Aim to make science ‘accessible'
An American astronomer is hoping to break perceived barriers for understanding science at the science festival in Dunedin after working at Nasa for nearly 30 years.
New Zealand International Science Festival guest Dr Michelle Thaller recently retired as the assistant director of science at Nasa's largest base at Goddard Space Flight Centre in Washington, DC.
She will be giving the keynote address at the New Discoveries, New Connections science festival today at 6pm.
She was hopeful the festival would help break down the barriers for regular people to understand science.
"These things are accessible to us and everybody needs to take part in them.
"I mean, science will stop being relevant in our culture if it's done by just a few people kind of hidden away in a lab."
She had a terrible time learning science in school, but she loved it.
She found the way science was formally taught was very intimidating but enjoyed learning about it when she was able to attach a narrative to the concepts.
Yesterday evening she told a story about how people are made out of stars in an effort to help people understand they were not a distant thing that were difficult to connect with.
"That's my favourite story ever.
"It's really an honour for me to tell it."
The story considered the meaning far away objects in astronomy had on the daily lives of human beings.
"We are made up of stars, that's not a metaphor."
Dr Thaller said the building blocks of human DNA and RNA fell out of space because people consumed different elements through their diet.
Science festival director Jerome Cousins said there was plenty on offer for all demographics at the festival.
The festival begins today and will end on July 6.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
How Trump's funding cuts threaten US science and global innovation
Khvorova built her career by thinking boldly, but if slowdowns and cuts to federal science funding continue, she'll be forced to winnow her ambitions. 'What is happening right now is absolutely suicidal,' said Khvorova, speaking softly in Russian-accented English. 'I will stop making drugs. I will reduce my lab from 30 people to five. I will stop training scientists.' With stunning speed, the Trump Administration has over the past six months cut research dollars, terminated grants and hit the brakes on federal funding, destabilising an 80-year-old partnership between the government and universities that has made the United States a scientific superpower. The policy twists may sound arcane, but to researchers, everything is at stake. Day-to-day, Khvorova's lab is bright and buzzing. Scientists are trying to develop cures for Huntington's disease or halt the muscle loss that comes with ageing. Longer term? 'I have no clue,' Khvorova said. The Trump Administration portrays its changes as a targeted correction. Officials say grants are being terminated because they touch on topics with which the Administration disagrees, such as increasing diversity in science. Funding to specific universities has been frozen because they haven't protected Jewish students, according to the Administration. Fundamental research, Trump officials vow, will thrive. 'The money that goes to basic and blue-sky science must be used for that purpose, not to feed the red tape that so often goes along with funded research,' Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy, said in a speech at the National Academy of Sciences in May. From left, Gregory Smith, Nathan Gioacchini and Philip Soglo synthesise strands of RNA at U-Mass Chan Medical School. Photo / Kate Wool, The Washington Post In contrast, a recent report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that President Donald Trump's budget request for 2026 – including a 40% cut to the National Institutes of Health – would slice the nation's basic research portfolio by about a third. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office found that a 10% cut to the NIH budget would result in two fewer drugs invented per year, a gradual decline that would go into full effect in 30 years. The Trump Administration's science agenda is getting pushback in courts, in Congress and at the state level, but the impacts are being felt in research institutions across the country. As of August 1, the Chan Medical School had a US$37 million ($62m)shortfall in funding because of long delays at the National Institutes of Health. Khvorova is no stranger to doing science under challenging conditions. She trained at Moscow State University in the waning days of the Soviet Union, when there was sometimes no hot water, no reagents for experiments, no salaries. Even that has not prepared her for the abrupt policy swings that threaten the unique American research system. 'We are working on developing cures, which are not politically oriented,' Khvorova said. 'Democrats age, and Republicans age.' Disruptions will ripple over decades, since no one can predict what science breakthroughs in the lab will turn into world-changing innovations. Khvorova's work built off years of federally funded research into soil-dwelling microscopic roundworms that revealed short strands of RNA perform like symphony conductors, controlling the activity of genes and turning their volume down. Worcester, a gritty former mill city in Central Massachusetts, is home to two Nobel laureates and an RNA Therapeutics Institute that has spawned 12 start-ups. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, a company based on the phenomenon originally discovered in roundworms in labs at Chan Medical School and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, has discovered six drugs now approved for diseases that include rare genetic conditions and high cholesterol. The company's market capitalisation has soared to more than US$50 billion, and it has 2200 employees. Basic research 'is almost like the starter when you bake sourdough bread. You can't make the bread without it,' said John Maraganore, who led Alnylam for nearly two decades before he stepped down in 2021. 'Girls just wanna have (NIH) funding' In the labyrinthine, slightly cluttered labs at Chan Medical School, scientists tend to high-end instruments with geeky names like 'Dr Oligo', using them to synthesise strands of RNA aimed at treating fatal forms of dementia or diseases that cause muscles to waste away. Under sterile hoods, they grow millions of mouse liver cells for experiments. In a small room called the 'wormhole', decorated with colourful worms hanging from the door jamb like icicles, Victor Ambros, a Nobel Prize-winning worm biologist, zooms in on mutant roundworms wriggling across a yellowish agar gel. Unlike Harvard University, which has had billions of dollars in funding choked off by the Trump Administration, Chan hasn't been targeted. But it is not untouched. Like hundreds of other institutions across America, it has been thrown off stride day-to-day and week-to-week by the Trump Administration's unprecedented efforts to downsize and reshape the agencies that support science. Uncertainty looms over nearly every experiment and conversation. Slogans, not scientific sketches, are scrawled on the frosted glass wall of one office: 'We want scientific data, not alternative facts!' 'Girls just wanna have (NIH) funding' 'Science Not Silence!' More than a dozen NIH grants, out of several hundred, have been terminated, though they are tangled up in lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration's actions. About 200 employees have been laid off or furloughed, about 3% of the medical school's 6500 employees. A hiring freeze has been in place since March. Graduate school offers to nearly 90 young biomedical scientists were rescinded, though 13 spots were salvaged for next year's class. 'We have this feeling of extreme uncertainty, in a context where, previously, we could depend upon a robust system, a merit-based system that was predictable for the right reasons – the best science will get funded,' said Ambros, who shared the Nobel in medicine last year. Jesse Lehman, a graduate student who focuses on understanding the speed and dynamics of immune defences against pathogens, became hooked on science when he first felt the rush of discovering things no one else knew. There are no guarantees in this career – the contest for federal funding is exceptionally competitive. But what has fuelled the system is its reliability. The federal Government funds the best research, year after year, and scientists chase grants without worrying that the funder may lose interest in neuroscience or immunology and decide instead to buy a sports team. But now, federal funding may be there one moment and gone the next. 'I have this fear that the career that I've worked 10 years on developing just may not be viable,' Lehman said. The 20-year path to success Research institutions nationwide experience layoffs and uncertainty due to the funding reductions. Photo / Kate Wool, The Washington Post In textbooks, science is a steady march of progress. In the lab, it's an iterative process – filled with detours and dead ends that sometimes turn out to be surprises that push the field forward. In 2006, Chan biologist Craig Mello shared the Nobel Prize with Stanford University biologist Andrew Fire for the discovery of a phenomenon called RNA interference: short double strands of RNA could silence genes. It is a profound biological mechanism shared not just by tiny worms, but by humans. Other scientists built on the work, capturing the interest of venture capitalists and pharma companies. Many human diseases are caused by errant genes. What if, instead of treating patients' symptoms, doctors could give their patients drugs that just shut off the problematic ones? More than a billion dollars flowed into start-ups, but biology turned out to be a bit more complicated. Investor ebullience evaporated. Alnylam, an RNAi company, began trading below the amount of cash it had on hand, meaning investors thought its stock was less valuable than the money it had in the bank. Years of science – including a lot of chemistry – eventually turned a profound biological mechanism into a new class of safe effective drugs. 'Sickness doesn't have political boundaries,' said Phillip Zamore, a co-founder of Alnylam and a professor of biomedical sciences. 'Everyone deserves a better treatment for their disease, and I just want to make that possible. And I can't do that if my lab, my university, my colleagues' ability to do science is destroyed.' In the past few years, several biotech companies have spun out of Chan, including Comanche Biopharma, which is focused on a treatment for pre-eclampsia – a complication of pregnancy – and Atalanta Therapeutics, which is searching for cures for neurodegenerative diseases. Khvorova, a co-founder of both companies, came to the US with very little money in the mid-1990s, intending to check a box on her CV and stay a year or two. Instead, she became a 'typical example of the American Dream', as she puts it. She's an inventor named on nearly 250 patents. She just scooped up one of the most prestigious prizes in biomedical research, with a US$2.7m award. She should be on top of the world. But as she walked to her lab on a recent Tuesday, she gestured sadly at a collection of empty champagne bottles sitting high up above the cabinets in the lounge outside. Each bottle, she noted, is a trained graduate student – a reminder that most of next year's class was turned away.
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘De-extinction' criticism sparks smear campaign
University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence holds a moa bone extracted from a site in Central Otago. PHOTO: STEPHEN JAQUIERY An Otago paleogenetics researcher who has been critical of Colossal Biosciences' plan to "de-extinct" the giant moa has been targeted by online "smear" articles aimed at discrediting him. University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence has publicly said there was no such thing as de-extinction, and the American company's plan was "a pipe dream that will likely never take flight". "Once something is extinct, it is gone." He said Colossal would be creating a genetically engineered emu or some other genetically engineered ratite that may look like a moa, but was unlikely to function or sound like a moa. Colossal also claimed to have iwi engagement in the project, but Prof Rawlence said based on his experience working with Ngāi Tahu, there was no appetite for de-extinction among many of the individual rūnanga. Now, supporters of Colossal have launched a "smear campaign" on him and other top scientists around the globe who have publicly criticised the de-extinction project. He said there had been three AI-generated articles published in media around the world attacking his professional credibility. One called him a "hypocrite" because he also uses fragmentary ancient DNA to reconstruct lost ecosystems — the same technique Colossal will use to bring back the giant moa. The article said he could not criticise Colossal without criticising his own work. "That's complete rubbish because we're very conscious of the limitations of the data that we use, and we don't over-extrapolate and over-extend our conclusions. "Colossal are selling that they're de-extincting things when they're not. I'm not selling my work as de-extinction." The second "hit piece" accused Prof Rawlence of being more concerned about being a media fixture than actually doing research. "It said I should go focus on improving my mediocre publication record. "My publication record — well that speaks for itself." The third one that came out earlier this week said he was "misappropriating and misrepresenting the Maori voice" around the extinction. "All the engagement work I have done around sequencing moa genomes or looking at New Zealand's taonga species with iwi, hapu, runanga and trusts around the country, means we know the feelings of mana whenua and they are against de-extinction." Colossal chief executive Ben Lamm has told media the company had no involvement in the AI-generated articles. However, Prof Rawlence said it was clear the company did not like the critical commentary. He published a comment piece on The Conversation website about de-extinction, topped with a "tongue-in-cheek headline" saying: "First the dire wolf, now NZ's giant moa: why real 'de-extinction' is unlikely to fly". On July 12, Mr Lamm posted on X about the article, saying: "There are sometimes crazy, weird conspiracy articles about @colossal which make us laugh — But the dumbest headline of all time goes to this article whose author doesn't even know moas couldn't fly. "If the moas [sic] fly, we really up. LOL. I wish people did more research. DUMB — LOLOLOLOLOL." Prof Rawlence said there was also a YouTube video from Colossal about de-extinction science that called its detractors "armchair critics". "Colossal may not be behind the AI-generated smear campaign, but they definitely are wanting to smear and take down critical commentary." Prof Rawlence said he was not concerned about the campaign to discredit his work. "It's water off a moa's back for me. "Under the Education Act, universities have a critic and conscience role enshrined in the legislation, so we can speak out within our area of expertise — which is exactly what we have done. "We provided critical scientific commentary that we did not support de-extinction and that there were serious scientific, ethical, ecological and indigenous engagement concerns. "If the supporters of Colossal had any substantial critique to counter our scientific commentary, they would have used it. "Instead, they're resorting to this — low blows and personal attacks. So to me, it just means our messages are actually hitting home." He believed Colossal's actions were very "Trump-ish". "If a CEO or a director of a museum or the boss of a university put this tweet out, he would be called up in front of his board, reprimanded, or even worse. "But this is Trump's America, and everything is upside down. "So I wouldn't call it very inspiring behaviour at all."
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Canterbury PhD students at NASA
Two University of Canterbury students are getting the chance to work alongside NASA's top scientists and engineers. PhD students Felix Goddard and Jack Patterson were awarded New Zealand Space Agency Scholarships in June, and have been placed at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab in La Cañada in Southern California. The Jet Propulsion Lab is where robotic, un-crewed spacecraft are built, and for missions like Mars 2020 and the Juno spacecraft orbiting Jupiter. The scholarships cover their flights, accommodation and give a daily allowance - funded by the Government - as a way to prepare NZ students for the growing space sector here. Photo: Supplied by University of Canterbury
