1467352230000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsuzan-mazur%2Fempty-seats-as-zoologists_b_10764294.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Empty Seats as Zoologists Hog Royal Society Stage

"2016-07-01-1467346660-8784318-RoyalSocietyImage.jpg"

Six months after announcing the November 2016 Royal Society evolution meeting on this page and a half dozen or so stories later, over one-third of the seats for the event still remain vacant -- and the tickets are free! But that's easily explained, because the zoologists ultimately decided to "hog" the show.

It didn't have to be so. A lineup of speakers who truly represent the paradigm shift underway in evolution science would have quickly filled up the house. Instead, organizers went with essentially an evo-devo reunion on plasticity and niche construction -- rehashed themes of Altenberg! from eight years ago minus most of the stars of that conference. And they made sure to exclude, for instance, experts on viruses -- the largest part of the biosphere -- at a time when Zika continues to prove it can downsize the human brain in a flash and could have done the reverse at some point in evolutionary time. So how can the November proceedings possibly be considered a credible meeting on the latest "trends" in evolutionary science?

Aside from some of the organizers and Jim Shapiro and Doug Futuyma -- there's no big-name recognition. A number of prominent scientists I've spoken with who have not been asked to present but hope to get a word in edgewise have told me they nevertheless still plan to attend.

Other irritations are that the meeting is largely another Anglo-Amercian affair and there's an absence of women who are stars in science, aside from Eva Jablonka and she's considered somewhat at the conservative end of the discussion.

I expected Evelyn Fox Keller to be the key dissector of gene jargon, however organizers have chosen to showcase lesser known female academics. There are altogether six women presenting.

Also, the hand of Templeton is all over the November event with many of the participants part of the $11M Extended Synthesis grant.

It's interesting that Massimo Pigliucci, one of the organizers of the Altenberg 16 conference -- who is not speaking at the Royal Society event -- recently gave a talk on science and fantasy at the UK philosophy & music festival at Hay. I'm beginning to wonder whether Pigliucci may finally be on to something.

Here is the lineup for the November Royal Society event, at the moment still over 100 seats left. . .

Denis Noble -- Oxford University

Nancy Cartwright -- University of Durham, UK and University of California, San Diego

Patrick Bateson -- University of Cambridge

John Dupré -- University of Exeter

Kevin Laland -- University of St. Andrews

Gerd Müller -- University of Vienna

Douglas Futuyma -- Stony Brook University

Sonia Sultan -- Wesleyan University

Russell Lande -- Center for Biodiversity Dynamics, NTNU

Tobias Uller -- Lund University

Paul Brakefield -- University of Cambridge

James Shapiro -- University of Chicago

Paul Griffiths -- University of Sydney

Eva Jablonka -- Tel-Aviv University

Greg Hurst -- University of Liverpool

Andy Gardner -- University of St. Andrews

Karola Stotz -- Macquarie University

Tim Lewens -- University of Cambridge

Agustin Fuentes -- University of Notre Dame

Andrew Whiten -- University of St. Andrews

Suzan Anton -- New York University

Melinda Zeder -- Smithsonian Institution

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1467341889000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fstacy-malkan%2Fmonsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Monsanto Fingerprints Found All Over Attack On Organic Food
When a reputable-sounding nonprofit organization released a report attacking the organic food industry in April 2014, the group went to great lengths to tout its independence.

The 30-page report by Academics Review, described as "a non-profit led by independent academic experts in agriculture and food sciences," found that consumers were being duped into spending more money for organic food because of deceptive marketing practices by the organic industry.

Trade press headlines blared: "Organics exposed!" (Brownfield News) and "Organic Industry Booming by Deceiving Consumers" (Food Safety Tech News), touting the findings by supposedly independent experts.

The findings were "endorsed by an international panel of independent agricultural science, food science, economic and legal experts from respected international institutions," according to the group's press release.

In case the point about independence wasn't clear, the press release ends on this note: "Academics Review has no conflicts-of-interest associated with this publication, and all associated costs for which were paid for using our general funds without any specific donor' influence or direction."

What was not mentioned in the report, the news release or on the website: Executives for Monsanto Co., the world's leading purveyor of agrichemicals and genetically engineered seeds, along with key Monsanto allies, engaged in fund raising for Academics Review, collaborated on strategy and even discussed plans to hide industry funding, according to emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know via state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Monsanto's motives in attacking the organic industry are obvious: Monsanto's seeds and chemicals are banned from use in organic farming, and a large part of Monsanto's messaging is that its products are superior to organics as tools to boost global food production.

"2016-06-30-1467320334-9342522-fingerprintscopy.jpg"

Academics Carry Monsanto's Message

Academics Review was co-founded by "two independent professors ... on opposite ends of the planet," Bruce Chassy, Ph.D., professor emeritus at University of Illinois, and David Tribe, Ph.D., senior lecturer at University of Melbourne. They claim the group "only accepts unrestricted donations from non-corporate sources."

Yet two email exchanges in 2010 reveal plans to find corporate funding for Academics Review while keeping corporate fingerprints hidden.

In a March 11, 2010 email exchange with Chassy, Jay Byrne, former head of communications at Monsanto who now runs a PR and market research firm, offered to act as a "commercial vehicle" to help find corporate funding for Academics Review.

Chassy discussed his interest in attacking the organic industry in the emails. "I would love to have a prime name in the middle of the organic aura from which to launch ballistic missiles..." he wrote, "I sure don't have the money."

Byrne replied,

"Well, I suggest we work on the money (for all of us) first and quickly! I've proposed to Val [Giddings, former vice president of BIO, the biotech industry trade association] that he and I meet while I'm in DC next week so we can (not via e-mail) get a clear picture of options for taking the Academic Review project and other opportunities forward. The "Center for Consumer Freedom" (ActivistCash.com) has cashed in on this to the extreme."

The Center for Consumer Freedom is directed by Rick Berman, a lobbyist who has been called "Dr. Evil" and the "king of corporate front groups and propaganda" for his work to promote the tobacco industry and other corporate interests under the cover of neutral-sounding groups.

"I think we have a much better concept," Byrne told Chassy.

Byrne shared an "opportunities" list of targets comprised of people, groups and content critical of GMOs and Monsanto: Vandana Shiva, Andrew Kimbrell, Ronnie Cummins, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Michael Pollan's book "In Defense of Food," the movies "Food, Inc" and "The World According to Monsanto," and "topic cross-over on all the risk areas of ag-biotech (out crossing/ contamination, bees, butterflies, human safety, etc...)."

"All of these individuals, organizations, content items and topic areas mean money for a range of well heeled corporations, Byrne wrote, adding:

"I believe Val and I can identify and serve as the appropriate (non-academic) commercial vehicles by which we can connect these entities with the project in a manner which helps to ensure the credibility and independence (and thus value) of the primary contributors/owners... I believe our kitchen cabinet here can serve as gatekeepers (in some cases toll takers) for effective, credible responses, inoculation and proactive activities using this project platform..."

"Sounds good to me," Chassy replied. "I'm sure that you will let me know what you discuss."

In an email exchange with Chassy dated November 30, 2010, Eric Sachs, a senior public relations operative for Monsanto, discussed finding corporate support for Academics Review while "keeping Monsanto in the background."

Sachs wrote to Chassy:

"You and I need to talk more about the "academics review" site and concept. I believe that there is a path to a process that would better respond to scientific concerns and allegations. I shared with Val yesterday. From my perspective the problem is one of expert engagement and that could be solved by paying experts to provide responses. You and I have discussed this in the past. Val explained that step one is establishing 501(c)3 not-for-profit status to facilitate fund raising. That makes sense but there is more. I discussed with Jerry Steiner today (Monsanto Executive Team) and can help motivate CLI/BIO/CBI and other organizations to support. The key will be keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information."

CLI/BIO/CBI refers to three industry trade groups -- Crop Life International, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization and the Council for Biotechnology Information -- that represent agrichemical corporations.

Chassy responded to Sachs, "Yes we should talk about Academics Review. I think we are on the same page."

When asked directly about funding, Chassy replied via email: "Academics Review does not solicit or accept funds from any source for specific research or any other activities associated with any products, services or industry. Academics Review only accepts unrestricted donations from non-corporate sources to support our work."

He said that Academics Review incorporated and reported no income in 2012 and he provided the IRS form 990s for 2013 and 2014 (now also posted on the website). Those documents report $419,830 in revenues but include no information about contributors. Chassy did not respond to requests to provide that information.

Press Covers "Independent" Attack on Organic

Academics Review released its organic marketing study in April 2014 to a robust round of trade press coverage describing the findings of "independent researchers":

• "The Organic Food Industry Has Been Engaged in 'Multi-Decade Public Disinformation Campaign' claims report" (Food Navigator)

• "Report: Organic Industry Achieved 25 Years of Fast Growth Through Fear and Deception" (Food Safety News)

• "A Scathing Indictment of Organic Food Marketing" (Hoard's Dairyman)

• "Using Fear as a Sales Tactic" (Food Business News)

In the New York Post, Naomi Schaffer Riley built a case against "tyranny of the organic mommy mafia" who are duped by disingenuous marketing tactics of the organic industry. Her sources included the Academics Review report and Julie Gunlock, author of a book about the "culture of alarmism."

Riley didn't mention that Gunlock, and also Riley herself, are both senior fellows at the Independent Women's Forum, a group heavily funded by Donors Trust, which has bankrolled corporate attacks on unions, public schools and climate scientists.

In the Des Moines Register, John R. Block, a former U.S. secretary of agriculture who now works for a law firm that lobbies for agribusiness interests, reported on the "blockbuster report" by Academics Review and its findings that the organic industry's secret to success is "black marketing."

The corporate front group American Council on Science and Health, which receives funding from the agrichemical industry and where Chassy serves as a scientific advisor, pushed the "black marketing" theme in articles by ACSH president Hank Campbell and Henry I. Miller, MD, a Hoover Institute fellow who served as the spokesmodel in commercials for the effort to kill GMO labeling in California, for which Monsanto was the lead funder.

Miller, who has a long history of making inaccurate scientific claims in support of corporate interests, also used the Academics Review report as a source for organic attacks in Newsweek and the National Review, and claimed in the Wall Street Journal that organic farming is not sustainable.

Similar anti-organic themes run through other agrichemical industry PR channels.

GMO Answers, a marketing website funded by the Big Six agrichemical companies (and where Chassy and Tribe serve as "independent experts"), promotes the ideas that organics are no healthier, no better for the environment and just a marketing program -- although, ironically, the PR firm that runs GMO Answers has launched a specialty group in San Francisco to try to cash in on the organic market.

Monsanto's top spokesperson, Robb Fraley, also repeatedly trashes the organic industry on his Twitter feed.

Money Flow Goes Public; Academics Review Goes Silent

In March 2016, Monica Eng reported for WBEZ on documents showing that Monsanto paid Professor Bruce Chassy more than $57,000 over a 23-month period to travel, write and speak about GMOs -- money that was not disclosed to the public.

According to Eng's investigation, the money was part of at least $5.1 million in undisclosed money Monsanto sent through the University of Illinois Foundation to university employees and programs between 2005 and 2015.

"Chassy did not disclose his financial relationship with Monsanto on state or university forms aimed at detecting potential conflicts of interest," Eng reported.

"Documents further show that Chassy and the university directed Monsanto to deposit the payments through the University of Illinois Foundation, a body whose records are shielded from public scrutiny. The foundation also has the ability to take in private money and disburse it to an individual as a 'university payment' -- exempt from disclosure."

In January 2016, Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, reported on emails showing that hundreds of thousands of dollars had flowed from Monsanto to the University of Illinois "as Chassy collaborated on multiple projects with Monsanto to counter public concerns about genetically modified crops (GMOs) - all while representing himself as an independent academic for a public institution."

"What you find when reading through the email chains is an arrangement that allowed industry players to cloak pro-GMO messaging within a veil of independent expertise, and little, if any, public disclosure of the behind-the-scenes connections," Gillam wrote.

The last post on the Academics Review site, dated Sept. 2, 2015, is a blog by Chassy explaining that some of his emails would be made public due to the FOIA requests of U.S. Right to Know, which he characterized as an assault on his 40 years of public science, research and teaching.

Financial support from the private sector for public sector research and outreach is "appropriate, commonplace and needed to further the public interest," Chassy wrote. "Such support should be, and in all my experiences has been, transparent and done under the strict ethical guidelines of the public institutions that are benefiting from private sector or individual financial contributions."

Three days later, some of Chassy's emails were first made public in a front-page New York Times article by two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Eric Lipton. Lipton reported that Monsanto gave Chassy a grant for an undisclosed sum in 2011 for "biotechnology outreach and education activities."

Chassy told Lipton that the money he received from Monsanto "helped to elevate his voice through travel, a website he created and other means."

Still Getting Press as an Independent Source

Despite the revelations in the emails and the disclosure of Chassy's financial ties to Monsanto, the Academics Review website and its report attacking the organic industry are still posted online with all the descriptions claiming independence.

And Chassy still enjoys press coverage as an "independent" expert on GMOs. In May 2016, two separate Associated Press stories quoted Chassy on that topic. Neither story mentioned Chassy's now-public financial ties to Monsanto.

Follow Stacy Malkan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/StacyMalkan

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1467329286000

astronomy

%feed
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetEarthBeyond/~3/PWL157WtsJc/hubbles-vivid-new-images-of-jupiters-polar-aurora-larger-than-earth.html
Hubble's Vivid New Images of Jupiter's Polar Aurora --"Larger than Earth"

Astronomers are using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to study auroras -- stunning light shows in a planet's atmosphere -- on the poles of the largest planet in the Solar System, Jupiter. This observation program is supported by measurements made by NASA's Juno spacecraft, currently on its way to Jupiter. Jupiter's auroras were first discovered by the Voyager 1 spacecraft in 1979. A thin ring of light on Jupiter's nightside looked like a stretched-out version of our own auroras on Earth. Only later on was it discovered that the auroras were best visible using the ultraviolet capabilities of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope.

The extraordinary vivid glows shown in the new observations are known as auroras. They are created when high energy particles enter a planet's atmosphere near its magnetic poles and collide with atoms of gas. As well as producing beautiful images, this program aims to determine how various components of Jupiter's auroras respond to different conditions in the solar wind , a stream of charged particles ejected from the Sun.

This observation program is perfectly timed as NASA's Juno spacecraft is currently in the solar wind near Jupiter and will enter the orbit of the planet in early July 2016. While Hubble is observing and measuring the auroras on Jupiter, Juno is measuring the properties of the solar wind itself; a perfect collaboration between a telescope and a space probe.

"These auroras are very dramatic and among the most active I have ever seen", says Jonathan Nichols from the University of Leicester, UK, and principal investigator of the study. "It almost seems as if Jupiter is throwing a firework party for the imminent arrival of Juno."

To highlight changes in the auroras Hubble is observing Jupiter daily for around one month. Using this series of images it is possible for scientists to create videos that demonstrate the movement of the vivid auroras, which cover areas bigger than the Earth.

Not only are the auroras huge, they are also hundreds of times more energetic than auroras on Earth. And, unlike those on Earth, they never cease. Whilst on Earth the most intense auroras are caused by solar storms -- when charged particles rain down on the upper atmosphere, excite gases, and cause them to glow red, green and purple -- Jupiter has an additional source for its auroras.

The strong magnetic field of the gas giant grabs charged particles from its surroundings. This includes not only the charged particles within the solar wind but also the particles thrown into space by its orbiting moon Io, known for its numerous and large volcanos.

The new observations and measurements made with Hubble and Juno will help to better understand how the Sun and other sources influence auroras. While the observations with Hubble are still ongoing and the analysis of the data will take several more months, the first images and videos are already available and show the auroras on Jupiter's north pole in their full beauty.

The Daily Galaxy via ESA/Hubble

"The Pale Blue Dot" --25 Years After Voyager 1 Took the Iconic Image

Magnetic Field of the Sun Shapes the Massive Heliosphere Bubble

A Pristine Extremophile Habitat? Lava Lake on Jupiter's Volcanic Moon, Io

astronomy

1467329282000

astronomy

%feed
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetEarthBeyond/~3/5KlqFQ3jZHA/interstellar-monsters-supermassive-black-holes-detected-ejected-from-their-galaxy.html
"Rogue Monsters of the Cosmos" --Supermassive Black Holes Detected Ejected from Their Galaxy

The central regions of many glittering galaxies, our own Milky Way included, harbor cores of impenetrable darkness -- black holes with masses equivalent to millions, or even billions, of suns. What's more, these supermassive black holes and their host galaxies appear to develop together, or "co-evolve." Theory predicts that as galaxies collide and merge, growing ever more massive.

Researchers have developed a new method for detecting and measuring one of the most powerful, and most mysterious, events in the Universe - a black hole being kicked out of its host galaxy and into intergalactic space at speeds as high as 5000 kilometers per second.

"When the detection of gravitational waves was announced, a new era in astronomy began, since we can now actually observe two merging black holes," said study co-author Christopher Moore, a Cambridge University PhD student who was also a member of the team which announced the detection of gravitational waves earlier this year. "We now have two ways of detecting black holes, instead of just one - it's amazing that just a few months ago, we couldn't say that. And with the future launch of new space-based gravitational wave detectors, we'll be able to look at gravitational waves on a galactic, rather than a stellar, scale."

The method, developed by researchers from the University of Cambridge, could be used to detect and measure so-called black hole superkicks, which occur when two spinning supermassive black holes collide into each other, and the recoil of the collision is so strong that the remnant of the black hole merger is bounced out of its host galaxy entirely. Their results are reported in the journal Physical Review Letters.

Earlier this year, the LIGO Collaboration announced the first detection of gravitational waves - ripples in the fabric of spacetime - coming from the collision of two black holes, confirming a major prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity and marking the beginning of a new era in astronomy. As the sensitivity of the LIGO detectors is improved, even more gravitational waves are expected to be detected - the second successful detection was announced in June.

As two black holes circle each other, they emit gravitational waves in a highly asymmetric way, which leads to a net emission of momentum in some preferential direction. When the black holes finally do collide, conservation of momentum imparts a recoil, or kick, much like when a gun is fired. When the two black holes are not spinning, the speed of the recoil is around 170 kilometres per second. But when the black holes are rapidly spinning in certain orientations, the speed of the recoil can be as high as 5000 kilometres per second, easily exceeding the escape velocity of even the most massive galaxies, sending the black hole remnant resulting from the merger into intergalactic space.

The Cambridge researchers have developed a new method for detecting these kicks based on the gravitational wave signal alone, by using the Doppler Effect. The Doppler Effect is the reason that the sound of a passing car seems to lower in pitch as it gets further away. It is also widely used in astronomy: electromagnetic radiation coming from objects which are moving away from the Earth is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, while radiation coming from objects moving closer to the Earth is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum. Similarly, when a black hole kick has sufficient momentum, the gravitational waves it emits will be red-shifted if it is directed away from the Earth, while they will be blue-shifted if it's directed towards the Earth.

"If we can detect a Doppler shift in a gravitational wave from the merger of two black holes, what we're detecting is a black hole kick," said study co-author Davide Gerosa, a PhD student from Cambridge's Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. "And detecting a black hole kick would mean a direct observation that gravitational waves are carrying not just energy, but linear momentum as well."

Detecting this elusive effect requires gravitational-wave experiments capable of observing black hole mergers with very high precision. A black hole kick cannot be directly detected using current land-based gravitational wave detectors, such as those at LIGO. However, according to the researchers, the new space-based gravitational wave detector known as eLISA, funded by the European Space Agency (ESA) and due for launch in 2034, will be powerful enough to detect several of these runaway black holes. In 2015, ESA launched the LISA Pathfinder, which is successfully testing several technologies which could be used to measure gravitational waves from space.

The researchers found that the eLISA detector above will be particularly well-suited to detecting black hole kicks: it will be capable of measuring kicks as small as 500 kilometres per second, as well as the much faster superkicks. Kick measurements will tell us more about the properties of black hole spins, and also provide a direct way of measuring the momentum carried by gravitational waves, which may lead to new opportunities for testing general relativity.

The Daily Galaxy via University of Cambridge and NASA/JPL

Image credit top of page: ligo.caltech.edu

Supernova Mysteries --Why Some Collaspe Into Black Holes to Form a Space-Time Singularity

ESO: "An Entire Spiral Galaxy Fell Through the Center of Massive Elliptical Galaxy M87"

The Vanishing Planet

astronomy

You may now kiss the C:\ drive