The U.S. is slowly being gripped by a flooding crisis as seas rise and waterways overflow with ever more alarming frequency. An idea at the forefront for how to help Americans cope is so-called managed retreat, a process of moving away from affected areas and letting former neighborhoods return to nature. It’s an idea increasingly en vogue as it becomes clearer that barriers won’t be enough to keep floodwaters at bay.

But new research shows a startling finding: Americans are already retreating. More than 40,000 households have been bought out by the federal government over the past three decades. The research published in Science Advances on Wednesday also reveals that there are disparities between which communities opt-in for buyout programs and, even more granularly, which households take the offers and relocate away. The cutting-edge research answers questions that have been out there for a while and raises a whole host of new ones that will only become more pressing in the coming decades as Earth continues to warm.

“People are using buyouts and doing managed retreat,” AR Siders, a climate governance researcher at Harvard and study author, said during a press call. “No matter how difficult managed retreat sounds, we know that there are a thousand communities in the United States, all over the country, who have made it work. I want to hear their stories, I want to know how they did it.”

Source: Managed Retreat Buyout Efforts Have Relocated 40,000 Households: Study

Nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, international governmental bodies, relevant research institutes and scientific societies are in unison in saying that climate change is real, that it’s a problem, and that we should probably do something about it now, not later. And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples’ minds that climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal.

Actually, it’s not “for some reason” that people are confused. There’s a very obvious reason. There is a very well-funded, well-orchestrated climate change-denial movement, one funded by powerful people with very deep pockets. In a new and incredibly thorough study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle took a deep dive into the financial structure of the climate deniers, to see who is holding the purse strings.

According to Brulle’s research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues.

“The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires,” says the Guardian, “often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change.”

Source: Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement | Smart News | Smithsonian

Rapid progress in research involving miniature human brains grown in a dish has led to a host of ethical concerns, particularly when these human brain cells are transplanted into nonhuman animals. A new paper evaluates the potential risks of creating “humanized” animals, while providing a pathway for scientists to move forward in this important area.

Neuroscientist Isaac Chen from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, along with his colleagues, has written a timely Perspective paper published today in the science journal Cell Stem Cell. The paper was prompted by recent breakthroughs involving the transplantation of human brain organoids into rodents—a practice that’s led to concerns about the “humanization” of lab animals.

In their paper, the authors evaluate the current limits of this biotechnology and the potential risks involved, while also looking ahead to the future. Chen and his colleagues don’t believe anything needs to be done right now to limit these sorts of experiments, but that could change once scientists start to enhance certain types of brain functions in chimeric animals, that is, animals endowed with human attributes, in this case human brain cells.

In the future, the authors said, scientists will need to be wary of inducing robust levels of consciousness in chimeric animals and even stand-alone brain organoids, similar to the sci-fi image of a conscious brain in a vat.

Human brain organoids are proving to be remarkably useful. Made from human stem cells, brain organoids are tiny clumps of neural cells which scientists can use in their research.

To be clear, pea-sized organoids are far too basic to induce traits like consciousness, feelings, or any semblance of awareness, but because they consist of living human brain cells, scientists can use them to study brain development, cognitive disorders, and the way certain diseases affect the brain, among other things. And in fact, during the opening stages of the Zika outbreak, brain organoids were used to study how the virus infiltrates brain cells.

The use of brain organoids in this way is largely uncontroversial, but recent research involving the transplantation of human brain cells into rodent brains is leading to some serious ethical concerns, specifically the claim that scientists are creating part-human animals.

Anders Sandberg, a researcher at the University of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, said scientists are not yet able to generate full-sized brains due to the lack of blood vessels, supporting structure, and other elements required to build a fully functioning brain. But that’s where lab animals can come in handy.

“Making organoids of human brain cells is obviously interesting both for regenerating brain damage and for research,” explained Sandberg, who’s not affiliated with the new paper. “They do gain some structure, even though it is not like a full brain or even part of a brain. One way of getting around the problem of the lack of blood vessels in a petri dish is to implant them in an animal,” he said. “But it’s at this point when people start to get a bit nervous.”

The concern, of course, is that the human neural cells, when transplanted into a nonhuman animal, say a mouse or rat, will somehow endow the creature with human-like traits, such as greater intelligence, more complex emotions, and so on.

Source: Rodents With Part-Human Brains Pose a New Challenge for Bioethics

This is a very well considered article, very much worth reading further above.

The next time you’re hunting for a parking spot, mathematics could help you identify the most efficient strategy, according to a recent paper in the Journal of Statistical Mechanics. It’s basically an optimization problem: weighing different variables and crunching the numbers to find the optimal combination of those factors. In the case of where to put your car, the goal is to strike the optimal balance of parking close to the target—a building entrance, for example—without having to waste too much time circling the lot hunting for the closest space.

Paul Krapivsky of Boston University and Sidney Redner of the Santa Fe Institute decided to build their analysis around an idealized parking lot with a single row (a semi-infinite line), and they focused on three basic parking strategies. A driver who employs a “meek” strategy will take the first available spot, preferring to park as quickly as possible even if there might be open spots closer to the entrance. A driver employing an “optimistic” strategy will go right to the entrance and then backtrack to find the closest possible spot.

Finally, drivers implementing a “prudent” strategy will split the difference. They might not grab the first available spot, figuring there will be at least one more open spot a bit closer to the entrance. If there isn’t, they will backtrack to the space a meek driver would have claimed immediately.

[…]

Based on their model, the scientists concluded that the meek strategy is the least effective of the three, calling it “risibly inefficient” because “many good parking spots are unfilled and most cars are parked far from the target.”

Determining whether the optimistic or prudent strategy was preferable proved trickier, so they introduced a cost variable. They defined it as “the distance from the parking spot to the target plus time wasted looking for a parking spot.” Their model also assumes the speed of the car in the lot is the same as average walking speed.

“On average, the prudent strategy is less costly,” the authors concluded. “Thus, even though the prudent strategy does not allow the driver to take advantage of the presence of many prime parking spots close to the target, the backtracking that must always occur in the optimistic strategy outweighs the benefit.” Plenty of people might indeed decide that walking a bit farther is an acceptable tradeoff to avoid endlessly circling a crowded lot hunting for an elusive closer space. Or maybe they just want to rack up a few extra steps on their FitBit.

The authors acknowledge some caveats to their findings. This is a “minimalist physics-based” model, unlike more complicated models used in transportation studies that incorporate factors like parking costs, time limits, and so forth. And most parking lots are not one-dimensional (a single row). The model used by the authors also assumes that cars enter the lot from the right at a fixed rate, and every car will have time to find a spot before the next car enters—a highly unrealistic scenario where there is no competition between cars for a given space. (Oh, if only…)

Source: To find the best parking spot, do the math | Ars Technica

A man has been able to move all four of his paralysed limbs with a mind-controlled exoskeleton suit, French researchers report.

Thibault, 30, said taking his first steps in the suit felt like being the “first man on the Moon”.

His movements, particularly walking, are far from perfect and the robo-suit is being used only in the lab.

But researchers say the approach could one day improve patients’ quality of life.

Thibault had surgery to place two implants on the surface of the brain, covering the parts of the brain that control movement

Sixty-four electrodes on each implant read the brain activity and beam the instructions to a nearby computer

Sophisticated computer software reads the brainwaves and turns them into instructions for controlling the exoskeleton

[…]

in 2017, he took part in the exoskeleton trial with Clinatec and the University of Grenoble.

Initially he practised using the brain implants to control a virtual character, or avatar, in a computer game, then he moved on to walking in the suit.

“It was like [being the] first man on the Moon. I didn’t walk for two years. I forgot what it is to stand, I forgot I was taller than a lot of people in the room,” he said.

It took a lot longer to learn how to control the arms.

“It was very difficult because it is a combination of multiple muscles and movements. This is the most impressive thing I do with the exoskeleton.”

[…]

“This is far from autonomous walking,” Prof Alim-Louis Benabid, the president of the Clinatec executive board, told BBC News.

[…]

In tasks where Thibault had to touch specific targets by using the exoskeleton to move his upper and lower arms and rotate his wrists, he was successful 71% of the time.

Prof Benabid, who developed deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease, told the BBC: “We have solved the problem and shown the principle is correct. This is proof we can extend the mobility of patients in an exoskeleton.

[…]

At the moment they are limited by the amount of data they can read from the brain, send to a computer, interpret and send to the exoskeleton in real-time.

They have 350 milliseconds to go from thought to movement otherwise the system becomes difficult to control.

It means out of the 64 electrodes on each implant, the researchers are using only 32.

So there is still the potential to read the brain in more detail using more powerful computers and AI to interpret the information from the brain.

Source: Paralysed man moves in mind-reading exoskeleton – BBC News