Inside the lab trying to change people's minds about sharks
Under the leadership of Dr. Taylor Chapple, scientists at the Chapple Big Fish Lab spend their time studying more than 300 sharks of varying species in Washington state's Willapa Bay, just north of the Oregon border.
By examining a shark's stomach contents, researchers like Jessica Schulte can better understand the animal's health and also the water quality in the bay. A healthy shark means a healthy ocean.
"We actually collect the stomach contents of the shark by basically puking it," Schulte told CBS Saturday Mornings.
The sharks are released shortly after being caught and studied, and their stomach contents are taken back to the lab.
While the sharks in Willapa Bay make up just a portion of the shark population worldwide, these scientists are learning essential information about the broader health of the ocean.
Trying to change people's minds about sharks has been difficult, given the fish's reputation.
"It's been hard to get people excited enough to support it," Chapple says.
"People are interested in sharks, they like to watch a show about sharks," he says, but "when it comes to people opening their wallet to support the research, it's difficult."
Several people missing from Texas summer camp amid deadly flooding, officials say
What a new DOJ memo could mean for naturalized U.S. citizens
July 4 holiday week expected to set record for travelers
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Philippe Cousteau's EarthEcho International Announces Diverse Youth Advocates Join the Blue Carbon Ambassador Program
WASHINGTON, Aug. 11, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- EarthEcho International announced today the 14 participants, ages 16-21, selected for an innovative ocean restoration program led by youth from racially marginalized communities. The Blue Carbon Ambassador program provides hands-on professional learning experience designed to introduce participants to the role of blue carbon ecosystems (including kelp, seagrass, mangroves, and salt marshes) in fighting the climate crisis. The Ambassadors, hailing from frontline coastal communities in North America, will develop their own projects to support the restoration of blue carbon ecosystems in their local communities. "EarthEcho recognizes that access to our oceans and the chance to build careers in the restorative blue economy remains unequally distributed," said EarthEcho International founder Philippe Cousteau. "This dynamic group of young leaders brings passion, vision, and diverse perspectives to the expanding movement, advancing ocean-based solutions to restore marine ecosystems and build community-centered climate resilience." The Blue Carbon Ambassador Program is made possible through the generous support of La Mer Blue Heart Oceans Fund and The Estée Lauder Companies Travel Retail division. In 2025, Blue Carbon Ambassadors are exploring blue carbon ecosystems and regenerative ocean aquaculture through field experience, expert-led workshops, and peer-to-peer learning exchanges. Projects will be developed this summer and executed between August 2025-March 2026 and are supported by local community based organizations in their regions, including Billion Oyster Project, Seaweed City, Surfrider Puerto Rico, and Lower 9th Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development. Meet the 2025 Blue Carbon Ambassadors:Acadia Li from Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaAngel Jean-Remy from New York, New York, USAAurora Espasas from Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico, USABryce Black from New Orleans, Louisiana, USAElizabeth Torres-Priego from New York, New York, USAIsabella Allwood from New York, New York, USAIsabella Negrón Casillas from Bayamón, Puerto Rico, USAJafet Santos-Maldonado from Ensenada, Puerto Rico, USAJafrin Zahir from New York, New York, USAJarelys N. Merle Crespo from Moca, Puerto Rico, USAJyah Hamilton from Harvey, Louisiana, USAPaige Parent from New Orleans, Louisiana, USASofía Nicole Sánchez Villamar from San Juan, Puerto Rico, USASophia Deng from New York, New York, USA For more information about Blue Carbon Ambassadors, please visit For more information about EarthEcho International, visit or follow us on Facebook: Instagram: and Twitter: View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE EarthEcho International
Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
New Executive Order Gives Trump Greater Control Over Science Grants
If you are a scientist, are interested in science or benefit in any way from science—which is basically everyone on Earth—you may want to pay close attention to the Executive Order that President Donald Trump just signed on Thursday. This order's entitled 'Improving Oversight Of Federal Grantmaking,' and guess who could have a lot more oversight as a result. The answer rhymes with Trump. It will give the President and whomever he appoints unprecedented control over who and what projects receive what type of scientific funding from the federal government. And that's a big deal in more ways than one. How The Grantmaking Process Has Historically Worked To understand how much this Executive Order would change things, it's important to know history and understand how the federal grantmaking process has been conducted for like oh decades over multiple different Presidential administrations. Until this year, the decisions as to which scientific projects and whom will get funded have rested largely within different federal scientific agencies like the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. With the exception of the leaders at the very tippy top of these agencies, these agencies have been comprised mainly of what's been called career tract federal employees, many of whom have had scientific backgrounds. The label 'career' means that their hiring and promotions have occurred independent as to who and which political party happen to be occupying the White House. This has made them different from the political appointees such as the head of NIH and CDC who have by definition been a lot more beholden to the President and his (it's been a 'his' so far since there hasn't been a her yet) administration. Having mainly career tract federal employees run the grantmaking process has helped keep one individual with political power say like the President from deciding what gets funded. Historically, career federal employees have had a fair amount of job security, which in turn has allowed them to make decisions more independent of what a given President wants and more towards what might be good for society in the long run. But for many that whole job security thing went kind of poof this year, with combined efforts by the Trump administration and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known as DOGE, to drastically shrink the staffs of these agencies and in one prominent case 'aid' in getting rid of an entire agencies. These career federal employees have historically relied rather heavily on the general scientific community to help make key decisions about grants and grant funding. They have convened advisory boards of external scientific experts and held public workshops to discuss what the agency's priorities for scientific research should be and what notices of funding opportunities, otherwise known as NOFOs, should be issued. A NOFO may sound like a dirty word but keeping the scientific community intimately involved in the preparation of such NOFOs have helped keep the process of determining scientific priorities more transparent and cleaner. The agencies have also employed scientific peer-review processes to review grant applications and determine which merit funding. This has entailed forming grant review panels and committees of again external scientific experts, whose backgrounds and discussions are made public. Typically, the agencies have followed the guidance of this peer-review process in order to again prevent one individual with political power, whether that person works inside the agency or elsewhere in the government, like say the President, from unduly influencing what is funded and who gets the awards. While these systems and resulting processes have been far from perfect, they have been in place to keep decision-making about science and scientific priorities more in the hands of you know actual scientists versus politicians and others with political agendas. They're also designed to prevent the big 'C,' meaning corruption. If one particular individual gets even more control of the whole federal grantmaking process, that person could push grants towards particular friends, associates or firms. And here's another reason why such a change can be a big deal. Any individual who has control over the grantmaking process can use grants as leverage or bargaining chips to make big deals for himself or herself. The Trump Executive Order May Shift Control Of Science To His Political Appointees This new Executive Order could throw a big grenade to all the above-mentioned processes and systems and their checks and balances. The Order indicated that appointees of the President will now decide what funding opportunities are offered or grants are awarded, without 'routinely defer to the recommendations of others.' Could those 'others' be scientists, the scientific community and people who actually can understand and do the science? It also said that grants 'must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities,' as opposed to simply advancing scientific or the country's priorities. So, does this mean that a given grant will or won't be awarded based mainly on what the President does or doesn't want? The Trump Executive Order May Greatly Weaken The Role Of Scientific Peer Review The Order does say that 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods to evaluate proposals for discretionary awards or otherwise inform agency decision making." But it does add the kicker, 'Provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory and are not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding by senior appointees or their designees.' This kicker seems to kind of kick down the role and authority of scientists and peer-review. Imagine telling the coach of a football team for example, 'Your recommendations for the team will remain advisory and not routinely deferred tor otherwise treated as de facto binding." Think anyone will listen to the coach? That wording in the Executive Order essentially says that the political appointees can choose to ignore or bypass any recommendations from others. The Trump Executive Order May Makes It Easier To Terminate Grants The Executive Order includes language about terminating grants as well. For example, it says, 'an award may be terminated by the agency 'if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities' or, in the case of a partial termination by the recipient, if the agency 'determines that the remaining portion of the Federal award will not accomplish the purposes for which the Federal award was made.'' This is kind of important because terminating and withholding federal grants is something that the Trump administration has been doing kind of a lot of lately, as I've described before in Forbes. This hasn't worked out too kindly for many scientific researchers around the country, leading to a lot of job loss. The Trump administration and DOGE have reportedly been searching grants for supposedly controversial terms like 'women' to determine which should be on the chopping block. On top of that, the Trump administration has been demanding more control over what's being done at different universities like Harvard and withholding scientific funding as bargaining chips to force compliance, as I have covered in Forbes. That's prompted a number of guess what lawsuits against the Trump administration and the various government agencies. These lawsuits have slowed some of these actions by the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge William Young even used the 'ill' word when he ruled in a non-jury trial that the mass termination of over $1 billion in diversity-related grants by the NIH under Trump as being "void and illegal." He also used the 'd' word to describe what the federal government was doing in terminating these grants, arguing that such terminations discriminated against the groups that the scientific projects could benefit. Of course, lawsuits can move at the speed of fruitcake batter in a wind tunnel, especially with appeals. The question then is whether the language of this latest Executive Order will further faciltate what the Trump administration has been doing with federal grants. The Trump Executive Order Also References Indirect Costs Speaking of lawsuits, another thing that's now being litigated in the courts is the attempt of federal agencies under the Trump to reduce the funding rate for indirect costs down to 15% for all universities and other institutions. I described in Forbes this action back when it was first attempted in February and how it would greatly reduce the amount of funding that those institutions would be getting. Therefore, it's not surprising that lawsuits against the Trump administration ensued. In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani did rule this indirect cost slashing attempt as 'invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law' and blocked this from happening. While this newest Executive Order didn't specify what indirect cost funding rates would be, it did reference indirect costs by stating, 'All else being equal," federal scientific grant awards would be preferentially awarded to 'institutions with lower indirect cost rates.' Could this be a more 'indirect" way of getting indirect cost rates down? Might this put researchers who are at institutions with higher negotiated indirect costs rates at a direct disadvantage when applying for grants? The Rationale Provided For The Trump Executive Order So what justification has provided for all of these changes in the grantmaking process? Well, the Executive Order claimed that 'Federal grants have funded drag shows in Ecuador, trained doctoral candidates in critical race theory, and developed transgender-sexual-education programs.' It asserted, 'In 2024, one study claimed that more than one-quarter of new National Science Foundation (NSF) grants went to diversity, equity, and inclusion and other far-left initiatives,' without providing the details of and citation for this study. The Executive Order continued by saying, 'These NSF grants included those to educators that promoted Marxism, class warfare propaganda, and other anti-American ideologies in the classroom, masked as rigorous and thoughtful investigation.' The Executive Order made additional claims without providing supporting evidence such as calling a lab in Wuhan, China 'likely the source of the COVID-19 pandemic,' stating that 'The NSF gave millions to develop AI-powered social media censorship tools — a direct assault on free speech' and accusing taxpayer-funded grants of 'worsening the border crisis and compromising our safety.' Certainly, if you were to go through all NIH and NSF grants that have been funded over the years, you will find ones that have not been worthwhile. You will find ones that have not generated adequate scientific insight or useful contributions to society. You will even find some real doozies where many might say, 'Why the heck did they fund that?' But that could be expected when you review the history of anything. Few investors can say, 'Yes, everything I put my money into ended up being a brilliant idea.' No one can say, 'I've never ever made a mistake in my life,' especially if that person has ever worn a mullet. Therefore, a handful of examples—even if they were accurate characterizations of those projects—should not be enough to justify the claim that Federal grantmaking has been an 'offensive waste of tax dollars,' in the words used by the Executive Order. Instead, if you want to review and improve the federal scientific grantmaking process, how using you know actual science to do so. Show the overall statistics such as what percentage of all the grants have led to true scientific insights, breakthroughs and positive changes in the ways things have been done. A report from the nonprofit United for Medical Research has shown that every dollar of research funded by the NIH has yielded $2.56 in economic activity. You'd probably invest in Dogecoin if you could be guaranteed that level of return. Again the federal grantmaking process to date has been far from perfect and has had problems that probably do merit new processes and perhaps even new systems to be put in place. But any changes should be done with proper oversight and guidance by real scientists who are independent of political or business pressure and the public. It should be done in a scientific and transparent manner that uses accurate, appropriate, verified and valid data. (Imagine that, using science to determine what to do with science.) The question is how much will this new Executive Order from Trump end up supporting versus trumping transparency and science. .
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Jim Lovell, commander of NASA's Apollo 13 moon mission, dies at 97
By Will Dunham WASHINGTON (Reuters) -American astronaut Jim Lovell, commander of the failed 1970 mission to the moon that nearly ended in disaster but became an inspirational saga of survival and the basis for the hit movie "Apollo 13," has died at the age of 97, NASA said on Friday. Hollywood superstar Tom Hanks played Lovell in director Ron Howard's acclaimed 1995 film. It recounted NASA's Apollo 13 mission, which was planned as humankind's third lunar landing but went horribly wrong when an onboard explosion on the way to the moon put the lives of the three astronauts in grave danger. Lovell and crew mates Jack Swigert and Fred Haise endured frigid, cramped conditions, dehydration and hunger for 3-1/2 days while concocting with Mission Control in Houston ingenious solutions to bring the crippled spacecraft safely back to Earth. "A 'successful failure' describes exactly what (Apollo) 13 was - because it was a failure in its initial mission - nothing had really been accomplished," Lovell told Reuters in 2010 in an interview marking the 40th anniversary of the flight. The outcome, the former Navy test pilot said, was "a great success in the ability of people to take an almost-certain catastrophe and turn it into a successful recovery." The Apollo 13 mission came nine months after Neil Armstrong had become the first person to walk on the moon when he took "one giant leap for mankind" during the Apollo 11 mission on July 20, 1969. There was drama even before Apollo 13's launch on April 11, 1970. Days earlier, the backup lunar module pilot inadvertently exposed the crew to German measles but Lovell and Haise were immune to it. Ken Mattingly, the command module pilot, had no immunity to measles and was replaced at the last minute by rookie astronaut Swigert. The mission generally went smoothly for its first two days. But moments after the crew finished a TV broadcast showing how they lived in space, an exposed wire in a command module oxygen tank sparked an explosion that badly damaged the spacecraft 200,000 miles (320,000 km) from Earth. The accident not only ruined their chances of landing on the moon but imperiled their lives. "Suddenly there's a 'hiss-bang. And the spacecraft rocks back and forth,'" Lovell said in a 1999 NASA oral history interview. "The lights come on and jets fire. And I looked at Haise to see if he knew what caused it. He had no idea. Looked at Jack Swigert. He had no idea. And then, of course, things started to happen." 'HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM' Swigert saw a warning light and told Mission Control: "Houston, we've had a problem here." In the movie, the line is instead attributed to Lovell and famously delivered by Hanks - slightly reworded - as: "Houston, we have a problem." With a dangerous loss of power, the three astronauts abandoned the command module and went to the lunar module - designed for two men to land on the moon. They used it as a lifeboat for a harrowing 3-1/2 day return to Earth. The astronauts and the U.S. space agency experts in Houston scrambled to figure out how to get the crew safely home with a limited amount of equipment at their disposal. Electrical systems were turned off to save energy, sending temperatures plummeting to near freezing. Water was drastically rationed, food was short and sleep was nearly impossible. The crew had to contrive a filter system to remove high levels of carbon dioxide that could have proven deadly. "The thought crossed our mind that we were in deep trouble. But we never dwelled on it," Lovell said in the NASA interview. "We never admitted to ourselves that, 'Hey, we're not going to make it.' Well, only one time - when Fred looked at ... the lunar module and found out we had about 45 hours worth of power and we were 90 hours from home." People worldwide were captivated by the events unfolding in space - and got a happy ending. The astronauts altered course to fly a single time around the moon and back to Earth, splashing down in the Pacific Ocean near Samoa on April 17, 1970. Lovell never got another chance to walk on the moon after Apollo 13, which was his fourth and final space trip. His first trip had been the Gemini 7 mission in 1965, featuring the first link-up of two manned spacecraft. His second was Gemini 12 in 1966, the last of the programs that led to the Apollo moon missions. Lovell's third mission was Apollo 8 in December 1968, the first to orbit the moon. During a telecast to Earth from their spacecraft on Christmas Eve, Lovell and crew mates Frank Borman and William Anders read verses from the Bible's Book of Genesis. Lovell, who later had a moon crater named in his honor, retired as an astronaut in 1973, working first for a harbor towing company and then in telecommunications. He co-authored a 1994 book, "Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13," that became the basis for Howard's film. Lovell recalled a meeting with Howard in which the director asked the astronaut which actor he would want to play him. "I said, 'Kevin Costner,'" Lovell said. "And Hanks never lets me forget that... But Hanks did a great job." On Friday, Hanks praised Lovell and his accomplishments. "There are people who dare, who dream, and who lead others to the places we would not go on our own," Hanks wrote on social media. Lovell, Hanks said, "was that kind of guy." "His many voyages around Earth and on to so-very-close to the moon were not made for riches or celebrity but because such challenges as those are what fuels the course of being alive," Hanks added. Lovell made a cameo appearance in "Apollo 13" as the commander of the U.S. Navy ship that retrieves the astronauts and shakes hands with Hanks. James Lovell was born in Cleveland on March 25, 1928. He was just 5 when his father died and his mother moved the family to Milwaukee. He became interested in space as a teenager. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1952 and became a test pilot before being selected as a NASA astronaut in 1962. He had four children with his wife, Marilyn. (Reporting and writing by Will Dunham; Additional reporting by Nilutpal Timsina and Lisa Richwine; Editing by Bill Trott and Rosalba O'Brien)
