jueves, 30 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: NASA Chooses Three Landers to Return Americans to the Moon NASA Chooses Three Landers to Return Americans to the Moon



It’s been nearly half a century since the U.S. had a spacecraft capable of landing human beings on the moon. As of today, it has not one, but three—if everything goes right.

NASA officials announced on April 30, in a teleconference with space-industry leaders, the three finalists it has chosen to build the 21st century version of the Apollo-era’s well loved lunar excursion module (LEM), the four-legged, gold-foil, so-ugly-it-was-beautiful machine that landed six crews on the surface of the moon from 1969 to 1972. Unlike the LEM, which was effectively designed by NASA and then built to order by Northrop Grumman, the new landers are being designed entirely by private companies, which will then compete to prove to NASA that theirs is the ship the agency should pick.

The company names were announced alphabetically at the teleconference, but the first one called out—Blue Origin, of Kent, Washington, founded and owned by Amazon boss Jeff Bezos—might be the best bet for success anyway. Blue Origin is working with three other companies (Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Draper) to design a two-stage lander similar to the LEM. The LEM landed on the moon in a single piece and the astronauts then blasted back off in just the vehicle’s upper portion, using the bottom half as a sort of launch platform.

The second company, Dynetics, of Huntsville, Alabama, is proposing to simplify things, building a one-stage vehicle that will land in a single piece and take back off that way. The third contender, SpaceX, headquartered in Hawthorne, California, submitted the most audacious proposal: its much-touted, 50-meter (160-foot) tall, 100-passenger Starship spacecraft, which it would launch atop its own 68-meter (223-foot) tall Falcon Super Heavy rocket. Once at the moon, the Starship would land and take off in a single piece using its own set of engines.

“We want to be a customer,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said on the teleconference, stressing that the responsibility for designing the hardware and delivering the goods lies with the finalists. “We want to drive down the costs and increase access to space. This little agency is moving forward.”

But the little agency needs a lot of money. For the Trump Administration to reach its target of having astronauts back on the moon by 2024, NASA will need a funding boost of $3 billion—to $25 billion total—in 2022, with additional bumps that bring it up to $26 billion and $27 billion in 2023 and 2024, respectively. That’s a big ask given years of flat funding for the U.S. space program, but NASA is hoping to benefit from Congress opening its wallets to help keep the economy afloat during coronavirus pandemic. Without that money, NASA will be unable to fund the lunar lander, or the Orion crew vehicle and the Space Launch System—the modern-day version of the Apollo orbiter and the Saturn V rocket—that will also be necessary to bring humans to the moon.

What’s more, NASA may wind up needing money to pay for the services of more than one of the three contending lander groups. Over the course of the next 10 months, the teams will be refining their plans, and, in the process, pitching their wares, with an eye toward February of 2021, when NASA will choose a winner. But the ostensible losers may eventually fly anyway. NASA is stressing both speed—getting to the moon by 2024—and sustainability, going there to stay, rather than making the brief Apollo-style visits that have since been disparagingly dubbed the “flags and footprints” model. In the same way NASA will be paying both SpaceX and Boeing to ferry crews to and from the International Space Station, so too it might pay for the services of a company that is not chosen to build the lunar lander, but goes on to develop its own moon capability anyway.

New story in Science and Health from Time: Alabama High School Student Names NASA’s First Mars Helicopter Alabama High School Student Names NASA’s First Mars Helicopter



(NORTHPORT, Ala.) — An Alabama high school student named NASA’s first Mars helicopter that will be deployed to the Red Planet later this summer.

Ingenuity, the name submitted by Vaneera Rupani, was selected for the 4 pound (1.8 kilograms) solar-powered helicopter, NASA said in a statement on Wednesday. The name coined by the junior at Tuscaloosa County High School in Northport was just one of the 28,000 names that were submitted during NASA’s “Name the Rover” essay contest for K-12 students across the United States.

“The ingenuity and brilliance of people working hard to overcome the challenges of interplanetary travel are what allow us all to experience the wonders of space exploration,” Rupani wrote in her essay. “Ingenuity is what allows people to accomplish amazing things, and it allows us to expand our horizons to the edges of the universe.”

In March, the organization selected the name “Perseverance” for the Mars Rover based on a Virginian student’s essay, but decided to come back to the submitted essays to also pick a name for the helicopter that will accompany the Rover on the trip to the planet.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine then selected Rupani’s name for the helicopter, noting that the name “encapsulates the values that our helicopter tech demo will showcase” when it takes off to Mars. Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby also congratulated Rupani for the honor.

“It was really cool I got to be a part of something like this,” she told the AP.

Ingenuity, which will be deployed to Mars attached to the “Perseverance” Rover in July or August, has already completed testing in a NASA simulation chamber in Southern California. After it arrives on Mars, NASA said the helicopter will maintain a cover to be protected from debris until the timing is right for the aircraft to operate on the planet by itself.

If Ingenuity is successful during its 31-day experimental trip, the small helicopter will prove that powered flights can be accomplished on Mars, NASA said. This year’s mission to Mars is part of a program that also includes missions to the moon to prepare for a possible human exploration of the Red Planet, NASA said.

According to the organization, they plan to land the first woman and the next man on the moon in 2024, and set up a continued human presence “on and around” the moon in eight years so they can use it to send astronauts to Mars.

domingo, 26 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: James Beggs, NASA Administrator Who Resigned After Challenger Disaster, Dies at 94 James Beggs, NASA Administrator Who Resigned After Challenger Disaster, Dies at 94



(BETHESDA, Md.) — Former NASA administrator James M. Beggs, who led the agency during the early years of the space shuttle program and resigned after the Challenger disaster killed seven astronauts in 1986, died Thursday at his home in Bethesda, Maryland. He was 94.

Congestive heart failure is suspected to be the cause of his death, according to one of his sons, Charles Beggs.

President Ronald Reagan nominated Beggs to become the sixth administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He served in the agency’s top position from July 1981 to December 1985.

Beggs was on a leave of absence from the post when the Challenger space shuttle broke apart 73 seconds after launch on Jan. 28, 1986, killing all seven astronauts aboard, including New Hampshire school teacher Christa McAuliffe.

Beggs’ resignation took effect nearly a month later. His son, Charles Beggs, recalls asking his father years later why he resigned. He said his father told him that NASA needed to move on from the disaster with strong leadership that he couldn’t provide under the circumstances.

“Instead of hanging on, he resigned for the good of the organization,” Charles Beggs said. “It wasn’t about him. It was about others.”

Charles Beggs said his father was proud to receive a NASA award named after Robert Goddard, a pioneer in the rocketry field.

NASA had more than 20 successful space shuttle missions during Beggs’ tenure. The Washington Post described him as a popular and charismatic figure who was skilled at dealing with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“There is no telling where our vision and imagination will lead us once we have the space station,” he said in 1985, according to the newspaper. “As Shakespeare put it, ‘Thoughts are but dreams till their effects be tried.’”

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said Beggs’ work on the space shuttle program helped NASA “open a whole new era of exploration.”

“We continue to build on his legacy today as we take advantage of our long-term presence in low-Earth orbit to make the advances to travel farther, and seed an entirely new segment of the economy through the innovations of commercial partners,” Bridenstine said in a statement.

Beggs, a Pittsburgh native, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1947 and served in the Navy until 1954. He was an executive vice president and a director of General Dynamics Corp. before becoming NASA administrator.

Beggs took a leave of absence as NASA administrator after he was indicted on federal charges that he and three other General Dynamics executives illegally billed the government. All charges were dropped in 1987. A Justice Department review found no laws had been violated. Then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III sent a written apology to Beggs for the prosecution.

Beggs worked as a Maryland-based consultant after leaving NASA. He had five children with his wife of 62 years, Mary Harrison Beggs, who died in 2015.

sábado, 25 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: Astronomer Files Trademark Lawsuit Against American Girl, Alleging Astronaut Doll Copies Her Likeness Astronomer Files Trademark Lawsuit Against American Girl, Alleging Astronaut Doll Copies Her Likeness



(MADISON, Wis.) — A Chicago astronomer has sued the maker of American Girl dolls, alleging the Wisconsin company stole her likeness and name to create its astronaut doll.

The federal trademark lawsuit filed in Madison this week by Lucianne Walkowicz asks American Girl and its parent company, Mattel, to stop selling the Luciana Vega doll, described as “an aspiring astronaut ready to take the next giant leap to Mars,” the Wisconsin State Journal reported.

Walkowicz is a TED senior fellow at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, spent much of her career with NASA and has lectured extensively on Mars exploration.

American Girl media relations did not answer the phone during business hours seeking comment.

The lawsuit notes the doll has a purple streak in her hair and wears holographic shoes, just as Walkowicz does.

“Here, the defendants used the name and likeness of Lucianne, a well-known figure in astronomy, space and STEM, who particularly studied the star Vega, in conjunction with the American Girl doll Luciana Vega without obtaining her authorization,” the lawsuit states. “In fact, the defendants incorporated the same color hair streak, shoes and style of Lucianne in the Luciana Vega doll.”

Walkowicz is seeking unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages.

Walkowicz’s attorney, Charles Mudd Jr., said there have been unproductive discussions with Mattel about the matter. He said there’s no defense for the use of Walkowicz’s likeness without her authorization.

viernes, 24 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: Meet Violet, the Robot That Can Kill the COVID-19 Virus Meet Violet, the Robot That Can Kill the COVID-19 Virus



In just a few months, the COVID-19 pandemic has crossed borders and oceans, killing thousands, sickening millions, and forcing millions more to reckon with the economic and personal chaos of closures and lockdowns.

Yet as the global infection count rises, the crisis has also given rise to acts of ingenuity. The pandemic has set off a global race for both an effective vaccine and for the accurate, rapid-response tests that will be necessary before workplaces can safely reopen. Vaccines and tests are essential, but they’re not the only front on which to combat the virus.

In the face of an urgent threat, scientists have pivoted from other projects and pooled their resources toward breakthroughs aimed at reducing infection and protecting lives. Chief among those are tools that make for cleaner, safer places for patients and those treating them, and that alleviate the crushing demands placed on healthcare workers during this crisis.

There’s no magic bullet to halt the advance of COVID-19, but many smaller acts of creativity and collaboration can save lives.

The Irish robot

Conor McGinn is a roboticist and professor at Trinity College Dublin. McGinn and his colleagues at Trinity’s Robotics and Innovation Lab focus on figuring out how robots can best assist aging individuals in care homes.

The signature product from the lab and its spinoff company, Akara Robotics, is Stevie, a 4-foot 7-inch tall social robot whose primary function is alleviating loneliness. In trials in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere, the robot has been programmed to tell stories, call bingo numbers, lead sing-alongs, and other morale- and community-building exercises in a group care setting.

Its team of engineers have also worked closely with care home staff to understand what additional functions could be added to the robot to boost patient safety. In July 2019, well before the first reports of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, the team began exploring whether Stevie might be able to ward off infections too.

The team has a longstanding partnership at Knollwood Military Retirement Community in Washington, D.C. A director there had pointed out that acquired infections are one of the greatest threats to health inside care homes. With that in mind, McGinn approached Michael Beckett, a postdoctoral research fellow in Trinity’s microbiology department, to discuss whether it would be possible to equip the robot with an ultraviolet light feature that would be powerful enough to kill harmful pathogens, yet safe to use alongside residents and staff.

Ultraviolet light at wavelengths between 200 and 280 nanometers, also known as UV-C light, “causes DNA either to change shape, or acts like molecular scissors,” says Beckett, . “It will cut that genetic material and cause little nicks in it.”

Complex organisms and even some bacteria can repair those small lacerations themselves. Viruses, which are molecularly much simpler than bacteria, don’t stand a chance.

UV-C light is a long-established disinfectant in health care settings. Over the last 10 years, hospitals around the world have adopted machines that sterilize rooms and equipment with powerful blasts of light. Because UV-C can also cause sunburn and the cell mutations that lead to skin cancer, most machines currently in use can only work safely and effectively in rooms empty of people, making them impractical for use in high-traffic areas like waiting rooms and other common spaces.

The Stevie robot already had sensors allowing it to navigate independently and stop when it detects the presence of a person. A directed light source that automatically shut down when it detected motion nearby could be a useful feature. Akara toyed with the idea of putting a disinfectant UV-C feature on Stevie, but eventually dropped it when they couldn’t find a satisfactory way to integrate it into the robot’s design.

Then on Feb. 29, Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) confirmed the country’s first case of the novel coronavirus. Less than two weeks later, an elderly woman in a Dublin hospital became Ireland’s first COVID-19 casualty. The Akara team had data on how effective UV-C light was as a disinfectant, and knew how to make a relatively lightweight, nimble robot that could move effectively around humans in a busy healthcare settings. If there was ever a time worth revisiting the idea for an autonomous UV-C equipped robot, McGinn realized, this was it.

The team began drawing up plans for a new robot that would combine the navigational features they’d designed for Stevie with a UV-C light. The robot wouldn’t have any anthropomorphic features, but would be designed to work alongside humans. They would call this one Violet.

Robot time

A common saying in robotics is that robots are best suited for jobs too dirty, dull, or dangerous for humans. The coronavirus outbreak is a textbook example of the last. Violet is one of many robots deployed or soon to be deployed on the front lines of the global outbreak, navigating hospitals and assisting health workers and patients with a very low risk of spreading the infection.

In China, the November emergence of COVID-19 kicked off a rush to get robot technologies to the frontlines. In March, a hospital in the pandemic’s epicenter, Wuhan, opened a new wing for coronavirus patients staffed by robots that clean, deliver food to patients, and monitor vital signs.

“As epidemics escalate, the potential roles of robotics are becoming increasingly clear,” a group of 13 researchers wrote in an editorial last month in the journal Science Robotics. They singled out several key areas where robots could make a significant difference: among them, disinfection using UV light.

“Instead of manual disinfection, which requires workforce mobilization and increases exposure risk to cleaning personnel, autonomous or remote-controlled disinfection robots could lead to cost-effective, fast, and effective disinfection,” the researchers wrote. “New generations of robots, from macro- to microscale, could be developed to navigate high-risk areas and continually work to sterilize all high-touch surfaces.”

Akara isn’t the only company working on robot cleaners. A Danish company called UVD Robots has shipped hundreds of disinfectant robots to China and elsewhere around the world since the outbreak began. Other robotics companies in China and the U.S. are redesigning existing technologies to assist with the current outbreak.

“We’re trying to do something [to help], like everyone here in China,” Keyman Guan of Shenzhen-based YouiBot told the BBC. The company, which usually makes robots for warehouse stocking and other logistics, also now produces a disinfectant robot.

End game

Akara has focused on making Violet portable and compact enough to be able to operate in tight, crowded spaces that are otherwise hard to clean: bathrooms, waiting areas, the nooks and crannies of public transit. It also has a protective shield around the back of the light, and motion-detecting sensors so that people don’t have to vacate the area while it’s at work.

With support from Ireland’s HSE, the Violet team recently tested the robot at Midland Regional Hospital Tullamore, about 60 miles west of Dublin. They conducted tests in a room with a CT scanner, one that would be reserved for COVID-19 patients in need of chest scans if and when the hospital sees an influx of patients. It typically takes a radiographer 15 minutes to clean the room with disinfectant wipes and then another 30 to 60 minutes for the chemicals to dry and any airborne germs to dissipate, meaning that the room can only handle about one patient an hour. In tests, a Violet robot has been able to get the job done in 15 minutes, a fourfold increase in turnaround time.

Akara is looking to raise money now to build a more advanced prototype that can be tested in different settings. Under typical circumstances, the process of design, testing, and approving such a robot for hospital use could take months, if not years. This situation doesn’t have that kind of time. There’s no cutting corners when it comes to tools that could affect people’s health, but the urgency of the coronavirus crisis means that it’s better to move fast than not at all.

“Anyone who’s involved in emergency response will know this—if you need to be right before you move, you will never win. Perfection is the enemy of the good when it comes to emergency management. Speed trumps perfection,” epidemiologist Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program, said in March of his previous experience managing outbreaks of Ebola. “Everyone is afraid of the consequence of error. But the greatest error is not to move. The greatest error is to be paralyzed by the fear of failure.”

There will—hopefully—be many lessons learned from the coronavirus crisis. One will be the necessity of innovation in peace times so that the right technology is ready to go when crisis strikes. If there is anything that science is certain of, it is that in an increasingly interconnected world, a global pandemic will strike again.

Weeks after the first U.S. case of Ebola was reported in 2014, the National Science Foundation and the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy launched a series of workshops to explore the potential of robots to assist with tasks like waste removal, decontamination, and human burial in situations that could get human workers sick. But funding and initiative to pursue these ideas slowed after Ebola’s containment, at least in the U.S. After Trump’s inauguration, the chief role at the Office of Science and Technology Policy sat vacant until the August 2019 confirmation of meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier. The White House recently announced a partnership between major tech companies to pool supercomputing resources to fight the virus’s spread, but there has been no public discussion at the federal level of enlisting robots.

“Without sustained research efforts robots will, once again, not be ready for the next incident,” the researchers wrote in the Science Robotics editorial. “By fostering a fusion of engineering and infectious disease professionals with dedicated funding we can be ready when (not if) the next pandemic arrives.”

jueves, 23 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: Will Low Oil Prices Help or Hurt the Fight Against Climate Change? That Depends on Us Will Low Oil Prices Help or Hurt the Fight Against Climate Change? That Depends on Us



There are countless ways the current coronavirus pandemic has reshaped efforts to tackle climate change and will continue to do so for years to come. One of the chief challenges and opportunities for politicians, policymakers and climate activists is the period of low oil prices that has come about as a result of COVID-19.

For the first time in history, oil prices entered negative territory this week with the U.S. benchmark price for oil reaching negative $40 per barrel on April 20 as the global economy slowed, and oil producers ran out of places to store the glut of crude oil being drilled in the U.S. Even a historic agreement to slash production reached by leading oil exporters earlier this month failed to stem the decline.

Oil prices are notoriously hard to predict, but at this point two things seem likely: First, oil prices will continue to trade at historically low prices so long as the world economy moves slowly as a result of the pandemic. Global oil demand in April was down by about a third from the year prior, a gap that’s difficult to fill. Second, in the longer term, oil prices will almost certainly rebound as the economy bounces back. But, when they do, the industry may look very different than it does today. Many small oil producers will have gone bankrupt and the big players will have endured an extended period of reduced cash flow.

This period of disruption in the industry will inevitably have important implications for the fight against climate change, but right now, it’s hard to tell whether current low oil prices will ease the energy transition or make it harder. The direction things land will ultimately depend on decisions we make in the coming months.

How this moment may drive reduced emissions

There’s one big reason that this period of low oil prices could help climate activists’ cause: the underlying challenges to the industry that led to this pricing free fall lay bare the holes in the investment case for oil companies.

For decades, the energy industry was mostly a consistent cash cow for investors, with oil companies ranked among the world’s biggest and most profitable companies. Last year, the sector was the worst performing on the S&P stock index. This year the outlook looks worse.

After reaching below zero, the stock prices for West Texas Intermediate, a key index for U.S., oil rebounded to around $10 per barrel, and analysts now say it could settle at around $20 per barrel. Still, that falls far short of the $50 per barrel necessary for American producers to turn a profit on a new oil well. Some analysts are now arguing that we may never consume as much energy from fossil fuels as we did last year.

These dire straits will make it more difficult for oil companies to access the capital they need to grow and survive. Lower oil prices mean lower stock prices and loans may grow more expensive for the players that can access them. “The basic model is in pieces, it’s fallen apart,” says Tom Sanzillo, director of finance at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

This means some companies—particularly smaller firms—will go bankrupt while many of those that survive will have to quickly develop new strategies. For some firms, that may mean nixing plans to grow and instead focusing on winding down existing assets. Other, particularly big oil majors, may feel pressured to invest in clean energy and other alternatives to carve out a role for themselves on the other side of the energy transition. Oil companies will ask, “How do we show up in the market as a company that’s future forward and not a company that is irrelevant?” says Deborah Byers, the U.S. oil & gas leader at consulting firm EY, adding that the current pandemic has sped up the urgency of that question by five years.

There’s also a chance that this crisis changes the dynamic within the industry’s behind-the-scenes lobbying. The most vulnerable companies, the small producers, also happen to be the most vocal opponents of government climate measures. While oil majors have changed their public posture on climate change in recent years, endorsing some market-based solutions, their smaller counterparts have fought tooth and nail against even the slightest regulations.

The industry isn’t going to all of the sudden become a climate savior following this pandemic, but some of the most vocal and well-connected opponents of climate action may see their influence wane.

The possibility that this may lead to increased emissions

Historically, low oil prices have created headaches for climate advocates. Cheap oil means cheaper gas at the pump, leading people to drive more and spend more on emissions-intensive consumer goods.

Today, with much of the world locked down, consumers aren’t consuming all that much or making big choices that drive up emissions, but businesses are still making those decisions, and low oil prices reduce the incentive to change. A delivery company purchasing a new van fleet would be less inclined to go electric, for example. A consumer food company considering switching its packaging away from oil-based plastic product may wait it out a few more years. “Oil is cheap. It’s very hard to transition away from oil when it’s very cheap,” says Lorne Stockman, senior research analyst at Oil Change International, which advocates for a transition away from fossil fuels. “And it’s particularly difficult when we don’t have a coherent policy on climate change.”

A key concern for many climate advocates is the possibility that natural gas—which in the U.S. is often produced alongside oil and remains cheap for many of the same reasons that oil does—will further solidify its position in the mix of electricity sources. Low natural gas prices may entice utilities and policymakers to continue to rely on the fossil fuel rather than looking to renewable alternatives, and, because of the long lifespan of natural gas infrastructure, that would lock in decades of emissions.

Meanwhile, electric vehicles continue to struggle to gain market share from their gas-guzzling competitors. The transportation sector in the U.S. now emits more than the power sector, and analysts have banked on the rise of electric vehicles to pull back that tide. But, for cost-conscious consumers, lower oil prices diminish the immediate economic case for electric vehicles. In turn, auto manufacturers may delay plans for electric vehicle expansion. General Motors, for instance, pushed back the launch of a new Chevy Bolt late last month, citing the pandemic.

None of this is to say that low oil prices will stop the energy transition. It’s a question of speed when every day, month and year counts. “Everybody is going to electric vehicles,” says Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, a former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Ford Motor Company , and now a fellow at Third Way, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. “Some of this could get delayed, but it’s not going to change the trend.”

The choices we have to make

The long-term significance of this moment of low oil prices is not preordained. In the coming months, political leaders across the globe will get to work planning an economic recovery. They can choose to double down on fossil fuel infrastructure, inspired in part by low oil prices, or they can invest in clean energy, recognizing the long-term economic trends and the urgent threat of climate change.

“There’s been a lot of discussion around, ‘what kind of recovery do we have in the energy sector? How do we tilt the balance?’” says Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a long-time climate leader. “A lesson learned from previous shocks [is] ‘you shouldn’t do stupid things,’” she says, referring to decisions in the past that led to “propping up fossil fuels.”

There’s definitely a desire in some corners, particularly in the U.S., to use future economic stimulus measures to keep the oil-and-gas industry humming along, business as usual. President Trump has pushed such measures, promising in an April 21 tweet “to never let the great U.S. Oil & Gas Industry down.” But as the world continues to warm, bringing inevitable climate destruction, it may be helpful for the people running our recovery to remember the adage “don’t do stupid things.” When it comes to the decades we’ve spent ignoring the challenge of climate change, business as usual is, in fact, a stupid thing.


A version of this article was originally published in TIME’s climate newsletter, One.Five. Click here to sign up to receive these stories early.

miércoles, 22 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: What Is Contact Tracing? Here’s How It Could Be Used to Help Fight Coronavirus What Is Contact Tracing? Here’s How It Could Be Used to Help Fight Coronavirus



In the coronavirus era, a host of epidemiological terms have entered common public use. There’s the now-ubiquitous “social distancing,” and the newly politicized “flatten the curve.” And as states and local governments seek a way out of lockdowns that have brought their economies to a near-standstill, “contact tracing” has made its way into everyday conversation as well.

But what exactly is contact tracing, and how can it help society battle the COVID-19 epidemic? Here, the basics of the time-tested public health strategy, and the hopes for its use in the coronavirus pandemic:

What is contact tracing?

Contact tracing is a little like detective work: Trained staff interview people who have been diagnosed with a contagious disease to figure out who they may have recently been in contact with. Then, they go tell those people they may have been exposed, sometimes encouraging them to quarantine themselves to prevent spreading the disease any further. Think of it as part public health work, and part investigation.

The technique is a “cornerstone” of preventative medicine, says Dr. Laura Breeher, medical director of occupational health services at the Mayo Clinic. “Contact tracing, it’s having a moment of glory right now with COVID because of the crucial importance of identifying those individuals who have been exposed quickly and isolating or quarantining them,” she says.

Contact tracing was used during the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak, as well as in the SARS outbreak in 2003. It’s also used to combat sexually transmitted infections and other communicable diseases like tuberculosis. And as COVID-19 has gone global, countries like South Korea and New Zealand have aggressively used contact tracing in an attempt to control outbreaks.

Keep up to date with our daily coronavirus newsletter by clicking here.

How does contact tracing work?

Once someone has been confirmed to be infected with a virus, such as through a positive COVID-19 test, contact tracers try to track down others who have had recent prolonged exposure to that person when they may have been infectious. Typically, that exposure means being within 6 feet of the person for more than 10 minutes, says Dr. Breeher, though in a health care setting, such as a hospital, the bar is lowered to five minutes.

Healthcare workers then make an effort to reach out to every one of those contacts, tell them that they may have been exposed, and giving them instructions on what to do next. That may include telling them about possible symptoms or directing them to self-isolate.

What are the limitations of contact tracing?

For one, contact tracing is a laborious process. Interviewing infectious patients and reaching out to dozens of contacts takes time. For that reason, contact tracing works best when there are low levels of infection in a community, says Dr. Frank Esper, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital. “When you get to a point where there is a lot of people who are sickened with a particular disease, it quickly overwhelms the health departments’ response to be able to contact trace all those individuals,” he says.

With a virus like COVID-19, which spreads through the air, things can get complicated quickly. Contact tracers might end up trying to find those who sat near an infected individual on a plane or a bus, for instance, even if the sick person never met them. That’s a radically different task from contact tracing with a sexually transmitted infection like HIV, which tends to involve a much shorter, more well-defined list of contacts for investigators. Health care workers may also have trouble getting in touch with contacts if phone records aren’t up to date, or if an infected patient is already too sick to help identify their recent contacts.

Contact tracing also isn’t much help when states and localities have already issued lockdown orders, and when most people are self-isolating anyway. “You ride that out, which is what we’re doing [with COVID-19], until the number of cases, and the number of new cases, becomes much more manageable, and then you can reestablish contact tracing once you’re on the downslope,” says Dr. Esper. Those efforts, coupled with rigorous testing, can counteract a potential second wave and prevent cases from spiking again.

Contact tracing COVID-19 infections has proven particularly difficult, as some infected people don’t have symptoms, and the period of time between getting infected and becoming infectious appears to be relatively short. Still, even at the height of a pandemic, contact tracing can still be useful within smaller community settings, such as in health care facilities or nursing homes.

How was contact tracing used to fight Ebola?

Contact tracing was critical during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. The effort to track down cases in Liberia was one of the largest-ever such initiatives at the time, though its effectiveness was limited by organizational problems and community mistrust of health care workers.

Ebola didn’t spread far in the U.S., though around 29,000 people were monitored by state and local health departments after returning from West Africa. Dr. Breeher says the Mayo Clinic developed a plan for Ebola contact tracing, which laid the groundwork for its current COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. And the basics of the efforts during the Ebola outbreak were likely similar to the current pandemic, says Dr. Esper, but with different parameters, since Ebola mostly wasn’t spread through the air.

How are other countries using contact tracing to fight COVID-19?

Today, many countries are battling the coronavirus using a combination of old-school contact tracing techniques and more technologically sophisticated methods.

In South Korea, which had a head start on developing contact tracing plans through its response to Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2015, contact tracers are combining patient interviews with cellphone GPS data, credit card transaction records and surveillance camera footage. Singapore has introduced a mobile app that uses Bluetooth to log when people are close together and then uses the data to identify contacts after new cases are confirmed. In China, around 9,000 contact tracers were employed in Wuhan alone. And closer to home, the Canadian government has launched a nationwide contact tracing program, which has brought on 27,000 volunteers.

What are U.S. states doing?

Efforts to expand contact tracing have occurred piecemeal in some U.S. states and cities, and perhaps not quickly enough. San Francisco has announced a pilot program with a tech company and around 250 outreach workers to be trained in the coming weeks. In Massachusetts, the state is bringing on around 1,000 contact tracers.

But national efforts may need to be far larger in scope — some experts estimate the country needs around 100,000 contact tracers in order to manage COVID-19 outbreaks.

Can new tech help?

Recently, there has been buzz around a joint effort between Apple and Google to add software to their smartphones that would aid in contact tracing. Google’s CEO has stressed that using it is optional, and that there is no personally identifiable information coming to the tech companies as part of the initiative.

Some experts doubt that the project will make a difference, citing issues including possible excesses of false positives. But Dr. Esper says the technology has promise, even if it identifies more contacts than necessary.

“It is better for you to identify people more than it is to miss someone who was infected or potentially infected,” he says. “Contact tracing is all trying to find that circle of individuals, those who were infected by the index patient as well as those who were not infected by the index patient, but make a ring that you can then seal off and prevent the next level of spread.”

Please send any tips, leads, and stories to virus@time.com.

martes, 21 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: How People Across the U.S. Celebrated the First Earth Day How People Across the U.S. Celebrated the First Earth Day



The planet had no way of knowing that an entire nation of 205 million people was waking up on April 22, 1970—the first Earth Day—planning to rise in its defense, but it nonetheless cooperated in the effort. The temperatures were generally mild and the skies generally clear in the East and West, and it was sunnier and warmer still through most of the South and Plains states. The Pacific Northwest was expecting some showers, but the Pacific northwest was always expecting showers.

Many businesses had adopted the Earth Day message and a lot of them pledged to donate money or stage events in support of it. That morning’s issue of the New York Times included a full-page ad taken out by Seventeen magazine—whose audience was made up of just the kind of kids and teens the Earth Day organizers were hoping to reach. It featured a moody picture of a young couple walking along a beach, with text that read, “Today—Earth Day—we salute millions of earnest young people who have accepted the challenge of seeking solutions for our environmental ills. Having reached the moon in the Sixties, perhaps in the Seventies we shall rediscover the earth!” If there was something a little insincere in all of the corporate enthusiasm—an attempt to cash in on a good cause and, in effect, take a free ride on the work of all those earnest people—it still showed that on the side of the environment was the right place to be.

In city after city, community after community, people turned out. Events were staged on 1,500 campuses and in 10,000 schools, with speeches, marches, community clean-ups and even teach-ins pressed for by Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, an Earth Day organizer. Boston school children picked up cans and bottles in vacant lots. Sacramento students did the same and even did the heavy work of gathering up abandoned tires and carting them off for proper disposal. More than 1,000 students from Cleveland State University picked up trash from around the city and loaded it into garbage trucks that had been made available for the day. In New York, students from a Brooklyn high school cleaned the beaches that abut the borough. Students in Manhattan picked up trash in a park on the island’s upper east side, next to the East River and near the Mayor’s mansion, an area that was meant to be scenic but was spoiled by rubbish. College students gathered in subway stations along the dirty, neglected Lexington Avenue Line and washed the windows of the trains when they made their stops.

Inevitably, with college students involved and the high-spirited energy of the 1960s uprisings in play, some of the protests became equal parts theater. Students at Florida Technological University held a trial for a Chevrolet, found it guilty of poisoning the air, and sentenced it to death—though despite their efforts to destroy it with a sledgehammer, they couldn’t quite carry out the execution. Students at the University of Minnesota held a solemn ceremony in which they buried an internal combustion engine. Students in Cleveland paid tribute to the city’s founder, Moses Cleaveland, with one rowing to more or less the spot on the once-clean, now-filthy Cuyahoga River where the long-ago explorer was said to have come ashore. The student then looked around, declared it too dirty a place to build a colony, and rowed back off.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

In Denver, where the high elevation and thin air increases the destructive impact of automobile exhaust, high school students pedaled bicycles to the state capital as a symbol of protest against cars. Nelson spoke at a Denver teach-in and deftly connected the environmental movement with the anti-war movement. Environmental degradation, he said, “is a problem perpetuated by expenditures of tens of billions of dollars a year on the Vietnam war, instead of on our decaying, crowded, congested, polluted urban areas that are inhuman traps for millions of people.”

In Washington, D.C., students marched on the Department of the Interior and gathered on the Mall near the Washington Monument. Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes spoke there, also connecting the environmental movement to the Vietnam war, but doing so with the stridency and passion of an activist, compared to the more measured tones of Nelson, a politician. “Even if that war were over tomorrow,” he said, “we would still be killing this planet. We are systematically destroying our land, our streams and our seas. We foul our air, deaden our senses and pollute our bodies.”

New York City, determined—as it so often is—to do things bigger, better, more ostentatiously than any other place in the nation, delivered on that effort. Mayor John Lindsay closed Fifth Avenue from 14th Street to 59th street, giving the boulevard over to marchers and speeches. Bunting in orange and blue, the city’s colors, hung from lamp posts, and balloons stamped with environmental slogans were distributed. That the balloons if not the bunting would surely enter the waste stream later that day—creating mounds of garbage that were just one more part of the environmental problem—seemed, at least at the moment, less important than conveying the environmental message.

Downtown in Union Square, near New York University, booths were set up promoting various parts of the environmental cause—curbing air pollution, controlling population, building cleaner cities. At least 100,000 people moved through the square that day, many of them stopping at the booths to learn more about the various issues. Con Edison, the city power company, which was long criticized for its poor environmental record, feared protests and even violence and while it remained open for business—a power company could hardly shut down—it kept its doors locked and stationed security guards at each one. But there was no violence; these were not the angry protests at the Democratic Convention in Chicago from two years earlier. This was a happy—if deeply worried—statement of love for the planet.

The demonstrations and celebrations kept going all day, all over the country, ending well after nightfall, which arrived, as it always did, sequentially, with the turning of the newly appreciated Earth bringing darkness first to the Eastern time zone, then to the Central, then to the Rocky Mountains, and then to the Pacific. The question then became, what would America do when Wednesday turned to Thursday, when April 22nd turned to April 23rd, and the nation woke up to a world that was no less dirty than it had been the day before.

Philomel

From RAISE YOUR VOICE by Jeffrey Kluger, published by Philomel Books, an imprint of Penguin Young Readers Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2020 by Jeffrey Kluger

 

viernes, 17 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: NASA Announces Date for the First Crewed American Space Launch in Nearly a Decade NASA Announces Date for the First Crewed American Space Launch in Nearly a Decade



(Bloomberg) — Elon Musk’s SpaceX will fly American astronauts to the International Space Station on May 27, according to National Aeronautics and Space Administration Administrator Jim Bridenstine, setting an official launch date for the mission.

The launch, which Bridenstine announced in a tweet on Friday, will mark the first for NASA astronauts from American soil to the orbiting lab since the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011. Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley will be the first to fly on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft as part of what’s known as the Demo-2 mission.

Musk, the chief executive officer of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., founded the company in 2002 with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets, but the company has never flown humans before.

The historic flight, from launch complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, is the final test for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft to be certified by the space agency to conduct regular flights to the station with crew on board.

New story in Science and Health from Time: Global Warming Making U.S. West Megadrought Worst in Modern Age Global Warming Making U.S. West Megadrought Worst in Modern Age



(KENSINGTON, Maryland) — A two-decade-long dry spell that has parched much of the western United States is turning into one of the deepest megadroughts in the region in more than 1,200 years, a new study found.

And about half of this historic drought can be blamed on man-made global warming, according to a study in Thursday’s journal Science.

Scientists looked at a nine-state area from Oregon and Wyoming down through California and New Mexico, plus a sliver of southwestern Montana and parts of northern Mexico. They used thousands of tree rings to compare a drought that started in 2000 and is still going — despite a wet 2019 — to four past megadroughts since the year 800.

With soil moisture as the key measurement, they found only one other drought that was as big and was likely slightly bigger. That one started in 1575, just 10 years after St. Augustine, the first European city in the United States, was founded, and that drought ended before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620.

What’s happening now is “a drought bigger than what modern society has seen,” said study lead author A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University.

Daniel Swain, a UCLA climate scientist who wasn’t part of the study, called the research important because it provides evidence “that human-caused climate change transformed what might have otherwise been a moderate long-term drought into a severe event comparable to the ‘megadroughts’ of centuries past.”

What’s happening is that a natural but moderate drought is being worsened by temperatures that are 2.9 degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 degrees Celsius) hotter than the past and that suck moisture out of the ground, Williams said. It’s much like how clothes and plants dry faster in the warmth of indoors than they do outside, he said.

To quantify the role of global warming, researchers used 31 computer models to compare what’s happening now to what would happen in a mythical world without the burning of fossil fuels that spews billions of tons of heat-trapping gases. They found on average that 47% of the drought could be blamed on human-caused climate change.

“We’ve been increasingly drifting into a world that’s getting dryer,” Williams said.

There’s debate among scientists over whether this current drought warrants the title “megadrought” because so far it has only lasted two decades and others are at least 28 years long.

Climate scientist Clara Deser at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who wasn’t part of the study, said while the research is good, she thinks the deep drought has to last another decade or so to qualify as a “megadrought.”

Williams said he understands the concern and that’s why the study calls it “an emerging megadrought.”

“It’s still going on and it’s 21 years long,” Williams said. “This drought looks like one of the worst ones of the last millennium except for the fact that it hasn’t lasted as long.”

University of Michigan environment dean Jonathan Overpeck, who studies southwestern climate and was not part of the study, calls it “the first observed multidecadal megadrought in recorded U.S. history.”

Although last year was wet, past megadroughts have had wet years and the recent rain and snow was not nearly enough to make up for the deep drought years before, Williams said.

The U.S. drought monitor puts much of Oregon, California, Colorado, Utah and Nevada and good chunks of New Mexico, Arizona and Idaho in abnormally dry, moderate or severe drought conditions. Wyoming is the only state Williams studied that doesn’t have large areas of drought.

This week, water managers warned that the Rio Grande is forecast to have water flows less than half of normal, while New Mexico’s largest reservoir is expected to top out at about one-third of its 30-year average.

This is “what we can expect going forward in a world with continued global warming,” said Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, who wasn’t part of the study.

New story in Science and Health from Time: International Space Station Crew Members Return to Earth in the Middle of Coronavirus Pandemic International Space Station Crew Members Return to Earth in the Middle of Coronavirus Pandemic



(MOSCOW) — A U.S.-Russian space crew landed safely Friday in the steppes of Kazakhstan, greeted with extra precautions amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Following a stint on the International Space Station, NASA astronauts Jessica Meir and Andrew Morgan and Russian Oleg Skripochka touched down as scheduled at 11:16 a.m. (0516 GMT) Friday. Their Soyuz landing capsule landed under a striped orange-and-white parachute about 150 kilometers (93 miles) southeast of Dzhezkazgan in central Kazakhstan.

Russian officials said they took stringent measures to protect the crew amid the pandemic. The recovery team and medical personnel assigned to help the crew out of the capsule and for post-flight checks had been under close medical observation for nearly a month, including tests for the coronavirus.

The space crew smiled as they talked to medical experts wearing masks. Following a quick checkup, the crew will be flown by helicopters to Baikonur, from where Skripochka will be taken to Moscow, said Vyacheslav Rogozhnikov, a Russian medical official who oversaw the crew’s return.

Morgan and Meir will have to be driven from Baikonur to Kyzyl-Orda, 300 kilometers (190 miles) away, to board a flight to the U.S. — a strenuous journey made necessary by Kazakhstan’s quarantine measures.

On Thursday, the Russian government coronavirus headquarters reported the first contagion at the Star City, which serves as the main hub for pre-flight training of U.S., Russian and other international crew members of the International Space Station. The Star City also has residential quarters for cosmonauts and support staff.

Roscosmos Director Dmitry Rogozin said Wednesday that the Russian space corporation had 30 coronavirus cases.

The crew returned to Earth exactly 50 years after the Apollo 13 astronauts splashed down in the Pacific after an oxygen tank explosion aborted the moon-landing mission.

Morgan wrapped up a 272-day mission on his first flight into space. He conducted seven space walks, four of which were to improve and extend the life of the station’s Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, which looks for evidence of dark matter in the universe.

Meir and Skripochka spent 205 days in space, with Meir carrying out the first three all-women spacewalks with her crewmate Christina Koch, who returned from space in February.

Speaking from the orbiting outpost before the return to Earth, the crew said that coming back to the world drastically changed by the pandemic will be challenging. Morgan said the crew has tried to keep atop the coronavirus news, but added that it’s hard to comprehend what’s really going on.

“It is quite surreal for us to see this whole situation unfolding on the planet below,” said Meir. “We can tell you that the Earth still looks just as stunning as always from up here, so it’s difficult to believe all the changes that have taken place since both of us have been up here.”

A new crew comprising NASA’s Chris Cassidy and Russians Anatoly Ivanishin and Ivan Vagner arrived at the station on April 9. They said before blastoff that they had been under a very strict quarantine for a month before the flight and were feeling good.

jueves, 16 de abril de 2020

New story in Science and Health from Time: The Science Behind Your Weird Coronavirus Dreams (And Nightmares) The Science Behind Your Weird Coronavirus Dreams (And Nightmares)



Earlier this month, my friend Claire Arkin, 30, a non-profit worker in Berkeley, Cali., told me she’d been having oddly vivid and specific dreams. In one, she was getting dressed to attend a fancy gala, but instead of donning an evening gown and diamonds, she wrapped herself in toilet paper, “like some kind of f–ked up status symbol,” she said. A few nights later, she dreamt about men she’d met on a fictional dating app making her anxious by not staying the social distance-required six feet away from her.

Many people have been paying attention to their dreams more during the global coronavirus crisis. As various places around the world announced lockdowns, I started to notice an increasing number of people in those locations posting on social media, asking whether they were the only ones having bizarre and memorable dreams. Some people who claimed to never remember their dreams said they were recalling them for the first time.

A recent “dream survey” conducted by Deirdre Leigh Barrett, an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School, seems to confirm that the incidence of vivid dreams has increased as the virus has spread around the world. This would not be unprecedented: studies have shown that events like 9/11 changed the way people dreamed for a time, making their dreams more intense and memorable in the days after the attacks. It seems feasible that the coronavirus pandemic, which has personally impacted almost everyone on Earth, could have a similar impact.

Untangling how and why events like these affect our dreams, however, is difficult. Despite huge popular interest in the subject, dreaming is still fairly poorly understood by science. We know that our brains use sleep to encode long-term memories, and we also know that dreams are either a part of this process, or a byproduct of it. Some studies show that rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, the sleep stage in which we have the most vivid dreams, is also crucial for our health, aiding in emotional regulation and learning. But the complex interactions between the events in our daily lives and our dreams is still not entirely understood.

One thing we can say for certain is that the current coronavirus crisis has led to a great deal of stress and anxiety for many millions of people. Research has shown that increased anxiety during the day can lead to more negative content in dreams, something several people I spoke to about their COVID-19-related dreams reported. They described dreams about dead bodies, watching friends or themselves attacked or killed, and other terrifying, surreal events that felt disturbingly real.

“One dream I remember vividly from a week or so ago was watching a good friend of mine be choked to death on the ceiling by a giant black snake that looked like an anaconda,” says Colby Rutledge, 30, who lives in New Haven, Conn., and works for a family child care organization.

Stress and anxiety can also cause us to remember more of our dreams, because they disrupt our sleep. Good sleepers may find it hard to believe, but everyone wakes up naturally several times in the night, at the end of each 90 minute sleep cycle. Without these brief awakenings, we wouldn’t remember our dreams at all, according to Michael Nadroff, the director of the clinical PhD program at the Mississippi State University psychology department and an expert on the link between nightmares and mental illness.

Nadroff says that when we wake up, our brains take about five minutes to start encoding memory. This means that if you wake up for a few seconds, you won’t remember, but you will recall being awake for 10 minutes. And if you have a higher level of anxiety, you’re more likely to stay awake long enough to encode memories, and thus remember more of your dreams.

“In general my sleep has been pretty poor this past month,” says Veronica Torres, 34, a musician who lives in Brooklyn. “I’ve been waking up several times to go to the bathroom and waking up to check my phone to see if I can start another day yet. I think it’s my body trying to express the anxiety of this moment in time. Mainly in nightmares.”

An increase in vivid dreams could also be explained by the changes that the pandemic has forced on people’s lifestyles, explains Courtney Bolstad, a graduate student at Mississippi State who works as Nadroff’s research assistant. “Social rhythm theory says that the rhythms we have during the day, what time we get up, whether we see our friends, can influence our circadian rhythm,” Bolstad says. “If you aren’t doing the things you typically do during the day, that could mess with your circadian rhythm which could mess with your sleep.”

The most intense bouts of REM sleep tend to happen later in your sleep cycle, says Bolstad. If you’re sleeping in later because you’re out of work or working from home, it’s more likely you’ll get to those longer, deeper periods of REM, which produce some of our most vivid dreams. And if anxiety is negatively impacting your sleep, your brain may try to “catch up” on REM sleep whenever it can, creating more bursts of vivid dreaming throughout the night.

Dreams are also connected to the brain’s encoding of memory—and emotion is a big part of which memories the brain decides are important enough to keep.

“The best consolidated memories are those with emotional content,” says Katja Valli, an associate professor in cognitive neuroscience at University of Skövde, Sweden. “Those memories are [the ones that are] most critical for survival and daily function. We get to forget mundane things like what we had for breakfast two weeks ago, but if you see a car crash or you have a fight with a friend, that’s emotionally salient and it gets consolidated more easily. This might also explain why our dreams tend to focus on emotional material.”

“I’ve been having dreams where my dad is alive and I’m confused,” says Elissa True, 30, who lives in Sonoma County, California and works at Whole Foods. Her father died late last year. “At the end of the dream I realize he really is dead, or that he’s not in the photo I just took of us, once I look at it again. The dreams are really detailed and super realistic. I wake up having to set myself straight.”

Sherry Margolin, 65, is a piano teacher and musician (and my second cousin) who lives in Paris, where everyone is currently confined to a one mile radius from where they live, unless they have special authorization. “Pre-pandemic, I had lots of dreams about playing live onstage or in rehearsal, but with unexpected twists like songs I’d never heard before or artists who are long dead,” she says. “Now I am dreaming about travel by train or a long car ride through Sonoma County, CA where I lived ages from ages 17 to 28.”

For the majority of people, the most dramatic way life has changed in this crisis is through decreased physical contact with the people they usually see. But that doesn’t mean those people have stopped appearing in our dreams. “I’ve been having dreams that feel incredibly real; they are conversations about resolutions with friends and exes,” says Bijal Shah, 34, who works in marketing in New York, told me. “It’s this strange clarity which continues even if I wake up.”

There has been little research done on the impact of social isolation on dreams, beyond a few case studies and unpublished doctoral theses. One as-yet-unpublished study led by Jarno Tuominen, Valli’s Ph.D student in psychology at University of Skövde, may offer some insight. His research was inspired by a concept called social simulation theory, which posits that dreams feature more social content than would be expected based on our daily lives, an adaptation that allows us to improve our social skills and thus increase our chances of reproducing successfully.

In Tuominen’s study—which is currently seeking peer review and publication—subjects were stripped of their smartphones and computers, and isolated on a remote Swedish island for a week. They were told to not interact with anyone, other than through paper notes to the experimenters. The subjects kept detailed dream journals before, during and after the isolation.

The study found that subjects dreamed more about their close friends and family when they were in isolation. And while the proportion of the subjects’ dreams that involved socializing decreased during isolation, it didn’t go to zero—unlike their actual social contact. In addition, many of these dreams featured close friends and family members.

Another of Valli’s Ph.D students, Monica Bergen, conducted research based on interviews from the 1970s with Holocaust survivors who were imprisoned in the Aushwitz concentration camp during World War II. The resulting study (which has been accepted for publication in June) examines how dream content changed in the camps. It found that people remembered dreaming more about their close friends and family during their time in the camps, while separated from those people, than they did afterwards, when they were reunited.

These studies suggest that our dreams are sensitive to our social environments during the day, and could explain why some of us are dreaming more of close friends and family at the moment. Such dreams are laden with emotion, and are thus exactly the sort of dreams that the brain is likely to commit to memory.

“I had an embarrassingly obvious dream the other night,” says Emah Fox, 41, a musician in Melbourne, Australia. “I was driving down a highway and my family were following, but they had to stay 300 meters behind me. They ended up losing sight of me and we got completely separated and lost.”

Another Melbourne resident, Michelle Reeves, 38, who works in educational technology, said she’s been startled by dreams that included appearances from “my parents, my old dog, my cousin and lifelong bestie, my grandparents.” The dreams were “mostly set in events that happened when I was a kid.”

Ultimately, though, there’s little in the way of research into the effects of an event like this pandemic, for the simple reason that there’s never really been one like it. The most comparable crises—9/11, earthquakes, hurricanes—tend to involve a sudden, dramatic event and an accompanying wave of trauma and fear. Coronavirus, however, has produced a unique combination of boredom and constant low-level dread. Modern technology has allowed us to stay “together” while physically apart, meaning we aren’t truly isolated, even in quarantine. It’s still an open question how a Zoom call differs from an in-person hang out, but some research shows digital communication is less effective in bonding us or building relationships than seeing other people in-person.

The truth, however, is that scientists can’t say exactly what the pandemic is doing to our brains until they’ve had a chance to study it. Valli says that she is working with scientists around the world to start surveying people about their dreams during this time. “In a year we will know a lot more about this issue,” she says. “This crisis is personally impacting almost everyone. It’s an unfortunate worldwide naturalistic experiment.”