaries, achieving firsts and leading the development and implementation of the latest breakthroughs in health care to benefit patients across Canada, and around the world.

Not just human brains: cyborg bugs and other biohybrids

Brain-computer interfaces don’t have to be passively accepting instructions from humans, they could also be giving instructions to humans. I don’t have anything that makes the possibility explicit except by inference. For example, let’s look at cyborg bugs, from a May 13, 2025 article “We can turn bugs into flying, crawling RoboCops. Does that mean we should” by Carlyn Zwarenstein for salon.com, Note: Links have been removed,

Imagine a tiny fly-like drone with delicate translucent wings and multi-lensed eyes, scouting out enemies who won’t even notice it’s there. Or a substantial cockroach-like robot, off on a little trip to check out a nuclear accident, wearing a cute little backpack, fearless, regardless of what the Geiger counter says. These little engineered creatures might engage in search and rescue — surveillance, environmental or otherwise — inspecting dangerous areas you would not want to send a human being into, like a tunnel or building that could collapse at any moment, or a facility where there’s been a gas leak.

These robots are blazing new ethical terrain. That’s because they are not animals performing tasks for humans, nor are they robots that draw inspiration from nature. The drone that looks like a fly is both machine and bug. The Madagascar hissing cockroach robot doesn’t just perfectly mimic the attributes that allow cockroaches to withstand radiation and poisonous air: it is a real life animal, and it is also a mechanical creature controlled remotely. These are tiny cyborgs, though even tinier ones exist, involving microbes like bacteria or even a type of white blood cell. Like fictional police officer Alex Murphy who is remade into RoboCop, these real-life cyborgs act via algorithms rather than free will.

Even as the technology for the creation of biohybrids, of which cyborgs are just the most ethically fraught category, has advanced in leaps and bounds, separate research on animal consciousness has been revealing the basis for considering insects just as we might other animals. (If you look at a tree of life, you will see that insects are indeed animals and therefore share part of our evolutionary history: even our nervous systems are not completely alien to theirs). Do we have the right to turn insects into cyborgs that we can control to do our bidding, including our military bidding, if they feel pain or have preferences or anxieties?

… the boundaries that keep an insect — a hawkmoth or cockroach, in one such project — under human control can be invisibly and automatically generated from the very backpack it wears, with researchers nudging it with neurostimulation pulses to guide it back within the boundaries of its invisible fence if it tries to stray away.

As a society, you can’t really say we’ve spent significant time considering the ethics of taking a living creature and using it literally as a machine, although reporter Ariel Yu, reviewing some of the factors to take into account in a 2024 story inspired by the backpack-wearing roaches, framed the ethical dilemma not in terms of the use of an animal as a machine — you could say using an ox to pull a cart is doing that — but specifically the fact that we’re now able to take direct control of an animal’s nervous system. Though as a society we haven’t really talked this through either, within the field of bioengineering, researchers are giving it some attention.

If it can be done to bugs and other creatures, why not us (ethics???)

The issues raised in Zwarenstein’s article could also be applied to humans. Given how I started this piece, ‘who owns a thought’ could become where did the thought come from? Could a brain-computer interface (BCI) enabled by AI be receiving thoughts from someone other than the person who has it implanted in their brain? And, if you’re the one with the BCI, how would you know? In short, could your BCI or other implant be hacked? That’s definitely a possibility researchers at Rice University (Texas, US) have prepared for according to my March 27, 2025 posting, “New security protocol to protect miniaturized wireless medical implants from cyberthreats.”

Even with no ‘interference’ and begging the question of corporate ownership, if all the thoughts weren’t ‘yours’, would you still be you?

Symbiosis and your implant

I have a striking excerpt from a September 17, 2020 post (Turning brain-controlled wireless electronic prostheses into reality plus some ethical points),

This was the most recent and most directly applicable work that I could find. From a July 24, 2019 article by Liam Drew for Nature Outlook: The brain,

“It becomes part of you,” Patient 6 said, describing the technology that enabled her, after 45 years of severe epilepsy, to halt her disabling seizures. Electrodes had been implanted on the surface of her brain that would send a signal to a hand-held device when they detected signs of impending epileptic activity. On hearing a warning from the device, Patient 6 knew to take a dose of medication to halt the coming seizure.

“You grow gradually into it and get used to it, so it then becomes a part of every day,” she told Frederic Gilbert, an ethicist who studies brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia. “It became me,” she said. [emphasis mine]

Gilbert was interviewing six people who had participated in the first clinical trial of a predictive BCI to help understand how living with a computer that monitors brain activity directly affects individuals psychologically1. Patient 6’s experience was extreme: Gilbert describes her relationship with her BCI as a “radical symbiosis”.

Symbiosis is a term, borrowed from ecology, that means an intimate co-existence of two species for mutual advantage. As technologists work towards directly connecting the human brain to computers, it is increasingly being used to describe humans’ potential relationship with artificial intelligence.

Interface technologies are divided into those that ‘read’ the brain to record brain activity and decode its meaning, and those that ‘write’ to the brain to manipulate activity in specific regions and affect their function.

Commercial research is opaque, but scientists at social-media platform Facebook are known to be pursuing brain-reading techniques for use in headsets that would convert users’ brain activity into text. And neurotechnology companies such as Kernel in Los Angeles, California, and Neuralink, founded by Elon Musk in San Francisco, California, predict bidirectional coupling in which computers respond to people’s brain activity and insert information into their neural circuitry. [emphasis mine]

This isn’t the first time I’ve used that excerpt or the first time I’ve waded into the ethics question regarding implants. For the curious, I mentioned the April 5, 2022 post “Going blind when your neural implant company flirts with bankruptcy (long read)” earlier and there’s a February 23, 2024 post “Neural (brain) implants and hype (long read)” as well as others.

So, who does own a thought?

Hayles’ notion of assemblages puts into question the notion of a ‘self’ or, if you will, an ‘I’. (Segue: Hayles will be in Toronto for the Who’s Afraid of AI? Arts, Sciences, and the Futures of Intelligence conference, October 23 – 24, 2025.) More questions have been raised with some of the older research about our relationships with AI: (1) see my December 3, 2021 posting “True love with AI (artificial intelligence): The Nature of Things explores emotional and creative AI (long read)” and newer research (2) see my upcoming post “A collaborating robot as part of your “extended” body.”

While I seem to have wandered into labyrinthine philosophical questions, I suspect lawyers will work towards more concrete definitions so that any questions that arise such as ‘who owns a thought’ can be argued and resolved in court.

It’s a golden world

I have a number of stories concerning gold where researchers seemed to have had an extraordinarily rich set of findings within the last month. One of these is especially interesting in light of what I published yesterday (August 11, 2025 “Turning lead into gold (for approximately a microsecond“) about an event in May 2025.

I will be providing my usual citations and links but will not be tagging all the researchers (there are far too many) other than those mentioned in the news releases.

Two from SLAC (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, originally named the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California)

While both projects took place at SLAC, there’s virtually no crossover between the team members and the findings are of an entirely different nature.

Defying the limits and surviving the entropy catastrophe

An August 11, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily announces that physics limits have been defied,

Scientists have simultaneously broken a temperature record, overturned a long-held theory and utilized a new laser spectroscopy method for dense plasmas in a groundbreaking article published on July 23 in the journal Nature.

In their research article, “Superheating gold beyond the predicted entropy catastrophe threshold,” physicists revealed they were able to heat gold to over 19,000 Kelvin (33,740 degrees Fahrenheit), over 14 times its melting point, without it losing its solid, crystalline structure.

A July 23, 2025 University of Nevada news release, which originated the news item, delves further into the topic,

“This is possibly the hottest crystalline material ever recorded,” Thomas White, lead author and Clemons-Magee Endowed Professor in Physics at the University of Nevada, Reno said.

This result overturns the long-held theoretical limit known as the entropy catastrophe. The entropy catastrophe theory states that solids cannot remain stable above approximately three times their melting temperature without spontaneously melting. The melting point of gold, 1,337 Kelvin (1,947 degrees Fahrenheit), was far more than tripled in this experiment utilizing an extremely powerful laser at Stanford University’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

“I was expecting the gold to heat quite significantly before melting, but I wasn’t expecting a fourteen-fold temperature increase,” White said.

To heat the gold, researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Oxford, Queen’s University Belfast, the European XFEL and the University of Warwick designed an experiment to heat a thin gold foil using a laser fired for 50 quadrillionths of a second (one millionth of a billionth). The speed with which the gold was heated seems to be the reason the gold remained solid. The findings suggest that the limit of superheating solids may be far higher – or nonexistent – if heating occurs quickly enough. The new methods used in this study open the field of high energy density physics to more exploration, including in areas of planetary physics and fusion energy research.

White and his team expected that the gold would melt at its melting point, but to measure the temperature inside the gold foil, they would need a very special thermometer.

“We used the Linac Coherent Light Source, a 3-kilometer-long X-ray laser at SLAC, as essentially the world’s largest thermometer,” White said. “This allowed us to measure the temperature inside the dense plasma for the first time, something that hasn’t been possible before.”

“This development paves the way for temperature diagnostics across a broad range of high-energy-density environments,” Bob Nagler, staff scientist at SLAC and coauthor on the paper, said. “In particular, it offers the only direct method currently available for probing the temperature of warm dense states encountered during the implosion phase of inertial fusion energy experiments. As such, it is poised to make a transformative contribution to our understanding and control of fusion-relevant plasma conditions.”

Along with the experimental designers, the research article is the result of a decade of work and collaboration between Columbia University, Princeton University, the University of Padova and the University of California, Merced.

“It’s extremely exciting to have these results out in the world, and I’m really looking forward to seeing what strides we can make in the field with these new methods,” White said.

The research, funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration, will open new doors in studies of superheated materials.

“The National Nuclear Security Administrations’ Academics Program is a proud supporter of the groundbreaking innovation and continued learning that Dr. White and his team are leading for furthering future critical research areas beneficial to the Nuclear Security Enterprise,” Jahleel Hudson, director at the Techology and Partnerships Office of the NNSA said.

White and his colleagues returned to the Linac Coherent Light Source in July to measure the temperature inside hot compressed iron and are using those results to gain insights into the interiors of planets.

Several of White’s graduate students and one undergraduate student were coauthors on the study, including doctoral student Travis Griffin, undergraduate student Hunter Stramel, Daniel Haden, a former postdoctoral scholar in White’s lab, Jacob Molina, a former undergraduate student currently pursuing his doctoral degree at Princeton University and Landon Morrison, a former undergraduate student pursuing his master’s degree at the University of Oxford. Jeremy Iratcabal, research assistant professor in the Department of Physics, was also a coauthor on the paper.

“I’m incredibly grateful for the opportunity to contribute to such cutting-edge science using billion-dollar experimental platforms alongside world-class collaborators,” Griffin said. “This discovery highlights the power of this technique, and I’m excited by the possibilities it opens for the future of high-energy-density physics and fusion research. After graduation, I’ll be continuing this work as a staff scientist at the European XFEL.”

SLAC issued a July 23, 2025 news release (by Erin Woodward) of its own and UK’s University of Warwick also issued a July 23, 2025.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Superheating gold beyond the predicted entropy catastrophe threshold by Thomas G. White, Travis D. Griffin, Daniel Haden, Hae Ja Lee, Eric Galtier, Eric Cunningham, Dimitri Khaghani, Adrien Descamps, Lennart Wollenweber, Ben Armentrout, Carson Convery, Karen Appel, Luke B. Fletcher, Sebastian Goede, J. B. Hastings, Jeremy Iratcabal, Emma E. McBride, Jacob Molina, Giulio Monaco, Landon Morrison, Hunter Stramel, Sameen Yunus, Ulf Zastrau, Siegfried H. Glenzer, Gianluca Gregori, Dirk O. Gericke & Bob Nagler. Nature volume 643, pages 950–954 (2025) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09253-y Published: 23 July 2025 Issue Date: 24 July 2025

This paper is open access.

Gold’s secret chemistry

An August 11, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily announces how researchers at SLAC unexpectedly created gold hydride,

Scientists at SLAC unexpectedly created gold hydride, a compound of gold and hydrogen, while studying diamond formation under extreme pressure and heat. This discovery challenges gold’s reputation as a chemically unreactive metal and opens doors to studying dense hydrogen, which could help us understand planetary interiors and fusion processes. The results also suggest that extreme conditions can produce exotic, previously unknown compounds, offering exciting opportunities for future high-pressure chemistry research.

Serendipitously and for the first time, an international research team led by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory formed solid binary gold hydride, a compound made exclusively of gold and hydrogen atoms.

An August 4, 2025 SLAC news release by Chris Patrick, which originated the news release, provides more details, Note: Links have been removed,

The researchers were studying how long it takes hydrocarbons, compounds made of carbon and hydrogen, to form diamonds under extremely high pressure and heat. In their experiments at the European XFEL (X-ray Free-Electron Laser) in Germany, the team studied the effect of those extreme conditions in hydrocarbon samples with an embedded gold foil, which was meant to absorb the X-rays and heat the weakly absorbing hydrocarbons. To their surprise, they not only saw the formation of diamonds, but also discovered the formation of gold hydride. 

“It was unexpected because gold is typically chemically very boring and unreactive – that’s why we use it as an X-ray absorber in these experiments,” said Mungo Frost, staff scientist at SLAC who led the study. “These results suggest there’s potentially a lot of new chemistry to be discovered at extreme conditions where the effects of temperature and pressure start competing with conventional chemistry, and you can form these exotic compounds.”

The results, published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition, provide a glimpse of how the rules of chemistry change under extreme conditions like those found inside certain planets or hydrogen-fusing stars.

Studying dense hydrogen

In their experiment, the researchers first squeezed their hydrocarbon samples to pressures greater than those within Earth’s mantle using a diamond anvil cell. Then, they heated the samples to over 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit by hitting them repeatedly with X-ray pulses from the European XFEL. The team recorded and analyzed how the X-rays scattered off the samples, which allowed them to resolve the structural transformations within.

As expected, the recorded scattering patterns showed that the carbon atoms had formed a diamond structure. But the team also saw unexpected signals that were due to hydrogen atoms reacting with the gold foil to form gold hydride. 

Under the extreme conditions created in the study, the researchers found hydrogen to be in a dense, “superionic” state, where the hydrogen atoms flowed freely through the gold’s rigid atomic lattice, increasing the conductivity of the gold hydride. 

Hydrogen, which is the lightest element of the periodic table, is tricky to study with X-rays because it scatters X-rays only weakly. Here, however, the superionic hydrogen interacted with the much heavier gold atoms, and the team was able to observe hydrogen’s impact on how the gold lattice scattered X-rays. “We can use the gold lattice as a witness for what the hydrogen is doing,” Mungo said. 

The gold hydride offers a way to study dense atomic hydrogen under conditions that might also apply to other situations that are experimentally not directly accessible. For example, dense hydrogen makes up the interiors of certain planets, so studying it in the lab could teach us more about those foreign worlds. It could also provide new insights into nuclear fusion processes inside stars like our sun and help develop technology to harness fusion energy here on Earth.

Exploring new chemistry

In addition to paving the way for studies of dense hydrogen, the research also offers an avenue for exploring new chemistry. Gold, which is commonly regarded as an unreactive metal, was found to form a stable hydride at extremely high pressure and temperature. In fact, it appears to be only stable at those extreme conditions as when it cools down, the gold and hydrogen separate. The simulations also showed that more hydrogen could fit in the gold lattice at higher pressure.

The simulation framework could also be extended beyond gold hydride. “It’s important that we can experimentally produce and model these states under these extreme conditions,” said Siegfried Glenzer, High Energy Density Division director and professor for photon science at SLAC and the study’s principal investigator. “These simulation tools could be applied to model other exotic material properties in extreme conditions.” 

The team also included researchers from Rostock University, DESY, European XFEL, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Frankfurt University and Bayreuth University, all in Germany; the University of Edinburgh, UK; the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University and the Stanford Institute for Materials and Energy Sciences (SIMES). Parts of this work were supported by the DOE Office of Science.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Synthesis of Gold Hydride at High Pressure and High Temperature by Mungo Frost, Kilian Abraham, Alexander F. Goncharov, R. Stewart McWilliams, Rachel J. Husband, Michal Andrzejewski, Karen Appel, Carsten Baehtz, Armin Bergermann, Danielle Brown, Elena Bykova, Anna Celeste, Eric Edmund, Nicholas J. Hartley, Konstantin Glazyrin, Heinz Graafsma, Nicolas Jaisle, Zuzana Konôpková, Torsten Laurus, Yu Lin, Bernhard Massani, Maximilian Schörner, Maximilian Schulze, Cornelius Strohm, Minxue Tang, Zena Younes, Gerd Steinle-Neumann, Ronald Redmer, Siegfried H. Glenzer. Angewandte Chemie International Edition DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202505811 First published: 04 August 2025

This paper is behind a paywall.

Gold and a quantum revolution?

An August 11, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily announces joint research from Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) and Colorado State University,

The efficiency of quantum computers, sensors and other applications often relies on the properties of electrons, including how they are spinning. One of the most accurate systems for high performance quantum applications relies on tapping into the spin properties of electrons of atoms trapped in a gas, but these systems are difficult to scale up for use in larger quantum devices like quantum computers. Now, a team of researchers from Penn State and Colorado State has demonstrated how a gold cluster can mimic these gaseous, trapped atoms, allowing scientists to take advantage of these spin properties in a system that can be easily scaled up.

A July 22, 2025 Penn State news release (also on EurekAlert) by Gail McCormick, which originated the news item, reveals more about the work which resulted in two published papers, Note: Links have been removed,

“For the first time, we show that gold nanoclusters have the same key spin properties as the current state-of-the-art methods for quantum information systems,” said Ken Knappenberger, department head and professor of chemistry in the Penn State Eberly College of Science and leader of the research team. “Excitingly, we can also manipulate an important property called spin polarization in these clusters, which is usually fixed in a material. These clusters can be easily synthesized in relatively large quantities, making this work a promising proof-of-concept that gold clusters could be used to support a variety of quantum applications.”

Two papers describing the gold clusters and confirming their spin properties appeared in ACS Central Science, ACS Central Science and The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters.

“An electron’s spin not only influences important chemical reactions, but also quantum applications like computation and sensing,” said Nate Smith, graduate student in chemistry in the Penn State Eberly College of Science and first author of one of the papers. “The direction an electron spins and its alignment with respect to other electrons in the system can directly impact the accuracy and longevity of quantum information systems.”

Much like the Earth spins around its axis, which is tilted with respect to the sun, an electron can spin around its axis, which can be tilted with respect to its nucleus. But unlike Earth, an electron can spin clockwise or counterclockwise. When many electrons in a material are spinning in the same direction and their tilts are aligned, the electrons are considered correlated, and the material is said to have a high degree of spin polarization. 

“Materials with electrons that are highly correlated, with a high degree of spin polarization, can maintain this correlation for a much longer time, and thus remain accurate for much longer,” Smith said.

The current state-of-the-art system for high accuracy and low error in quantum information systems involve trapped atomic ions — atoms with an electric charge — in a gaseous state. This system allows electrons to be excited to different energy levels, called Rydberg states, which have very specific spin polarizations that can last for a long period of time. It also allows for the superposition of electrons, with electrons existing in multiple states simultaneously until they are measured, which is a key property for quantum systems. 

“These trapped gaseous ions are by nature dilute, which makes them very difficult to scale up,” Knappenberger said. “The condensed phase required for a solid material, by definition, packs atoms together, losing that dilute nature. So, scaling up provides all the right electronic ingredients, but these systems become very sensitive to interference from the environment. The environment basically scrambles all the information that you encoded into the system, so the rate of error becomes very high. In this study, we found that gold clusters can mimic all the best properties of the trapped gaseous ions with the benefit of scalability.”

Scientists have heavily studied gold nanostructures for their potential use in optical technology, sensing, therapeutics and to speed up chemical reactions, but less is known about their magnetic and spin-dependent properties. In the current studies, the researchers specifically explored monolayer-protected clusters, which have a core of gold and are surrounded by other molecules called ligands. The researchers can precisely control the construction of these clusters and can synthesize relatively large amounts at one time. 

“These clusters are referred to as super atoms, because their electronic character is like that of an atom, and now we know their spin properties are also similar,” Smith said. “We identified 19 distinguishable and unique Rydberg-like spin-polarized states that mimic the super-positions that we could do in the trapped, gas-phase dilute ions. This means the clusters have the key properties needed to carry out spin-based operations.”

The researchers determined the spin polarization of the gold clusters using a similar method used with traditional atoms. While one type of gold cluster had 7% spin polarization, a cluster with different a ligand approached 40% spin polarization, which Knappenberger said is competitive with some of the leading two-dimensional quantum materials.

“This tells us that the spin properties of the electron are intimately related to the vibrations of the ligands,” Knappenberger said. “Traditionally, quantum materials have a fixed value of spin polarization that cannot be significantly changed, but our results suggest we can modify the ligand of these gold clusters to tune this property widely.”

The research team plans to explore how different structures within the ligands impact spin polarization and how they could be manipulated to fine tune spin properties.

“The quantum field is generally dominated by researchers in physics and materials science, and here we see the opportunity for chemists to use our synthesis skills to design materials with tunable results,” Knappenberger said. “This is a new frontier in quantum information science.”

In addition to Smith and Knappenberger, the research team includes Juniper Foxley, graduate student in chemistry at Penn State; Patrick Herbert, who earned a doctoral degree in chemistry at Penn State in 2019; Jane Knappenberger, researcher in the Penn State Eberly College of Science; as well as Marcus Tofanelli and Christopher Ackerson at Colorado State

Funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the U.S. National Science Foundation supported this research.

At Penn State, researchers are solving real problems that impact the health, safety and quality of life of people across the commonwealth, the nation and around the world.

For decades, federal support for research has fueled innovation that makes our country safer, our industries more competitive and our economy stronger. Recent federal funding cuts threaten this progress.

Learn more about the implications of federal funding cuts to our future at Research or Regress. [Research or Regress can found here]

Here are links to and citation for the paper,

The Influence of Passivating Ligand Identity on Au25(SR)18 Spin-Polarized Emission by Nathanael L. Smith, Patrick J. Herbert, Marcus A. Tofanelli, Jane A. Knappenberger, Christopher J. Ackerson, Kenneth L. Knappenberger Jr. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2025, 16, 20, 5168–5172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c00723 Published May 15, 2025 Copyright © 2025 American Chemical Society

This paper is behind a paywall.

Diverse Superatomic Magnetic and Spin Properties of Au144(SC8H9)60 Clusters by Juniper Foxley, Marcus Tofanelli, Jane A. Knappenberger, Christopher J. Ackerson, Kenneth L. Knappenberger Jr ACS Central Science 2025, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.5c00139
Published May 29, 2025 © 2025 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 .

This paper is open access.

Lead into gold, the second time around

There are reasons why news releases are issued twice and/or months after a research paper was published. Whoever is scanning for news may have missed it or it was a big news day and science was not top of mind or e.g., a number of teams are publishing research in your field and are generating a lot of interest and you hope your institution will benefit from it.

This August 11, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily resuscitates a story from May 2025,

Nuclear physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider recently made headlines by achieving the centuries-old dream of alchemists (and nightmare of precious-metals investors): They transformed lead into gold.

At least for a fraction of a second. The scientists reported their results in Physical Reviews.

The accomplishment at the Large Hadron Collider, the 17-mile particle accelerator buried under the French-Swiss border, happened within a sophisticated and sensitive detector called ALICE, a scientific instrument roughly the size of a McMansion.

A July 30, 2025 University of Kansas news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the August 11, 2025 news item, adds new details about the work, Note: A link has been removed,

It was scientists from the University of Kansas, working on the ALICE experiment, who developed the technique that tracked “ultra-peripheral” collisions between protons and ions that made gold in the LHC.

“Usually in collider experiments, we make the particles crash into each other to produce lots of debris,” said Daniel Tapia Takaki, professor of physics and leader of KU’s group at ALICE. “But in ultra-peripheral collisions, we’re interested in what happens when the particles don’t hit each other. These are near misses. The ions pass close enough to interact — but without touching. There’s no physical overlap.”

The ions racing around the LHC tunnel are heavy nuclei with many protons, each generating powerful electric fields. When accelerated, these charged ions emit photons — they shine light.

“When you accelerate an electric charge to near light speeds, it starts shining,” Tapia Takaki said. “One ion can shine light that essentially takes a picture of the other. When that light is energetic enough, it can probe deep inside the other nucleus, like a high-energy flashbulb.”

The KU researcher said during these UPC “flashes” surprising interactions can occur, including the rate event that sparked worldwide attention.

“Sometimes, the photons from both ions interact with each other — what we call photon-photon collisions,” he said. “These events are incredibly clean, with almost nothing else produced. They contrast with typical collisions where we see sprays of particles flying everywhere.”

However, the ALICE detector and the LHC were designed to collect data on head-on collisions that result in messy sprays of particles.

“These clean interactions were hard to detect with earlier setups,” Tapia Takaki said. “Our group at KU pioneered new techniques to study them. We built up this expertise years ago when it was not a popular subject.”

These methods allowed for the news-making discovery that the LHC team transmuted lead into gold momentarily via ultra-peripheral collisions where lead ions lose three protons (turning the speck of lead into a gold speck) for a fraction of a second.

Tapia Takaki’s KU co-authors on the paper are graduate student Anna Binoy; graduate student Amrit Gautam; postdoctoral researcher Tommaso Isidori; postdoctoral research assistant Anisa Khatun; and research scientist Nicola Minafra.

The KU team at the LHC ALICE experiment plans to continue studying the ultra-peripheral collisions. Tapia Takaki said that while the creation of gold fascinated the public, the potential of understanding the interactions goes deeper.

“This light is so energetic, it can knock protons out of the nucleus,” he said. “Sometimes one, sometimes two, three or even four protons. We can see these ejected protons directly with our detectors.”

Each proton removed changes the elements: One gives thallium, two gives mercury, three gives gold.

“These new nuclei are very short-lived,” he said. “They decay quickly, but not always immediately. Sometimes they travel along the beamline and hit parts of the collider — triggering safety systems.”

That’s why this research matters beyond the headlines.

“With proposals for future colliders even larger than the LHC — some up to 100 kilometers in Europe and China — you need to understand these nuclear byproducts,” Tapia Takaki said. “This ‘alchemy’ may be crucial for designing the next generation of machines.”

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics.

Here’s a new link and citation, which includes each team member’s name, for the paper,

Proton emission in ultraperipheral Pb-Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV by S. Acharya, A. Agarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella, L. Aglietta, M. Agnello, N. Agrawal, Z. Ahammed, S. Ahmad, S. U. Ahn, I. Ahuja, A. Akindinov, V. Akishina, M. Al-Turany, D. Aleksandrov, B. Alessandro, H. M. Alfanda, R. Alfaro Molina, B. Ali, A. Alici, N. Alizadehvandchali, A. Alkin, J. Alme, G. Alocco, T. Alt, A. R. Altamura, I. Altsybeev, J. R. Alvarado, C. O. R. Alvarez, M. N. Anaam, C. Andrei, N. Andreou, A. Andronic, E. Andronov, V. Anguelov, F. Antinori, P. Antonioli, N. Apadula, L. Aphecetche, H. Appelshäuser, C. Arata, S. Arcelli, R. Arnaldi, J. G. M. C. A. Arneiro, I. C. Arsene, M. Arslandok, A. Augustinus, R. Averbeck, D. Averyanov, M. D. Azmi, H. Baba, A. Badalà, J. Bae, Y. Bae, Y. W. Baek, X. Bai, R. Bailhache, Y. Bailung, R. Bala, A. Baldisseri, B. Balis, Z. Banoo, V. Barbasova, F. Barile, L. Barioglio, M. Barlou, B. Barman, G. G. Barnaföldi, L. S. Barnby, E. Barreau, V. Barret, L. Barreto, C. Bartels, K. Barth, E. Bartsch, N. Bastid, S. Basu, G. Batigne, D. Battistini, B. Batyunya, D. Bauri, J. L. Bazo Alba, I. G. Bearden, C. Beattie, P. Becht, D. Behera, I. Belikov, A. D. C. Bell Hechavarria, F. Bellini, R. Bellwied, S. Belokurova, L. G. E. Beltran, Y. A. V. Beltran, G. Bencedi, A. Bensaoula, S. Beole, Y. Berdnikov, A. Berdnikova, L. Bergmann, M. G. Besoiu, L. Betev, P. P. Bhaduri, A. Bhasin, B. Bhattacharjee, L. Bianchi, J. Bielčík, J. Bielčíková, A. P. Bigot, A. Bilandzic, A. Binoy, G. Biro, S. Biswas, N. Bize, J. T. Blair, D. Blau, M. B. Blidaru, N. Bluhme, C. Blume, F. Bock, T. Bodova, J. Bok, L. Boldizsár, M. Bombara, P. M. Bond, G. Bonomi, H. Borel, A. Borissov, A. G. Borquez Carcamo, E. Botta, Y. E. M. Bouziani, D. C. Brandibur, L. Bratrud, P. Braun-Munzinger, M. Bregant, M. Broz, G. E. Bruno, V. D. Buchakchiev, M. D. Buckland, D. Budnikov, H. Buesching, S. Bufalino, P. Buhler, N. Burmasov, Z. Buthelezi, A. Bylinkin, S. A. Bysiak, J. C. Cabanillas Noris, M. F. T. Cabrera, H. Caines, A. Caliva, E. Calvo Villar, J. M. M. Camacho, P. Camerini, F. D. M. Canedo, S. L. Cantway, M. Carabas, A. A. Carballo, F. Carnesecchi, R. Caron, L. A. D. Carvalho, J. Castillo Castellanos, M. Castoldi, F. Catalano, S. Cattaruzzi, R. Cerri, I. Chakaberia, P. Chakraborty, S. Chandra, S. Chapeland, M. Chartier, S. Chattopadhay, M. Chen, T. Cheng, C. Cheshkov, D. Chiappara, V. Chibante Barroso, D. D. Chinellato, E. S. Chizzali, J. Cho, S. Cho, P. Chochula, Z. A. Chochulska, D. Choudhury, S. Choudhury, P. Christakoglou, C. H. Christensen, P. Christiansen, T. Chujo, M. Ciacco, C. Cicalo, F. Cindolo, M. R. Ciupek, G. Clai, F. Colamaria, J. S. Colburn, D. Colella, A. Colelli, M. Colocci, M. Concas, G. Conesa Balbastre, Z. Conesa del Valle, G. Contin, J. G. Contreras, M. L. Coquet, P. Cortese, M. R. Cosentino, F. Costa, S. Costanza, P. Crochet, M. M. Czarnynoga, A. Dainese, G. Dange, M. C. Danisch, A. Danu, P. Das, S. Das, A. R. Dash, S. Dash, A. De Caro, G. de Cataldo, J. de Cuveland, A. De Falco, D. De Gruttola, N. De Marco, C. De Martin, S. De Pasquale, R. Deb, R. Del Grande, L. Dello Stritto, W. Deng, K. C. Devereaux, G. G. A. de Souza, P. Dhankher, D. Di Bari, A. Di Mauro, B. Di Ruzza, B. Diab, R. A. Diaz, Y. Ding, J. Ditzel, R. Divià, Ø. Djuvsland, U. Dmitrieva, A. Dobrin, B. Dönigus, J. M. Dubinski, A. Dubla, P. Dupieux, N. Dzalaiova, T. M. Eder, R. J. Ehlers, F. Eisenhut, R. Ejima, D. Elia, B. Erazmus, F. Ercolessi, B. Espagnon, G. Eulisse, D. Evans, S. Evdokimov, L. Fabbietti, M. Faggin, J. Faivre, F. Fan, W. Fan, A. Fantoni, M. Fasel, G. Feofilov, A. Fernández Téllez, L. Ferrandi, M. B. Ferrer, A. Ferrero, C. Ferrero, A. Ferretti, V. J. G. Feuillard, V. Filova, D. Finogeev, F. M. Fionda, E. Flatland, F. Flor, A. N. Flores, S. Foertsch, I. Fokin, S. Fokin, U. Follo, E. Fragiacomo, E. Frajna, U. Fuchs, N. Funicello, C. Furget, A. Furs, T. Fusayasu, J. J. Gaardhøje, M. Gagliardi, A. M. Gago, T. Gahlaut, C. D. Galvan, S. Gami, D. R. Gangadharan, P. Ganoti, C. Garabatos, J. M. Garcia, T. García Chávez, E. Garcia-Solis, S. Garetti, C. Gargiulo, P. Gasik, H. M. Gaur, A. Gautam, M. B. Gay Ducati, M. Germain, R. A. Gernhaeuser, C. Ghosh, M. Giacalone, G. Gioachin, S. K. Giri, P. Giubellino, P. Giubilato, A. M. C. Glaenzer, P. Glässel, E. Glimos, D. J. Q. Goh, V. Gonzalez, P. Gordeev, M. Gorgon, K. Goswami, S. Gotovac, V. Grabski, L. K. Graczykowski, E. Grecka, A. Grelli, C. Grigoras, V. Grigoriev, S. Grigoryan, F. Grosa, J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus, R. Grosso, D. Grund, N. A. Grunwald, G. G. Guardiano, R. Guernane, M. Guilbaud, K. Gulbrandsen, J. J. W. K. Gumprecht, T. Gündem, T. Gunji, W. Guo, A. Gupta, R. Gupta, R. Gupta, K. Gwizdziel, L. Gyulai, C. Hadjidakis, F. U. Haider, S. Haidlova, M. Haldar, H. Hamagaki, Y. Han, B. G. Hanley, R. Hannigan, J. Hansen, M. R. Haque, J. W. Harris, A. Harton, M. V. Hartung, H. Hassan, D. Hatzifotiadou, P. Hauer, L. B. Havener, E. Hellbär, H. Helstrup, M. Hemmer, T. Herman, S. G. Hernandez, G. Herrera Corral, S. Herrmann, K. F. Hetland, B. Heybeck, H. Hillemanns, B. Hippolyte, I. P. M. Hobus, F. W. Hoffmann, B. Hofman, M. Horst, A. Horzyk, Y. Hou, P. Hristov, P. Huhn, L. M. Huhta, T. J. Humanic, A. Hutson, D. Hutter, M. C. Hwang, R. Ilkaev, M. Inaba, G. M. Innocenti, M. Ippolitov, A. Isakov, T. Isidori, M. S. Islam, S. Iurchenko, M. Ivanov, M. Ivanov, V. Ivanov, K. E. Iversen, M. Jablonski, B. Jacak, N. Jacazio, P. M. Jacobs, S. Jadlovska, J. Jadlovsky, S. Jaelani, C. Jahnke, M. J. Jakubowska, M. A. Janik, T. Janson, S. Ji, S. Jia, T. Jiang, A. A. P. Jimenez, F. Jonas, D. M. Jones, J. M. Jowett, J. Jung, M. Jung, A. Junique, A. Jusko, J. Kaewjai, P. Kalinak, A. Kalweit, A. Karasu Uysal, D. Karatovic, N. Karatzenis, O. Karavichev, T. Karavicheva, E. Karpechev, M. J. Karwowska, U. Kebschull, M. Keil, B. Ketzer, J. Keul, S. S. Khade, A. M. Khan, S. Khan, A. Khanzadeev, Y. Kharlov, A. Khatun, A. Khuntia, Z. Khuranova, B. Kileng, B. Kim, C. Kim, D. J. Kim, D. Kim, E. J. Kim, J. Kim, J. Kim, J. Kim, M. Kim, S. Kim, T. Kim, K. Kimura, S. Kirsch, I. Kisel, S. Kiselev, A. Kisiel, J. L. Klay, J. Klein, S. Klein, C. Klein-Bösing, M. Kleiner, T. Klemenz, A. Kluge, C. Kobdaj, R. Kohara, T. Kollegger, A. Kondratyev, N. Kondratyeva, J. Konig, S. A. Konigstorfer, P. J. Konopka, G. Kornakov, M. Korwieser, S. D. Koryciak, C. Koster, A. Kotliarov, N. Kovacic, V. Kovalenko, M. Kowalski, V. Kozhuharov, G. Kozlov, I. Králik, A. Kravčáková, L. Krcal, M. Krivda, F. Krizek, K. Krizkova Gajdosova, C. Krug, M. Krüger, D. M. Krupova, E. Kryshen, V. Kučera, C. Kuhn, P. G. Kuijer, T. Kumaoka, D. Kumar, L. Kumar, N. Kumar, S. Kumar, S. Kundu, P. Kurashvili, A. B. Kurepin, A. Kuryakin, S. Kushpil, V. Kuskov, M. Kutyla, A. Kuznetsov, M. J. Kweon, Y. Kwon, S. L. La Pointe, P. La Rocca, A. Lakrathok, M. Lamanna, S. Lambert, A. R. Landou, R. Langoy, P. Larionov, E. Laudi, L. Lautner, R. A. N. Laveaga, R. Lavicka, R. Lea, H. Lee, I. Legrand, G. Legras, J. Lehrbach, A. M. Lejeune, T. M. Lelek, R. C. Lemmon, I. León Monzón, M. M. Lesch, P. Lévai, M. Li, P. Li, X. Li, B. E. Liang-Gilman, J. Lien, R. Lietava, I. Likmeta, B. Lim, H. Lim, S. H. Lim, V. Lindenstruth, C. Lippmann, D. Liskova, D. H. Liu, J. Liu, G. S. S. Liveraro, I. M. Lofnes, C. Loizides, S. Lokos, J. Lömker, X. Lopez, E. López Torres, C. Lotteau, P. Lu, Z. Lu, F. V. Lugo, J. R. Luhder, G. Luparello, Y. G. Ma, M. Mager, A. Maire, E. M. Majerz, M. V. Makariev, M. Malaev, G. Malfattore, N. M. Malik, S. K. Malik, D. Mallick, N. Mallick, G. Mandaglio, S. K. Mandal, A. Manea, V. Manko, F. Manso, G. Mantzaridis, V. Manzari, Y. Mao, R. W. Marcjan, G. V. Margagliotti, A. Margotti, A. Marín, C. Markert, C. F. B. Marquez, P. Martinengo, M. I. Martínez, G. Martínez García, M. P. P. Martins, S. Masciocchi, M. Masera, A. Masoni, L. Massacrier, O. Massen, A. Mastroserio, S. Mattiazzo, A. Matyja, F. Mazzaschi, M. Mazzilli, Y. Melikyan, M. Melo, A. Menchaca-Rocha, J. E. M. Mendez, E. Meninno, A. S. Menon, M. W. Menzel, M. Meres, L. Micheletti, D. Mihai, D. L. Mihaylov, K. Mikhaylov, N. Minafra, D. Miśkowiec, A. Modak, B. Mohanty, M. Mohisin Khan, M. A. Molander, M. M. Mondal, S. Monira, C. Mordasini, D. A. Moreira De Godoy, I. Morozov, A. Morsch, T. Mrnjavac, V. Muccifora, S. Muhuri, J. D. Mulligan, A. Mulliri, M. G. Munhoz, R. H. Munzer, H. Murakami, S. Murray, L. Musa, J. Musinsky, J. W. Myrcha, B. Naik, A. I. Nambrath, B. K. Nandi, R. Nania, E. Nappi, A. F. Nassirpour, V. Nastase, A. Nath, S. Nath, C. Nattrass, M. N. Naydenov, A. Neagu, A. Negru, E. Nekrasova, L. Nellen, R. Nepeivoda, S. Nese, N. Nicassio, B. S. Nielsen, E. G. Nielsen, S. Nikolaev, V. Nikulin, F. Noferini, S. Noh, P. Nomokonov, J. Norman, N. Novitzky, A. Nyanin, J. Nystrand, M. R. Ockleton, S. Oh, A. Ohlson, V. A. Okorokov, J. Oleniacz, A. Onnerstad, C. Oppedisano, A. Ortiz Velasquez, J. Otwinowski, M. Oya, K. Oyama, S. Padhan, D. Pagano, G. Paić, S. Paisano-Guzmán, A. Palasciano, I. Panasenko, S. Panebianco, C. Pantouvakis, H. Park, J. Park, S. Park, J. E. Parkkila, Y. Patley, R. N. Patra, B. Paul, H. Pei, T. Peitzmann, X. Peng, M. Pennisi, S. Perciballi, D. Peresunko, G. M. Perez, Y. Pestov, M. T. Petersen, V. Petrov, M. Petrovici, S. Piano, M. Pikna, P. Pillot, O. Pinazza, L. Pinsky, C. Pinto, S. Pisano, M. Płoskoń, M. Planinic, D. K. Plociennik, M. G. Poghosyan, B. Polichtchouk, S. Politano, N. Poljak, A. Pop, S. Porteboeuf-Houssais, V. Pozdniakov, I. Y. Pozos, K. K. Pradhan, S. K. Prasad, S. Prasad, R. Preghenella, F. Prino, C. A. Pruneau, I. Pshenichnov, M. Puccio, S. Pucillo, S. Qiu, L. Quaglia, A. M. K. Radhakrishnan, S. Ragoni, A. Rai, A. Rakotozafindrabe, L. Ramello, M. Rasa, S. S. Räsänen, R. Rath, M. P. Rauch, I. Ravasenga, K. F. Read, C. Reckziegel, A. R. Redelbach, K. Redlich, C. A. Reetz, H. D. Regules-Medel, A. Rehman, F. Reidt, H. A. Reme-Ness, K. Reygers, A. Riabov, V. Riabov, R. Ricci, M. Richter, A. A. Riedel, W. Riegler, A. G. Riffero, M. Rignanese, C. Ripoli, C. Ristea, M. V. Rodriguez, M. Rodríguez Cahuantzi, S. A. Rodríguez Ramírez, K. Røed, R. Rogalev, E. Rogochaya, T. S. Rogoschinski, D. Rohr, D. Röhrich, S. Rojas Torres, P. S. Rokita, G. Romanenko, F. Ronchetti, E. D. Rosas, K. Roslon, A. Rossi, A. Roy, S. Roy, N. Rubini, J. A. Rudolph, D. Ruggiano, R. Rui, P. G. Russek, R. Russo, A. Rustamov, E. Ryabinkin, Y. Ryabov, A. Rybicki, J. Ryu, W. Rzesa, B. Sabiu, S. Sadovsky, J. Saetre, S. Saha, B. Sahoo, R. Sahoo, D. Sahu, P. K. Sahu, J. Saini, K. Sajdakova, S. Sakai, M. P. Salvan, S. Sambyal, D. Samitz, I. Sanna, T. B. Saramela, D. Sarkar, P. Sarma, V. Sarritzu, V. M. Sarti, M. H. P. Sas, S. Sawan, E. Scapparone, J. Schambach, H. S. Scheid, C. Schiaua, R. Schicker, F. Schlepper, A. Schmah, C. Schmidt, M. O. Schmidt, M. Schmidt, N. V. Schmidt, A. R. Schmier, J. Schoengarth, R. Schotter, A. Schröter, J. Schukraft, K. Schweda, G. Scioli, E. Scomparin, J. E. Seger, Y. Sekiguchi, D. Sekihata, M. Selina, I. Selyuzhenkov, S. Senyukov, J. J. Seo, D. Serebryakov, L. Serkin, L. Šerkšnytė, A. Sevcenco, T. J. Shaba, A. Shabetai, R. Shahoyan, A. Shangaraev, B. Sharma, D. Sharma, H. Sharma, M. Sharma, S. Sharma, S. Sharma, U. Sharma, A. Shatat, O. Sheibani, K. Shigaki, M. Shimomura, J. Shin, S. Shirinkin, Q. Shou, Y. Sibiriak, S. Siddhanta, T. Siemiarczuk, T. F. Silva, D. Silvermyr, T. Simantathammakul, R. Simeonov, B. Singh, B. Singh, K. Singh, R. Singh, R. Singh, S. Singh, V. K. Singh, V. Singhal, T. Sinha, B. Sitar, M. Sitta, T. B. Skaali, G. Skorodumovs, N. Smirnov, R. J. M. Snellings, E. H. Solheim, C. Sonnabend, J. M. Sonneveld, F. Soramel, A. B. Soto-Hernandez, R. Spijkers, I. Sputowska, J. Staa, J. Stachel, I. Stan, P. J. Steffanic, T. Stellhorn, S. F. Stiefelmaier, D. Stocco, I. Storehaug, N. J. Strangmann, P. Stratmann, S. Strazzi, A. Sturniolo, C. P. Stylianidis, A. A. P. Suaide, C. Suire, A. Suiu, M. Sukhanov, M. Suljic, R. Sultanov, V. Sumberia, S. Sumowidagdo, L. H. Tabares, S. F. Taghavi, J. Takahashi, G. J. Tambave, S. Tang, Z. Tang, J. D. Tapia Takaki, N. Tapus, L. A. Tarasovicova, M. G. Tarzila, A. Tauro, A. Tavira García, G. Tejeda Muñoz, L. Terlizzi, C. Terrevoli, S. Thakur, M. Thogersen, D. Thomas, A. Tikhonov, N. Tiltmann, A. R. Timmins, M. Tkacik, T. Tkacik, A. Toia, R. Tokumoto, S. Tomassini, K. Tomohiro, N. Topilskaya, M. Toppi, V. V. Torres, A. G. Torres Ramos, A. Trifiró, T. Triloki, A. S. Triolo, S. Tripathy, T. Tripathy, S. Trogolo, V. Trubnikov, W. H. Trzaska, T. P. Trzcinski, C. Tsolanta, R. Tu, A. Tumkin, R. Turrisi, T. S. Tveter, K. Ullaland, B. Ulukutlu, S. Upadhyaya, A. Uras, G. L. Usai, M. Vala, N. Valle, L. V. R. van Doremalen, M. van Leeuwen, C. A. van Veen, R. J. G. van Weelden, P. Vande Vyvre, D. Varga, Z. Varga, P. Vargas Torres, M. Vasileiou, A. Vasiliev, O. Vázquez Doce, O. Vazquez Rueda, V. Vechernin, P. Veen, E. Vercellin, R. Verma, R. Vértesi, M. Verweij, L. Vickovic, Z. Vilakazi, O. Villalobos Baillie, A. Villani, A. Vinogradov, T. Virgili, M. M. O. Virta, A. Vodopyanov, B. Volkel, M. A. Völkl, S. A. Voloshin, G. Volpe, B. von Haller, I. Vorobyev, N. Vozniuk, J. Vrláková, J. Wan, C. Wang, D. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, A. Wegrzynek, F. T. Weiglhofer, S. C. Wenzel, J. P. Wessels, P. K. Wiacek, J. Wiechula, J. Wikne, G. Wilk, J. Wilkinson, G. A. Willems, B. Windelband, M. Winn, J. R. Wright, W. Wu, Y. Wu, Z. Xiong, R. Xu, A. Yadav, A. K. Yadav, Y. Yamaguchi, S. Yang, S. Yano, E. R. Yeats, Z. Yin, I.-K. Yoo, J. H. Yoon, H. Yu, S. Yuan, A. Yuncu, V. Zaccolo, C. Zampolli, F. Zanone, N. Zardoshti, A. Zarochentsev, P. Závada, N. Zaviyalov, M. Zhalov, B. Zhang, C. Zhang, L. Zhang, M. Zhang, M. Zhang, S. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, M. Zhao, V. Zherebchevskii, Y. Zhi, D. Zhou, Y. Zhou, J. Zhu, S. Zhu, Y. Zhu, S. C. Zugravel, N. Zurlo. Physical Review C, 2025; 111 (5) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.111.054906

This paper is open access. A PDF version is available here. h/t to ScienceDaily for the complete list of names

Treating chronic wounds with water-powered dressings

These dressings have batteries activated by water that can then be used to heal chronic wounds. This August 7, 2024 news item on ScienceDaily introduces the research (details about the water-powered batteries and more follow in the news release),

Researchers have developed an inexpensive bandage that uses an electric field to promote healing in chronic wounds. In animal testing, wounds that were treated with these electric bandages healed 30% faster than wounds treated with conventional bandages.

Photo of a water-powered, electronics-free dressing (WPED) for electrical stimulation of wounds. Photo credit: Rajaram Kaveti.

An August 7, 2024 North Carolina State University (NCSU) news release (also on EurekAlert) by Matt Shipman, which originated the news item, provides more details about the bandages and about the problems the researchers are trying to solve, Note Links have been removed,

Chronic wounds are open wounds that heal slowly, if they heal at all. For example, sores that occur in some patients with diabetes are chronic wounds. These wounds are particularly problematic because they often recur after treatment and significantly increase the risk of amputation and death.

One of the challenges associated with chronic wounds is that existing treatment options are extremely expensive, which can create additional problems for patients.

“Our goal here was to develop a far less expensive technology that accelerates healing in patients with chronic wounds,” says Amay Bandodkar, co-corresponding author of the work and an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at North Carolina State University. “We also wanted to make sure that the technology is easy enough for people to use at home, rather than something that patients can only receive in clinical settings.”

“This project is part of a bigger DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] project to accelerate wound healing with personalized wound dressings,” says Sam Sia, co-corresponding author of the work and professor of biomedical engineering at Columbia University. “This collaborative project shows that these lightweight bandages, which can provide electrical stimulation simply by adding water, healed wounds faster than the control, at a similar rate as bulkier and more expensive wound treatment.” 

Specifically, the research team developed water-powered, electronics-free dressings (WPEDs) [emphasis mine], which are disposable wound dressings that have electrodes on one side and a small, biocompatible battery on the other. The dressing is applied to a patient so that the electrodes come into contact with the wound. A drop of water is then applied to the battery, activating it. Once activated, the bandage produces an electric field for several hours.

“That electric field is critical, because it’s well established that electric fields accelerate healing in chronic wounds,” says Rajaram Kaveti, co-first author of the study and a post-doctoral researcher at NC State.

The electrodes are designed in a way that allows them to bend with the bandage and conform to the surface of the chronic wounds, which are often deep and irregularly shaped.

“This ability to conform is critical, because we want the electric field to be directed from the periphery of the wound toward the wound’s center,” says Kaveti. “In order to focus the electric field effectively, you want electrodes to be in contact with the patient at both the periphery and center of the wound itself. And since these wounds can be asymmetrical and deep, you need to have electrodes that can conform to a wide variety of surface features.”

“We tested the wound dressings in diabetic mice, which are a commonly used model for human wound healing,” says Maggie Jakus, co-first author of the study and a graduate student at Columbia. “We found that the electrical stimulation from the device sped up the rate of wound closure, promoted new blood vessel formation, and reduced inflammation, all of which point to overall improved wound healing.” 

Specifically, the researchers found that mice who received treatment with WPEDs healed about 30% faster than mice who received conventional bandages.

“But it is equally important that these bandages can be produced at relatively low cost – we’re talking about a couple of dollars per dressing in overhead costs.” says Bandodkar.

“Diabetic foot ulceration is a serious problem that can lead to lower extremity amputations,” says Aristidis Veves, a co-author of the study and professor of surgery at Beth Israel Deaconess Center. “There is urgent need for new therapeutic approaches, as the last one that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration was developed more than 25 years ago. My team is very lucky to participate in this project that investigates innovative and efficient new techniques that have the potential to revolutionize the management of diabetic foot ulcers.”

In addition, the WPEDs can be applied quickly and easily. And once applied, patients can move around and take part in daily activities. This functionality means that patients can receive treatment at home and are more likely to comply with treatment. In other words, patients are less likely to skip treatment sessions or take shortcuts, since they aren’t required to come to a clinic or remain immobile for hours.

“Next steps for us include additional work to fine-tune our ability to reduce fluctuations in the electric field and extend the duration of the field. We are also moving forward with additional testing that will get us closer to clinical trials and – ultimately – practical use that can help people,” says Bandodkar. 

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Water-powered, electronics-free dressings that electrically stimulate wounds for rapid wound closure by Rajaram Kaveti, Margaret A. Jakus, Henry Chen, Bhavya Jain, Darragh G. Kennedy, Elizabeth A. Caso, Navya Mishra, Nivesh Sharma, Baha Erim Uzunoğlu, Won Bae Han, Tae-Min Jang, Suk-Won Hwang, Georgios Theocharidis, Brandon J. Sumpio, Aristidis Veves, Samuel K. Sia, and Amay J. Bandodkar. Science Advances 7 Aug 2024 Vol 10, Issue 32 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.ado7538

This paper is open access.

A kintsugi approach to fusion energy: seeing the beauty (strength) in your flaws

Kintsugi is the Japanese word for a type of repair that is also art. “Golden joinery” is the literal meaning of the word, from the Traditional Kyoto. Culture_Kintsugi webpage,

Caption: An example of kintsugi repair by David Pike. (Photo courtesy of David Pike) [downloaded from https://traditionalkyoto.com/culture/kintsugi/]

A March 5, 2024 news item on phys.org links the art of kintsugi to fusion energy, specifically, managing plasma, Note: Links have been removed,

In the Japanese art of Kintsugi, an artist takes the broken shards of a bowl and fuses them back together with gold to make a final product more beautiful than the original.

That idea is inspiring a new approach to managing plasma, the super-hot state of matter, for use as a power source. Scientists are using the imperfections in magnetic fields that confine a reaction to improve and enhance the plasma in an approach outlined in a paper in the journal Nature Communications.

A March 5, 2024 Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, describes the research in more detail, Note: Links have been removed,

“This approach allows you to maintain a high-performance plasma, controlling instabilities in the core and the edge of the plasma simultaneously. That simultaneous control is particularly important and difficult to do. That’s what makes this work special,” said Joseph Snipes of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). He is PPPL’s deputy head of the Tokamak Experimental Science Department and was a co-author of the paper.

PPPL Physicist Seong-Moo Yang led the research team, which spans various institutions in the U.S. and South Korea. Yang says this is the first time any research team has validated a systematic approach to tailoring magnetic field imperfections to make the plasma suitable for use as a power source. These magnetic field imperfections are known as error fields. 

“Our novel method identifies optimal error field corrections, enhancing plasma stability,” Yang said. “This method was proven to enhance plasma stability under different plasma conditions, for example, when the plasma was under conditions of high and low magnetic confinement.”

Errors that are hard to correct

Error fields are typically caused by minuscule defects in the magnetic coils of the device that holds the plasma, which is called a tokamak. Until now, error fields were only seen as a nuisance because even a very small error field could cause a plasma disruption that halts fusion reactions and can damage the walls of a fusion vessel. Consequently, fusion researchers have spent considerable time and effort meticulously finding ways to correct error fields.

“It’s quite difficult to eliminate existing error fields, so instead of fixing these coil irregularities, we can apply additional magnetic fields surrounding the fusion vessel in a process known as error field correction,” Yang said. 

In the past, this approach would have also hurt the plasma’s core, making the plasma unsuitable for fusion power generation. This time, the researchers were able to eliminate instabilities at the edge of the plasma and maintain the stability of the core. The research is a prime example of how PPPL researchers are bridging the gap between today’s fusion technology and what will be needed to bring fusion power to the electrical grid. 

“This is actually a very effective way of breaking the symmetry of the system, so humans can intentionally degrade the confinement. It’s like making a very tiny hole in a balloon so that it will not explode,” said SangKyeun Kim, a staff research scientist at PPPL and paper co-author. Just as air would leak out of a small hole in a balloon, a tiny quantity of plasma leaks out of the error field, which helps to maintain its overall stability.

Managing the core and the edge of the plasma simultaneously

One of the toughest parts of managing a fusion reaction is getting both the core and the edge of the plasma to behave at the same time. There are ideal zones for the temperature and density of the plasma in both regions, and hitting those targets while eliminating instabilities is tough.

This study demonstrates that adjusting the error fields can simultaneously stabilize both the core and the edge of the plasma. By carefully controlling the magnetic fields produced by the tokamak’s coils, the researchers could suppress edge instabilities, also known as edge localized modes (ELMs), without causing disruptions or a substantial loss of confinement.

“We are trying to protect the device,” said PPPL Staff Research Physicist Qiming Hu, an author of the paper. 

Extending the research beyond KSTAR

The research was conducted using the KSTAR tokamak in South Korea, which stands out for its ability to adjust its magnetic error field configuration with great flexibility. This capability is crucial for experimenting with different error field configurations to find the most effective ones for stabilizing the plasma.

The researchers say their approach has significant implications for the design of future tokamak fusion pilot plants, potentially making them more efficient and reliable. They are currently working on an artificial intelligence (AI) version of their control system to make it more efficient.

“These models are fairly complex; they take a bit of time to calculate. But when you want to do something in a real-time control system, you can only afford a few milliseconds to do a calculation,” said Snipes. “Using AI, you can basically teach the system what to expect and be able to use that artificial intelligence to predict ahead of time what will be necessary to control the plasma and how to implement it in real-time.”

While their new paper highlights work done using KSTAR’s internal magnetic coils, Hu suggests future research with magnetic coils outside of the fusion vessel would be valuable because the fusion community is moving away from the idea of housing such coils inside the vacuum-sealed vessel due to the potential destruction of such components from the extreme heat of the plasma.

Researchers from the Korea Institute of Fusion Energy (KFE), Columbia University, and Seoul National University were also integral to the project.

The research was supported by: the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC02-09CH11466; the Ministry of Science and ICT under the KFE R&D Program “KSTAR Experimental Collaboration and Fusion Plasma Research (KFE-EN2401-15)”; the National Research Foundation (NRF) grant No. RS-2023-00281272 funded through the Korean Ministry of Science, Information and Communication Technology and the New Faculty Startup Fund from Seoul National University; the NRF under grants No. 2019R1F1A1057545 and No. 2022R1F1A1073863; the National R&D Program through the NRF funded by the Ministry of Science & ICT (NRF-2019R1A2C1010757).

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Tailoring tokamak error fields to control plasma instabilities and transport by SeongMoo Yang, Jong-Kyu Park, YoungMu Jeon, Nikolas C. Logan, Jaehyun Lee, Qiming Hu, JongHa Lee, SangKyeun Kim, Jaewook Kim, Hyungho Lee, Yong-Su Na, Taik Soo Hahm, Gyungjin Choi, Joseph A. Snipes, Gunyoung Park & Won-Ha Ko. Nature Communications volume 15, Article number: 1275 (2024) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45454-1 Published: 10 February 2024

This paper is open access.

Portable and non-invasive (?) mind-reading AI (artificial intelligence) turns thoughts into text and some thoughts about the near future

First, here’s some of the latest research and if by ‘non-invasive,’ you mean that electrodes are not being planted in your brain, then this December 12, 2023 University of Technology Sydney (UTS) press release (also on EurekAlert) highlights non-invasive mind-reading AI via a brain-computer interface (BCI), Note: Links have been removed,

In a world-first, researchers from the GrapheneX-UTS Human-centric Artificial Intelligence Centre at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) have developed a portable, non-invasive system that can decode silent thoughts and turn them into text. 

The technology could aid communication for people who are unable to speak due to illness or injury, including stroke or paralysis. It could also enable seamless communication between humans and machines, such as the operation of a bionic arm or robot.

The study has been selected as the spotlight paper at the NeurIPS conference, a top-tier annual meeting that showcases world-leading research on artificial intelligence and machine learning, held in New Orleans on 12 December 2023.

The research was led by Distinguished Professor CT Lin, Director of the GrapheneX-UTS HAI Centre, together with first author Yiqun Duan and fellow PhD candidate Jinzhou Zhou from the UTS Faculty of Engineering and IT.

In the study participants silently read passages of text while wearing a cap that recorded electrical brain activity through their scalp using an electroencephalogram (EEG). A demonstration of the technology can be seen in this video [See UTS press release].

The EEG wave is segmented into distinct units that capture specific characteristics and patterns from the human brain. This is done by an AI model called DeWave developed by the researchers. DeWave translates EEG signals into words and sentences by learning from large quantities of EEG data. 

“This research represents a pioneering effort in translating raw EEG waves directly into language, marking a significant breakthrough in the field,” said Distinguished Professor Lin.

“It is the first to incorporate discrete encoding techniques in the brain-to-text translation process, introducing an innovative approach to neural decoding. The integration with large language models is also opening new frontiers in neuroscience and AI,” he said.

Previous technology to translate brain signals to language has either required surgery to implant electrodes in the brain, such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink [emphasis mine], or scanning in an MRI machine, which is large, expensive, and difficult to use in daily life.

These methods also struggle to transform brain signals into word level segments without additional aids such as eye-tracking, which restrict the practical application of these systems. The new technology is able to be used either with or without eye-tracking.

The UTS research was carried out with 29 participants. This means it is likely to be more robust and adaptable than previous decoding technology that has only been tested on one or two individuals, because EEG waves differ between individuals. 

The use of EEG signals received through a cap, rather than from electrodes implanted in the brain, means that the signal is noisier. In terms of EEG translation however, the study reported state-of the art performance, surpassing previous benchmarks.

“The model is more adept at matching verbs than nouns. However, when it comes to nouns, we saw a tendency towards synonymous pairs rather than precise translations, such as ‘the man’ instead of ‘the author’,” said Duan. [emphases mine; synonymous, eh? what about ‘woman’ or ‘child’ instead of the ‘man’?]

“We think this is because when the brain processes these words, semantically similar words might produce similar brain wave patterns. Despite the challenges, our model yields meaningful results, aligning keywords and forming similar sentence structures,” he said.

The translation accuracy score is currently around 40% on BLEU-1. The BLEU score is a number between zero and one that measures the similarity of the machine-translated text to a set of high-quality reference translations. The researchers hope to see this improve to a level that is comparable to traditional language translation or speech recognition programs, which is closer to 90%.

The research follows on from previous brain-computer interface technology developed by UTS in association with the Australian Defence Force [ADF] that uses brainwaves to command a quadruped robot, which is demonstrated in this ADF video [See my June 13, 2023 posting, “Mind-controlled robots based on graphene: an Australian research story” for the story and embedded video].

About one month after the research announcement regarding the University of Technology Sydney’s ‘non-invasive’ brain-computer interface (BCI), I stumbled across an in-depth piece about the field of ‘non-invasive’ mind-reading research.

Neurotechnology and neurorights

Fletcher Reveley’s January 18, 2024 article on salon.com (originally published January 3, 2024 on Undark) shows how quickly the field is developing and raises concerns, Note: Links have been removed,

One afternoon in May 2020, Jerry Tang, a Ph.D. student in computer science at the University of Texas at Austin, sat staring at a cryptic string of words scrawled across his computer screen:

“I am not finished yet to start my career at twenty without having gotten my license I never have to pull out and run back to my parents to take me home.”

The sentence was jumbled and agrammatical. But to Tang, it represented a remarkable feat: A computer pulling a thought, however disjointed, from a person’s mind.

For weeks, ever since the pandemic had shuttered his university and forced his lab work online, Tang had been at home tweaking a semantic decoder — a brain-computer interface, or BCI, that generates text from brain scans. Prior to the university’s closure, study participants had been providing data to train the decoder for months, listening to hours of storytelling podcasts while a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine logged their brain responses. Then, the participants had listened to a new story — one that had not been used to train the algorithm — and those fMRI scans were fed into the decoder, which used GPT1, a predecessor to the ubiquitous AI chatbot ChatGPT, to spit out a text prediction of what it thought the participant had heard. For this snippet, Tang compared it to the original story:

“Although I’m twenty-three years old I don’t have my driver’s license yet and I just jumped out right when I needed to and she says well why don’t you come back to my house and I’ll give you a ride.”

The decoder was not only capturing the gist of the original, but also producing exact matches of specific words — twenty, license. When Tang shared the results with his adviser, a UT Austin neuroscientist named Alexander Huth who had been working towards building such a decoder for nearly a decade, Huth was floored. “Holy shit,” Huth recalled saying. “This is actually working.” By the fall of 2021, the scientists were testing the device with no external stimuli at all — participants simply imagined a story and the decoder spat out a recognizable, albeit somewhat hazy, description of it. “What both of those experiments kind of point to,” said Huth, “is the fact that what we’re able to read out here was really like the thoughts, like the idea.”

The scientists brimmed with excitement over the potentially life-altering medical applications of such a device — restoring communication to people with locked-in syndrome, for instance, whose near full-body paralysis made talking impossible. But just as the potential benefits of the decoder snapped into focus, so too did the thorny ethical questions posed by its use. Huth himself had been one of the three primary test subjects in the experiments, and the privacy implications of the device now seemed visceral: “Oh my god,” he recalled thinking. “We can look inside my brain.”

Huth’s reaction mirrored a longstanding concern in neuroscience and beyond: that machines might someday read people’s minds. And as BCI technology advances at a dizzying clip, that possibility and others like it — that computers of the future could alter human identities, for example, or hinder free will — have begun to seem less remote. “The loss of mental privacy, this is a fight we have to fight today,” said Rafael Yuste, a Columbia University neuroscientist. “That could be irreversible. If we lose our mental privacy, what else is there to lose? That’s it, we lose the essence of who we are.”

Spurred by these concerns, Yuste and several colleagues have launched an international movement advocating for “neurorights” — a set of five principles Yuste argues should be enshrined in law as a bulwark against potential misuse and abuse of neurotechnology. But he may be running out of time.

Reveley’s January 18, 2024 article provides fascinating context and is well worth reading if you have the time.

For my purposes, I’m focusing on ethics, Note: Links have been removed,

… as these and other advances propelled the field forward, and as his own research revealed the discomfiting vulnerability of the brain to external manipulation, Yuste found himself increasingly concerned by the scarce attention being paid to the ethics of these technologies. Even Obama’s multi-billion-dollar BRAIN Initiative, a government program designed to advance brain research, which Yuste had helped launch in 2013 and supported heartily, seemed to mostly ignore the ethical and societal consequences of the research it funded. “There was zero effort on the ethical side,” Yuste recalled.

Yuste was appointed to the rotating advisory group of the BRAIN Initiative in 2015, where he began to voice his concerns. That fall, he joined an informal working group to consider the issue. “We started to meet, and it became very evident to me that the situation was a complete disaster,” Yuste said. “There was no guidelines, no work done.” Yuste said he tried to get the group to generate a set of ethical guidelines for novel BCI technologies, but the effort soon became bogged down in bureaucracy. Frustrated, he stepped down from the committee and, together with a University of Washington bioethicist named Sara Goering, decided to independently pursue the issue. “Our aim here is not to contribute to or feed fear for doomsday scenarios,” the pair wrote in a 2016 article in Cell, “but to ensure that we are reflective and intentional as we prepare ourselves for the neurotechnological future.”

In the fall of 2017, Yuste and Goering called a meeting at the Morningside Campus of Columbia, inviting nearly 30 experts from all over the world in such fields as neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, medical ethics, and the law. By then, several other countries had launched their own versions of the BRAIN Initiative, and representatives from Australia, Canada [emphasis mine], China, Europe, Israel, South Korea, and Japan joined the Morningside gathering, along with veteran neuroethicists and prominent researchers. “We holed ourselves up for three days to study the ethical and societal consequences of neurotechnology,” Yuste said. “And we came to the conclusion that this is a human rights issue. These methods are going to be so powerful, that enable to access and manipulate mental activity, and they have to be regulated from the angle of human rights. That’s when we coined the term ‘neurorights.’”

The Morningside group, as it became known, identified four principal ethical priorities, which were later expanded by Yuste into five clearly defined neurorights: The right to mental privacy, which would ensure that brain data would be kept private and its use, sale, and commercial transfer would be strictly regulated; the right to personal identity, which would set boundaries on technologies that could disrupt one’s sense of self; the right to fair access to mental augmentation, which would ensure equality of access to mental enhancement neurotechnologies; the right of protection from bias in the development of neurotechnology algorithms; and the right to free will, which would protect an individual’s agency from manipulation by external neurotechnologies. The group published their findings in an often-cited paper in Nature.

But while Yuste and the others were focused on the ethical implications of these emerging technologies, the technologies themselves continued to barrel ahead at a feverish speed. In 2014, the first kick of the World Cup was made by a paraplegic man using a mind-controlled robotic exoskeleton. In 2016, a man fist bumped Obama using a robotic arm that allowed him to “feel” the gesture. The following year, scientists showed that electrical stimulation of the hippocampus could improve memory, paving the way for cognitive augmentation technologies. The military, long interested in BCI technologies, built a system that allowed operators to pilot three drones simultaneously, partially with their minds. Meanwhile, a confusing maelstrom of science, science-fiction, hype, innovation, and speculation swept the private sector. By 2020, over $33 billion had been invested in hundreds of neurotech companies — about seven times what the NIH [US National Institutes of Health] had envisioned for the 12-year span of the BRAIN Initiative itself.

Now back to Tang and Huth (from Reveley’s January 18, 2024 article), Note: Links have been removed,

Central to the ethical questions Huth and Tang grappled with was the fact that their decoder, unlike other language decoders developed around the same time, was non-invasive — it didn’t require its users to undergo surgery. Because of that, their technology was free from the strict regulatory oversight that governs the medical domain. (Yuste, for his part, said he believes non-invasive BCIs pose a far greater ethical challenge than invasive systems: “The non-invasive, the commercial, that’s where the battle is going to get fought.”) Huth and Tang’s decoder faced other hurdles to widespread use — namely that fMRI machines are enormous, expensive, and stationary. But perhaps, the researchers thought, there was a way to overcome that hurdle too.

The information measured by fMRI machines — blood oxygenation levels, which indicate where blood is flowing in the brain — can also be measured with another technology, functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy, or fNIRS. Although lower resolution than fMRI, several expensive, research-grade, wearable fNIRS headsets do approach the resolution required to work with Huth and Tang’s decoder. In fact, the scientists were able to test whether their decoder would work with such devices by simply blurring their fMRI data to simulate the resolution of research-grade fNIRS. The decoded result “doesn’t get that much worse,” Huth said.

And while such research-grade devices are currently cost-prohibitive for the average consumer, more rudimentary fNIRS headsets have already hit the market. Although these devices provide far lower resolution than would be required for Huth and Tang’s decoder to work effectively, the technology is continually improving, and Huth believes it is likely that an affordable, wearable fNIRS device will someday provide high enough resolution to be used with the decoder. In fact, he is currently teaming up with scientists at Washington University to research the development of such a device.

Even comparatively primitive BCI headsets can raise pointed ethical questions when released to the public. Devices that rely on electroencephalography, or EEG, a commonplace method of measuring brain activity by detecting electrical signals, have now become widely available — and in some cases have raised alarm. In 2019, a school in Jinhua, China, drew criticism after trialing EEG headbands that monitored the concentration levels of its pupils. (The students were encouraged to compete to see who concentrated most effectively, and reports were sent to their parents.) Similarly, in 2018 the South China Morning Post reported that dozens of factories and businesses had begun using “brain surveillance devices” to monitor workers’ emotions, in the hopes of increasing productivity and improving safety. The devices “caused some discomfort and resistance in the beginning,” Jin Jia, then a brain scientist at Ningbo University, told the reporter. “After a while, they got used to the device.”

But the primary problem with even low-resolution devices is that scientists are only just beginning to understand how information is actually encoded in brain data. In the future, powerful new decoding algorithms could discover that even raw, low-resolution EEG data contains a wealth of information about a person’s mental state at the time of collection. Consequently, nobody can definitively know what they are giving away when they allow companies to collect information from their brains.

Huth and Tang concluded that brain data, therefore, should be closely guarded, especially in the realm of consumer products. In an article on Medium from last April, Tang wrote that “decoding technology is continually improving, and the information that could be decoded from a brain scan a year from now may be very different from what can be decoded today. It is crucial that companies are transparent about what they intend to do with brain data and take measures to ensure that brain data is carefully protected.” (Yuste said the Neurorights Foundation recently surveyed the user agreements of 30 neurotech companies and found that all of them claim ownership of users’ brain data — and most assert the right to sell that data to third parties. [emphases mine]) Despite these concerns, however, Huth and Tang maintained that the potential benefits of these technologies outweighed their risks, provided the proper guardrails [emphasis mine] were put in place.

It would seem the first guardrails are being set up in South America (from Reveley’s January 18, 2024 article), Note: Links have been removed,

On a hot summer night in 2019, Yuste sat in the courtyard of an adobe hotel in the north of Chile with his close friend, the prominent Chilean doctor and then-senator Guido Girardi, observing the vast, luminous skies of the Atacama Desert and discussing, as they often did, the world of tomorrow. Girardi, who every year organizes the Congreso Futuro, Latin America’s preeminent science and technology event, had long been intrigued by the accelerating advance of technology and its paradigm-shifting impact on society — “living in the world at the speed of light,” as he called it. Yuste had been a frequent speaker at the conference, and the two men shared a conviction that scientists were birthing technologies powerful enough to disrupt the very notion of what it meant to be human.

Around midnight, as Yuste finished his pisco sour, Girardi made an intriguing proposal: What if they worked together to pass an amendment to Chile’s constitution, one that would enshrine protections for mental privacy as an inviolable right of every Chilean? It was an ambitious idea, but Girardi had experience moving bold pieces of legislation through the senate; years earlier he had spearheaded Chile’s famous Food Labeling and Advertising Law, which required companies to affix health warning labels on junk food. (The law has since inspired dozens of countries to pursue similar legislation.) With BCI, here was another chance to be a trailblazer. “I said to Rafael, ‘Well, why don’t we create the first neuro data protection law?’” Girardi recalled. Yuste readily agreed.

… Girardi led the political push, promoting a piece of legislation that would amend Chile’s constitution to protect mental privacy. The effort found surprising purchase across the political spectrum, a remarkable feat in a country famous for its political polarization. In 2021, Chile’s congress unanimously passed the constitutional amendment, which Piñera [Sebastián Piñera] swiftly signed into law. (A second piece of legislation, which would establish a regulatory framework for neurotechnology, is currently under consideration by Chile’s congress.) “There was no divide between the left or right,” recalled Girardi. “This was maybe the only law in Chile that was approved by unanimous vote.” Chile, then, had become the first country in the world to enshrine “neurorights” in its legal code.

Even before the passage of the Chilean constitutional amendment, Yuste had begun meeting regularly with Jared Genser, an international human rights lawyer who had represented such high-profile clients as Desmond Tutu, Liu Xiaobo, and Aung San Suu Kyi. (The New York Times Magazine once referred to Genser as “the extractor” for his work with political prisoners.) Yuste was seeking guidance on how to develop an international legal framework to protect neurorights, and Genser, though he had just a cursory knowledge of neurotechnology, was immediately captivated by the topic. “It’s fair to say he blew my mind in the first hour of discussion,” recalled Genser. Soon thereafter, Yuste, Genser, and a private-sector entrepreneur named Jamie Daves launched the Neurorights Foundation, a nonprofit whose first goal, according to its website, is “to protect the human rights of all people from the potential misuse or abuse of neurotechnology.”

To accomplish this, the organization has sought to engage all levels of society, from the United Nations and regional governing bodies like the Organization of American States, down to national governments, the tech industry, scientists, and the public at large. Such a wide-ranging approach, said Genser, “is perhaps insanity on our part, or grandiosity. But nonetheless, you know, it’s definitely the Wild West as it comes to talking about these issues globally, because so few people know about where things are, where they’re heading, and what is necessary.”

This general lack of knowledge about neurotech, in all strata of society, has largely placed Yuste in the role of global educator — he has met several times with U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, for example, to discuss the potential dangers of emerging neurotech. And these efforts are starting to yield results. Guterres’s 2021 report, “Our Common Agenda,” which sets forth goals for future international cooperation, urges “updating or clarifying our application of human rights frameworks and standards to address frontier issues,” such as “neuro-technology.” Genser attributes the inclusion of this language in the report to Yuste’s advocacy efforts.

But updating international human rights law is difficult, and even within the Neurorights Foundation there are differences of opinion regarding the most effective approach. For Yuste, the ideal solution would be the creation of a new international agency, akin to the International Atomic Energy Agency — but for neurorights. “My dream would be to have an international convention about neurotechnology, just like we had one about atomic energy and about certain things, with its own treaty,” he said. “And maybe an agency that would essentially supervise the world’s efforts in neurotechnology.”

Genser, however, believes that a new treaty is unnecessary, and that neurorights can be codified most effectively by extending interpretation of existing international human rights law to include them. The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, for example, already ensures the general right to privacy, and an updated interpretation of the law could conceivably clarify that that clause extends to mental privacy as well.

There is no need for immediate panic (from Reveley’s January 18, 2024 article),

… while Yuste and the others continue to grapple with the complexities of international and national law, Huth and Tang have found that, for their decoder at least, the greatest privacy guardrails come not from external institutions but rather from something much closer to home — the human mind itself. Following the initial success of their decoder, as the pair read widely about the ethical implications of such a technology, they began to think of ways to assess the boundaries of the decoder’s capabilities. “We wanted to test a couple kind of principles of mental privacy,” said Huth. Simply put, they wanted to know if the decoder could be resisted.

In late 2021, the scientists began to run new experiments. First, they were curious if an algorithm trained on one person could be used on another. They found that it could not — the decoder’s efficacy depended on many hours of individualized training. Next, they tested whether the decoder could be thrown off simply by refusing to cooperate with it. Instead of focusing on the story that was playing through their headphones while inside the fMRI machine, participants were asked to complete other mental tasks, such as naming random animals, or telling a different story in their head. “Both of those rendered it completely unusable,” Huth said. “We didn’t decode the story they were listening to, and we couldn’t decode anything about what they were thinking either.”

Given how quickly this field of research is progressing, it seems like a good idea to increase efforts to establish neurorights (from Reveley’s January 18, 2024 article),

For Yuste, however, technologies like Huth and Tang’s decoder may only mark the beginning of a mind-boggling new chapter in human history, one in which the line between human brains and computers will be radically redrawn — or erased completely. A future is conceivable, he said, where humans and computers fuse permanently, leading to the emergence of technologically augmented cyborgs. “When this tsunami hits us I would say it’s not likely it’s for sure that humans will end up transforming themselves — ourselves — into maybe a hybrid species,” Yuste said. He is now focused on preparing for this future.

In the last several years, Yuste has traveled to multiple countries, meeting with a wide assortment of politicians, supreme court justices, U.N. committee members, and heads of state. And his advocacy is beginning to yield results. In August, Mexico began considering a constitutional reform that would establish the right to mental privacy. Brazil is currently considering a similar proposal, while Spain, Argentina, and Uruguay have also expressed interest, as has the European Union. In September [2023], neurorights were officially incorporated into Mexico’s digital rights charter, while in Chile, a landmark Supreme Court ruling found that Emotiv Inc, a company that makes a wearable EEG headset, violated Chile’s newly minted mental privacy law. That suit was brought by Yuste’s friend and collaborator, Guido Girardi.

“This is something that we should take seriously,” he [Huth] said. “Because even if it’s rudimentary right now, where is that going to be in five years? What was possible five years ago? What’s possible now? Where’s it gonna be in five years? Where’s it gonna be in 10 years? I think the range of reasonable possibilities includes things that are — I don’t want to say like scary enough — but like dystopian enough that I think it’s certainly a time for us to think about this.”

You can find The Neurorights Foundation here and/or read Reveley’s January 18, 2024 article on salon.com or as originally published January 3, 2024 on Undark. Finally, thank you for the article, Fletcher Reveley!

2023 Nobel prizes (medicine, physics, and chemistry)

For the first time in the 15 years this blog has been around, the Nobel prizes awarded in medicine, physics, and chemistry all are in areas discussed here at one or another. As usual where people are concerned, some of these scientists had a tortuous journey to this prestigious outcome.

Medicine

Two people (Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman) were awarded the prize in medicine according to the October 2, 2023 Nobel Prize press release, Note: Links have been removed,

The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet [Sweden]

has today decided to award

the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

jointly to

Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman

for their discoveries concerning nucleoside base modifications that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19

The discoveries by the two Nobel Laureates were critical for developing effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 during the pandemic that began in early 2020. Through their groundbreaking findings, which have fundamentally changed our understanding of how mRNA interacts with our immune system, the laureates contributed to the unprecedented rate of vaccine development during one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times.

Vaccines before the pandemic

Vaccination stimulates the formation of an immune response to a particular pathogen. This gives the body a head start in the fight against disease in the event of a later exposure. Vaccines based on killed or weakened viruses have long been available, exemplified by the vaccines against polio, measles, and yellow fever. In 1951, Max Theiler was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for developing the yellow fever vaccine.

Thanks to the progress in molecular biology in recent decades, vaccines based on individual viral components, rather than whole viruses, have been developed. Parts of the viral genetic code, usually encoding proteins found on the virus surface, are used to make proteins that stimulate the formation of virus-blocking antibodies. Examples are the vaccines against the hepatitis B virus and human papillomavirus. Alternatively, parts of the viral genetic code can be moved to a harmless carrier virus, a “vector.” This method is used in vaccines against the Ebola virus. When vector vaccines are injected, the selected viral protein is produced in our cells, stimulating an immune response against the targeted virus.

Producing whole virus-, protein- and vector-based vaccines requires large-scale cell culture. This resource-intensive process limits the possibilities for rapid vaccine production in response to outbreaks and pandemics. Therefore, researchers have long attempted to develop vaccine technologies independent of cell culture, but this proved challenging.

Illustration of methods for vaccine production before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure 1. Methods for vaccine production before the COVID-19 pandemic. © The Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine. Ill. Mattias Karlén

mRNA vaccines: A promising idea

In our cells, genetic information encoded in DNA is transferred to messenger RNA (mRNA), which is used as a template for protein production. During the 1980s, efficient methods for producing mRNA without cell culture were introduced, called in vitro transcription. This decisive step accelerated the development of molecular biology applications in several fields. Ideas of using mRNA technologies for vaccine and therapeutic purposes also took off, but roadblocks lay ahead. In vitro transcribed mRNA was considered unstable and challenging to deliver, requiring the development of sophisticated carrier lipid systems to encapsulate the mRNA. Moreover, in vitro-produced mRNA gave rise to inflammatory reactions. Enthusiasm for developing the mRNA technology for clinical purposes was, therefore, initially limited.

These obstacles did not discourage the Hungarian biochemist Katalin Karikó, who was devoted to developing methods to use mRNA for therapy. During the early 1990s, when she was an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, she remained true to her vision of realizing mRNA as a therapeutic despite encountering difficulties in convincing research funders of the significance of her project. A new colleague of Karikó at her university was the immunologist Drew Weissman. He was interested in dendritic cells, which have important functions in immune surveillance and the activation of vaccine-induced immune responses. Spurred by new ideas, a fruitful collaboration between the two soon began, focusing on how different RNA types interact with the immune system.

The breakthrough

Karikó and Weissman noticed that dendritic cells recognize in vitro transcribed mRNA as a foreign substance, which leads to their activation and the release of inflammatory signaling molecules. They wondered why the in vitro transcribed mRNA was recognized as foreign while mRNA from mammalian cells did not give rise to the same reaction. Karikó and Weissman realized that some critical properties must distinguish the different types of mRNA.

RNA contains four bases, abbreviated A, U, G, and C, corresponding to A, T, G, and C in DNA, the letters of the genetic code. Karikó and Weissman knew that bases in RNA from mammalian cells are frequently chemically modified, while in vitro transcribed mRNA is not. They wondered if the absence of altered bases in the in vitro transcribed RNA could explain the unwanted inflammatory reaction. To investigate this, they produced different variants of mRNA, each with unique chemical alterations in their bases, which they delivered to dendritic cells. The results were striking: The inflammatory response was almost abolished when base modifications were included in the mRNA. This was a paradigm change in our understanding of how cells recognize and respond to different forms of mRNA. Karikó and Weissman immediately understood that their discovery had profound significance for using mRNA as therapy. These seminal results were published in 2005, fifteen years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Illustration of the four different bases mRNA contains.
Figure 2. mRNA contains four different bases, abbreviated A, U, G, and C. The Nobel Laureates discovered that base-modified mRNA can be used to block activation of inflammatory reactions (secretion of signaling molecules) and increase protein production when mRNA is delivered to cells.  © The Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine. Ill. Mattias Karlén

In further studies published in 2008 and 2010, Karikó and Weissman showed that the delivery of mRNA generated with base modifications markedly increased protein production compared to unmodified mRNA. The effect was due to the reduced activation of an enzyme that regulates protein production. Through their discoveries that base modifications both reduced inflammatory responses and increased protein production, Karikó and Weissman had eliminated critical obstacles on the way to clinical applications of mRNA.

mRNA vaccines realized their potential

Interest in mRNA technology began to pick up, and in 2010, several companies were working on developing the method. Vaccines against Zika virus and MERS-CoV were pursued; the latter is closely related to SARS-CoV-2. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, two base-modified mRNA vaccines encoding the SARS-CoV-2 surface protein were developed at record speed. Protective effects of around 95% were reported, and both vaccines were approved as early as December 2020.

The impressive flexibility and speed with which mRNA vaccines can be developed pave the way for using the new platform also for vaccines against other infectious diseases. In the future, the technology may also be used to deliver therapeutic proteins and treat some cancer types.

Several other vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, based on different methodologies, were also rapidly introduced, and together, more than 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been given globally. The vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented severe disease in many more, allowing societies to open and return to normal conditions. Through their fundamental discoveries of the importance of base modifications in mRNA, this year’s Nobel laureates critically contributed to this transformative development during one of the biggest health crises of our time.

Read more about this year’s prize

Scientific background: Discoveries concerning nucleoside base modifications that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19

Katalin Karikó was born in 1955 in Szolnok, Hungary. She received her PhD from Szeged’s University in 1982 and performed postdoctoral research at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Szeged until 1985. She then conducted postdoctoral research at Temple University, Philadelphia, and the University of Health Science, Bethesda. In 1989, she was appointed Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she remained until 2013. After that, she became vice president and later senior vice president at BioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals. Since 2021, she has been a Professor at Szeged University and an Adjunct Professor at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Drew Weissman was born in 1959 in Lexington, Massachusetts, USA. He received his MD, PhD degrees from Boston University in 1987. He did his clinical training at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School and postdoctoral research at the National Institutes of Health. In 1997, Weissman established his research group at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the Roberts Family Professor in Vaccine Research and Director of the Penn Institute for RNA Innovations.

The University of Pennsylvania October 2, 2023 news release is a very interesting announcement (more about why it’s interesting afterwards), Note: Links have been removed,

The University of Pennsylvania messenger RNA pioneers whose years of scientific partnership unlocked understanding of how to modify mRNA to make it an effective therapeutic—enabling a platform used to rapidly develop lifesaving vaccines amid the global COVID-19 pandemic—have been named winners of the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. They become the 28th and 29th Nobel laureates affiliated with Penn, and join nine previous Nobel laureates with ties to the University of Pennsylvania who have won the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

Nearly three years after the rollout of mRNA vaccines across the world, Katalin Karikó, PhD, an adjunct professor of Neurosurgery in Penn’s Perelman School of Medicine, and Drew Weissman, MD, PhD, the Roberts Family Professor of Vaccine Research in the Perelman School of Medicine, are recipients of the prize announced this morning by the Nobel Assembly in Solna, Sweden.

After a chance meeting in the late 1990s while photocopying research papers, Karikó and Weissman began investigating mRNA as a potential therapeutic. In 2005, they published a key discovery: mRNA could be altered and delivered effectively into the body to activate the body’s protective immune system. The mRNA-based vaccines elicited a robust immune response, including high levels of antibodies that attack a specific infectious disease that has not previously been encountered. Unlike other vaccines, a live or attenuated virus is not injected or required at any point.

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the true value of the pair’s lab work was revealed in the most timely of ways, as companies worked to quickly develop and deploy vaccines to protect people from the virus. Both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna utilized Karikó and Weissman’s technology to build their highly effective vaccines to protect against severe illness and death from the virus. In the United States alone, mRNA vaccines make up more than 655 million total doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that have been administered since they became available in December 2020.

Editor’s Note: The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines both use licensed University of Pennsylvania technology. As a result of these licensing relationships, Penn, Karikó and Weissman have received and may continue to receive significant financial benefits in the future based on the sale of these products. BioNTech provides funding for Weissman’s research into the development of additional infectious disease vaccines.

Science can be brutal

Now for the interesting bit: it’s in my March 5, 2021 posting (mRNA, COVID-19 vaccines, treating genetic diseases before birth, and the scientist who started it all),

Before messenger RNA was a multibillion-dollar idea, it was a scientific backwater. And for the Hungarian-born scientist behind a key mRNA discovery, it was a career dead-end.

Katalin Karikó spent the 1990s collecting rejections. Her work, attempting to harness the power of mRNA to fight disease, was too far-fetched for government grants, corporate funding, and even support from her own colleagues.

“Every night I was working: grant, grant, grant,” Karikó remembered, referring to her efforts to obtain funding. “And it came back always no, no, no.”

By 1995, after six years on the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, Karikó got demoted. [emphasis mine] She had been on the path to full professorship, but with no money coming in to support her work on mRNA, her bosses saw no point in pressing on.

She was back to the lower rungs of the scientific academy.

“Usually, at that point, people just say goodbye and leave because it’s so horrible,” Karikó said.

There’s no opportune time for demotion, but 1995 had already been uncommonly difficult. Karikó had recently endured a cancer scare, and her husband was stuck in Hungary sorting out a visa issue. Now the work to which she’d devoted countless hours was slipping through her fingers.

In time, those better experiments came together. After a decade of trial and error, Karikó and her longtime collaborator at Penn — Drew Weissman [emphasis mine], an immunologist with a medical degree and Ph.D. from Boston University — discovered a remedy for mRNA’s Achilles’ heel.

You can get the whole story from my March 5, 2021 posting, scroll down to the “mRNA—it’s in the details, plus, the loneliness of pioneer researchers, a demotion, and squabbles” subhead. If you are very curious about mRNA and the rough and tumble of the world of science, there’s my August 20, 2021 posting “Getting erased from the mRNA/COVID-19 story” where Ian MacLachlan is featured as a researcher who got erased and where Karikó credits his work.

‘Rowing Mom Wins Nobel’ (credit: rowing website Row 2K)

Karikó’s daughter is a two-time gold medal Olympic athlete as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) radio programme, As It Happens, notes in an interview with the daughter (Susan Francia). From an October 4, 2023 As It Happens article (with embedded audio programme excerpt) by Sheena Goodyear,

Olympic gold medallist Susan Francia is coming to terms with the fact that she’s no longer the most famous person in her family.

That’s because the retired U.S. rower’s mother, Katalin Karikó, just won a Nobel Prize in Medicine. The biochemist was awarded alongside her colleague, vaccine researcher Drew Weissman, for their groundbreaking work that led to the development of COVID-19 vaccines. 

“Now I’m like, ‘Shoot! All right, I’ve got to work harder,'” Francia said with a laugh during an interview with As It Happens host Nil Köksal. 

But in all seriousness, Francia says she’s immensely proud of her mother’s accomplishments. In fact, it was Karikó’s fierce dedication to science that inspired Francia to win Olympic gold medals in 2008 and 2012.

“Sport is a lot like science in that, you know, you have a passion for something and you just go and you train, attain your goal, whether it be making this discovery that you truly believe in, or for me, it was trying to be the best in the world,” Francia said.

“It’s a grind and, honestly, I love that grind. And my mother did too.”

… one of her [Karikó] favourite headlines so far comes from a little blurb on the rowing website Row 2K: “Rowing Mom Wins Nobel.”

Nowadays, scientists are trying to harness the power of mRNA to fight cancer, malaria, influenza and rabies. But when Karikó first began her work, it was a fringe concept. For decades, she toiled in relative obscurity, struggling to secure funding for her research.

“That’s also that same passion that I took into my rowing,” Francia said.

But even as Karikó struggled to make a name for herself, she says her own mother, Zsuzsanna, always believed she would earn a Nobel Prize one day.

Every year, as the Nobel Prize announcement approached, she would tell Karikó she’d be watching for her name. 

“I was laughing [and saying] that, ‘Mom, I am not getting anything,'” she said. 

But her mother, who died a few years ago, ultimately proved correct. 

Congratulations to both Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman and thank you both for persisting!

Physics

This prize is for physics at the attoscale.

Aaron W. Harrison (Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Austin College, Texas, US) attempts an explanation of an attosecond in his October 3, 2023 essay (in English “What is an attosecond? A physical chemist explains the tiny time scale behind Nobel Prize-winning research” and in French “Nobel de physique : qu’est-ce qu’une attoseconde?”) for The Conversation, Note: Links have been removed,

“Atto” is the scientific notation prefix that represents 10-18, which is a decimal point followed by 17 zeroes and a 1. So a flash of light lasting an attosecond, or 0.000000000000000001 of a second, is an extremely short pulse of light.

In fact, there are approximately as many attoseconds in one second as there are seconds in the age of the universe.

Previously, scientists could study the motion of heavier and slower-moving atomic nuclei with femtosecond (10-15) light pulses. One thousand attoseconds are in 1 femtosecond. But researchers couldn’t see movement on the electron scale until they could generate attosecond light pulses – electrons move too fast for scientists to parse exactly what they are up to at the femtosecond level.

Harrison does a very good job of explaining something that requires a leap of imagination. He also explains why scientists engage in attosecond research. h/t October 4, 2023 news item on phys.org

Amelle Zaïr (Imperial College London) offers a more technical explanation in her October 4, 2023 essay about the 2023 prize winners for The Conversation. h/t October 4, 2023 news item on phys.org

Main event

Here’s the October 3, 2023 Nobel Prize press release, Note: A link has been removed,

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physics 2023 to

Pierre Agostini
The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

Ferenc Krausz
Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Garching and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

Anne L’Huillier
Lund University, Sweden

“for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter”

Experiments with light capture the shortest of moments

The three Nobel Laureates in Physics 2023 are being recognised for their experiments, which have given humanity new tools for exploring the world of electrons inside atoms and molecules. Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier have demonstrated a way to create extremely short pulses of light that can be used to measure the rapid processes in which electrons move or change energy.

Fast-moving events flow into each other when perceived by humans, just like a film that consists of still images is perceived as continual movement. If we want to investigate really brief events, we need special technology. In the world of electrons, changes occur in a few tenths of an attosecond – an attosecond is so short that there are as many in one second as there have been seconds since the birth of the universe.

The laureates’ experiments have produced pulses of light so short that they are measured in attoseconds, thus demonstrating that these pulses can be used to provide images of processes inside atoms and molecules.

In 1987, Anne L’Huillier discovered that many different overtones of light arose when she transmitted infrared laser light through a noble gas. Each overtone is a light wave with a given number of cycles for each cycle in the laser light. They are caused by the laser light interacting with atoms in the gas; it gives some electrons extra energy that is then emitted as light. Anne L’Huillier has continued to explore this phenomenon, laying the ground for subsequent breakthroughs.

In 2001, Pierre Agostini succeeded in producing and investigating a series of consecutive light pulses, in which each pulse lasted just 250 attoseconds. At the same time, Ferenc Krausz was working with another type of experiment, one that made it possible to isolate a single light pulse that lasted 650 attoseconds.

The laureates’ contributions have enabled the investigation of processes that are so rapid they were previously impossible to follow.

“We can now open the door to the world of electrons. Attosecond physics gives us the opportunity to understand mechanisms that are governed by electrons. The next step will be utilising them,” says Eva Olsson, Chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics.

There are potential applications in many different areas. In electronics, for example, it is important to understand and control how electrons behave in a material. Attosecond pulses can also be used to identify different molecules, such as in medical diagnostics.

Read more about this year’s prize

Popular science background: Electrons in pulses of light (pdf)
Scientific background: “For experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter” (pdf)

Pierre Agostini. PhD 1968 from Aix-Marseille University, France. Professor at The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.

Ferenc Krausz, born 1962 in Mór, Hungary. PhD 1991 from Vienna University of Technology, Austria. Director at Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Garching and Professor at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany.

Anne L’Huillier, born 1958 in Paris, France. PhD 1986 from University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris, France. Professor at Lund University, Sweden.

A Canadian connection?

An October 3, 2023 CBC online news item from the Associated Press reveals a Canadian connection of sorts ,

Three scientists have won the Nobel Prize in physics Tuesday for giving us the first split-second glimpse into the superfast world of spinning electrons, a field that could one day lead to better electronics or disease diagnoses.

The award went to French-Swedish physicist Anne L’Huillier, French scientist Pierre Agostini and Hungarian-born Ferenc Krausz for their work with the tiny part of each atom that races around the centre, and that is fundamental to virtually everything: chemistry, physics, our bodies and our gadgets.

Electrons move around so fast that they have been out of reach of human efforts to isolate them. But by looking at the tiniest fraction of a second possible, scientists now have a “blurry” glimpse of them, and that opens up whole new sciences, experts said.

“The electrons are very fast, and the electrons are really the workforce in everywhere,” Nobel Committee member Mats Larsson said. “Once you can control and understand electrons, you have taken a very big step forward.”

L’Huillier is the fifth woman to receive a Nobel in Physics.

L’Huillier was teaching basic engineering physics to about 100 undergraduates at Lund when she got the call that she had won, but her phone was on silent and she didn’t pick up. She checked it during a break and called the Nobel Committee.

Then she went back to teaching.

Agostini, an emeritus professor at Ohio State University, was in Paris and could not be reached by the Nobel Committee before it announced his win to the world

Here’s the Canadian connection (from the October 3, 2023 CBC online news item),

Krausz, of the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics and Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told reporters that he was bewildered.

“I have been trying to figure out since 11 a.m. whether I’m in reality or it’s just a long dream,” the 61-year-old said.

Last year, Krausz and L’Huillier won the prestigious Wolf prize in physics for their work, sharing it with University of Ottawa scientist Paul Corkum [emphasis mine]. Nobel prizes are limited to only three winners and Krausz said it was a shame that it could not include Corkum.

Corkum was key to how the split-second laser flashes could be measured [emphasis mine], which was crucial, Krausz said.

Congratulations to Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier and a bow to Paul Corkum!

For those who are curious. a ‘Paul Corkum’ search should bring up a few postings on this blog but I missed this piece of news, a May 4, 2023 University of Ottawa news release about Corkum and the 2022 Wolf Prize, which he shared with Krausz and L’Huillier,

Chemistry

There was a little drama where this prize was concerned, It was announced too early according to an October 4, 2023 news item on phys.org and, again, in another October 4, 2023 news item on phys.org (from the Oct. 4, 2023 news item by Karl Ritter for the Associated Press),

Oops! Nobel chemistry winners are announced early in a rare slip-up

The most prestigious and secretive prize in science ran headfirst into the digital era Wednesday when Swedish media got an emailed press release revealing the winners of the Nobel Prize in chemistry and the news prematurely went public.

Here’s the fully sanctioned October 4, 2023 Nobel Prize press release, Note: A link has been removed,

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2023 to

Moungi G. Bawendi
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA

Louis E. Brus
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Alexei I. Ekimov
Nanocrystals Technology Inc., New York, NY, USA

“for the discovery and synthesis of quantum dots”

They planted an important seed for nanotechnology

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2023 rewards the discovery and development of quantum dots, nanoparticles so tiny that their size determines their properties. These smallest components of nanotechnology now spread their light from televisions and LED lamps, and can also guide surgeons when they remove tumour tissue, among many other things.

Everyone who studies chemistry learns that an element’s properties are governed by how many electrons it has. However, when matter shrinks to nano-dimensions quantum phenomena arise; these are governed by the size of the matter. The Nobel Laureates in Chemistry 2023 have succeeded in producing particles so small that their properties are determined by quantum phenomena. The particles, which are called quantum dots, are now of great importance in nanotechnology.

“Quantum dots have many fascinating and unusual properties. Importantly, they have different colours depending on their size,” says Johan Åqvist, Chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.

Physicists had long known that in theory size-dependent quantum effects could arise in nanoparticles, but at that time it was almost impossible to sculpt in nanodimensions. Therefore, few people believed that this knowledge would be put to practical use.

However, in the early 1980s, Alexei Ekimov succeeded in creating size-dependent quantum effects in coloured glass. The colour came from nanoparticles of copper chloride and Ekimov demonstrated that the particle size affected the colour of the glass via quantum effects.

A few years later, Louis Brus was the first scientist in the world to prove size-dependent quantum effects in particles floating freely in a fluid.

In 1993, Moungi Bawendi revolutionised the chemical production of quantum dots, resulting in almost perfect particles. This high quality was necessary for them to be utilised in applications.

Quantum dots now illuminate computer monitors and television screens based on QLED technology. They also add nuance to the light of some LED lamps, and biochemists and doctors use them to map biological tissue.

Quantum dots are thus bringing the greatest benefit to humankind. Researchers believe that in the future they could contribute to flexible electronics, tiny sensors, thinner solar cells and encrypted quantum communication – so we have just started exploring the potential of these tiny particles.

Read more about this year’s prize

Popular science background: They added colour to nanotechnology (pdf)
Scientific background: Quantum dots – seeds of nanoscience (pdf)

Moungi G. Bawendi, born 1961 in Paris, France. PhD 1988 from University of Chicago, IL, USA. Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.

Louis E. Brus, born 1943 in Cleveland, OH, USA. PhD 1969 from Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Professor at Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Alexei I. Ekimov, born 1945 in the former USSR. PhD 1974 from Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute, Saint Petersburg, Russia. Formerly Chief Scientist at Nanocrystals Technology Inc., New York, NY, USA.


The most recent ‘quantum dot’ (a particular type of nanoparticle) story here is a January 5, 2023 posting, “Can I have a beer with those carbon quantum dots?

Proving yet again that scientists can have a bumpy trip to a Nobel prize, an October 4, 2023 news item on phys.org describes how one of the winners flunked his first undergraduate chemistry test, Note: Links have been removed,

Talk about bouncing back. MIT professor Moungi Bawendi is a co-winner of this year’s Nobel chemistry prize for helping develop “quantum dots”—nanoparticles that are now found in next generation TV screens and help illuminate tumors within the body.

But as an undergraduate, he flunked his very first chemistry exam, recalling that the experience nearly “destroyed” him.

The 62-year-old of Tunisian and French heritage excelled at science throughout high school, without ever having to break a sweat.

But when he arrived at Harvard University as an undergraduate in the late 1970s, he was in for a rude awakening.

You can find more about the winners and quantum dots in an October 4, 2023 news item on Nanowerk and in Dr. Andrew Maynard’s (Professor of Advanced Technology Transitions, Arizona State University) October 4, 2023 essay for The Conversation (h/t October 4, 2023 news item on phys.org), Note: Links have been removed,

This year’s prize recognizes Moungi Bawendi, Louis Brus and Alexei Ekimov for the discovery and development of quantum dots. For many years, these precisely constructed nanometer-sized particles – just a few hundred thousandths the width of a human hair in diameter – were the darlings of nanotechnology pitches and presentations. As a researcher and adviser on nanotechnology [emphasis mine], I’ve [Dr. Andrew Maynard] even used them myself when talking with developers, policymakers, advocacy groups and others about the promise and perils of the technology.

The origins of nanotechnology predate Bawendi, Brus and Ekimov’s work on quantum dots – the physicist Richard Feynman speculated on what could be possible through nanoscale engineering as early as 1959, and engineers like Erik Drexler were speculating about the possibilities of atomically precise manufacturing in the the 1980s. However, this year’s trio of Nobel laureates were part of the earliest wave of modern nanotechnology where researchers began putting breakthroughs in material science to practical use.

Quantum dots brilliantly fluoresce: They absorb one color of light and reemit it nearly instantaneously as another color. A vial of quantum dots, when illuminated with broad spectrum light, shines with a single vivid color. What makes them special, though, is that their color is determined by how large or small they are. Make them small and you get an intense blue. Make them larger, though still nanoscale, and the color shifts to red.

The wavelength of light a quantum dot emits depends on its size. Maysinger, Ji, Hutter, Cooper, CC BY

There’s also an October 4, 2023 overview article by Tekla S. Perry and Margo Anderson for the IEEE Spectrum about the magazine’s almost twenty-five years of reporting on quantum dots

Red blue and green dots mass in rows, with some dots moving away

Image credit: Brandon Palacio/IEEE Spectrum

Your Guide to the Newest Nobel Prize: Quantum Dots

What you need to know—and what we’ve reported—about this year’s Chemistry award

It’s not a long article and it has a heavy focus on the IEEEE’s (Institute of Electrical and Electtronics Engineers) the road quantum dots have taken to become applications and being commercialized.

Congratulations to Moungi Bawendi, Louis Brus, and Alexei Ekimov!

A robot with body image and self awareness

This research is a rather interesting direction for robotics to take (from a July 13, 2022 news item on ScienceDaily),

As every athletic or fashion-conscious person knows, our body image is not always accurate or realistic, but it’s an important piece of information that determines how we function in the world. When you get dressed or play ball, your brain is constantly planning ahead so that you can move your body without bumping, tripping, or falling over.

We humans acquire our body-model as infants, and robots are following suit. A Columbia Engineering team announced today they have created a robot that — for the first time — is able to learn a model of its entire body from scratch, without any human assistance. In a new study published by Science Robotics,, the researchers demonstrate how their robot created a kinematic model of itself, and then used its self-model to plan motion, reach goals, and avoid obstacles in a variety of situations. It even automatically recognized and then compensated for damage to its body.

Courtesy Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science

A July 13, 2022 Columbia University news release by Holly Evarts (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, describes the research in more detail, Note: Links have been removed,

Robot watches itself like an an infant exploring itself in a hall of mirrors

The researchers placed a robotic arm inside a circle of five streaming video cameras. The robot watched itself through the cameras as it undulated freely. Like an infant exploring itself for the first time in a hall of mirrors, the robot wiggled and contorted to learn how exactly its body moved in response to various motor commands. After about three hours, the robot stopped. Its internal deep neural network had finished learning the relationship between the robot’s motor actions and the volume it occupied in its environment. 

“We were really curious to see how the robot imagined itself,” said Hod Lipson, professor of mechanical engineering and director of Columbia’s Creative Machines Lab, where the work was done. “But you can’t just peek into a neural network, it’s a black box.” After the researchers struggled with various visualization techniques, the self-image gradually emerged. “It was a sort of gently flickering cloud that appeared to engulf the robot’s three-dimensional body,” said Lipson. “As the robot moved, the flickering cloud gently followed it.” The robot’s self-model was accurate to about 1% of its workspace.

Self-modeling robots will lead to more self-reliant autonomous systems

The ability of robots to model themselves without being assisted by engineers is important for many reasons: Not only does it save labor, but it also allows the robot to keep up with its own wear-and-tear, and even detect and compensate for damage. The authors argue that this ability is important as we need autonomous systems to be more self-reliant. A factory robot, for instance, could detect that something isn’t moving right, and compensate or call for assistance.

“We humans clearly have a notion of self,” explained the study’s first author Boyuan Chen, who led the work and is now an assistant professor at Duke University. “Close your eyes and try to imagine how your own body would move if you were to take some action, such as stretch your arms forward or take a step backward. Somewhere inside our brain we have a notion of self, a self-model that informs us what volume of our immediate surroundings we occupy, and how that volume changes as we move.”

Self-awareness in robots

The work is part of Lipson’s decades-long quest to find ways to grant robots some form of self-awareness.  “Self-modeling is a primitive form of self-awareness,” he explained. “If a robot, animal, or human, has an accurate self-model, it can function better in the world, it can make better decisions, and it has an evolutionary advantage.” 

The researchers are aware of the limits, risks, and controversies surrounding granting machines greater autonomy through self-awareness. Lipson is quick to admit that the kind of self-awareness demonstrated in this study is, as he noted, “trivial compared to that of humans, but you have to start somewhere. We have to go slowly and carefully, so we can reap the benefits while minimizing the risks.”  

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Fully body visual self-modeling of robot morphologies by Boyuan Chen, Robert Kwiatkowski, Carl Vondrick and Hod Lipson. Science Robotics 13 Jul 2022 Vol 7, Issue 68 DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.abn1944

This paper is behind a paywall.

If you follow the link to the July 13, 2022 Columbia University news release, you’ll find an approximately 25 min. video of Hod Lipson showing you how they did it. As Lipson notes discussion of self-awareness and sentience is not found in robotics programmes. Plus, there are more details and links if you follow the EurekAlert link.

Pulling water from the air

Adele Peters’ May 27, 2022 article for Fast Company describes some research into harvesting water from the air (Note: Links have been removed),

In Ethiopia, where an ongoing drought is the worst in 40 years, getting drinking water for the day can involve walking for eight hours. Some wells are drying up. As climate change progresses, water scarcity keeps getting worse. But new technology in development at the University of Texas at Austin could help: Using simple, low-cost materials, it harvests water from the air, even in the driest climates.

“The advantage of taking water moisture from the air is that it’s not limited geographically,” says Youhong “Nancy” Guo, lead author of a new study in Nature Communications that describes the technology.

It’s a little surprising that Peters doesn’t mention the megadrought in the US Southwest, which has made quite a splash in the news, from a February 15, 2022 article by Denise Chow for NBC [{US} National Broadcasting Corporation] news online, Note: Links have been removed,

The megadrought that has gripped the southwestern United States for the past 22 years is the worst since at least 800 A.D., according to a new study that examined shifts in water availability and soil moisture over the past 12 centuries.

The research, which suggests that the past two decades in the American Southwest have been the driest period in 1,200 years, pointed to human-caused climate change as a major reason for the current drought’s severity. The findings were published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Jason Smerdon, one of the study’s authors and a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said global warming has made the megadrought more extreme because it creates a “thirstier” atmosphere that is better able to pull moisture out of forests, vegetation and soil.

Over the past two decades, temperatures in the Southwest were around 1.64 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the average from 1950 to 1999, according to the researchers. Globally, the world has warmed by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s.

It’s getting drier even here in the Pacific Northwest. Maybe it’s time to start looking at drought and water shortages as a global issue rather than as a regional issue.

Caption: An example of a different shape the water-capturing film can take. Credit: The University of Texas at Austin / Cockrell School of Engineering

Getting back to the topic, a May 23, 2022 University of Texas at Austin news release (also on EurkeAlert), which originated the Peters’ article, announces the work,

More than a third of the world’s population lives in drylands, areas that experience significant water shortages. Scientists and engineers at The University of Texas at Austin have developed a solution that could help people in these areas access clean drinking water.

The team developed a low-cost gel film made of abundant materials that can pull water from the air in even the driest climates. The materials that facilitate this reaction cost a mere $2 per kilogram, and a single kilogram can produce more than 6 liters of water per day in areas with less than 15% relative humidity and 13 liters in areas with up to 30% relative humidity.

The research builds on previous breakthroughs from the team, including the ability to pull water out of the atmosphere and the application of that technology to create self-watering soil. However, these technologies were designed for relatively high-humidity environments.

“This new work is about practical solutions that people can use to get water in the hottest, driest places on Earth,” said Guihua Yu, professor of materials science and mechanical engineering in the Cockrell School of Engineering’s Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering. “This could allow millions of people without consistent access to drinking water to have simple, water generating devices at home that they can easily operate.”

The researchers used renewable cellulose and a common kitchen ingredient, konjac gum, as a main hydrophilic (attracted to water) skeleton. The open-pore structure of gum speeds the moisture-capturing process. Another designed component, thermo-responsive cellulose with hydrophobic (resistant to water) interaction when heated, helps release the collected water immediately so that overall energy input to produce water is minimized.

Other attempts at pulling water from desert air are typically energy-intensive and do not produce much. And although 6 liters does not sound like much, the researchers say that creating thicker films or absorbent beds or arrays with optimization could drastically increase the amount of water they yield.

The reaction itself is a simple one, the researchers said, which reduces the challenges of scaling it up and achieving mass usage.

“This is not something you need an advanced degree to use,” said Youhong “Nancy” Guo, the lead author on the paper and a former doctoral student in Yu’s lab, now a postdoctoral researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s straightforward enough that anyone can make it at home if they have the materials.”

The film is flexible and can be molded into a variety of shapes and sizes, depending on the need of the user. Making the film requires only the gel precursor, which includes all the relevant ingredients poured into a mold.

“The gel takes 2 minutes to set simply. Then, it just needs to be freeze-dried, and it can be peeled off the mold and used immediately after that,” said Weixin Guan, a doctoral student on Yu’s team and a lead researcher of the work.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and drinking water for soldiers in arid climates is a big part of the project. However, the researchers also envision this as something that people could someday buy at a hardware store and use in their homes because of the simplicity.

Yu directed the project. Guo and Guan co-led experimental efforts on synthesis, characterization of the samples and device demonstration. Other team members are Chuxin Lei, Hengyi Lu and Wen Shi.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Scalable super hygroscopic polymer films for sustainable moisture harvesting in arid environments by Youhong Guo, Weixin Guan, Chuxin Lei, Hengyi Lu, Wen Shi & Guihua Yu. Nature Communications volume 13, Article number: 2761 (2022) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30505-2 Published: 19 May 2022

This paper is open access.

Philosophy and science in Tokyo, Japan from Dec. 1-2, 2022

I have not seen a more timely and à propos overview for a meeting/conference/congress that this one for Tokyo Forum 2022 (hosted by the University of Tokyo and South Korea’s Chey Institute for Advanced Studies),

Dialogue between Philosophy and Science: In a World Facing War, Pandemic, and Climate Change

In the face of war, a pandemic, and climate change, we cannot repeat the history of the last century, in which our ancestors headed down the road to division, global conflict, and environmental destruction.

How can we live more fully and how do we find a new common understanding about what our society should be? Tokyo Forum 2022 will tackle these questions through a series of in-depth dialogues between philosophy and science. The dialogues will weave together the latest findings and deep contemplation, and explore paths that could lead us to viable answers and solutions.

Philosophy of the 21st century must contribute to the construction of a new universality based on locality and diversity. It should be a universality that is open to co-existing with other non-human elements, such as ecosystems and nature, while severely criticizing the understanding of history that unreflectively identifies anthropocentrism with universality.

Science in the 21st century also needs to dispense with its overarching aura of supremacy and lack of self-criticism. There is a need for scientists to make efforts to demarcate their own limits. This also means reexamining what ethics means for science.

Tokyo Forum 2022 will offer multifaceted dialogues between philosophers, scientists, and scholars from various fields of study on the state and humanity in the 21st century, with a view to imagining and proposing a vision of the society we need.

Here are some details about the hybrid event from a November 4, 2022 University of Tokyo press release on EurekAlert,

The University of Tokyo and South Korea’s Chey Institute for Advanced Studies will host Tokyo Forum 2022 from Dec. 1-2, 2022. Under this year’s theme “Dialogue between Philosophy and Science,” the annual symposium will bring together philosophers, scientists and scholars in various fields from around the world for multifaceted dialogues on humanity and the state in the 21st century, while envisioning the society we need.

The event is free and open to the public, and will be held both on site at Yasuda Auditorium of the University of Tokyo and online via livestream. [emphases mine]

Keynote speakers lined up for the first day of the two-day symposium are former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, University of Chicago President Paul Alivisatos and Mariko Hasegawa, president of the Graduate University for Advanced Studies in Japan.

Other featured speakers on the event’s opening day include renowned modern thinker and author Professor Markus Gabriel of the University of Bonn, and physicist Hirosi Ooguri, director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe at the University of Tokyo and professor at the California Institute of Technology, who are scheduled to participate in the high-level discussion on the dialogue between philosophy and science.

Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs will take part in a panel discussion, also on Day 1, on tackling global environmental issues with stewardship of the global commons — the stable and resilient Earth system that sustains our lives — as a global common value.

The four panel discussions slated for Day 2 will cover the role of world philosophy in addressing the problems of a globalized world; transformative change for a sustainable future by understanding the diverse values of nature and its contributions to people; the current and future impacts of autonomous robots on society; and finding collective solutions and universal values to pursue equitable and sustainable futures for humanity by looking at interconnections among various fields of inquiry.

Opening remarks will be delivered by University of Tokyo President Teruo Fujii and South Korea’s SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won, on Day 1. Fujii and Chey Institute President Park In-kook will make closing remarks following the wrap-up session on the second and final day.

Tokyo Forum with its overarching theme “Shaping the Future” is held annually since 2019 to stimulate discussions on finding the best ideas for shaping the world and humanity in the face of complex situations where the conventional wisdom can no longer provide answers.

For more information about the program and speakers of Tokyo Forum 2022, visit the event website and social media accounts:

Website: https://www.tokyoforum.tc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/index.html

Twitter: https://twitter.com/UTokyo_forum

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UTokyo.tokyo.forum/

To register, fill out the registration form on the Tokyo Forum 2022 website (registration is free but required [emphasis mine] to attend the event): https://www.tokyo-forum-form.com/apply/audiences/en

I’m not sure how they are handling languages. I’m guessing that people are speaking in the language they choose and translations (subtitles or dubbing) are available. For anyone who may have difficulty attending due to timezone issues, there are archives for previous Tokyo Forums. Presumably 2022 will be added at some point in the future.

A computer simulation inside a computer simulation?

Stumbling across an entry from National Film Board of Canada for the Venice VR (virtual reality) Expanded section at the 77th Venice International Film Festival (September 2 to 12, 2020) and a recent Scientific American article on computer simulations provoked a memory from Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel, Dune. From an Oct. 3, 2007 posting on Equivocality; A journal of self-discovery, healing, growth, and growing pains,

Knowing where the trap is — that’s the first step in evading it. This is like single combat, Son, only on a larger scale — a feint within a feint within a feint [emphasis mine]…seemingly without end. The task is to unravel it.

—Duke Leto Atreides, Dune [Note: Dune is a 1965 science-fiction novel by US author Frank Herbert]

Now, onto what provoked memory of that phrase.

The first computer simulation “Agence”

Here’s a description of “Agence” and its creators from an August 11, 2020 Canada National Film Board (NFB) news release,

Two-time Emmy Award-winning storytelling pioneer Pietro Gagliano’s new work Agence (Transitional Forms/National Film Board of Canada) is an industry-first dynamic film that integrates cinematic storytelling, artificial intelligence, and user interactivity to create a different experience each time.

Agence is premiering in official competition in the Venice VR Expanded section at the 77th Venice International Film Festival (September 2 to 12), and accessible worldwide via the online Venice VR Expanded platform.

About the experience

Would you play god to intelligent life? Agence places the fate of artificially intelligent creatures in your hands. In their simulated universe, you have the power to observe, and to interfere. Maintain the balance of their peaceful existence or throw them into a state of chaos as you move from planet to planet. Watch closely and you’ll see them react to each other and their emerging world.

About the creators

Created by Pietro Gagliano, Agence is a co-production between his studio lab Transitional Forms and the NFB. Pietro is a pioneer of new forms of media that allow humans to understand what it means to be machine, and machines what it means to be human. Previously, Pietro co-founded digital studio Secret Location, and with his team, made history in 2015 by winning the first ever Emmy Award for a virtual reality project. His work has been recognized through hundreds of awards and nominations, including two Emmy Awards, 11 Canadian Screen Awards, 31 FWAs, two Webby Awards, a Peabody-Facebook Award, and a Cannes Lion.

Agence is produced by Casey Blustein (Transitional Forms) and David Oppenheim (NFB) and executive produced by Pietro Gagliano (Transitional Forms) and Anita Lee (NFB). 

About Transitional Forms

Transitional Forms is a studio lab focused on evolving entertainment formats through the use of artificial intelligence. Through their innovative approach to content and tool creation, their interdisciplinary team transforms valuable research into dynamic, culturally relevant experiences across a myriad of emerging platforms. Dedicated to the intersection of technology and art, Transitional Forms strives to make humans more creative, and machines more human.

About the NFB

David Oppenheim and Anita Lee’s recent VR credits also include the acclaimed virtual reality/live performance piece Draw Me Close and The Book of Distance, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and is in the “Best of VR” section at Venice this year. Canada’s public producer of award-winning creative documentaries, auteur animation, interactive stories and participatory experiences, the NFB has won over 7,000 awards, including 21 Webbys and 12 Academy Awards.

The line that caught my eye? “Would you play god to intelligent life?” For the curious, here’s the film’s trailer,

Now for the second computer simulation (the feint within the feint).

Are we living in a computer simulation?

According to some thinkers in the field, the chances are about 50/50 that we are computer simulations, which makes “Agence” a particularly piquant experience.

An October 13, 2020 article ‘Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances are about 50 – 50‘ by Anil Ananthaswamy for Scientific American poses the question with an answer that’s unexpectedly uncertain, Note: Links have been removed,

It is not often that a comedian gives an astrophysicist goose bumps when discussing the laws of physics. But comic Chuck Nice managed to do just that in a recent episode of the podcast StarTalk.The show’s host Neil deGrasse Tyson had just explained the simulation argument—the idea that we could be virtual beings living in a computer simulation. If so, the simulation would most likely create perceptions of reality on demand rather than simulate all of reality all the time—much like a video game optimized to render only the parts of a scene visible to a player. “Maybe that’s why we can’t travel faster than the speed of light, because if we could, we’d be able to get to another galaxy,” said Nice, the show’s co-host, prompting Tyson to gleefully interrupt. “Before they can program it,” the astrophysicist said,delighting at the thought. “So the programmer put in that limit.”

Such conversations may seem flippant. But ever since Nick Bostrom of the University of Oxford wrote a seminal paper about the simulation argument in 2003, philosophers, physicists, technologists and, yes, comedians have been grappling with the idea of our reality being a simulacrum. Some have tried to identify ways in which we can discern if we are simulated beings. Others have attempted to calculate the chance of us being virtual entities. Now a new analysis shows that the odds that we are living in base reality—meaning an existence that is not simulated—are pretty much even. But the study also demonstrates that if humans were to ever develop the ability to simulate conscious beings, the chances would overwhelmingly tilt in favor of us, too, being virtual denizens inside someone else’s computer. (A caveat to that conclusion is that there is little agreement about what the term “consciousness” means, let alone how one might go about simulating it.)

In 2003 Bostrom imagined a technologically adept civilization that possesses immense computing power and needs a fraction of that power to simulate new realities with conscious beings in them. Given this scenario, his simulation argument showed that at least one proposition in the following trilemma must be true: First, humans almost always go extinct before reaching the simulation-savvy stage. Second, even if humans make it to that stage, they are unlikely to be interested in simulating their own ancestral past. And third, the probability that we are living in a simulation is close to one.

Before Bostrom, the movie The Matrix had already done its part to popularize the notion of simulated realities. And the idea has deep roots in Western and Eastern philosophical traditions, from Plato’s cave allegory to Zhuang Zhou’s butterfly dream. More recently, Elon Musk gave further fuel to the concept that our reality is a simulation: “The odds that we are in base reality is one in billions,” he said at a 2016 conference.

For him [astronomer David Kipping of Columbia University], there is a more obvious answer: Occam’s razor, which says that in the absence of other evidence, the simplest explanation is more likely to be correct. The simulation hypothesis is elaborate, presuming realities nested upon realities, as well as simulated entities that can never tell that they are inside a simulation. “Because it is such an overly complicated, elaborate model in the first place, by Occam’s razor, it really should be disfavored, compared to the simple natural explanation,” Kipping says.

Maybe we are living in base reality after all—The Matrix, Musk and weird quantum physics notwithstanding.

It’s all a little mind-boggling (a computer simulation creating and playing with a computer simulation?) and I’m not sure how far how I want to start thinking about the implications (the feint within the feint within the feint). Still, it seems that the idea could be useful as a kind of thought experiment designed to have us rethink our importance in the world. Or maybe, as a way to have a laugh at our own absurdity.