‘Armored' river creature found in pet aquariums worldwide turns out to be new species
Yet, when scientists took a closer look at the distinctive animal, it turned out to be a new species.
Researchers visited the Xingu River several times between 1994 and 2017 to survey wildlife, according to a study published Feb. 10 in the peer-reviewed journal Neotropical Ichthyology.
During their visits, the team worked with local fishermen to collect dozens of catfish 'well known from the ornamental fish trade,' the study said. These catfish had never been scientifically classified, despite being popular aquarium pets for decades.
Looking at the fish in a laboratory, researchers quickly realized they'd discovered a new species: Hypancistrus seideli, or Seidel's armored catfish.
Seidel's armored catfish are considered 'medium-sized,' reaching about 6 inches in length, the study said. They have 'short and deep' bodies covered in armor-like 'plates.' Their heads have 'large' eyes, bumpy lips and teeth with 'bright red' crowns.
The most distinctive feature of the new species is the wavy, maze-like pattern covering its body. Photos show the catfish's 'astonishing array of color patterns.' The fish vary in hue — ranging from pinkish to orangish to cream — and in the density of their typically brown markings.
Seidel's armored catfish live in a wide range of rocky habitats at various depths up to 130 feet, researchers said. A photo shows one catfish in its natural habitat.
Previously, the new species had been known by several informal names, often including the word 'tiger,' the study said.
Researchers said they named the new species after Ingo Seidel, 'a renowned German aquarist whose decades of dedication to the care, understanding, and breeding of Hypancistrus species in captivity have made him a global authority … This species is named in recognition of his unwavering passion and invaluable contributions to the field.'
Seidel's armored catfish have a 'relatively large distribution' throughout Xingu River in northern Brazil, the study said. Some catfish released by 'aquarium fish traders' a few years ago have grown into a thriving population, showing 'their adaptability.'
The new species was mainly identified by its color pattern.
The research team included Leandro Melo de Sousa, Erilda Barbosa de Sousa, Renildo de Oliveira Ribeiro, Mark Sabaj, Jansen Zuanon and Lúcia Rapp Py-Daniel. The team also discovered a second new species of armored catfish.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Lasers are innovating modern warfare, for better or worse
Earlier this summer, Israel made military history. Not with a missile, bomb or bullet — but with a beam of light. In a first for modern warfare, the Israel Defense Forces successfully intercepted Hezbollah drones using a high-energy laser weapon in live combat. The breakthrough weapon, developed under the Iron Beam program, quietly zapped dozens of targets out of the sky during the Iron Sword campaign, marking the first confirmed use of laser cannon technology on an active battlefield. According to a joint statement in late May from the Israeli Ministry of Defence, the Israeli Air Force and defense contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, 'soldiers from the IAF Aerial Defence Array operated high-power laser system prototypes in the field, successfully intercepting scores of enemy threats.' Advertisement 9 Rafael Advanced Defense Systems The technology might sound like science fiction, but officials say this laser cannon, which resembles an oversized spotlight, is anything but make-believe. Israel's success may signal a turning point in the race to develop laser weapons, but it's far from the only player on the field. China was accused last month of targeting a German aircraft with a laser during an EU operation. Germany called it 'entirely unacceptable,' although China denied the claim. Meanwhile, Chinese scientists are reportedly developing a microwave-based beam weapon that resembles the Death Star and is capable of combining multiple sources into one high-powered shot. Advertisement Russia recently unveiled the 'Posokh,' a laser weapon described as a 'ray gun' for downing drones. Russian Airborne Forces also showcased a prototype laser rifle in March designed to protect civilian infrastructure from UAV attacks. 9 AFP via Getty Images Laser weapons, formally known as directed energy weapons (DEWs), have been on the global radar for decades. But until now, they've mostly lived in research labs and defense trade shows. More than 30 countries are developing the technology — and the US military alone spends $1 billion annually on high-energy laser (HEL) research. 'The Army, Navy and Air Force have all been developing laser weapons,' says Dr. Iain Boyd, PhD, director of the Center for National Security Initiatives at the University of Colorado Boulder. 'The Navy has installed HELs on several ships, the Army is using them for base defense and vehicles, and the Air Force has studied installing HELs on fighter jets.' Advertisement Are lasers poised to become the weapon of choice for modern warfare? Boyd tells The Post he expects to see 'a steady increase in the use of high-energy laser weapons in the coming years. It is still relatively immature technology, but as the remaining challenges are overcome, their potential to change some aspects of warfare will be realized.' For the moment, the Iron Beam — known in Hebrew as Magen Or, which translates to Shield of Light —shows the most promise. An offshoot of the Iron Dome, Israel's air defense system that's been operational since 2011, the Iron Beam was designed to 'complement the Iron Dome and work alongside it, not replace it,' says military analyst Yaakov Lappin, who's been closely following the technology for years. But the Iron Beam promises something no other weapon can deliver: shots that cost a few dollars apiece. 'It's vastly cheaper,' Lappin says. Advertisement Israel currently spends upwards of $100,000 per Iron Dome interceptor. That's a steep price to shoot down enemy projectiles that might cost just a few hundred dollars to build. The Iron Beam's electric 'bullets,' by contrast, are practically free. 9 AP 'They are described as having an 'infinite magazine,' ' says Dr. Boyd. 'Unlike guns and rocket launchers that have a finite number of munitions available, as long as a HEL has electrical power, it can keep on firing 'bullets' of photons.' The US, meanwhile, has yet to deploy lasers in real-world combat despite decades of research. The Army's Stryker-based laser, Navy's ship-mounted HELs and Air Force programs all remain in test phases. 'I am not content with the pace,' US Navy Vice Adm. Brendan McLane said in a keynote speech at the Surface Navy Association confab in 2024. 'We must deliver on the promise this technology gives us.' America's laser weapon dreams go back to Ronald Reagan's 1983 'Star Wars' Strategic Defense Initiative, a $200 billion attempt to shoot down nuclear missiles with space lasers. That program fizzled out by 1993. Subsequent efforts, like the joint US-Israel 'Nautilus' laser in the late '90s, also stalled for being too bulky, weak and slow. 9 Sygma via Getty Images The pivot came with solid-state lasers which are smaller, more efficient and electric rather than chemical. Advertisement Israel had one key advantage over other nations in the race to develop lasers, says Brian Wang, a science writer and co-founder of the popular tech blog Next Big Future. 'The US has spent billions over the decades, but Israel had actual fighting as a forcing factor to get this stuff working and deployed,' he explains. The breakthrough came when Israeli engineers abandoned the old idea of firing one giant beam and instead developed a system that fires hundreds of small, coin-sized beams. These beams lock onto a single vulnerable spot, often identified via telescopic reflection, and bombard it in succession until the threat is neutralized. The Iron Beam uses optical fiber lasers, which are essentially souped-up industrial lasers, to destroy aerial threats. 'Electricity is used to excite atoms or molecules,' explains Wang. 'They emit high energy photons, and all the photons are concentrated using mirrors. The laser heats a critical area — say, the fuel tank or warhead — until the missile fails.' 9 Commander Naval Surface Force Atlantic/Facebook Advertisement Lasers convert electrical energy 'into a focused beam of light particles, or photons,' says Boyd. 'Depending on the energy, they can cut, melt, combust or destroy a target.' In practical terms, the Iron Beam vaporizes drones with surgical precision. But there are limits. HELs currently can't intercept long-range ballistic missiles like the ones targeted by Israel's Arrow 3, which shoots down threats outside the Earth's atmosphere. For now, lasers remain short-range guardians. Also, a weapon capable of melting metal at 2 kilometers isn't exactly energy-efficient. A 100-kilowatt laser requires a massive power source and cooling system. The most advanced (and smallest) prototypes draw 300 kilowatts — enough to power 30 homes — and are only about 50% efficient, meaning they produce immense waste heat. This limits where and how the weapons can be deployed. And there's another catch. Advertisement 'The effectiveness of laser beams can be diminished through interaction with a variety of environmental phenomena,' say Boyd. Rain, fog, dust and smoke can scatter laser beams, reducing their effectiveness. 'The laser needs to stay locked on a target for several seconds to be effective,' he adds. Which is why naval lasers, like those tested on the USS Preble, haven't seen wide use. The sea is a famously unforgiving place for precision optics. A misplaced beam can also cause serious unintended damage. As Boyd warns, there's concern about potential collateral effects. 'A laser beam reflecting off a surface could blind someone,' he says. 'Or if it misses a target, it could travel hundreds of miles. There is a need to ensure no innocent party is affected.' Advertisement The UN banned laser weapons designed to blind in 1995. But with nations like Russia and Turkey reportedly fielding HELs, updated international rules may be overdue. And then there's the conspiracy crowd. Social media has fueled bizarre theories claiming government lasers have started wildfires in California and Hawaii, an idea experts flatly reject. 'I am very skeptical about these claims,' says Boyd. 'Installing a laser of sufficient power to start a fire on a drone is not simple. For a laser to be effective, you need to have very fine pointing control to ensure that the beam stays precisely on the target.' Achieving that during flight requires sophisticated technology, Boyd says, and there are 'probably more effective ways of starting wildfires from drones than lasers.' In a world where a $500 drone can destroy a $10 million tank, militaries are desperate for cheaper, smarter defenses. Lasers offer just that, if they can overcome their limitations. Israel's success may mark the beginning of a new era, one where the flash of a laser, not the roar of a missile, is what keeps the skies safe.
Scientific American
a day ago
- Scientific American
Physicists Can't Agree on What Quantum Mechanics Says about Reality
Quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories in science — and makes much of modern life possible. Technologies ranging from computer chips to medical-imaging machines rely on the application of equations, first sketched out a century ago, that describe the behaviour of objects at the microscopic scale. But researchers still disagree widely on how best to describe the physical reality that lies behind the mathematics, as a Nature survey reveals. At an event to mark the 100th anniversary of quantum mechanics last month, lauded specialists in quantum physics argued politely — but firmly — about the issue. 'There is no quantum world,' said physicist Anton Zeilinger, at the University of Vienna, outlining his view that quantum states exist only in his head and that they describe information, rather than reality. 'I disagree,' replied Alain Aspect, a physicist at the University of Paris-Saclay, who shared the 2022 Nobel prize with Zeilinger for work on quantum phenomena. On supporting science journalism If 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. To gain a snapshot of how the wider community interprets quantum physics in its centenary year, Nature carried out the largest ever survey on the subject. We e-mailed more than 15,000 researchers whose recent papers involved quantum mechanics, and also invited attendees of the centenary meeting, held on the German island of Heligoland, to take the survey. The responses — numbering more than 1,100, mainly from physicists — showed how widely researchers vary in their understanding of the most fundamental features of quantum experiments. As did Aspect and Zeilinger, respondents differed radically on whether the wavefunction — the mathematical description of an object's quantum state — represents something real (36%) or is simply a useful tool (47%) or something that describes subjective beliefs about experimental outcomes (8%). This suggests that there is a significant divide between researchers who hold 'realist' views, which project equations onto the real world, and those with 'epistemic' ones, which say that quantum physics is concerned only with information. The community was also split on whether there is a boundary between the quantum and classical worlds (45% of respondents said yes, 45% no and 10% were not sure). Some baulked at the set-up of our questions, and more than 100 respondents gave their own interpretations (the survey, methodology and an anonymized version of the full data are available online). 'I find it remarkable that people who are very knowledgeable about quantum theory can be convinced of completely opposite views,' says Gemma De les Coves, a theoretical physicist at the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. Nature asked researchers what they thought was the best interpretation of quantum phenomena and interactions — that is, their favourite of the various attempts scientists have made to relate the mathematics of the theory to the real world. The largest chunk of responses, 36%, favoured the Copenhagen interpretation — a practical and often-taught approach. But the survey also showed that several, more radical, viewpoints have a healthy following. Asked about their confidence in their answer, only 24% of respondents thought their favoured interpretation was correct; others considered it merely adequate or a useful tool in some circumstances. What's more, some scientists who seemed to be in the same camp didn't give the same answers to follow-up questions, suggesting inconsistent or disparate understandings of the interpretation they chose. 'That was a big surprise to me,' says Renato Renner, a theoretical physicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. The implication is that many quantum researchers simply use quantum theory without engaging deeply with what it means — the 'shut up and calculate' approach, he says, using a phrase coined by US physicist David Mermin. But Renner, who works on the foundations of quantum mechanics, is quick to stress that there is nothing wrong with just doing calculations. 'We wouldn't have a quantum computer if everyone was like me,' he says. Copenhagen still reigns supreme Over the past century, researchers have proposed many ways to interpret the reality behind the mathematics of quantum mechanics, which seems to throw up jarring paradoxes. In quantum theory, an object's behaviour is characterized by its wavefunction: a mathematical expression calculated using an equation devised by German physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1926. The wavefunction describes a quantum state and how it evolves as a cloud of probabilities. As long as it remains unobserved, a particle seems to spread out like a wave; interfering with itself and other particles to be in a 'superposition' of states, as though in many places or having multiple values of an attribute at once. But an observation of a particle's properties — a measurement — shocks this hazy existence into a single state with definite values. This is sometimes referred to as the 'collapse' of the wavefunction. It gets stranger: putting two particles into a state of joint superposition can lead to entanglement, which means that their quantum states remain intertwined even when the particles are far apart. The German physicist Werner Heisenberg, who helped to craft the mathematics behind quantum mechanics in 1925, and his mentor, Danish physicist Niels Bohr, got around the alien wave–particle duality largely by accepting that classical ways of understanding the world were limited, and that people could only know what observation told them. For Bohr, it was OK that an object varied between acting like a particle and like a wave, because these were concepts borrowed from classical physics that could be revealed only one at a time, by experiment. The experimenter lived in the world of classical physics and was separate from the quantum system they were measuring. Heisenberg and Bohr not only took the view that it was impossible to talk about an object's location until it had been observed by experiment, but also argued that an unobserved particle's properties really were fundamentally unfixed until measurement — rather than being defined, but not known to experimenters. This picture famously troubled Einstein, who persisted in the view that there was a pre-existing reality that it was science's job to measure. Decades later, an amalgamation of Heisenberg's and Bohr's not-always-unified views became known as the Copenhagen interpretation, after the university at which the duo did their seminal work. Those views remain the most popular vision of quantum mechanics today, according to Nature 's survey. For Časlav Brukner, a quantum physicist at the University of Vienna, this interpretation's strong showing 'reflects its continued utility in guiding everyday quantum practice'. Almost half of the experimental physicists who responded to the survey favoured this interpretation, compared with 33% of the theorists. 'It is the simplest we have,' says Décio Krause, a philosopher at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, who studies the foundations of physics, and who responded to the survey. Despite its issues, the alternatives 'present other problems which, to me, are worse', he says. But others argue that Copenhagen's emergence as the default comes from historical accident, rather than its strengths. Critics say it allows physicists to sidestep deeper questions. One concerns the 'measurement problem', asking how a measurement can trigger objects to switch from existing in quantum states that describe probabilities, to having the defined properties of the classical world. Another unclear feature is whether the wavefunction represents something real (an answer selected by 29% of those who favoured the Copenhagen interpretation) or just information about the probabilities of finding various values when measured (picked by 63% of this group). 'I'm disappointed but not surprised at the popularity of Copenhagen,' says Elise Crull, a philosopher of physics at the City University of New York. 'My feeling is that physicists haven't reflected.' The Copenhagen interpretation's philosophical underpinnings have become so normalized as to seem like no interpretation at all, adds Robert Spekkens, who studies quantum foundations at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. Many advocates are 'just drinking the Kool-Aid of the Copenhagen philosophy without examining it', he says. Survey respondents who have carried out research in philosophy or quantum foundations, studying the assumptions and principles behind quantum physics, were the least likely to favour the Copenhagen interpretation, with just 20% selecting it. 'If I use quantum mechanics in my lab every day, I don't need to go past Copenhagen,' says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at Aix-Marseille University in France. But as soon as researchers apply thought experiments that probe more deeply, 'Copenhagen is not enough', he says. What else is on the menu? In the years after the Second World War and the development of the atomic bomb, physicists began to exploit the uses of quantum mechanics, and the US government poured cash into the field. Philosophical investigation was put on the back burner. The Copenhagen interpretation came to dominate mainstream physics, but still, some physicists found it unsatisfying and came up with alternatives. In 1952, US physicist David Bohm resurfaced an idea first touted in 1927 by French physicist Louis de Broglie, namely that the strange dual nature of quantum objects made sense if they were point-like particles with paths determined by 'pilot' waves. 'Bohmian' mechanics had the advantage of explaining interference effects while restoring determinism, the idea that the properties of particles do have set values before being measured. Nature 's survey found that 7% of respondents considered this interpretation the most convincing. Then, in 1957, US physicist Hugh Everett came up with a wilder alternative, one that 15% of survey respondents favoured. Everett's interpretation, later dubbed 'many worlds', says that the wavefunction corresponds to something real. That is, a particle really is, in a sense, in multiple places at once. From their vantage point in one world, an observer measuring the particle would see only one outcome, but the wavefunction never really collapses. Instead it branches into many universes, one for each different outcome. 'It requires a dramatic readjustment of our intuitions about the world, but to me that's just what we should expect from a fundamental theory of reality,' says Sean Carroll, a physicist and philosopher at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who responded to the survey. In the late 1980s, 'spontaneous collapse' theories attempted to resolve issues such as the quantum measurement problem. Versions of these tweak the Schrödinger equation, so that, rather than requiring an observer or measurement to collapse, the wavefunction occasionally does so by itself. In some of these models, putting quantum objects together amplifies the likelihood of collapse, meaning that bringing a particle into a superposition with measuring equipment makes the loss of the combined quantum state inevitable. Around 4% of respondents chose these sorts of theories. Nature 's survey suggests that 'epistemic' descriptions, which say that quantum mechanics reveals only knowledge about the world, rather than representing its physical reality, might have gained in popularity. A 2016 survey of 149 physicists found that only around 7% picked epistemic-related interpretations, compared with 17% in our survey (although the precise categories and methodology of the surveys differed). Some of these theories, which build on the original Copenhagen interpretation, emerged in the early 2000s, when applications such as quantum computing and communication began to frame experiments in terms of information. Adherents, such as Zeilinger, view the wavefunction as merely a tool to predict measurement outcomes, with no correspondence to the real world. The epistemic view is appealing because it is the most cautious, says Ladina Hausmann, a theoretical physicist at the ETH who responded to the survey. 'It doesn't require me to assume anything beyond how we use the quantum state in practice,' she says. One epistemic interpretation, known as QBism (which a handful of respondents who selected 'other' wrote down as their preferred interpretation), takes this to the extreme, stating that observations made by a specific 'agent' are entirely personal and valid only for them. The similar 'relational quantum mechanics', first outlined by Rovelli in 1996 (and selected by 4% of respondents), says that quantum states always describe only relationships between systems, not the systems themselves. When asked specific follow-up questions about how to view aspects of quantum mechanics, researchers' opinions differed sharply, as could be expected from the variety in overall interpretations they favoured. One question that elicited a mix of answers relates to one of the weirdest aspects of quantum mechanics: that the outcomes of observations on entangled particles are correlated, even if the particles are moved thousands of kilometres apart. This potential for distant connection is referred to as non-locality. The connection doesn't allow faster-than-light communication. But whether it nevertheless represents a kind of real and instantaneous influence across space-time, such that measuring one particle instantly changes its entangled partner and affects the results of future measurements, is something that respondents disagreed on. In the survey, 39% of respondents said they thought that such 'action at a distance' was real. The remainder either weren't sure or disagreed in a variety of ways. If respondents answering 'yes' meant to imply that a physical influence is travelling faster than light, this would conflict with Einstein's special theory of relativity, says Flaminia Giacomini, a theoretical physicist at the ETH. 'This should worry every serious physicist,' adds Renner. 'I'm puzzled.' However, some respondents, such as those who take epistemic views, might have answered 'yes' but have interpreted instantaneous influence to mean merely an instant change in their information, rather than a physical effect, says Giacomini. Nature also asked about the 'double slit' experiment — in which electrons are sent towards a screen with two slits. On the other side of the screen, a detector shows a pattern that tallies with wave-like particles going through both slits and interfering with themselves. (If researchers observe an electron en route, such as by putting a detector on either slit, the pattern changes to suggest that the particle passed through only one.) Asked whether an unobserved electron travels through both slits, 31% agreed, an answer that fits with the many-worlds interpretation but, the survey suggests, is also the view of reality taken by many followers of the spontaneous collapse and Copenhagen approaches. However, 14% said it didn't, which fits with the Bohmian-mechanics view of definite electron trajectories, and 48% said the question was meaningless — a response given by the majority of epistemic and Copenhagen adherents. Breaking the stalemate How is it possible to disagree so strongly about the underlying world that quantum theory describes, when everyone does the same calculations? Besides revealing the different attitudes of experimenters and theorists — and the tendency of people who study quantum foundations to avoid the Copenhagen interpretation — the views in Nature 's survey didn't seem to correlate with other factors. One such factor is gender (only 8% of respondents identified as women, which, although low, accords with a finding earlier this year that only 8% of senior authors in Nature Physics papers were women). Where in the world people have worked, and their religion, also seemed to have little effect (although too few answered the last question for the result to be conclusive). The closest that respondents got to consensus was that attempts to interpret the mathematics of quantum mechanics in a physical or an intuitive way are valuable — 86% agreed. Three-quarters of respondents also thought that quantum theory would be superseded in the future by a more complete theory, although most also thought that elements of it would survive. Although quantum mechanics is among the most experimentally verified theories in history, its mathematics cannot describe gravity, which is instead explained as a curving of space-time by the general theory of relativity. This leads many researchers to think that quantum physics might be incomplete. Researchers who work on quantum foundations say that picking an interpretation comes down to choosing between the sacrifices each entails. To adopt many worlds is to accept that there are an unfathomable number of universes we can probably never access. To be QBist means admitting that quantum theory can't describe a single reality for all observers (although without necessarily denying that a shared reality exists). What price someone is willing to pay comes down to not merely physics training, but something personal, says Renner. 'It's a very deeply emotional thing,' he says. Almost half of the respondents to Nature 's survey said that physics departments do not give enough attention to quantum foundations (with just 5% saying there was 'too much'). All interpretations, broadly, predict the same results. But that doesn't mean that ways can't be found to distinguish them. A 1960s proposal by UK physicist John Bell has already constrained quantum physics. His thought experiments, put into practice in many formats since then, use measurements on entangled particles to prove that quantum physics cannot be both realist and local. Realist means that particles have properties that exist whether they are measured or not, and local means that objects are influenced only by their immediate — rather than distant and unconnected — surroundings. New ways of probing quantum interpretations continue to emerge. Last month, for instance, physicists studying the phenomenon of quantum tunnelling, in which particles burrow through barriers that, classically, would be impossible to surmount, argued that the measured speed of the process did not fit with predictions from Bohm's pilot-wave theory. Some 58% of respondents to Nature 's survey thought that experimental results will help to decide between viable approaches. Some respondents mentioned efforts to scale up superpositions to biological systems. Others referred to probing the interface between quantum physics and gravity. Some physicists think that exploiting superposition inside quantum computers will reveal more about such phenomena. In 2024, when Hartmut Neven, founder of Google Quantum AI in Santa Barbara, California, announced the firm's Willow quantum chip, he argued that its ability to perform a calculation that would take longer than the age of the Universe on the fastest classical computer 'lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes'. He was referring to a 1997 extension to the many-worlds theory by David Deutsch, a physicist at the University of Oxford, UK. Agreeing on a single interpretation might be a case of coming up with a new approach altogether. 'Once we find the correct interpretation, it will announce itself by virtue of offering more coherence than anything before,' says Spekkens. 'I think we should aim for that.' Whether the current state of affairs is a problem or not depends on who you ask. 'It's just embarrassing that we don't have a story to tell people about what reality is,' concluded Carlton Caves, a theoretical physicist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, and moderator of the foundations panel at the Heligoland meeting. Crull disagrees. People are taking the question of interpretations seriously, she says, 'and it's not leading to chaos and it's not embarrassing. It's leading to progress, to creativity. There's a kind of joy there.'
New York Post
3 days ago
- New York Post
Are mRNA vaccines safe and effective? What to know as RFK Jr. halts funding
Vaccines using mRNA technology weren't immune to the latest round of federal research cuts. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said this week that he's pulling the plug on nearly $500 million in funding for the development of mRNA vaccines. The 22 projects are managed by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). 'The data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu,' Kennedy, a longtime vaccine critic, said in a statement. 'We're shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.' 4 Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said this week that he's pulling the plug on nearly $500 million in funding for the development of mRNA vaccines. AP Several studies have demonstrated that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were over 90% effective at preventing severe illness and death. Vaccine researchers immediately took issue with the fiscal gutting, calling it a major setback for science. 'I don't think I've seen a more dangerous decision in public health in my 50 years in the business,' said Mike Osterholm, a University of Minnesota expert on infectious diseases and pandemic preparations. Here's a closer look at how mRNA vaccines work. What is mRNA? All living cells have ribonucleic acid, an essential biological molecule known as RNA. RNA's primary role in the body is to make proteins, which are needed for virtually every cellular process, from building and repairing tissues to defending the body from bacteria and viruses and transporting nutrients and oxygen. 4 The COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer and Biontec is administered during a clinical trial. EPA/Biontech SE/Handout Proteins are synthesized using three main types of RNA — messenger RNA (mRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomal RNA (rRNA). MRNA's job is to carry information for protein making from DNA to the cell's ribosomes, where it's translated into proteins. How do mRNA vaccines work? MRNA can be created in a laboratory and injected into the body to instruct cells to make a protein associated with a specific virus. The body recognizes the protein as foreign and produces antibodies to combat it. When the actual virus or pathogen invades the body, the immune system is ready to neutralize it, preventing or reducing the severity of illness. Though mRNA was discovered in the early 1960s, the first mRNA vaccine wasn't approved for human use until 2020. 4 German firm BioNTech, Pfizer's partner on its Covid vaccine, is developing mRNA-based vaccines for cancers at a rapid pace. Photothek via Getty Images The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in December 2020 and later granted full approval. The vaccine uses mRNA to tell cells to make a harmless piece of the coronavirus's spike protein. Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine was also granted full approval by the FDA. MRNA vaccines are being explored for the treatment of cancer, food allergies and infectious diseases. Researchers say that mRNA vaccines can be developed faster than traditional vaccines because they do not require the time-consuming process of growing live virus cultures in a lab. 'The theoretical advantage of mRNA-based vaccines lies in their rapid adaptability,' Grant Hansman, senior research fellow at the Institute for Biomedicine and Glycomics at Griffith University in Australia, wrote this week in The Conversation. 'They will potentially allow annual updates to match circulating strains.' 4 University College London Hospital (UCLH) in London is testing novel cancer immunotherapy that aims to prevent skin cancer from recurring. The mRNA-based technology is for people who have already had high-risk melanomas removed. PA Images via Getty Images The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that mRNA vaccines do not contain any live viruses or pathogens and do not alter a person's DNA. The mRNA molecule eventually breaks down in the body. The Cleveland Clinic reports that the risks of mRNA vaccines include pain or swelling at the injection site, fever, fatigue, headaches, muscle aches and allergic reactions. In his statement, Kennedy said that mRNA vaccines will be phased out in favor of whole killed virus vaccines, a traditional approach that uses entire pathogens that have been inactivated through heat, radiation or chemicals. Though it's a tried-and-true method of immunization, critics have raised concerns that these vaccines produce a weaker immune response than mRNA vaccines and pose manufacturing and logistical challenges. With Post wires
