US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F Kennedy JrTasos Katopodis/Getty One of the top vaccine experts at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, resigned on 4 June – a week after Robert F Kennedy Jr announced that covid-19 vaccines would no longer be recommended for most children and pregnancies. The announcement set off several days of confusion around who will have access to covid-19 vaccines in the US going forward. In practice, there hasn’t been a drastic change to access, though there will probably be new obstacles for parents hoping to vaccinate their children. Still, Kennedy’s announcement signals a troubling circumvention of public health norms. “My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population, and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role,” said Panagiotakopoulos in an email to colleagues obtained by Reuters. Panagiotakopoulos supported the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which has advised the CDC on vaccine recommendations since 1964. But last week, Kennedy – the country’s highest-ranking public health official – upended this decades-long precedent. “I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the covid vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant woman has been removed from the CDC recommended immunisation schedule,” he said in a video posted to the social media platform X on 27 May. Despite his directive, the CDC has, so far, only made minor changes to its guidance on covid-19 vaccines. Instead of recommending them for children outright, it now recommends vaccination “based on shared clinical decision-making”. In other words, parents should talk with a doctor before deciding. It isn’t clear how this will affect access to these vaccines in every scenario, but it could make it more difficult for children to get a shot at pharmacies. Get the most essential health and fitness news in your inbox every Saturday. Sign up to newsletter The CDC’s guidance on vaccination in pregnancy is also ambiguous. While its website still recommends a covid-19 shot during pregnancy, a note at the top says, “this page will be updated to align with the updated immunization schedule.” Kennedy’s announcement contradicts the stances of major public health organisations, too. Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologistsand the American Academy of Pediatricshave come out opposing it. “The CDC and HHS encourage individuals to talk with their healthcare provider about any personal medical decision,” an HHS spokesperson told New Scientist. “Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy, HHS is restoring the doctor-patient relationship.” However, Linda Eckert at the University of Washington in Seattle says the conflicting messages are confusing for people. “It opens up disinformation opportunities. It undermines confidence in vaccination in general,” she says. “I can’t imagine it won’t decrease immunisation rates overall.” Research has repeatedly shown covid-19 vaccination in adolescence and pregnancy is safe and effective. In fact, Martin Makary, the head of the US Food and Drug Administration, listed pregnancy as a risk factor for severe covid-19 a week before Kennedy’s announcement, further convoluting the government’s public health messaging. Kennedy’s announcement is in line with some other countries’ covid policies. For example, Australia and the UK don’t recommend covid-19 vaccines for children unless they are at risk of severe illness. They also don’t recommend covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy if someone is already vaccinated. Asma Khalil, a member of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, says the UK’s decision was based on the reduced risk of the omicron variant, the cost-effectiveness of vaccination and high population immunity. However, these factors can vary across countries. The UK population also tends to have better access to healthcare than the US, says Eckert. “These decisions need to carefully consider the risks and benefits relative to the national population,” says Khalil. The HHS didn’t answer New Scientist’s questions about whether a similar analysis guided Kennedy’s decision-making. What is maybe most troubling, however, is the precedent Kennedy’s announcement sets. The ACIP – an independent group of public health experts – was expected to vote on proposed changes to covid-19 vaccine recommendations later this month. But Kennedy’s decision has bypassed this process. “This style of decision-making – by individuals versus going through experts who are carefully vetted for conflicts of interest, who carefully look at the data – this has never happened in our country,” says Eckert. “We’re in uncharted territory.” She worries the move could pave the way for Kennedy to chip away at other vaccine recommendations. “I know there are a lot of vaccines he has been actively against in his career,” she says. Kennedy has previously blamed vaccines for autism and falsely claimed that the polio vaccine caused more deaths than it averted. “What it speaks to is the fact thatdoes not see value in these vaccines and is going to do everything he can to try and devalue them in the minds of the public and make them harder to receive,” says Amesh Adalja at Johns Hopkins University. Topics: #stops #endorsing #covid19 #shots #kids

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

As the most famous residence in the country, the White House’s interiors are given the utmost attention, and they tend to change with every new administration. So, we’re taking a look back at how the property’s design has evolved over the years. From the famed Sister Parish designs of the Kennedy era to Michael S. Smith’s vision for the Obamas, the house has seen impressive transformations and, more recently, some unexpected style choices. The White House’s OriginsBefore we explore the White House’s most prominent interiors, let’s take a look back at the famed home’s history. The White House was designed by Irish architect James Hoban in the Neoclassical style of architecture and built over the course of eight years. The edifice itself is made of Aquia Creek sandstone that was painted white because of the risk posed by the permeability of the stone, which could crack in colder months. Before the White House was built, the President’s House in Philadelphia served as home to two presidents: George Washington and John Adams. The construction of the White House was completed just a few months before Adams’s presidency ended, so he was able to move into the People’s House before his term concluded.Until 1901, what we know as the White House was actually called the Executive Mansion, which then-President Theodore Roosevelt didn’t find ideal—given that many U.S. states had a governor’s residence that was also called the Executive Mansion. Roosevelt subsequently coined the term "White House" that we know and still use to this day—the new name could also be seen atop copies of his stationery.Related StoryThe Early Years When President John Adams and his wife, First Lady Abigail Adams, moved into the White House, the residence was lacking in decor, given that it was only recently completed. The East Room of the White House—which is now used for events such as press conferences, ceremonies, and banquets—was then used by Abigail Adams as a laundry room.Thomas Jefferson was the first president of the United States to spend his entire time in office living in the White House. He set the precedent for the home’s opulent but still livable interiors by having furnishings and wallpaper imported from France.The Late 1800s and Early 1900sIn 1882, President Chester Arthur enlisted Louis Comfort Tiffany to reimagine the Red Room, the Blue Room, the East Room, and the Entrance Hall, the latter of which soon welcomed the addition of a stained glass screen, in true Tiffany style. Library of CongressLouis Comfort Tiffany’s design of the White House Red Room, circa 1884-1885.whitehousehistory.orgPeter Waddell’s The Grand Illumination, an 1891 oil painting that showcases Louis Comfort Tiffany’s stained glass screen in the White House Entrance Hall.Much to our dismay, President Theodore Roosevelt had Tiffany’s creations removed 20 years later, because the designs were seen as dated at this point. Roosevelt already had a construction crew at work in the White House to make more room for his sizable family. While there are no colorized photos of these rooms under Tiffany’s direction, there are black and white photographs and a colorful oil painting of what the stained glass screen likely looked like—so we can only imagine how magical it appeared in real life. It’s believed that after the screen was removed, it was sold at auction and later installed at Maryland’s Belvedere Hotel, which was destroyed in a fire in 1923. Shortly after the removal of Tiffany’s designs, Theodore Roosevelt hired celebrated architectural firm McKim, Mead & White to restore the White House to its Neoclassical glory. Related StoryThe Early-to-Mid-1900sIt wasn’t until 1909—over a century after the White House’s completion—that the Oval Office was created. Then-President William Howard Taft added this room and had it painted in an army green shade, which has since been changed, as every president likes to make the space their own.Given the numerous state dinners at the White House and accompanying serveware required for them, First Lady Edith Wilsonoversaw the completion of the White House China Room in 1917. Since then, the room has displayed state service china, silverware, and glassware chosen and used by each administration. The White House Historical AssociationThe White House China Room in 1975.The majority of the presidential china depicts some variation of the Great Seal, which features a bald eagle and a shield that resembles the United States flag, but most administrations have come up with their own unique designs. Many of these are produced by Pennsylvania-based porcelain manufacturer Lenox. One of our personal favorites? James Polk’s charming floral dessert plate, featuring a mint green hue, is a refreshing change from the usually neutral color palette of other presidential china.Many may not know that the White House was once home to an indoor pool.In 1933, an indoor pool was installed in the People’s House at the request of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who used swimming as a form of therapy to help with his polio. On the walls overlooking the pool was a mural by artist Bernard Lammotte, who painted the Christiansted Harbor from the island of Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Thirty-six years later, Richard Nixon nixed the underground pool and turned the space above it into a press briefing room to host televised broadcasts.Abbie Rowe/National Park Service/Harry S. Truman Library & MuseumThe White House Reconstruction under President Harry S. Truman, circa 1950.Following the Great Depression and World War II, the White House was in desperate need of repair, so much so that it was deemed unsafe for occupancy in 1948, after architectural and engineering investigations. Harry S. Truman, his family, and the White House staff had to live elsewhere during a three-year-long reconstruction project in which the People’s House was completely gutted, enlarged, and reconstructed. The Trumans spent this time living at Blair House—also known as the President’s Guest House—which is located across the street from the White House.The Kennedy YearsFirst Lady Jacqueline Kennedy was very passionate about historic preservation, and it was her efforts that led to the formation of the White House Historical Association, a nonprofit organization that still exists today, aiming to preserve the White House’s history and make the home more publicly accessible. She was also the reason the White House was declared a museum, thereby ensuring its preservation for decades to come.View full post on YoutubeDuring Jackie Kennedy’s first year as First Lady, she oversaw a million renovation of the White House. Following the completion of the project, Jacqueline Kennedy gave a televised tour of the White House, which aired on NBC and CBS to over 80 million viewers on Valentine’s Day of 1962. This was the second televised tour of the White House, and the first time it was led by a First Lady. The broadcast went on to win both an Emmy Award and a Peabody Award.Mrs. Kennedy's renovation focused on reincorporating historic furniture and decor. “It just seemed to me such a shame when we came here to find hardly anything of the past in the house, hardly anything before 1902,” she explained in the broadcast. She cited Colombia’s Presidential Palace as a site where “every piece of furniture in it has some link with the past. I thought the White House should be like that.” Kennedy was so passionate about allowing the public to access the People’s House that, following the suspension of tours after her husband's assassination in 1963, she requested that the tours resume just one week later.The John F. Kennedy LibraryFirst Lady Jacqueline Kennedy’s dressing room at the White House, designed by Stéphane Boudin.The Kennedy-era White House restoration would not have been complete without the interior decorators who helped make it possible: Sister Parish, and later, Stéphane Boudin. Parish designed the Yellow Oval Room and the Kennedy’s private quarters, but was later replaced by Boudin. Parish’s granddaughter, Susan Bartlett Crater, once told the New York Times that the rift was sparked mainly by “a problem over money.” Regardless, Parish’s influence on the interior design world remains indisputable to this day, and much of the popularity of her style can be traced to this high-profile project.Boudin was soon hired to decorate the Blue Room, the Treaty Room, the Red Room, and the Lincoln Sitting Room. He would later add his own touch to the private rooms of the White House as well, with more French-style decor than was previously in place.Getty ImagesThe White House Rose Garden as Bunny Mellon designed it during the Kennedy administration. Jackie Kennedy also famously oversaw the completion of the White House Rose Garden, at the behest of her husband. She tapped socialite, philanthropist, and horticulturalist Rachel Lambert "Bunny" Mellon to design the project. Related StoryThe Late 20th Century to Present DayThe White House interiors have been reinvented numerous times over the 220-year history of the building, and the decor tends to perfectly encapsulate both the time period and the First Family living there. Dorothy Draper protégé Carleton Varney served as Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter's "design consultant," styling state dinners and overseeing Christmas decor. Famed American decorator Mark Hampton also contributed Christmas decorations in 1977. The Ronald Reagan Library Ronald and Nancy Reagan enjoying a meal on silver TV trays in the White House.In the 1980s, the Reagans hired Ted Graber, a decorator from Beverly Hills, to bring their vision to life. In the process, many antique furnishings were replaced with 20th-century decor, straying from typical White House decorating traditions. At the beginning of the next decade, George H.W. Bush tapped Hampton to revive the Oval Office and Executive Residence during his tenure. By the time Bill Clinton moved in, the hand-painted 18th-century-style bird wallpaper that was installed by the Reagans in the master bedroom was still in place. The Clintons’ interior decorator, Kaki Hockersmith, removed and replaced the wallpaper, telling The Washington Post that the room “had lots of all kinds of birds flying and sweeping around. It was not a calming atmosphere.”As First Lady, Hillary Clinton helped raise the White House Endowment Trust’s funds to million, so that more restoration work could be done to White House. During her time spent living at the People’s House, Mrs. Clinton had five rooms restored: the State Dining Room, the East Room, Cross Hall, the Red Room, and the Blue Room. The Ronald Reagan Library The Reagans’ bird wallpaperwas later replaced by the Clintons.George W. Bush hired Kenneth Blasingame, a fellow Texan, to decorate the White House interiors during his administration. And this wasn’t their first time working together—Blasingame also decorated the Bush family’s ranch house in Crawford, Texas. Then-First Lady Laura Bush told Architectural Digest about her plans for the Oval Office’s redesign, saying, “We knew he wanted it to be a sunny office that showed an optimist worked there.” One of the pieces that she and Blasingame collaborated on was a rug that featured the iconic presidential seal, along with a cheery addition: sun rays above the emblem, which echoed Mrs. Bush’s hopes for a “sunny office.” The rug also includes a depiction of a garland made of laurel leaves, a tie-in to the First Lady’s first name, Laura.Architectural DigestThe Queens’ Bedroom as it appeared during the George W. Bush years, where various queens throughout history have stayed. The drapery, bed hanging, and armchair are by Scalamandré.When President Barack Obama took office, he replaced the aforementioned rug with one that paid tribute to four prior presidents and a civil rights icon. The following quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. outline the perimeter of the historical rug:"Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” —Abraham Lincoln"The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us.” —Theodore Roosevelt"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” —Franklin Delano Roosevelt"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.” —John F. Kennedy"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” —Martin Luther King Jr.Michael Mundy/Rizzoli Michael S. Smith’s design for the Obama-era Yellow Oval Room.Barack and Michelle Obama worked with decorator Michael S. Smith to make extensive updates to the residence, creating spaces that merged formality and comfort—and incorporating plenty of modern and contemporary art by American talents. With the help of decorator Tham Kannalikham, President Donald Trump replaced the Obama-era beige striped wallpaper in the Oval Office with a light grey damask option during his first term. In the years Trump first took office, at least million was spent to revamp the White House to better suit his aesthetic—including a highly controversial revamp of the Rose Garden.During Joe Biden’s term as president, First Lady Jill Biden notably chose interior designer Mark D. Sikes—known for his expertise in fresh, all-American style—to reimagine her East Wing office. Sikes was the first design expert the Bidens selected to transform a White House space, according to The Washington Post. When the couple was living in the vice president’s residence, they enlisted designer Victoria Hagan.View full post on InstagramSikes later updated Blair House, the President’s Guest House, with more than 100 rooms. He spent a year and a half revamping the place with his team to make it feel comfortable and homey for visitors while preserving the historic interiors, which hadn’t been updated since Mario Buatta and Mark Hampton refreshed the house in the 1980s. “We wanted to continue the story that was already told by Mark and Mario,” Sikes told AD in October 2024. “They’re both idols of mine, so we didn’t want to completely reimagine what they did, but continue the story and update it and make it feel like the best representation of American traditional design there is.”Sikes reupholstered existing furniture, designed custom pieces, and even commissioned a brighter take on the Clarence House damask wallpaper Buatta and Hampton installed in the hallways and staircases. The designer also applied the refreshed Blair House logo to everything from linens to china.Related StoryAnna Moneymaker//Getty ImagesIn Trump’s second term as president so far, he’s made evident changes to the Oval Office—giving the room a more ornate, gold-heavy look. Among the new accessories are a row of historic gold objects on the mantel, gold medallions on the walls and fireplace, gilded Rococo mirrors on the walls, gold eagles on side tables, and even gold cherubs above the doors.Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok. #how #white #house039s #interior #design

May 16, 20254 min readSee the Dramatic Consequences of Vaccination Rates Teetering on a ‘Knife's Edge’As U.S. childhood vaccination rates sway on a “knife’s edge,” new 25-year projectionsBy Lauren J. Young edited by Dean VisserMeasles, rubella, polio and diphtheria—once ubiquitous, devastating and deeply feared—have been virtually eliminated from the U.S. for decades. Entire generations have barely encountered these diseases as high vaccination rates and intensive surveillance efforts have largely shielded the country from major outbreaks.But amid a major multistate measles outbreak that has grown to hundreds of cases, a recent study published in JAMA projects that even a slight dip in current U.S. childhood vaccination rates could reverse such historic gains, which could cause some of these maladies to come roaring back within 25 years—while just a slight increase in rates could effectively squelch of all four.“We were quite surprised that we’re right on that knife’s edge,” says the study’s lead author Mathew Kiang, an assistant professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University. “A little bit moreand things could be totally fine; a little less and things are going to be quite bad.”On 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.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization formally declare a disease eliminated when there is zero continuous transmission in a specific region for 12 months or more. The U.S. achieved this milestone for measles, a viral illness that can lead to splotchy rashes, pneumonia, organ failure and other dangerous complications, in 2000. Poliovirus, which can cause lifelong paralysis and death, was effectively eliminated from North and South America by 1994. The U.S. rid itself of viral rubella, known for causing miscarriages and severe birth defects, in 2004. And diphtheria, a highly fatal bacterial disease, was virtually eliminated after a vaccine was introduced in the 1940s. These are “key infectious diseases that we’ve eliminated from the U.S. through widespread vaccination,” says study co-author Nathan Lo, a physician-scientist at Stanford University.Kiang, Lo and their colleagues ran multiple scenarios of childhood vaccination rates over 25 years to see if the four diseases would return to endemic levels. Measles—which is a very contagious disease and requires high population immunity to prevent spread—was the most susceptible to fluctuations in vaccination coverage. The models estimated that a 5 percent coverage decline would lead to an estimated 5.7 million measles cases over 25 years, while a 5 percent increase would result in only 5,800 cases.Polio and rubella would require sharper vaccination rate downturnsbefore reaching comparable risks of reemergence.While projected diphtheria cases were notably lower, Lo notes that the illness has a relatively high fatality rate and can cause rapid deterioration: “Patients with diphtheria get symptomatic and within a day or two can die.”Routine childhood immunization numbers have been slowly but steadily falling in recent years for several reasons, including missed appointments during the COVID pandemic and growing—often highly politicized—public resistance to vaccinations. “The idea of reestablishment of measles is not outrageous and certainly in the moment where we’re looking at erosion of trust through our federal authorities about vaccination,” says Matthew Ferrari, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study.Reduced U.S. vaccination rates can also cause “knock-on effects” that threaten disease eradication efforts around the world, Ferrari says. Additionally, recent funding cuts to international vaccine development programs such as USAID and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, will “likely lead to increases in measles, rubella, diphtheria and polio elsewhere in the world,” he says. Outbreaks of these diseases in the U.S. largely start when unvaccinated American travelers pick one up while visiting a place where it’s more common. “If you now add the consequences of defunding vaccination around the world, then that’s going to increase the likelihood of these cases coming to the United States,” Ferrari says, adding that the study authors may have made “conservative assumptions” about these international factors.But Ferrari says the study’s scenarios assumed immediate—and in some cases unrealistically high—vaccination rate drop-offs without accounting for other possible public health efforts to control disease. “Even if we anticipated an erosion of vaccination in the United States, it probably wouldn’t happen instantly,” Ferrari says. “Detection and reactive vaccination weren’t really discussed in the paper, nor was the population-level response—the behavior of parents and the medical establishment. That’s something we can’t possibly know.... From that perspective, I think the scenarios were enormously pessimistic.”Lo and Kiang argue that politically driven shifts in vaccine policy, such as reduced childhood vaccination requirements or a tougher authorization process for new vaccines, could make a 50 percent slump in vaccination rates less far-fetched. “I think that there was a lot of pushback from very smart people that 50 percent was way too pessimistic, and I think that—historically—they would have been right,” Kiang says. “I think in the current political climate and what we’ve seen, it’s not clear to me that that istrue.”Kiang and Lo say that while their study shows the dangers of vast vaccine declines, it also highlights how small improvements can make a massive difference.“There’s also a more empowering side, which is that the small fractions of population that push us one way can also push us the other way,” Lo says. “Someone might ask, ‘What is my role in this?’ But small percentages, we find, can really push us back into the safe territory where this alternate reality of measles reestablishing itself would not come to pass.” #how #measles #polio #other #eliminated

Image by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/FuturismDevelopmentsFresh off his family's dip in Washington, DC's sewage-contaminated Rock Creek, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is reminding us that he is no expert when it comes to healthcare — the thing he was nominated to run.When speaking to the House of Representatives — his first appearance before Congress since his confirmation hearings in January — the allegedly brainwormed Health and Human Services secretary said the quiet part out loud when attempting to weasel out of questions about vaccines."I don't want to seem like I'm being evasive," Kennedy told the House Appropriations Committee, "but I don't think people should be taking advice, medical advice from me."That rejoinder came in response to questions from Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin Democrat, who asked if the political scion would, vaccinate his family, as he did in the past.Kennedy said that he would "probably" vaccinate them against measles — a face-saving response, perhaps, given that a massive and deadly measles outbreak has spread amongst unvaccinated populations during his three-and-a-half-month tenure.When asked the same question about whether he'd vaccinate his kids against polio and chickenpox, Kennedy refused to answer directly."What I would say is my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant," the avowed anti-vaxxer contended. "I don’t want to give advice."That assertion raised the hackles of critics who contend not only that the HHS head is supposed to be the nation's guiding light in healthcare, but also that his vaccine opinions have shaped his tenure thus far."The problem is that is his job — the top line of his job description — is the nation's chief health strategist," decried Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a post-hearing call with reporters. "That is his job, is to give people the best advice that he can. I believe that he's giving up on, in my view, his chief responsibility."As Benjamin notes, Kennedy's stance on vaccines has indeed been behind the HHS secretary's decision to direct dosages of Vitamin A — rather than extra supplies of measles, mumps, and rubellavaccines — to be shipped to the West Texas region where the measles outbreak has led to the deaths of two children.During that same press call, public health practice professor Marissa Levine of the University of South Florida put Kennedy's vaccine obfuscation in even starker terms."I wonder what it would be like," she said, "if the transportation secretary refused to answer a question about whether he would fly."More on RFK Jr.: Government Launching Database of Everyday People With AutismShare This Article #trump039s #crackpot #secretary #health #admits

Monitoring wastewater for traces of infectious diseases is giving this human byproduct a powerful new role in public health. Once used decades ago to detect poliovirus, wastewater-based epidemiology reemerged during COVID-19 and is now proving useful again in tracking measles outbreaks before cases are officially reported.A recent study led by researchers from Baylor College of Medicine, UTHealth Houston, the Houston Health Department, and Rice University showed that measles virus was detected in Houston’s wastewater days before any clinical cases were confirmed. Published in the American Journal of Public Health, the findings come as measles cases rise in Texas and across the U.S.This early detection strategy may offer a new line of defense: spotting outbreaks before they spread.The Measles ComebackMeasles is a highly contagious respiratory virus spread via droplets from coughing or sneezing. Symptoms, such as fever, runny nose, and rash, can resemble other illnesses but can be deadly for young children and immunocompromised individuals.Before the vaccine’s rollout in 1968, the U.S. saw more than 300 cases per 100,000 people annually. By 2000–2009, that number fell below 0.05 per 100,000. But when vaccination rates dip below 95 percent, fresh outbreaks can return, with devastating effects.With lower vaccine uptake and an aging population, experts say stronger surveillance is needed to track this fast-spreading virus.Read More: Scientists Scour Sewage for Coronavirus CluesAnalyzing the WastewaterUsing a sequencing-based approachthe research team scanned wastewater samples for measles.“In 2023, we showed that systematically sequencing the genetic material in wastewater reveals dynamic changes in human viruses circulating in a community,” said study co-author and professor at Baylor Anthony Maresso in a news release. “Importantly, analyzing these viral changes in wastewater can improve our understanding of outbreaks and transmission and inform public health preparedness, just as one uses meteorological data to better understand and predict weather patterns to anticipate potentially dangerous conditions.”In the latest study, measles virus was found in samples from two Houston treatment facilities on January 7, ten days before two travelers in the same area tested positive.“In such cases our next step is always validating the signal with a second method,” said co-first author Sara Javornik Cregeen in the release. “tested for the virus presence in samples from the same date and collection site and confirmed the signal using another technique.”She added, “As a reference, the 821 Houston wastewater samples we sequenced from the same area were negative for measles virus in the previous 31 months.”Maresso noted in the press release, “Because no other cases have been reported and the detections occurred in the same area where the travelers resided, it is reasonable to assume that the measles signal detected in wastewater is from the two infected cases, which underscores the high sensitivity of the method.”Measles Vaccination Still the Best ProtectionThese results suggest measles may be shed at higher rates than previously thought, or that the team’s agnostic hybrid-capture sequencing method is especially sensitive. Likely, it’s both.The researchers are now monitoring measles activity in other Texas cities, especially in West Texas where new cases are emerging. Their results feed into a public-facing, first-of-its-kind health dashboard: tephi.texas.gov/early-detection.“This work underscores the ability of sophisticated wastewater analyses to serve as an early detection system benefiting public health,” said Eric Boerwinkle, dean of UTHealth Houston School of Public Health in the statement. However, he added, “The best protection from contracting the measles virus is the MMR vaccine, which has been shown to be safe and effective.”Beyond measles, this approach can track everything from seasonal viruses like flu and COVID-19 to emerging threats like avian H5N1 influenza. Wastewater, it turns out, may be one of our best tools for staying a step ahead of the next outbreak.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:American Journal of Public Health: Sequencing-Based Detection of Measles in Wastewater: Texas, January 2025Nature Communications: Wastewater sequencing reveals community and variant dynamics of the collective human viromeHaving worked as a biomedical research assistant in labs across three countries, Jenny excels at translating complex scientific concepts – ranging from medical breakthroughs and pharmacological discoveries to the latest in nutrition – into engaging, accessible content. Her interests extend to topics such as human evolution, psychology, and quirky animal stories. When she’s not immersed in a popular science book, you’ll find her catching waves or cruising around Vancouver Island on her longboard. #measles #sewers #wastewater #surveillance #offers

The Trump administration is not known for particularly prioritizing animal welfare. But in its first few months, alongside announcements that it would seek to gut federal funding for scientific research, Trump officials have taken steps toward a goal that animal advocates have been championing for decades: the end of animal experimentation. On April 10, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to phase out animal testing requirements for the development of monoclonal antibodies — used to treat a variety of diseases, including cancer and Covid-19 — and a range of other drugs.The Environmental Protection Agency, which has long required animal testing for substances including pesticides and fuel additives, also plans to revive an agency ban on animal testing that dates back to the first Trump administration. The agency had set deadlines under President Donald Trump in 2019 to reduce animal testing 30 percent by 2025, then eradicate it altogether by 2035. The Biden administration eliminated those deadlines, but now, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin “is wholly committed to getting the agency back on track,” spokesperson Molly Vaseliou told Vox in an email.Late last month came perhaps the most consequential announcement: a major new initiative from the National Institutes of Health, the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, to reduce the use of animals in research and accelerate the development of novel, animal-free methods. Estimates suggest NIH-funded research relies on millions of animals every year in the US. That includes mostly rodents, but also monkeys, dogs, pigs, rabbits, and others. But Trump’s NIH cited scientific literature that finds animal models can have limited relevance to human outcomes.Advocacy groups that oppose animal testing, including PETA and Humane World for Animals, celebrated the news as the most significant commitment ever made by NIH to reduce its dependence on animal experimentation. The recent announcements are “among the biggest news there’s ever been for animals in laboratories,” Elizabeth Baker, director of research policy for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, told me. Together, these moves represent a potentially monumental shift in American science — one that could spare millions of animals from painful experiments and, advocates hope, speed up the adoption of cutting-edge technologies to produce better, more reliable research than animal models ever did. But if the goal is not just to benefit animals, but also to make science better, the Trump administration is surely going about it in a strange way. It’s waging war on scientific institutions, seeking to slash research budgets — massively, seemingly indiscriminately, and questionably legally — at the NIH and the National Science Foundation, undermining decades of American leadership in science and medicine. It hasn’t committed any new funding toward its goal of advancing animal-free research methods.In this light, scientists are understandably skeptical that research policy coming from this administration could benefit science, rather than just sabotage it. Putting animal research on the chopping block, many believe, could merely be a convenient and popular way to slash support for science across the board. Yet those seeking to phase out government-funded animal research aren’t just anti-science radicals — they’re also animal testing critics who correctly point out that animal experiments are expensive, often ineffective, and come at a steep ethical cost. This has created a diverse, sometimes-uneasy coalition of animal welfare advocates, science reformers, and far-right political figures — some are willing to accept reforms any way they can get them; others are more wary of moves made by this administration, even when their agendas align. In Vox’s Future Perfect section, you’ll find some of the deepest reporting and analysis available anywhere of the scientific, ethical, and political dimensions of animal experimentation.• The harrowing lives of animal researchers• Animal rights advocates are ready for Trump’s war on science• What can caged lab monkeys tell us about free human beings?• What went wrong with autism research? Let’s start with lab mice.• The US uses endangered monkeys to test drugs. This law could free them.• 43 lab monkeys escaped in South Carolina. They have a legal claim to freedom.The Trump administration’s NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, embodies this alliance: An established scientist, albeit one who’s publicly aligned himself with the political right in recent years, he has praised the watchdog group White Coat Waste, which campaigns aggressively against animal research, as “heroes.” Now, with the NIH’s plan to reduce animal research, he’s arguing for the need to transition to animal-free methods in the language of scientific progress rather than the tear-it-all-down approach of other members of the Trump administration. Money and resources are powerful incentives in scientific research; allocate them in the right way, and scientists will be pushed to innovate in whatever direction is deemed important for societal progress. Evolving beyond the pervasive use of animals in science undoubtedly ought to be one of those priorities: Lab animals experience immense suffering in labs, living in intensive confinement and undergoing painful experiments involving blood draws, tube feeding, forced inhalation of substances, and other procedures. Finding alternatives that would end this agony would be one of American science’s most important achievements.It’s unclear whether a moonshot for alternatives to animal research can emerge from an administration that’s imposing widespread austerity on science. And there may be reason to worry that the Trump administration’s broader anti-regulatory approach could have negative consequences for the welfare of animals that still remain in labs. But many advocates of animal-free methods are willing to take the bet, hoping that they can use this uncertain, unsettled moment in American science policy to help usher in a paradigm shift in how the US uses animals in science. What will these policy changes actually do?For decades, animal advocates, and a growing number of scientists, have disputed whether animal trials are the most effective tools available in modern science. Historically, animal dissection laid the groundwork for early medicine, and breakthroughs from animal research have helped lead to polio vaccines, the preventative HIV medication PrEP, and treatments for Parkinson’s disease. But animals are not necessarily suitable proxies for humans, and more than 90 percent of drug trials fail between animal and human testing trials, according to a 2023 review by animal welfare advocates. It’s a problem many scientists acknowledge, albeit not always publicly. Former NIH director Francis Collins in 2014 privately discussed “the pointlessness of much of the research being conducted on non-human primates” in emails obtained by PETA via public records request.That the government is now planning cuts to animal research is undeniably groundbreaking. But how these planned cutbacks and phase-outs will actually unfold is more complex. In its announcement, the NIH said it will establish an Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application to scale the use of non-animal methods, expand funding for these approaches, evaluate human relevance, and include experts in alternative animal-free methods on grant review panels so that more of the agency’s funding is allocated toward those methods. Scientists are often incentivized to use animals in their research, as Celia Ford wrote for Voxearlier this year, a phenomenon sometimes called “animal methods bias.” Academic journals prefer to publish studies using animals, and internal research ethics review boards are mostly comprised of animal researchers. Advancing technologies, such as computational modeling or organ-on-a-chip technology, offer alternatives to animal testing, and many scientists around the world are embracing these new methods. But the scientific community has been slow to adopt them. To change that, the NIH’s new initiative will “address any possible bias towards animal studies” among its grant review staff. The agency will also publicly report on its annual research spending, something it hasn’t done in the past, “to measure progress toward reduction of funding for animal studies and an increase in funding for human-based approaches,” according to the recent announcement. The EPA, meanwhile, requires toxicology tests on animals for many substances that it regulates, including fuel and fuel additives, certain pesticides, and wastewater from industrial facilities. It has not yet announced an official plan to reduce animal research, though a 2016 agency reform required increased reliance on non-animal methods. Many are hoping the agency — which previously estimated that between 20,000 and 100,000 or more animals are used in toxicology testing every year — will recommit to its 2019 directive to end animal testing requirements by 2035, Baker says. Of course, announcements are meaningless without plans — and the FDA is the only agency to announce a plan that lays out a three-year timeline and alternative testing strategies. The FDA’s current requirements for animal testing in new drug approvals are somewhat unclear. The FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which Congress passed in 2022, authorized the use of non-animal alternatives in place of animal studies for FDA-regulated drugs, but some of the FDA’s regulations and nonbinding guidelines specifically mention animal tests. Pharmaceutical companies that have tried to obtain drug approval without animal testing have faced expensive delays. As a result, in practice, most drugs approved by the FDA are still tested on animals.According to the FDA, current regulations still require animal testing for monoclonal antibodies, which are lab-made proteins that can bind to and kill specific targets in the body. The FDA’s phaseout of animal tests will start with these antibodies and expand to other treatments. Lab animals’ immune responses are not predictive of human responses “due to interspecies differences,” the agency’s plan states. Safety risks may go undetected in animals, and the stress of laboratory life can affect their immune function and responses, a significant confounding factor in animal research that scientists have noted before. Animal testing is also very expensive: Monoclonal antibody development often involves monkeys, which can cost up to per animal, according to the FDA; its plan notes it can cost million to million and take up to nine years to develop monoclonal antibody treatments, delaying delivery of new therapies to patients.While advancements like organ-on-a-chip and computer modeling are both exciting and laudable, counting on them to replace animals may be premature, Naomi Charalambakis, director of communications and science policy for Americans for Medical Progress, a nonprofit that supports the use of animals in research, said in an email. These tools, many of which are still under development, can’t fully replicate “the complexity of living organisms” — which is why she says they should be integrated “alongside traditional animal studies.”“Animal models remain vital for answering complex biomedical questions — particularly those involving whole-body systems, long-term effects, and unpredictable immune responses,” she says.A monkey used for research at the University of Muenster in Germany. Friso Gentsch/Getty ImagesScientists have also pointed out that the FDA’s promise that animal testing will be “reduced, refined, or potentially replaced” is not new. In 2022, the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 paved the way for alternatives to animal testing, and in December 2023, an NIH advisory committee made similar recommendations to develop non-animal methods. Regardless, the FDA’s and NIH’s recent announcements are among the first public statements by government organizations questioning the efficacy of animal testing. Can massive cuts to research funding help animals?In February, the Trump administration took the highly controversial step of capping “indirect costs,” the portion of universities’ research grants that cover administrative and operations expenses not directly tied to the research itself, at 15 percent of an institution’s grant. The research community has warned that the decision would be catastrophic for science — budgets will be slashed, young researchers may be laid off and see their careers ruined, and important science may fall by the wayside. But for animals, the news is “fantastic,” argues Jeremy Beckham, a law student and animal advocate who’s worked for organizations including PETA, PCRM, and the Beagle Freedom Project.While indirect costs are not a “meritless concept,” Beckham says, he believes universities renew research grants that harm animals while yielding little to no benefit in order to continue receiving operational funding. Universities “are allowing a lot of extremely pointless and cruel animal experiments to happen, because it’s such a gravy train for them for these indirect costs,” he says.Oregon Health & Science University, for example, which receives 56 percent of its grant in indirect costs for animal studies, has racked up several critical Animal Welfare Act citations for 14 animal deaths at its research labs since 2018. At Wayne State University in Michigan, researchers have induced heart failure in hundreds of dogs in a cardiac research experiment that has been running since 1991 but has “failed to help a single patient,” according to PCRM. Wayne State receives an indirect cost rate of 54 percent, according to a recent statement from the university. In a statement about its dog experiments, Wayne State argued that it’s important to continue the cardiovascular research, even if “science does not move at the pace we would like.” Critics of the cuts to indirect costs, including Harvard immunologist Sarah Fortune, have argued that funding cuts will mean labs are forced to euthanize their animals. But many, if not all, were already going to be killed in experiments, Delcianna Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, points out.In March, a federal judge blocked the NIH’s proposed cap on indirect costs, and universities are looking to negotiate. But if the proposal does go forward, “the number of animals in laboratories will plummet,” Beckham says.Despite its promises to reduce the number of animals in labs, the Trump administration’s disdain for regulation may mean those animals that still remain in labs will suffer more. During Trump’s first presidency, enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, the federal law that governs the welfare of animals used in research, took a nosedive. The US Department of Agriculture, the agency tasked with implementing that law, removed thousands of animal welfare reports, which had previously been publicly posted for decades, from its website. Given this precedent, Winders fears that going forward, the research industry will violate animal welfare laws “with complete impunity.”Research animals are already at a disadvantage under the Animal Welfare Act, and critics have insisted for decades that the act is insufficient and poorly enforced. The proverbial lab rat is not protected by the law — most mice and rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act’s definition of “animal.” By some estimates, it covers as little as 5 percent of research animals.Nor does the law place any legal limits on what can be done to animals in experiments. “That’s left completely to the research facility,” Winders says.A beagle used for research in Spain. Beagles are widely used in experiments in the US and around the world. Jo-Anne McArthur/Animal Equality/We AnimalsWhen a researcher violates the Animal Welfare Act, the USDA has few options for enforcement. Because inspectors cannot confiscate animals that are required for research, they can really only levy monetary fines. But for facilities that receive millions in funding and spend billions on research, fines — most of which are less than — are so low that they’re considered a “cost of doing business,” according to a 2014 USDA Office of Inspector General report. The USDA calculates these fines using an internal penalty worksheet, which factors in a facility’s size, compliance history, and the severity of its violations. The worksheet was recently obtained by Eric Kleiman, founder of research accountability group Chimps to Chinchillas, and it revealed that the USDA does not take a research institution’s revenue or assets into account when calculating fines. The USDA instead measures a facility’s size via the number of animals it uses, according to the worksheet, which divides research facilities into four size categories, the largest being facilities with 3,500 or more animals. But this metric is flawed, Kleiman says, since many labs don’t keep their animals on-site, instead contracting out with research organizations that perform the experiments on their behalf.In a statement, USDA spokesperson Richard Bell said the agency “carries out enforcement actions consistent with the authority granted under the Animal Welfare Act and associated regulations.”And in recent months, there have been alarming signs of an anti-regulation shift. A 2024 Supreme Court decision, SEC vs. Jarkesy, calls government agencies’ ability to issue fines into question. It’s possible this ruling could be interpreted in a way that bars the USDA from assessing fines, Winders says. “We’re still waiting to see how broadly the government interprets it,” she says. “Given that other enforcement mechanisms are not available against research facilities…civil fines were really the only pathway, and now that’s on the chopping block.” Since the June 2024 ruling, the USDA has issued few fines. The USDA is “still assessing the impact of the Jarkesy ruling,” Bell said. In the past, the Office of Inspector General has held the USDA accountable for poor enforcement — but in January, the USDA inspector general was fired and escorted out of her office, Reuters reported. The next month, the USDA OIG released a report on inspections of dog breeders — some of which supply dogs to research facilities. The report was critical of the USDA’s enforcement, but key information including the number of facilities inspected, the number of animal welfare violations, and photos was redacted “due to privacy concerns.” Winders has “never, ever seen that before,” she says, and it could set a new precedent for decreased transparency.About 15 percent of USDA’s workforce has accepted the Trump administration’s buyout to leave the agency, including more than 1,300 people in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which inspects and enforces the Animal Welfare Act, Reuters reported on May 5.“If inspectors aren’t there, how are they going to have a window into what needs to be done?” says Sara Amundson, chief government relations officer for Humane World for Animals.Regardless, the US is witnessing a seismic shift in how we use animals for research — or even whether we use them at all. It’s too soon to say what the Trump administration’s reforms to animal testing will accomplish, or whether they’ll produce durable changes in American science that manage to outlive an administration that has declared war on the scientific community. Although animal welfare is a bipartisan issue, it’s rarely been a priority for previous administrations, Republican or Democrat. To have an administration that, within months of taking power, is already meeting with animal welfare groups, holding congressional hearings, and taking strong stances on animal research issues is unprecedented, experts say. “I am optimistic,” Baker says.You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: #massive #stakes #trump #administrations #plans