Starving bacteriause a microscopic harpoon—called the Type VI secretion system—to stab and kill neighboring cells. The prey burst, turning spherical and leaking nutrients, which the killers then use to survive and grow.NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsBacteria are bad neighbors. And we’re not talking noisy, never-take-out-the-trash bad neighbors. We’re talking has-a-harpoon-gun-and-points-it-at-you bad neighbors. According to a new study in Science, some bacteria hunt nearby bacterial species when they’re hungry. Using a special weapon system called the Type VI Secretion System, these bacteria shoot, spill, and then absorb the nutrients from the microbes they harpoon. “The punchline is: When things get tough, you eat your neighbors,” said Glen D’Souza, a study author and an assistant professor at Arizona State University, according to a press release. “We’ve known bacteria kill each other, that’s textbook. But what we’re seeing is that it’s not just important that the bacteria have weapons to kill, but they are controlling when they use those weapons specifically for situations to eat others where they can’t grow themselves.” According to the study authors, the research doesn’t just have implications for bacterial neighborhoods; it also has implications for human health and medicine. By harnessing these bacterial weapons, it may be possible to build better targeted antibiotics, designed to overcome antibiotic resistance. Ruthless Bacteria Use HarpoonsResearchers have long known that some bacteria can be ruthless, using weapons like the T6SS to clear out their competition. A nasty tool, the T6SS is essentially a tiny harpoon gun with a poison-tipped needle. When a bacterium shoots the weapon into another bacterium from a separate species, the needle pierces the microbe without killing it. Then, it injects toxins into the microbe that cause its internal nutrients to spill out.Up until now, researchers thought that this weapon helped bacteria eliminate their competition for space and for food, but after watching bacteria use the T6SS to attack their neighbors when food was scarce, the study authors concluded that these tiny harpooners use the weapon not only to remove rivals, but also to consume their competitors’ leaked nutrients.“Watching these cells in action really drives home how resourceful bacteria can be,” said Astrid Stubbusch, another study author and a researcher who worked on the study while at ETH Zurich, according to the press release. “By slowly releasing nutrients from their neighbors, they maximize their nutrient harvesting when every molecule counts.” Absorbing Food From NeighborsTo show that the bacteria used this system to eat when there was no food around, the study authors compared their attacks in both nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor environments. When supplied with ample resources, the bacteria used their harpoons to kill their neighbors quickly, with the released nutrients leaking out and dissolving immediately. But when resources were few and far between, they used their harpoons to kill their neighbors slowly, with the nutrients seeping out and sticking around. “This difference in dissolution time could mean that the killer cells load their spears with different toxins,” D’Souza said in another press release. While one toxin could eliminate the competition for space and for food when nutrients are available, another could create a food source, allowing bacteria to “absorb as many nutrients as possible” when sustenance is in short supply.Because of all this, this weapon system is more than ruthless; it’s also smart, and important to some species’ survival. When genetically unedited T6SS bacteria were put in an environment without food, they survived on spilled nutrients. But when genetically edited T6SS bacteria were placed in a similar environment, they died, because their ability to find food in their neighbors had been “turned off.”Harnessing Bacterial HarpoonsAccording to the study authors, the T6SS system is widely used by bacteria, both in and outside the lab. “It’s present in many different environments,” D’Souza said in one of the press releases. “It’s operational and happening in nature, from the oceans to the human gut.” The study authors add that their research could change the way we think about bacteria and could help in our fight against antibiotic resistance. In fact, the T6SS could one day serve as a foundation for targeted drug delivery systems, which could mitigate the development of broader bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But before that can happen, however, researchers have to learn more about bacterial harpoons, and about when and how bacteria use them, both to beat and eat their neighbors.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as /monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as !SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In #hungry #bacteria #hunt #their #neighbors

Great star corals in the grip of disease have been saved with probiotics — beneficial bacteria that attack or displace invading pathogens or possibly trigger immune responses to them. What’s causing this deadly disease remains unidentified. But researchers at the Smithsonian Marine Station in Fort Pierce, Fla., were able to successfully halt progression of the disease’s symptoms, the team reports June 5 in Frontiers in Marine Science. The condition is called stony coral tissue loss disease and is characterized by white lesions that lead to the loss of polyps — tiny soft-bodied organisms similar to sea anemones — blanketing coral. Eventually, nothing but the white coral skeleton is left behind. The disease emerged in Florida in 2014 and has spread rampantly throughout the Florida Keys and the Caribbean. A great star coralcolony is infected with stony coral tissue loss disease on the coral reef in Fort Lauderdale. The lesion, where the white band of tissue occurs, typically moves across the coral, killing coral tissue along the way. Kelly Pitts/Smithsonian Researchers suspect that the disease is bacterial in nature. Antibiotic treatments can offer a quick fix, but these drugs do not prevent reinfection and carry the risk of the mysterious pathogen building resistance against them. So, in late 2020, the Smithsonian group tried for a more sustainable solution, giving probiotics to 30 infected great star coral colonies. The helpful microbes came from corals tested in the lab that showed resistance to the disease. “We noticed that one of the coral fragments would not get infected … so one of the first things we did was try to culture the microbes that are on this coral,” says microbiologist Blake Ushijima, who developed the probiotic used in the team’s experiment. “These microbes produce antibacterial compounds … and one had a high level of activity against bacteria from diseased corals,” acting as a “pro” biotic, by somehow neutralizing pathogens. The identified microbe, a bacterium called McH1-7, became the active ingredient in a paste delivered by divers to several infected colonies. They covered these colonies with plastic bags to immerse them in the probiotic solution, injecting the paste into the bags using a syringe. They also applied the paste directly to other colonies, slathering lesions caused by the disease. A probiotic paste of McH1-7 is applied to the disease lesion of a great star coralcolony infected with stony coral tissue loss disease. The paste was then smoothed flat with a gloved hand so that all apparently infected tissue was covered by the lesion-specific treatment.Kelly Pitts/Smithsonian For two and a half years, the team monitored the corals’ health. The probiotics slowed or stopped the disease from spreading in all eight colonies treated inside bags. On average, the disease’s ugly advance was held to only 7 percent of tissue, compared with an aggressive 30 percent on untreated colonies. The paste put directly on the coral had no beneficial effect. The results are encouraging, but coauthor Valerie Paul cautions against declaring the probiotic a cure. She doubts the practicality of swimming around with heavily weighted plastic bags and putting them on corals. And, she points out, the study was limited to one species of coral, when the disease plagues over 30. Sponsor Message Still, Ushijima considers the study a proof of concept. “The idea of coral probiotics has been thrown around for decades, but no one has directly shown their effects on disease in the wild,” he says. “I think it’s very exciting because it’s actually opening the door to a new field.” #probiotics #helped #great #star #corals

Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Probiotics are everywhere, claiming to help us poop, restore gut health, and more. They can also be used to help threatened coral reefs. A bacterial probiotic has helped slow the spread of stony coral tissue loss diseasein wild corals in Florida that were already infected with the disease. The findings are detailed in a study published June 5 in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science and show that applying this new probiotic treatment across coral colines helped prevent further tissue loss. What is stony coral tissue loss disease? SCTLD first emerged in Florida in 2014. In the 11 years since, it has rapidly spread throughout the Caribbean. This mysterious ailment has been confirmed in at least 20 other countries and territories. Other coral pathogens typically target specific species. SCTLD infects more than 30 different species of stony corals, including pillar corals and brain corals. The disease causes the soft tissue in the corals to slough off, leaving behind white patches of exposed skeleton. The disease can devastate an entire coral colony in only a few weeks to months.  A great star coralcolony infected with stony coral tissue lossdiseaseon the coral reef in Fort Lauderdale, FL. The lesion, where the white band of tissue occurs, typically moves across the coral, killing coral tissue along the way. CREDIT: KellyPitts, Smithsonian. The exact cause of SCTLD is still unknown, but it appears to be linked to some kind of harmful bacteria. Currently, the most common treatment for SCTLD is using a paste that contains the antibiotic amoxicillin on diseased corals. However, antibiotics are not a silver bullet. This amoxicillin balm can temporarily halt SCTLD’s spread, but it needs to be frequently reapplied to the lesions on the corals. This takes time and resources, while increasing the likelihood that the microbes causing SCTLD might develop resistance to amoxicillin and related antibiotics. “Antibiotics do not stop future outbreaks,” Valerie Paul, a study co-author and the head scientist at the Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce, Florida, said in a statement. “The disease can quickly come back, even on the same coral colonies that have been treated.” Finding the right probiotic Paul and her colleagues have spent over six years investigating whether beneficial microorganismscould be a longer lasting alternative to combat this pathogen. Just like humans, corals are host to communities known as microbiomes that are bustling with all different types of bacteria. Some of these miniscule organisms produce antioxidants and vitamins that can help keep their coral hosts healthy.  First, the team looked at the microbiomes of corals that are impervious to SCTLD to try and harvest probiotics from these disease-resistant species. In theory, these could be used to strengthen the microbiomes of susceptible corals.  They tested over 200 strains of bacteria from disease-resistant corals and published a study in 2023 about the probiotic Pseudoalteromonas sp. McH1-7. Taken from the great star coral, this probiotic produces several antibacterial compounds. Having such a stacked antibacterial toolbox made McH1-7 an ideal candidate to combat a pathogen like SCTLD. They initially tested McH1-7 on live pieces of M. cavernosa and found that the probiotic reliably prevented the spread of SCTLD in the lab. After these successful lab tests, the wild ocean called next. Testing in the ocean The team conducted several field tests on a shallow reef near Fort Lauderdale, focusing on 40 M. cavernosa colonies that showed signs of SCTLD. Some of the corals in these colonies received a paste containing the probiotic McH1-7 that was applied directly to the disease lesions. They treated the other corals with a solution of seawater containing McH1-7 and covered them using weighted plastic bags. The probiotics were administered inside the bag in order to cover the entire coral colony.   “This created a little mini-aquarium that kept the probiotics around each coral colony,” Paul said. For two and a half years, they monitored the colonies, taking multiple rounds of tissue and mucus samples to see how the corals’ microbiomes were changing over time. They found that  the McH1-7 probiotic successfully slowed the spread of SCTLD when it was delivered to the entire colony using the bag and solution method. According to the samples, the probiotic was effective without dominating the corals’ natural microbes.  Kelly Pitts, a research technician with the Smithsonian Marine Station at Ft. Pierce, Floridaand co-lead author of the study treats great star coralcolonies infected with SCTLD with probiotic strain McH1-7 by covering the coral colony in a plastic bag, injecting a probiotic bacteria solution into the bag and leaving the bag for two hours to allow for the bacteria to colonize on the coral. CREDIT: Hunter Noren. Fighting nature with nature While using this probiotic appears to be an effective treatment for SCTLD among the reefs of northern Florida, additional work is needed to see how it could work in other regions. Similar tests on reefs in the Florida Keys have been conducted, with mixed preliminary results, likely due to regional differences in SCTLD. The team believes that probiotics still could become a crucial tool for combatting SCTLD across the Caribbean, especially as scientists fine tune how to administer them. Importantly, these beneficial bacteria support what corals already do naturally.  “Corals are naturally rich with bacteria and it’s not surprising that the bacterial composition is important for their health,” Paul said. “We’re trying to figure out which bacteria can make these vibrant microbiomes even stronger.” #probiotics #can #help #heal #ravaged

A Deadly Disease Is Eating Away at Caribbean Corals and Wreaking Havoc on Reefs. Could Probiotics Be the Solution? New research suggests the probiotic McH1-7 could help stop the spread of stony coral tissue loss disease among wild corals near Fort Lauderdale, Florida Scientists determined the most effective method of halting the disease was covering a coral colony with a weighted plastic bag, then injecting a seawater solution that contains the probiotic. They left the colony covered for two hours to allow the probiotic bacteria to colonize the coral. Hunter Noren Probiotics can be good for human health. Now, new research suggests they might also help protect coral reefs. A bacterial probiotic helped slow the advance of stony coral tissue loss disease—a fast-spreading and deadly condition—among wild corals in Florida, researchers report today in a new study published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science. The probiotic may be a good alternative to antibiotics like amoxicillin, which temporarily curb the spread of the disease but must be reapplied frequently. In addition, scientists fear stony coral tissue loss disease may one day become resistant to these antibiotic treatments—just as “superbugs” that infect humans are building resistance to our own drugs. Antibiotics are meant to kill microorganisms, but probiotics are beneficial living microbes. The idea is that a probiotic can be incorporated into corals’ natural microbiomes, ideally offering them longer-lasting protection. First discovered in Florida in 2014, stony coral tissue loss disease attacks the soft tissue of more than 30 different species of coral. Without treatment, the disease eventually kills the corals, and their soft tissue falls off, revealing the white calcium carbonate skeleton below. In just weeks or months, it can devastate a whole colony. Stony coral tissue loss disease can be spread by fish that eat coral, as well as by boaters and divers who do not disinfect their gear. The condition has since expanded its range beyond Florida to reefs throughout the Caribbean. Several years ago, researchers looking at the great star coral discovered a probiotic called Pseudoalteromonas sp. strain McH1-7. Laboratory tests showed McH1-7 stopped or slowed the progression of stony coral tissue loss disease in infected corals. It also helped prevent the disease from spreading to healthy corals. But that was in the lab. Would McH1-7 be similarly effective in the ocean? Researchers were eager to find out, so they set up an experiment on a shallow reef off the coast of Fort Lauderdale. Study co-author Kelly Pitts, a research technician with the Smithsonian Marine Station, applies a paste containing the probiotic directly onto the disease lesion of an infected coral. Hunter Noren Experimenting with wild corals For the study, the scientists focused on 40 great star coral colonies that were showing symptoms of stony coral tissue loss disease. In one experimental condition, the researchers made a paste that contained McH1-7 and applied it directly onto the disease lesions. For comparison, they also applied the same paste, minus the probiotic, to some corals. In another condition, they covered infected coral colonies with weighted plastic bags, then filled the bags with seawater solutions made with and without McH1-7. They left the corals covered for two hours. “This created a little mini-aquarium that kept the probiotics around each coral colony,” says study co-author Valerie Paul, head scientist at the Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce, Florida, in a statement. The scientists completed all the treatments within the first 4.5 months of the project. Then, they returned periodically to gather tissue and mucus samples from the corals to measure changes to their microbiomes. Over the next 2.5 years, they took photos from a variety of different angles, which they then used to create 3D models that could track the disease’s progression. In the end, the results suggest covering the corals with plastic bags filled with the probiotic seawater solution was the most effective method. More than two years post-treatment, the colonies that received the probiotic bag had lost just 7 percent of their tissue, while colonies in the control bag condition faced 35 percent tissue loss. Scientists applied a probiotic paste directly to disease lesions on some corals. Kelly Pitts The probiotic paste, by contrast, appears to have made the situation worse: The corals that had the probiotic paste applied directly to their lesions lost more tissue than those treated with the control paste, which did not contain McH1-7. “We do not really know what is going on with the probiotic paste treatment,” Paul tells Smithsonian magazine in an email. But she has a few theories. It’s possible the high concentrations of McH1-7 contributed to localized hypoxia, or low-oxygen conditions that further harmed the already stressed corals, she says. Or, the probiotic could have changed the microbiome at the lesion site in some negative way. Another possibility is that McH1-7 produces antibiotics or other substances that were harmful at high concentrations. Amanda Alker, a marine microbiologist at the University of Rhode Island who was not involved with the study, wonders if this finding suggests McH1-7 is beneficial at specific dosages—a question future laboratory research might be able to answer, she tells Smithsonian magazine in an email. She’s also curious to know which specific molecular components of the probiotic are responsible for the increased tissue loss when applied as a paste. More broadly, Alker would like to see additional experiments validating the bag treatment method, but she says this “inventive” technique seems promising. “Their approach is a safer solution than antibiotic treatment methods that have been deployed to combatin the field so far,” she says. “Further, this is a practical solution that could be implemented widely because it doesn’t require highly specialized equipment and has the ability to be used with any type of microbial solution.” Looking ahead to save reefs Probiotics are likely not a silver bullet for protecting corals. For one, researchers still don’t know exactly what causes stony coral tissue loss disease, which makes it difficult to determine how or why the probiotic works, Paul says. In addition, since the disease has spread to many different parts of the Caribbean, it might be challenging to use the bag treatment technique on all affected colonies. “We would need to develop better methods of deploying the probiotic through time release formulations or other ways to scale up treatments,” Paul says. “Right now, having divers swim around underwater with weighted bags is not a very scalable method.” The researchers have also conducted similar experiments on infected corals located farther south, in the Florida Keys. However, these tests have produced mixed results, probably because of regional differences in stony coral tissue loss disease. This is another hurdle scientists will likely need to overcome if they hope to expand the use of probiotics. “We probably need to develop different probiotics for different coral species and different regions of the Caribbean,” Paul says. Researchers returned to gather samples of tissues and mucus to see how the corals' microbiomes had changed. Hunter Noren Even so, scientists are heartened by the results of the experiments conducted near Fort Lauderdale. With more research, the findings suggest probiotics could be a promising tool for combatting the disease elsewhere. “Coral probiotics is a challenging field, because there are hundreds of different types of bacteria that associate with corals, and there are limitless experiments that need to be performed,” Amy Apprill, a marine chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who was not involved with the research, tells Smithsonian magazine in an email. “These researchers made a major advance with their study by demonstrating the utility of whole colony treatment as well as the specific probiotic tested.” Apprill adds that, while antibiotics have been widely used to control stony coral tissue loss disease, scientists haven’t conducted much research to see how these treatments are affecting the plants and creatures that live nearby. “Using a naturally occurring bacterium for disease treatment may result in lessened impacts to other members of the coral reef ecosystem,” she says. Amid rising ocean temperatures, scientists expect to find even more diseased coral colonies in the future. Warmer waters may also allow other pathogens to thrive and proliferate. Against that backdrop, Apprill adds, probiotics and the different methods of applying them will be “major allies” in the fight to save coral reefs. Paul is also optimistic. Through research and field studies, she’s confident researchers will be able to develop interventions that can “help corals better survive changing environments and respond better to diseases and bleaching,” she says. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday. #deadly #disease #eating #away #caribbean

Good News Colon cancer recurrence and deaths cut 28% by simple exercise, trial finds Any type of aerobic exercise works for the improvements, study finds. Beth Mole – Jun 2, 2025 6:05 pm | 42 Credit: Getty | Oli Kellett Credit: Getty | Oli Kellett Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Exercise is generally good for you, but a new high-quality clinical trial finds that it's so good, it can even knock back colon cancer—and, in fact, rival some chemotherapy treatments. The finding comes from a phase 3, randomized clinical trial led by researchers in Canada, who studied nearly 900 people who had undergone surgery and chemotherapy for colon cancer. After those treatments, patients were evenly split into groups that either bulked up their regular exercise routines in a three-year program that included coaching and supervision or were simply given health education. The researchers found that the exercise group had a 28 percent lower risk of their colon cancer recurring, new cancers developing, or dying over eight years compared with the health education group. The benefits of exercise, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, became visible after just one year and increased over time, the researchers found. The rate of people who survived for five years and remained cancer-free was 80.3 percent among the exercise group. That's a 6.4 percentage-point survival boost over the education group, which had a 73.9 percent cancer-free survival rate. The overall survival rateduring the study's eight-year follow-up was 90.3 percent in the exercise group compared with 83.2 percent in the education group—a 7.1 percentage point difference. Exercise reduced the relative risk of death by 37 percent. "The magnitude of benefit from exercise ... was similar to that of many currently approved standard drug treatments," the researchers noted. However, the exercise routines that achieved those substantial benefits weren't heavy-duty. Participants were coached to perform any recreational aerobic exercise they enjoyed, including brisk walking. Adding 45- to 60-minute brisk walks three or four times a week, or three or four jogs lasting 25 to 30 minutes, was enough for many of the participants to improve their odds. Overall, the goal was to get the exercise group over 20 MET hours per week. METs are Metabolic Equivalents of Task, which represent the amount of energy your body is burning up compared to when you're at rest, sitting quietly. Brisk walking is about four METs, the researchers estimated, and jogging is around 10 METs. To get to 20 MET hours a week, a participant would have to do five hours of brisk walking a weekor jog for two hours a week. “Quite impressive” The exercise group, which had supervised exercise for the first six months of the three-year intervention, reported more exercise over the study. At the end, the exercise group was averaging over 20 MET hours per week, while the education group's average was around 15 MET hours per week. The exercise group also scored better at cardiorespiratory fitness and physical functioning. Still, with the health education, the control group also saw a boost to their exercise during the trial, with their average starting around 10 MET hours per week. These findings "raise the possibility of an even more powerful effect of exercise on cancer outcomes as compared with a completely sedentary control group," the researchers note. For now, it's not entirely clear how exercise keeps cancers at bay, but it squares with numerous other observational studies that have linked exercise to better outcomes in cancer patients. Researchers have several hypotheses, including that exercise might cause "increased fluid shear stress, enhanced immune surveillance, reduced inflammation, improved insulin sensitivity, and altered microenvironment of major sites of metastases," the authors note. In the study, exercise seemed to keep local and distant colon cancer from recurring, as well as prevent new cancers, including breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. Outside experts hailed the study's findings. "This indicates that exercise has a similarly strong effect as previously shown for chemotherapy, which is really quite impressive," Marco Gerlinger, a gastrointestinal cancer expert at Queen Mary University of London, said in a statement. "One of the commonest questions from patients is what they can do to reduce the risk that their cancer comes back. Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation." "Having worked in bowel cancer research for 30 years, this is an exciting breakthrough in the step-wise improvement in cure rates," David Sebag-Montefiore, a clinical oncologist at the University of Leeds, said. "The great appeal of a structured moderate intensity exercise is that it offers the benefits without the downside of the well-known side effects of our other treatments." Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 42 Comments #colon #cancer #recurrence #deaths #cut

In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California, trees that have persisted through rain and shine for thousands of years are now facing multiple threats triggered by a changing climate. Scientists and park managers once thought giant sequoia forests were nearly impervious to stressors like wildfire, drought and pests. Yet, even very large trees are proving vulnerable, particularly when those stressors are amplified by rising temperatures and increasing weather extremes. The rapid pace of climate change—combined with threats like the spread of invasive species and diseases—can affect ecosystems in ways that defy expectations based on past experiences. As a result, Western forests are transitioning to grasslands or shrublands after unprecedented wildfires. Woody plants are expanding into coastal wetlands. Coral reefs are being lost entirely. To protect these places, which are valued for their natural beauty and the benefits they provide for recreation, clean water and wildlife, forest and land managers increasingly must anticipate risks they have never seen before. And they must prepare for what those risks will mean for stewardship as ecosystems rapidly transform. As ecologists and a climate scientist, we’re helping them figure out how to do that. Managing changing ecosystems Traditional management approaches focus on maintaining or restoring how ecosystems looked and functioned historically. However, that doesn’t always work when ecosystems are subjected to new and rapidly shifting conditions. Ecosystems have many moving parts—plants, animals, fungi, and microbes; and the soil, air and water in which they live—that interact with one another in complex ways. When the climate changes, it’s like shifting the ground on which everything rests. The results can undermine the integrity of the system, leading to ecological changes that are hard to predict. To plan for an uncertain future, natural resource managers need to consider many different ways changes in climate and ecosystems could affect their landscapes. Essentially, what scenarios are possible? Preparing for multiple possibilities At Sequoia and Kings Canyon, park managers were aware that climate change posed some big risks to the iconic trees under their care. More than a decade ago, they undertook a major effort to explore different scenarios that could play out in the future. It’s a good thing they did, because some of the more extreme possibilities they imagined happened sooner than expected. In 2014, drought in California caused the giant sequoias’ foliage to die back, something never documented before. In 2017, sequoia trees began dying from insect damage. And, in 2020 and 2021, fires burned through sequoia groves, killing thousands of ancient trees. While these extreme events came as a surprise to many people, thinking through the possibilities ahead of time meant the park managers had already begun to take steps that proved beneficial. One example was prioritizing prescribed burns to remove undergrowth that could fuel hotter, more destructive fires. The key to effective planning is a thoughtful consideration of a suite of strategies that are likely to succeed in the face of many different changes in climates and ecosystems. That involves thinking through wide-ranging potential outcomes to see how different strategies might fare under each scenario—including preparing for catastrophic possibilities, even those considered unlikely. For example, prescribed burning may reduce risks from both catastrophic wildfire and drought by reducing the density of plant growth, whereas suppressing all fires could increase those risks in the long run. Strategies undertaken today have consequences for decades to come. Managers need to have confidence that they are making good investments when they put limited resources toward actions like forest thinning, invasive species control, buying seeds or replanting trees. Scenarios can help inform those investment choices. Constructing credible scenarios of ecological change to inform this type of planning requires considering the most important unknowns. Scenarios look not only at how the climate could change, but also how complex ecosystems could react and what surprises might lay beyond the horizon. Scientists at the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center are collaborating with managers in the Nebraska Sandhills to develop scenarios of future ecological change under different climate conditions, disturbance events like fires and extreme droughts, and land uses like grazing. Key ingredients for crafting ecological scenarios To provide some guidance to people tasked with managing these landscapes, we brought together a group of experts in ecology, climate science, and natural resource management from across universities and government agencies. We identified three key ingredients for constructing credible ecological scenarios: 1. Embracing ecological uncertainty: Instead of banking on one “most likely” outcome for ecosystems in a changing climate, managers can better prepare by mapping out multiple possibilities. In Nebraska’s Sandhills, we are exploring how this mostly intact native prairie could transform, with outcomes as divergent as woodlands and open dunes. 2. Thinking in trajectories: It’s helpful to consider not just the outcomes, but also the potential pathways for getting there. Will ecological changes unfold gradually or all at once? By envisioning different pathways through which ecosystems might respond to climate change and other stressors, natural resource managers can identify critical moments where specific actions, such as removing tree seedlings encroaching into grasslands, can steer ecosystems toward a more desirable future. 3. Preparing for surprises: Planning for rare disasters or sudden species collapses helps managers respond nimbly when the unexpected strikes, such as a severe drought leading to widespread erosion. Being prepared for abrupt changes and having contingency plans can mean the difference between quickly helping an ecosystem recover and losing it entirely. Over the past decade, access to climate model projections through easy-to-use websites has revolutionized resource managers’ ability to explore different scenarios of how the local climate might change. What managers are missing today is similar access to ecological model projections and tools that can help them anticipate possible changes in ecosystems. To bridge this gap, we believe the scientific community should prioritize developing ecological projections and decision-support tools that can empower managers to plan for ecological uncertainty with greater confidence and foresight. Ecological scenarios don’t eliminate uncertainty, but they can help to navigate it more effectively by identifying strategic actions to manage forests and other ecosystems. Kyra Clark-Wolf is a research scientist in ecological transformation at the University of Colorado Boulder. Brian W. Miller is a research ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. Imtiaz Rangwala is a research scientist in climate at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. #managers #rethink #ecological #scenarios #threats

More chaos CDC updates COVID vaccine recommendations, but not how RFK Jr. wanted Mixed messages only add to uncertainty about vaccine access for kids, pregnant individuals. Beth Mole – May 30, 2025 4:28 pm | 74 A nurse gives a 16-year-old a COVID-19 vaccine. Credit: Getty | Sopa images A nurse gives a 16-year-old a COVID-19 vaccine. Credit: Getty | Sopa images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday updated its immunization schedules for children and adults to partially reflect the abrupt changes announced by health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this week. In a 58-second video posted on social media on Tuesday, May 27, Kennedy said he was unilaterally revoking the CDC's recommendations that healthy children and pregnant people get COVID-19 vaccines. "I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule," Kennedy said in the video. The health agency's immunization schedules were not, in fact, updated at the time of the announcement, though. The Washington Post subsequently reported that the CDC was blindsided by the announcement. Five hours went by after the video was posted before CDC officials said they received a one-page "secretarial directive" about the changes, which was signed by Kennedy and puzzlingly dated May 19, according to the Post. Late Thursday, the CDC updated the immunization schedules. Contradicting what Kennedy said in the video, the CDC did not remove its recommendation for COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children in the child and adolescent immunization schedule. Instead, it added a stipulation that if a child's doctor agrees with the vaccination and parents "desire for their child to be vaccinated," healthy children can get vaccinated. In practice, it is unclear how this change will affect access to the vaccines. Health insurers are required to cover vaccines on the CDC schedules. But, it's yet to be seen if children will only be able to get vaccinated at their doctor's officeor if additional consent forms would be required, etc. Uncertainty about the changes and requirements alone may lead to fewer children getting vaccinated. In the adult immunization schedule, when viewed "by medical condition or other indication", the COVID-19 vaccination recommendation for pregnancy is now shaded gray, meaning "no guidance/not applicable." Hovering a cursor over the box brings up the recommendation to "Delay vaccination until after pregnancy if vaccine is indicated." Previously, COVID-19 vaccines were recommended during pregnancy. The change makes it less likely that health insurers will cover the cost of vaccination during pregnancy. The change is at odds with Trump's Food and Drug Administration, which just last week confirmed that pregnancy puts people at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and, therefore, vaccination is recommended. Medical experts have decried the loss of the recommendation, which is also at odds with clear data showing the risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy and the benefits of vaccination. The President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologistsput out a statement shortly after the Tuesday video, saying that the organization was "extremely disappointed" with Kennedy's announcement. "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families," ACOG President Steven Fleischman said. Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 74 Comments #cdc #updates #covid #vaccine #recommendations

Europa, a moon of Jupiter, has long been one of the most exciting targets in the search for life beyond Earth. Many scientists believe that an ocean lies below its icy surface, potentially hosting geologic activity capable of supporting life, but what happens on the moon’s seafloor is still largely a mystery. Although discussions on Europa are mostly centered around this hidden ocean, the shell of ice that envelops the moon has its own surprises. A study recently published in The Planetary Science Journal suggests that Europa’s surface ice is constantly changing. The evidence explored in the study paints a better picture of Europa’s outermost layer, and it may even reveal the interior processes that shape the moon’s unique structure. Europa's Surface IceEuropa has the smoothest surface out of any known object in our Solar System, but it’s far from lacking variety. The surface is rife with distinct geologic features, such as ridges, plains, and cracks, that cross over each other. Their disorderly appearance is linked to a fitting name, “chaos terrain.”Some regions with chaos terrain also provide insight on Europa’s surface ice. Most of Europa’s surface is made of amorphous ice, which lacks a crystalline structure. Scientists previously believed that Europa’s surface was entirely covered by a thin layer of amorphous ice, and that below this was crystalline ice. However, the researchers involved with the new study have confirmed that certain areas of Europa’s surface contain crystalline ice, aligning with spectral data captured by the James Webb Space Telescope. This same ice also appears below the surface in these regions as well. “We think that the surface is fairly porous and warm enough in some areas to allow the ice to recrystallize rapidly,” said lead author Richard Cartwright, a spectroscopist at Johns Hopkins University, in a statement.Activity in the OceanA few other factors have convinced the researchers that an ocean exists below Europa's icy surface. The regions where ice recrystallizes show evidence of sodium chloride, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen peroxide. “Our data showed strong indications that what we are seeing must be sourced from the interior, perhaps from a subsurface ocean nearly 20 milesbeneath Europa’s thick icy shell,” said author Ujjwal Raut, a program manager at the Southwest Research Institute. “This region of fractured surface materials could point to geologic processes pushing subsurface materials up from below.”The Europa Clipper's MissionAlthough Europa and its subsurface ocean will be a crucial target for future space exploration, some scientists have expressed doubts regarding its capacity to sustain life. A series of obstacles could make finding life on Europa more difficult. At an American Geophysical Union conference last year, scientists reported that the ice layer covering the moon's surface is thicker than expected, indicating that there may not be enough heat or activity in the subsurface ocean to support life. Scientists aren’t yet sure if an abundance of hydrothermal vents or seafloor volcanoes sit at the bottom of the ocean — these features have been crucial in driving life on our own planet. Observations of Europa haven’t fully confirmed the existence of plumes, either, which would be a clear sign that material from the ocean could be transported to the surface. About 5 years from now, in 2030, scientists will get an unprecedented view of Europa as NASA's Europa Clipper approaches the icy moon. Launched last October, the Europa Clipper will reveal many secrets that still surround the moon's surface and the ocean below. Among its various objectives, the mission will look for plumes, which would be able to eject microbes — if they truly do exist on the moon — into space for the Europa Clipper to examine. Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:The Planetary Science Journal. JWST Reveals Spectral Tracers of Recent Surface Modification on EuropaThe Planetary Society. Europa, Jupiter’s possible watery moonThe Planetary Society. Could Europa Clipper find life?Jack Knudson is an assistant editor at Discover with a strong interest in environmental science and history. Before joining Discover in 2023, he studied journalism at the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University and previously interned at Recycling Today magazine. #constantly #changing #ice #jupiter039s #moon

Gone CDC can no longer help prevent lead poisoning in children, state officials say Under Trump, the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was cut. Beth Mole – May 23, 2025 11:54 am | 97 The three recalled pouches linked to lead poisonings. Credit: FDA The three recalled pouches linked to lead poisonings. Credit: FDA Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Amid the brutal cuts across the federal government under the Trump administration, perhaps one of the most gutting is the loss of experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who respond to lead poisoning in children. On April 1, the staff of the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was terminated as part of the agency's reduction in force, according to NPR. The staff included epidemiologists, statisticians, and advisors who specialized in lead exposures and responses. The cuts were immediately consequential to health officials in Milwaukee, who are currently dealing with a lead exposure crisis in public schools. Six schools have had to close, displacing 1,800 students. In April, the city requested help from the CDC's lead experts, but the request was denied—there was no one left to help. In a Congressional hearing this week, US health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told lawmakers, "We have a team in Milwaukee." But Milwaukee Health Commissioner Mike Totoraitis told NPR that this is false. "There is no team in Milwaukee," he said. "We had a singlestaff person come to Milwaukee for a brief period to help validate a machine, but that was separate from the formal request that we had for a small team to actually come to Milwaukee for our Milwaukee Public Schools investigation and ongoing support there." Kennedy has also previously told lawmakers that lead experts at the CDC who were terminated would be rehired. But that statement was also false. The health department's own communications team told ABC that the lead experts would not be reinstated. While Milwaukee continues to struggle, a Stat report Friday hints at losses yet to come. Looking back at the national scandal of lead-contaminated apple-sauce pouches, Stat reported that at least six of the CDC scientists and experts who worked on that nationwide poisoning event are gone. The poisonings were first revealed in cases in Hickory, North Carolina, where officials relied on help from the CDC to track down the source. The CDC's investigation subsequently identified 566 lead-poisoned children across 44 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, and helped get the tainted applesauce off shelves, Stat noted. If the poisonings had happened now, "we wouldn’t have been able to do the broad outreach to tell all the state lead programs to look out for this, and we wouldn’t have been able to measure the impact because CDC is the one that does that across state lines," one laid-off CDC worker told the outlet. Further, the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program is what funded the three North Carolina epidemiologists who collect and process lead-testing data. The funding runs out in October, and with the program now wiped out, it's unclear what will happen. "It’s hard to sleep through the night," Ed Norman, head of the children’s environmental health unit at North Carolina’s health department, told Stat. He tried asking CDC staff what happens after October, but everyone he had been in touch with is gone. Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth Mole Senior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 97 Comments #cdc #can #longer #help #prevent

May 21, 202522 min readMildred Weeks Wells’s Work on Airborne Transmission Could Have Saved Many Lives—If the Scientific Establishment ListenedMildred Weeks Wells and her husband figured out that disease-causing pathogens can spread through the air like smoke Dutton; Lily WhearAir-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, by Carl Zimmer, charts the history of the field of aerobiology: the science of airborne microorganisms. In this episode, we discover the story of two lost pioneers of the 1930s: physician and self-taught epidemiologist Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband, sanitary engineer William Firth Wells. Together, they proved that infectious pathogens could spread through the air over long distances. But the two had a reputation as outsiders, and they failed to convince the scientific establishment, who ignored their findings for decades. What the pair figured out could have saved many lives from tuberculosis, SARS, COVID and other airborne diseases. The contributions of Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband were all but erased from history—until now.LISTEN TO THE PODCASTOn supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.TRANSCRIPTCarl Zimmer: Mildred is hired in the late 1920s to put together everything that was known about polio. And she does this incredible study, where she basically looks for everything that she can find about how polio spreads.At the time, the idea that it could spread through the air was really looked at as being just an obsolete superstition. Public health experts would say, look, a patient's breath is basically harmless. But the epidemiology looks to her like these germs are airborne, and this goes totally against the consensus at the time.Carol Sutton Lewis: Hello, I'm Carol Sutton Lewis. Welcome to the latest episode of Lost Women of Science Conversations, where we talk with authors and artists who've discovered and celebrated female scientists in books, poetry, film, and the visual arts.Today I'm joined by Carl Zimmer, an award-winning New York Times columnist and the author of 15 books about science. His latest book, Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, focuses on the last great biological frontier: the air. It presents the history of aerobiology, which is the science dealing with the occurrence, transportation, and effects of airborne microorganisms.The book chronicles the exploits of committed aerobiologists from the early pioneers through to the present day. Among these pioneers were Mildred Weeks Wells and her husband, William Firth Wells.Airborne tells the story of how Mildred and William tried to sound the alarm about airborne infections, but for many reasons, their warnings went unheard.Welcome, Carl Zimmer. It's such a pleasure to have you with us to tell us all about this fascinating woman and her contributions to science.Can you please tell us about Mildred Weeks Wells—where and how she grew up and what led her to the field of aerobiology?Carl Zimmer: She was born in 1891, and she came from a very prominent Texas family—the Denton family. Her great-grandfather is actually whom the city of Denton, Texas is named after. Her grandfather was a surgeon for the Confederate Army in the Civil War, and he becomes the director of what was called then the State Lunatic Asylum.And he and the bookkeeper there, William Weeks, are both charged with embezzlement. It's a big scandal. The bookkeeper then marries Mildred's mother. Then, shortly after Mildred's born, her father disappears. Her mother basically abandons her with her grandmother. And she grows up with her sister and grandmother in Austin, Texas. A comfortable life, but obviously there's a lot of scandal hanging over them.She is clearly incredibly strong-willed. She goes to medical school at the University of Texas and graduates in 1915, one of three women in a class of 34. That is really something for a woman at that point—there were hardly any women with medical degrees in the United States, let alone someone in Texas.But she books out of there. She does not stick around. She heads in 1915 to Washington, D.C., and works at the Public Health Service in a lab called the Hygienic Laboratory. Basically, what they're doing is studying bacteria. You have to remember, this is the golden age of the germ theory of disease. People have been figuring out that particular bacteria or viruses cause particular diseases, and that knowledge is helping them fight those diseases.It's there in Washington at this time that she meets a man who will become her husband, William Firth Wells.Carol Sutton Lewis: Just a quick aside—because we at Lost Women of Science are always interested in how you discover the material in addition to what you've discovered. How were you able to piece together her story? What sources were you able to find? It seems like there wasn't a lot of information available.Carl Zimmer: Yeah, it was a tough process. There is little information that's really easy to get your hands on. I mean, there is no biography of Mildred Wells or her husband, William Firth Wells.At the Rockefeller archives, they had maybe 30 document boxes full of stuff that was just miraculously conserved there. There are also letters that she wrote to people that have been saved in various collections.But especially with her early years, it's really tough. You know, in all my work trying to dig down for every single scrap of information I could find of her, I have only found one photograph of her—and it's the photograph in her yearbook. That’s it.Carol Sutton Lewis: You talked about that photograph in the book, and I was struck by your description of it. You say that she's smiling, but the longer you look at her smile, the sadder it becomes. What do you think at that young age was the source of the sadness?Carl Zimmer: I think that Mildred grew up with a lot of trauma. She was not the sort of person to keep long journals or write long letters about these sorts of things. But when you've come across those clues in these brief little newspaper accounts, you can kind of read between the lines.There are reports in newspapers saying that Mildred's mother had come to Austin to pay a visit to Mildred because she had scarlet fever when she was 10, and then she goes away again. And when I look at her face in her yearbook, it doesn't surprise me that there is this cast of melancholy to it because you just think about what she had gone through just as a kid.Carol Sutton Lewis: Oh. Absolutely. And fast forward, she meets William and they marry. They have a son, and they start collaborating. How did that begin?Carl Zimmer: The collaboration takes a while. So William Wells is also working at the Public Health Service at the time. He is a few years older than Mildred and he has been trained at MIT as what was called then a sanitarian. In other words, he was going to take the germ theory of disease and was going to save people's lives.He was very clever. He could invent tests that a sanitarian could use, dip a little tube into a river and see whether the water was safe or not, things like that. He was particularly focused on keeping water clean of bacteria that could cause diseases like typhoid or cholera and he also, gets assigned by the government to study oysters because oysters, they sit in this water and they're filtering all day long. And you know, if there's bacteria in there, they're going to filter it and trap it in their tissues. And oysters are incredibly popular in the early nineteen hundreds and a shocking number of people are keeling over dying of typhoid because they're eating them raw. So William is very busy, figuring out ways to save the oyster industry. How do we purify oysters and things like that? They meet, they get married in 1917.In 1918 they have a child, William Jr. nicknamed Bud. But William is not around for the birth, because he is drafted into the army, and he goes off to serve. in World War I.Carol Sutton Lewis: So Mildred is at home with Bud and William's off at the war. But ultimately, Mildred returns to science. A few years later, where she is hired as a polio detective. Can you tell me a little bit about what the state of polio knowledge was at the time and what precisely a polio detective did?Carl Zimmer: It doesn't seem like polio really was a thing in the United States until the late 1800s. And then suddenly there's this mysterious disease that can strike children with no warning. These kids can't. walk, or suddenly these kids are dying. Not only are the symptoms completely terrifying to parents, but how it spreads is a complete mystery. And so Mildred, seems to have been hired at some point in the late 1920s To basically put together everything that was known about polio to help doctors to deal with their patients and to, you know, encourage future science to try to figure out what is this disease.You know, Mildred wasn't trained in epidemiology. So it's kind of remarkable that she taught herself. And she would turn out to be a really great epidemiologist. But, in any case, She gets hired by the International Committee for the Study of Infantile Paralysis, that was the name then for polio. And she does this incredible study, where she basically looks for everything that she can find about how polio spreads. Case studies where, in a town, like this child got polio, then this child did, and did they have contact and what sort of contact, what season was it? What was the weather like? All these different factors.And one thing that's really important to bear in mind is that, at this time, the prevailing view was that diseases spread by water, by food, by sex, by close contact. Maybe like someone just coughs and sprays droplets on you, but otherwise it's these other routes.The idea that it could spread through the air was really looked at as being just obsolete superstition. for thousands of years, people talked about miasmas, somehow the air mysteriously became corrupted and that made people sick with different diseases. That was all thrown out in the late 1800s, early 1900s when germ theory really takes hold. And so public health experts would say, look, a patient's breath is basically harmless.Carol Sutton Lewis: But Mildred doesn't agree, does she?Carl Zimmer: Well, Mildred Wells is looking at all of this, data and she is starting to get an idea that maybe these public health experts have been too quick to dismiss the air. So when people are talking about droplet infections in the 1920s, they're basically just talking about, big droplets that someone might just sneeze in your face. But the epidemiology looks to her like these germs are airborne, are spreading long distances through the air.So Mildred is starting to make a distinction in her mind about what she calls airborne and droplet infections. So, and this is really the time that the Wellses collectively are thinking about airborne infection and it's Mildred is doing it. And William actually gives her credit for this later on.Carol Sutton Lewis: Right. and her results are published in a book about polio written entirely by female authors, which is quite unusual for the time.Carl Zimmer: Mm hmm. Right. The book is published in 1932, and the reception just tells you so much about what it was like to be a woman in science. The New England Journal of Medicine reviews the book, which is great. But, here's a line that they give, they say, it is interesting to note that this book is entirely the product of women in medicine and is the first book.So far as a reviewer knows. by a number of authors, all of whom are of the female sex. So it's this: Oh, look at this oddity. And basically, the virtue of that is that women are really thorough, I, guess. so it's a very detailed book. And the reviewer writes, no one is better fitted than a woman to collect data such as this book contains. So there's no okay, this is very useful.Carol Sutton Lewis: PatronizeCarl Zimmer: Yeah. Thank you very much. Reviewers were just skating over the conclusions that they were drawing, I guess because they were women. Yeah, pretty incredible.Carol Sutton Lewis: So she is the first to submit scientific proof about this potential for airborne transmission. And that was pretty much dismissed. It wasn't even actively dismissed.It was just, nah, these women, nothing's coming outta that, except William did pay attention. I believe he too had been thinking about airborne transmission for some time and then started seriously looking at Mildred's conclusion when he started teaching at Harvard.Carl Zimmer: Yeah. So, William gets a job as a low level instructor at Harvard. He's getting paid very little. Mildred has no income. He's teaching about hygiene and sanitation, but apparently he's a terrible teacher. But he is a clever, brilliant engineer and scientist; he very quickly develops an idea that probably originated in the work that Mildred had been doing on polio. that maybe diseases actually can spread long distances through the air. So there are large droplets that we might sneeze out and cough out and, and they go a short distance before gravity pulls them down. But physics dictates that below a certain size, droplets can resist gravity.This is something that's going totally against what all the, the really prominent public health figures are saying. William Wells doesn't care. He goes ahead and he starts to, invent a way to sample air for germs. Basically it's a centrifuge. You plug it in, the fan spins, it sucks in air, the air comes up inside a glass cylinder and then as it's spinning, if there are any droplets of particles or anything floating in the air, they get flung out to the sideS.And so afterwards you just pull out the glass which is coated with, food for microbes to grow on and you put it in a nice warm place. And If there's anything in the air, you'll be able to grow a colony and see it.Carol Sutton Lewis: Amazing.Carl Zimmer: It is amazing. This, this was a crucial inventionCarol Sutton Lewis: So we have William, who is with Mildred's help moving more towards the possibility of airborne infection, understanding that this is very much not where science is at the moment, and he conducts a really interesting experiment in one of his classrooms to try to move the theory forward. We'll talk more about that experiment when we come back after the break.MidrollCarol Sutton Lewis: Welcome back to Lost Women of Science Conversations. We left off as the Wellses were about to conduct an experiment to test their theories about airborne infections. Carl, can you tell us about that experiment?Carl Zimmer: Okay. it's 1934, It's a cold day. Students come in for a lecture from this terrible teacher, William Wells. The windows are closed. The doors are closed. It's a poorly ventilated room. About 20 minutes before the end of the class, he takes this weird device that's next to him, he plugs it into the wall, and then he just goes back and keeps lecturing.It's not clear whether he even told them what he was doing. But, he then takes this little pinch of sneezing powder. out of a jar and holds it in the sort of outflow from the fan inside the air centrifuge. So all of a sudden, poof, the sneezing powder just goes off into the air. You know, there are probably about a couple dozen students scattered around this lecture hall and after a while they start to sneeze. And in fact, people All the way in theback are sneezing too.So now Wells turns off his machine, puts in a new cylinder, turns it on, keeps talking. The thing is that they are actually sneezing out droplets into the air.And some of those droplets contain harmless bacteria from their mouths. And he harvests them from the air. He actually collects them in his centrifuge. And after a few days, he's got colonies of these bacteria, but only after he had released the sneezing powder, the one before that didn't have any.So, you have this demonstration that William Wells could catch germs in the air that had been released from his students at quite a distance away, And other people can inhale them, and not even realize what's happening. In other words, germs were spreading like smoke. And so this becomes an explanation for what Mildred had been seeing in her epidemiology..Carol Sutton Lewis: Wow. That was pretty revolutionary. But how was it received?Carl Zimmer: Well, you know, At first it was received, With great fanfare, and he starts publishing papers in nineteen thirty he and Mildred are coauthors on these. And, Mildred is actually appointed as a research associate at Harvard, in nineteen thirty it's a nice title, but she doesn't get paid anything. And then William makes another discovery, which is also very important.He's thinking okay, if these things are floating in the air, is there a way that I can disinfect the air? And he tries all sorts of things and he discovers ultraviolet light works really well. In fact, you can just put an ultraviolet light in a room and the droplets will circulate around and as they pass through the ultraviolet rays, it kills the bacteria or viruses inside of them. So in 1936, when he's publishing these results, there are so many headlines in newspapers and magazines and stuff about this discovery.There's one headline that says, scientists fight flu germs with violet ray. And, there are these predictions that, we are going to be safe from these terrible diseases. Like for example, influenza, which had just, devastated the world not long beforehand, because you're going to put ultraviolet lights in trains and schools and trolleys and movie theaters.Carol Sutton Lewis: Did Mildred get any public recognition for her contributions to all of this?Carl Zimmer: Well not surprisingly, William gets the lion's share of the attention. I mean, there's a passing reference to Mildred in one article. The Associated Press says chief among his aides, Wells said, was his wife, Dr. Mildred Wells. So, William was perfectly comfortable, acknowledging her, but the reporters. Didn't care,Carol Sutton Lewis: And there were no pictures of herCarl Zimmer: Right. Mildred wasn't the engineer in that couple, but she was doing all the research on epidemiology. And you can tell from comments that people made about, and Mildred Wells is that. William would be nowhere as a scientist without Mildred. She was the one who kept him from jumping ahead to wild conclusions from the data he had so far. So they were, they're very much a team. She was doing the writing and they were collaborating, they were arguing with each other all the time about it And she was a much better writer than he was., but that wasn't suitable for a picture, so she was invisible.Carol Sutton Lewis: In the book, you write a lot about their difficult personalities and how that impacted their reputations within the wider scientific community. Can you say more about that?Carl Zimmer: Right. They really had a reputation as being really hard to deal with. People would politely call them peculiar. And when they weren't being quite so polite, they would talk about all these arguments that they would get in, shouting matches and so on. They really felt that they had discovered something incredibly important, but they were outsiders, you know, they didn't have PhDs, they didn't have really much formal training. And here they were saying that, you know, the consensus about infectious disease is profoundly wrong.Now, ironically, what happened is that once William Wells showed that ultraviolet light could kill germs, his superior at Harvard abruptly took an intense interest in all of this and said, Okay, you're going to share a patent on this with me. My name's going to be on the patent and all the research from now on is going to happen in my lab. I'm going to have complete control over what happens next. And Mildred took the lead saying no way we want total autonomy, get out of our face. She was much more aggressive in university politics, and sort of protecting their turf. And unfortunately they didn't have many allies at Harvard and pretty soon they were out, they were fired. And William Wells and his boss, Gordon Fair, were both named on a patent that was filed for using ultraviolet lamps to disinfect the air.Carol Sutton Lewis: So what happened when they left Harvard?Carl Zimmer: Well, it's really interesting watching them scrambling to find work, because their reputation had preceded them. They were hoping they could go back to Washington DC to the public health service. But, the story about the Wells was that Mildred, was carrying out a lot of the research, and so they thought, we can't hire William if it's his wife, who's quietly doing a lot of the work, like they, for some reason they didn't think, oh, we could hire them both.Carol Sutton Lewis: Or just her.Carl Zimmer: None of that, they were like, do we hire William Wells? His wife apparently hauls a lot of the weight. So no, we won't hire them. It's literally like written down. It’s, I'm not making it up. And fortunately they had a few defenders, a few champions down in Philadelphia.There was a doctor in Philadelphia who was using ultraviolet light to protect children in hospitals. And he was, really, inspired by the Wellses and he knew they were trouble. He wrote yes, I get it. They're difficult, but let's try to get them here.And so they brought them down to Philadelphia and Mildred. And William, opened up the laboratories for airborne infection at the University of Pennsylvania. And now actually Mildred got paid, for the first time, for this work. So they're both getting paid, things are starting to look betterCarol Sutton Lewis: So they start to do amazing work at the University of Pennsylvania.Carl Zimmer: That's right. That's right. William, takes the next step in proving their theory. He figures out how to actually give animals diseases through the air. He builds a machine that gets to be known as the infection machine. a big bell jar, and you can put mice in there, or a rabbit in there, and there's a tube connected to it.And through that tube, William can create a very fine mist that might have influenza viruses in it, or the bacteria that cause tuberculosis. And the animals just sit there and breathe, and lo and behold, They get tuberculosis, they get influenza, they get all these diseases,Now, meanwhile, Mildred is actually spending a lot of her time at a school nearby the Germantown Friends School, where they have installed ultraviolet lamps in some of the classrooms. And they're convinced that they can protect kids from airborne diseases. The biggest demonstration of what these lamps can do comes in 1940, because there's a huge epidemic of measles. In 1940, there's, no vaccine for measles. Every kid basically gets it.And lo and behold, the kids in the classrooms with the ultraviolet lamps are 10 times less likely to get measles than the kids just down the hall in the regular classrooms. And so this is one of the best experiments ever done on the nature of airborne infection and how you can protect people by disinfecting the air.Carol Sutton Lewis: Were they then finally accepted into the scientific community?Carl Zimmer: I know you keep waiting for that, that victory lap, but no. It's just like time and again, that glory gets snatched away from them. Again, this was not anything that was done in secret. Newspapers around Philadelphia were. Celebrating this wow, look at this, look at how we can protect our children from disease. This is fantastic. But other experts, public health authorities just were not budging. they had all taken in this dogma that the air can't be dangerous.And so again and again, they were hitting a brick wall. This is right on the eve of World War II.And so all sorts of scientists in World War II are asking themselves, what can we do? Mildred and William put themselves forward and say we don't want soldiers to get sick with the flu the way they did in World War I. They're both haunted by this and they're thinking, so we could put our ultraviolet lamps in the barracks, we could protect them. Soldiers from the flu, if the flu is airborne, like we think, not only that, but this could help to really convince all those skepticsCarol Sutton Lewis: mm.Carl Zimmer: But they failed. The army put all their money into other experiments, they were blackballed, they were shut out, and again, I think it was just because they were continuing to be just incredibly difficult. Even patrons and their friends would just sigh to each other, like, Oh my God, I've just had to deal with these, with them arguing with us and yelling at us. And by the end of World War II, things are bad, they have some sort of split up, they never get divorced, but it's just too much. Mildred, like she is not only trying to do this pioneering work in these schools, trying to keep William's labs organized, there's the matter of their son. Now looking at some documents, I would hazard a guess that he had schizophrenia because he was examined by a doctor who came to that conclusion.And so, she's under incredible pressure and eventually she cracks and in 1944 she resigns from the lab. She stops working in the schools, she stops collaborating with her husband, but she keeps doing her own science. And that's really amazing to me. What kinds of things did she do after this breakup? What kind of work did she conduct? And how was that received?Mildred goes on on her own to carry out a gigantic experiment, in hindsight, a really visionary piece of work. It's based on her experience in Philadelphia. Because she could see that the ultraviolet lamps worked very well at protecting children during a really intense measles epidemic. And so she thought to herself, if you want to really make ultraviolet light, and the theory of airborne infection live up to its true potential to protect people. You need to protect the air in a lot more places.So she gets introduced to the health commissioner in Westchester County, this is a county just north of New York City. And she pitches him this idea. She says, I want to go into one of your towns and I want to put ultraviolet lights everywhere. And this guy, William Holla, he is a very bold, flamboyant guy. He's the right guy to ask. He's like, yeah, let's do this. And he leaves it up to her to design the experiment.And so this town Pleasantville in New York gets fitted out with ultraviolet lamps in the train station, in the fountain shops, in the movie theater, in churches, all over the place. And she publishes a paper with Holla in 1950 on the results.The results are mixed though. You look carefully at them, you can see that actually, yeah, the lamps worked in certain respects. So certain diseases, the rates were lower in certain places, but sadly, this incredibly ambitious study really didn't move the needle. And yeah, it was a big disappointment and that was the last science that Mildred did.Carol Sutton Lewis: Even when they were working together, Mildred and William never really succeeded in convincing the scientific community to take airborne infection seriously, although their work obviously did move the science forward. So what did sway scientific opinion and when?Carl Zimmer: Yeah, Mildred dies in 1957. William dies in 1963. After the Wellses are dead, their work is dismissed and they themselves are quite forgotten. It really isn't until the early 2000s that a few people rediscover them.The SARS epidemic kicks up in 2003, for example, and I talked to a scientist in Hong Kong named Yuguo Li, and he was trying to understand how was this new disease spreading around? He's looking around and he finds references to papers by William Wells and Mildred Wells. He has no idea who they are and he sees that William Wells had published a book in 1955 and he's like, well, okay, maybe I need to go read the book.Nobody has the book. And the only place that he could find it was in one university in the United States. They photocopied it and shipped it to him in Hong Kong and he finally starts reading it. And it's really hard to read because again William was a terrible writer, unlike Mildred. But after a while it clicks and he's like, oh. That's it. I got it. But again, all the guidelines for controlling pandemics and diseases do not really give much serious attention to airborne infection except for just a couple diseases. And it's not until the COVID pandemic that things finally change.Carol Sutton Lewis: Wow. If we had listened to Mildred and William earlier, what might have been different?Carl Zimmer: Yeah, I do try to imagine a world in which Mildred and William had been taken seriously by more people. If airborne infection was just a seriously recognized thing at the start of the COVID pandemic, we would have been controlling the disease differently from the start. We wouldn't have been wiping down our shopping bags obsessively. People would have been encouraged to open the windows, people would have been encouraged to get air purifiers, ultraviolet lamps might have been installed in places with poor ventilation, masks might not have been so controversial.And instead these intellectual grandchildren of William and Mildred Wells had to reinvent the wheel. They had to do new studies to persuade people finally that a disease could be airborne. And it took a long time. It took months to finally move the needle.Carol Sutton Lewis: Carl, what do you hope people will take away from Mildred's story, which you have so wonderfully detailed in your book, rendering her no longer a lost woman of science? And what do you hope people will take away from the book more broadly?Carl Zimmer: I think sometimes that we imagine that science just marches on smoothly and effortlessly. But science is a human endeavor in all the good ways and in all the not-so-good ways. Science does have a fair amount of tragedy throughout it, as any human endeavor does. I'm sad about what happened to the Wells by the end of their lives, both of them. But in some ways, things are better now.When I'm writing about aerobiology in the early, mid, even late—except for Mildred, it's pretty much all men. But who were the people during the COVID pandemic who led the fight to get recognized as airborne? People like Linsey Marr at Virginia Tech, Kim Prather at University of California, San Diego, Lidia Morawska, an Australian researcher. Now, all women in science still have to contend with all sorts of sexism and sort of baked-in inequalities. But it is striking to me that when you get to the end of the book, the women show up.Carol Sutton Lewis: Well,Carl Zimmer: And they show up in force.Carol Sutton Lewis: And on that very positive note to end on, Carl, thank you so much, first and foremost, for writing this really fascinating book and within it, highlighting a now no longer lost woman of science, Mildred Weeks Wells. Your book is Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, and it's been a pleasure to speak with—Carl Zimmer: Thanks a lot. I really enjoyed talking about Mildred.Carol Sutton Lewis: This has been Lost Women of Science Conversations. Carl Zimmer's book Airborne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe is out now. This episode was hosted by me, Carol Sutton Lewis. Our producer was Luca Evans, and Hansdale Hsu was our sound engineer. Special thanks to our senior managing producer, Deborah Unger, our program manager, Eowyn Burtner, and our co-executive producers, Katie Hafner and Amy Scharf.Thanks also to Jeff DelViscio and our publishing partner, Scientific American. The episode art was created by Lily Whear and Lizzie Younan composes our music. Lost Women of Science is funded in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Anne Wojcicki Foundation. We're distributed by PRX.If you've enjoyed this conversation, go to our website lostwomenofscience.org and subscribe so you'll never miss an episode—that's lostwomenofscience.org. And please share it and give us a rating wherever you listen to podcasts. Oh, and please don't forget to click on the donate button—that helps us bring you even more stories of important female scientists.I'm Carol Sutton Lewis. See you next time.HostCarol Sutton LewisProducerLuca EvansGuest Carl ZimmerCarl Zimmer writes the Origins column for the New York Times and has frequently contributed to The Atlantic, National Geographic, Time, and Scientific American. His journalism has earned numerous awards, including ones from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering. He is the author of fourteen books about science, including Life's Edge.Further Reading:Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe. Carl Zimmer. Dutton, 2025Poliomyelitis. International Committee for the Study of Infantile Paralysis. Williams & Wilkins Company, 1932 “Air-borne Infection,” by William Firth Wells and Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 107, No. 21; November 21, 1936“Air-borne Infection: Sanitary Control,” by William Firth Wells and Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 107, No. 22; November 28, 1936“Ventilation in the Spread of Chickenpox and Measles within School Rooms,” by Mildred Weeks Wells, in JAMA, Vol. 129, No. 3; September 15, 1945“The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill,” by Megan Molteni, in Wired. Published online May 13, 2021WATCH THIS NEXTScience journalist Carl Zimmer joins host Rachel Feltman to look back at the history of the field, from ancient Greek “miasmas” to Louis Pasteur’s unorthodox experiments to biological warfare. #public #health #researcher #her #engineer