
A Scientist Fighting Nuclear Armageddon Hid a 50-Year Secret
Fermi, a Nobel laureate in physics, had fled fascism in Europe and become a founder of the nuclear age, helping bring the world's first reactor and first atom bomb to life.
The visitor, Richard L. Garwin, had been Fermi's student at the University of Chicago, the laureate calling him 'the only true genius I have ever met.' Now, he had done something known at the time only by Fermi and a handful of other experts. Not even his family knew. Three years earlier, the boy wonder, then 23, had designed the world's first hydrogen bomb, which brought the fury of the stars to Earth.
In a test, it had exploded with a force nearly 1,000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima, its power greater than all the explosives used in World War II.
To his reverential student, Fermi confided a regret. He felt his life had involved too little participation in crucial issues of public policy. He died a few weeks later at 53.
After that visit, Dr. Garwin set out on a new path, seeing nuclear scientists as having a responsibility to speak out. His resolve, he later told a historian, came from a desire to honor the memory of the scientist he had known best and admired most.
'I modeled myself to whatever extent I could after Fermi,' he said.
Dr. Garwin, the designer of the world's deadliest weapon, died last Tuesday at age 97, leaving behind a legacy of nuclear horrors he devoted his life to countering. But he also left a strange puzzle.
Why for a half-century did he hide what Fermi and a dozen presidents knew? It was a topic I discussed with him this January in an interview, the last of many.
The riddle is especially odd because his central role in creating the H-bomb became the motivating force that drove him forward, that helped him turn Fermi's regrets into a life of political and social activism, that made him an inconspicuous giant of nuclear arms control.
'If I could wave a wand' to make the H-bomb vanish, he once told me, 'I would.'
In a blinding flash, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima by the Enola Gay killed at least 70,000 people. Deadly like no earlier weapon, it was still quite limited in contrast with Dr. Garwin's superweapon. One proposed version had the force of more than 600,000 Hiroshimas. The mind boggles at such numbers. Even so, Cold War analysts coolly judged that it could reduce a region the size of France to ashes. His weapon was a planet shaker. It could end civilization.
That bomb wasn't the only feat driven by Dr. Garwin's prodigious intellect. He made basic discoveries about the structure of the universe, laid the groundwork for wonders of health care and computers, and won many awards. He pushed back frontiers in astronomy, physics, superconductors, orbital reconnaissance and a multitude of other topics he investigated, often at the U.S. government's behest.
But what drove him, what made him eager to advise presidents, was not his gift for coming up with marvels of discovery and innovation but, courtesy of Fermi, a personal crusade to save the world from his own creation.
Henry A. Kissinger advised at least 12 American presidents in some capacity. Dr. Garwin never officially joined any president's cabinet, as Kissinger had. But in our last interview, the physicist looked over a list of presidents and one by one identified the commanders-in-chief he had counseled. There were 13.
While eager to counter his brainchild, Dr. Garwin took no personal or moral responsibility for bringing the H-bomb into existence. Its birth, he argued, was inevitable.
'Maybe I sped up its development by a year or two,' he said in 2021. 'That's all.' Historians of the age tend to agree. The Soviet Union quickly followed his pioneering lead, then a half-dozen other nations. Today, hydrogen bombs have replaced atom bombs in most arsenals, creating a world of uneasy standoffs among nuclear foes.
By all accounts, Dr. Garwin believed that he — and sometimes he alone — could peer into the chaos of the universe and discern its underlying order. Like J. Robert Oppenheimer, who during World War II led the making of the first atomic bomb, he could also be cruel and intolerant of those he saw as less gifted.
Even so, Dr. Garwin showed a knack for teamwork and generosity with peers he respected. Over decades, the physicist worked hard to advance the hunt for gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted. He supported the construction of costly detectors, which, in 2015, successfully observed the ripples, opening a new window on the universe. Dr. Garwin beamed with pride when the finding won a Nobel Prize.
So too, Dr. Garwin managed to walk a tricky path through the nation's military-industrial complex, which crushed Oppenheimer and coddled Edward Teller, an early proponent of hydrogen bomb research. For decades, he criticized the complex from within, promoting some ideas and undermining others, using his intellect and standing as a knowledgeable insider to shake things up — often anonymously.
'The most influential scientist you've never heard of' is how his biographer cast him. The physicist told newcomers to the federal apparatus that they could get something done or get credit, but not both. He was, in some respects, the antithesis of Kissinger, who carefully tended his public image.
The left loved Dr. Garwin's attacks on the American military establishment, but his own compass seemed to align less with politics than pragmatism. He received awards from President George W. Bush, a Republican, as well as President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
'He's never met a problem he didn't want to solve,' Mr. Obama said in 2016 when he presented Dr. Garwin with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. The two-term president described the physicist as advising White House occupants 'rather bluntly.'
Overall, Dr. Garwin's life can be seen as a tale of genius in which key manifestations were obscured by a wall of silence. Why, for instance, did he wait so long to tell his family about his H-bomb role? Was he trying to protect his loved ones from criticism and hateful bluster?
No. It turned out that, as can happen in lives of government service, he felt that sensitive issues of national security loomed over him.
In our last interview, Dr. Garwin said he worried that talkative family members might inadvertently bring him to the attention of foreign intelligence agencies eager to learn H-bomb secrets. That concern, he added, haunted him even after his role became known publicly.
'I still worry about that,' he said at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y., on a cloudy winter day. He glanced out the window.
'They could be listening now.'
Richard Lawrence Garwin was born in Cleveland on April 19, 1928. His father taught electronics at a technical high school.
As a child, Richard, called Dick, impressed adults with his language and math abilities. He loved to take apart and reassemble things, including a vacuum cleaner.
Despite his obvious talents and his early entry into high school, an English teacher there told his parents that Dick would never get into college. He defied that prediction, studying physics at the Case School of Applied Science, in Cleveland. The teen lived at home, took the bus to school and worked nights.
He graduated at 19 and Standard Oil offered him a full ride for graduate study at the University of Chicago, which had one of the nation's top physics departments.
Fermi became the young man's adviser. Two years later, in 1949, Dr. Garwin graduated from Chicago with a doctorate in physics and became an instructor at the school.
The 21-year-old had been too young to play a role in the Manhattan Project, but now found himself deeply involved in what followed.
Like many Americans, Dr. Garwin grew concerned when Moscow that summer detonated its first atom bomb. How would Washington respond? In early 1950, President Harry S. Truman announced that the nation would seek to make 'the so-called hydrogen or superbomb.'
Fermi invited Dr. Garwin to join him at Los Alamos, the base set amid the tall pines and deep canyons of New Mexico's backcountry where Oppenheimer's bomb was born. Now on the agenda for the sprawling lab: trying to make good on Truman's threat.
Deep inside every star, extraordinarily high heats and pressures fuse hydrogen atoms into helium, releasing bursts of energy. The Los Alamos idea was to mimic that fusion process. The experts called it thermonuclear — in part to distinguish its high-temperature reactions from those of atomic bombs, which start at room temperature.
The general plan was that an exploding atom bomb would act as a match to ignite the hydrogen fuel. The question was how. Early ideas had atomic and hydrogen fuels layered in alternating bands, similar to the insides of a baseball.
The breakthrough came in early 1951. Teller and Stanislaw Ulam, a Los Alamos colleague, envisioned two distinct stages set next to each other inside a cylindrical casing.
Moving at the speed of light, radiation from the exploding atom bomb would hit the casing's inner wall and, in a rebound, flood the interior with a colossal burst of rays that would compress and ignite the hydrogen fuel.
The new idea gave the bomb unlimited power. Because the hydrogen fuel was separate from the initial mayhem of atomic debris and shock waves, it could, in theory, be infinitely large.
Teller asked Dr. Garwin to draw up a detailed plan. He warned that it would have to address 'every conceivable doubt' of top scientists. 'Garwin's paper was criticized up and down,' Teller wrote in his memoirs, but the young man's plan 'remained unchanged.'
The prodigy turned the rough idea into a four-page plan that's still classified top secret. He attached a large schematic diagram.
On a coral atoll in the Western Pacific, the device grew slowly. Dr. Garwin never visited the test site where his finished creation stood two stories high and weighed 82 tons.
The test blast, code-named Ivy Mike, took place on Nov. 1, 1952. It vaporized a Pacific isle and produced a mushroom cloud 100 miles wide.
Dr. Garwin, then 24, kept his head down. No news accounts cited his name. No one condemned or praised him. He was an assistant professor of physics at the University of Chicago, not a high government official or a scientific celebrity.
A month after the blast, he joined the International Business Machines Corporation, which allowed him to hold a physics post at Columbia University. In the decades to come, he was granted 47 patents for his IBM work.
The unusual arrangement also gave him the freedom to repeatedly change the course of history. Dr. Garwin did so mainly by offering scientific counsel to presidents and their advisers — a continuum of White House consulting that ran from Eisenhower to Trump.
President John F. Kennedy used the nation's scientific and military feats to spook Moscow and showcase the West's technological edge. It was his top Cold War strategy.
Then disaster struck.
In a case of bad things having good outcomes, the repercussions of the disaster helped give birth to the first successful instance of nuclear arms control.
The crisis began on July 9, 1962, when the American military, seeking ways to destroy incoming Soviet warheads, detonated an H-bomb some 250 miles above the Pacific Ocean. The record height for a thermonuclear blast produced surprises both on the ground and in space. Streetlights in Hawaii went out. Satellites in orbit failed.
It turned out the blast had pumped up the radiation belts around Earth, making the doughnut-like rings of energetic particles more dangerous. The military was planning an even higher-altitude detonation that summer — more than 800 miles up.
Kennedy wanted to quickly assess the risks. Pressed by the Pentagon, he had already approved preparations for that extremely high blast, code-named Urraca. The president's urgent question was whether the detonation of U.S. nuclear arms in outer space could produce enough radiation to poison humans and ruin his announced plan to land astronauts on the moon.
On July 25, 1962, he sent Dr. Garwin a telegram, inviting him to join his White House science advisory team.
Weeks later, Kennedy met with Dr. Garwin and senior advisers in the Oval Office to discuss the radiation dangers. The physicist recalled the president fearing that the recent blast 'had killed the Apollo program,' which was working to put Americans on the moon. How long would the enhanced radiation last?
'A long time,' Dr. Garwin replied, adding that exactly how long was impossible to say. After some discussion of the risks and uncertainties, Dr. Garwin suggested that the danger zone might persist anywhere from two to 20 years.
That Oval Office meeting was, in all likelihood, a turning point.
On Sept. 5, 1962, Kennedy asked his national security and science advisers if the radiation hazard could 'make a lunar journey prohibitive.' They discussed the risks, the lineup of impending American nuclear tests and whether the military could live without the 800-mile-high Urraca detonation.
At a National Security Council meeting two days later, the high-altitude test was canceled.
The next year, Kennedy signed a treaty with the Soviet Union that banned nuclear tests in outer space, in the atmosphere and under water. The weapons could be tested only deep underground. Slowly, the heightened radiation levels in the planetary belts declined through the natural process of nuclear decay.
From 1968 through 1972, NASA sent two dozen Apollo astronauts hurtling through the danger zones. Afterward, experts studying the crews' exposures found that their doses were less than those of workers who held industrial jobs involving radiation. The astronauts suffered no debilitating health effects.
President Richard M. Nixon wanted Moscow and Washington to sign a historic pact to limit their nuclear arms.
Formal talks began in 1969, the year he took office. In parallel, the president and his advisers sought ways to better assess the size of the Soviet arsenal and thus verify compliance with any accord. The overall aim was to make the balance of nuclear terror — the threat of mutually assured destruction — more stable, and a stronger deterrent to war.
A new generation of spy satellites would be a central tool. High above the Earth, they would open a new lens on the secretive movements of Soviet bombers, submarines and missiles capable of hurling thermonuclear arms at the United States. Dr. Garwin, already one of President Nixon's science advisers, threw himself into the satellite effort.
The nation's early spy satellites, which relied on photographic film, were slow, clumsy and wasteful. It could take weeks for exposed film to get to photo analysts. And the costly orbiters, once out of film, went into the celestial junkyard.
Dr. Garwin led a team of experts who foresaw a more advanced type of spacecraft that would replace film with microelectronics and radio transmitters. Fresh images would flash to Earth. The team also called for powerful new telescopes. In effect, the spy craft were to be precursors to the Hubble Space Telescope, but aimed at the Earth.
Even by the usual standards of federal secrecy, the satellite project was extremely hush-hush. In July 1971, Dr. Garwin had drafts of the final report delivered by a special class of courier to members of his team. They were required to read them, return them and keep no copies.
The next month, Dr. Garwin and a colleague briefed Kissinger, who backed the new electrooptical approach. Remarkably, the innovation was decades ahead of the shift in consumer cameras from film to digital.
That September, President Nixon approved a plan to develop the new spy satellite, which became the archetype for all that followed. For East-West relations, the technology was seen as raising predictability and lessening surprise, thus lowering tensions between the superpowers.
The next year, Nixon met in Moscow with the Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev to sign an accord that, for the first time, limited their nuclear arsenals.
Dr. Garwin received two awards for this work, one from the C.I.A. in 1996, and another in 2000 from the National Reconnaissance Office, which runs the satellite fleets.
That office's citation said the physicist had helped Kissinger 'understand the critical role' the spy technology would come to play in national security — in stabilizing the uneasy standoff between foes armed with the deadliest of weapons.
Simplicity made the Hiroshima bomb a sure thing. It had no test explosion. H-bombs were tricker. By definition, they needed multiple tests to uncover flaws and optimize results.
For decades, Dr. Garwin's push for a comprehensive ban on test detonations rested primarily on that fact — no testing, no H-bomb. Though he saw Kennedy's space ban as a good start, he wanted to head off not only new arms races, but also new states aspiring to the world's most destructive weapons.
The end of the Cold War seemed like the moment. In 1993, President Bill Clinton announced plans for a treaty in which all nations would forgo all nuclear blasts, as Washington was doing unilaterally. This meant banning tests even underground, the last permissible zone.
In 1993, Dr. Garwin became chair of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board in the State Department, which guided senior federal officials, including in the White House. It also helped build public support for a test-ban agreement.
Crucially, in August 1995, Dr. Garwin helped resolve a technical dispute that was threatening to become a deal-breaker in the treaty negotiations. It centered on whether a ban should allow minuscule blasts. He addressed it as a longtime member of the Jasons, a secretive group of independent federal science advisers. In a lengthy report, the group backed the comprehensive ban, saying the United States could sign a treaty even if it ruled out minute tests.
Days later, Mr. Clinton echoed that finding in announcing that he would seek what experts called a zero-yield treaty. 'I hope,' he said, 'it will lead to an early consensus' at the negotiating table.
Instead, the talks dragged on. And France and China rushed to do last-minute detonations before any ban took effect.
Finally, in September 1996, a solemn procession of world government representatives, including Mr. Clinton, signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Then things fell apart.
Mr. Clinton won re-election that November but now faced Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Worse, the president's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, an intern, came to light in early 1998, fueling a political firestorm that crippled the White House.
As Senate Republicans raced for a quick treaty vote, Dr. Garwin testified before the Foreign Relations Committee.
'We are better off,' he argued, 'with a test ban than without it.'
Six days later, on Oct. 13, 1999, the Senate rejected the treaty. Though eventually signed by 187 nations, the treaty never entered into force because the United States and a handful of other key players failed to ratify it.
Still, Dr. Garwin and his colleagues had created a new global norm. The long, hard process of hammering out a global consensus on the merits of a ban, embraced by thermonuclear states, led to a more stable new era. Gone were the shock waves that had radiated from underground test sites and ricocheted around the globe. Since then, the United States and other main nuclear powers have tested no weapons. Now there's a new kind of silence.
'You do these things,' Dr. Garwin told me shortly after the Senate rejected the treaty. 'And if you keep at it for a long time, sometimes you win.'
In 1979, Edward Teller suffered a heart attack and so discovered, as he told a friend, 'that I am not immortal.' While recovering, he shared his recollections on the making of the hydrogen bomb with that friend, who had brought along a tape recorder.
'So that first design,' Teller said, 'was made by Dick Garwin.' He repeated the tribute to avoid any misunderstanding.
For 22 years, that recording was lost to history. By chance, it also fit nicely with Dr. Garwin's own determination to hide his H-bomb role.
Myths spread. In 1995, 'Dark Sun,' a 700-page account of the hydrogen bomb's making, attributed its design to a committee of elder scientists. It made no mention of the Cleveland upstart.
That changed in April 2001. George A. Keyworth II, Teller's friend, who later served as President Ronald Reagan's science adviser, gave me a transcript of the tape recording and I wrote about it for The New York Times. It was noticed, including by Dr. Garwin and his family.
Though Teller had previously acknowledged the young physicist's role, those mentions were buried in specialist writings and meetings. Now, suddenly — a half-century after the fact — Dr. Garwin gained wide public recognition as the H-bomb's designer.
'That was when people really knew,' Lois, his wife, told a historian. 'And people who knew Dick very, very well, and had known him for a very long time, expressed real surprise.'
After that, as much as ever, he raced ahead. The polymath lectured and wrote papers on space weapons, land mines, terrorism, pandemics, submarines, science advising, food aid programs, automatic teller machines, Iran's nuclear ambitions, the nation's electrical grid, the disposal of radioactive waste, catastrophic risks and nuclear disarmament. The last entry in his comprehensive archive is dated early this year.
Around that time, I decided that the elder statesman of nuclear arms control, like Teller, was probably not going to live forever. He was 96. I had some questions.
During that interview, to my surprise, Dr. Garwin said Fermi had emphasized the wrong danger in once calling the H-bomb 'an evil thing' because of its unlimited destructiveness.
'That's not the threat,' he said. The great danger, he added, is 'so many nuclear weapons,' which raise the risk of theft, missteps, accidents, unauthorized use — and the world falling from mutual deterrence into a thermonuclear abyss.
To me, that last visit with Dr. Garwin was another glimpse of a bygone era in which he struggled inconspicuously to counter an existential threat to humankind.
I asked if he had ever considered a memoir.
'I tried,' said the man known for his blunt honesty. 'It's an impossible job.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Associated Press
2 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California invested millions pushing these careers for women. The results are disappointing
Ten years ago, it seemed everyone was talking about women in science. As the economy improved in the years after the Great Recession, women were slower to return to the workforce, causing alarm, especially in vital fields like computing. State and federal leaders turned their attention to women in science, technology, engineering and math, known by the acronym STEM. Over the next few years, they poured millions of dollars into increasing the number of women pursuing STEM degrees. But the rate of women who attain those degrees has hardly improved, according to an analysis of colleges' data by the Public Policy Institute of California on behalf of CalMatters. 'The unfortunate news is that the numbers haven't changed much at all,' said Hans Johnson, a senior fellow at the institute who conducted the analysis of California's four-year colleges using data from the 2009-10 school year and comparing it to the most recent numbers, from 2022-23. The share of women who received a bachelor's degree increased from roughly 19% to about 25% in engineering and from nearly 16% to about 23% in computer science. In math and statistics, the percentage of women who graduate with a degree has gone down in the last five years. 'It's not nothing, but at this pace it would take a very long time to reach parity,' Johnson said. Girls are also underrepresented in certain high school classes, such as AP computer science, and while women make up about 42% of California's workforce, they comprise just a quarter of those working in STEM careers, according to a study by Mount Saint Mary's University. Fewer women were working in math careers in 2023 than in the five or 10 years before that, the study found. 'It's a cultural phenomenon, not a biological phenomenon,' said Mayya Tokman, a professor of applied mathematics at UC Merced. She said underrepresentation is a result of perceptions about women, the quality of their education, and a lack of role models in a given field. Science and technology spurs innovation and economic growth while promoting national security, and these jobs are often lucrative and stable. Gender parity is critical, especially as U.S. science and technology industries struggle to find qualified workers, said Sue Rosser, provost emerita at San Francisco State and a longtime advocate for women in science. 'We need more people in STEM. More people means immigrants, women, people of color as well as white men. There's no point in excluding anyone.' She said that recent cuts by the Trump administration to California's research and education programs will stymie progress in science, technology and engineering — and hurt countless careers, including the women who aspire to join these fields. Over the last eight months, the federal government has made extensive cuts to scientific research at California's universities, affecting work on dementia, vaccines, women's issues and on health problems affecting the LGBTQ+ community. The administration also ended programs that support undergraduate students in science. In June a federal judge ruled that the administration needs to restore some of those grants, but a Supreme Court decision could reverse that ruling. More recently, the administration halted hundreds of grants to UCLA — representing hundreds of millions in research funding — in response to a U.S. Justice Department investigation into allegations of antisemitism. Now the Trump administration is asking for a $1 billion settlement in return for the grants. A California district judge ruled on Tuesday that at least some of those grants need to be restored. 'The cultural conversation has changed' In the past five years, attention has shifted away from women in science. Nonprofit leaders and researchers across the state say that many lawmakers and philanthropists turned away from women in STEM during the COVID-19 pandemic and focused more on racial justice following the police killing of George Floyd. Since 1995, women have been outpacing men in college, and women are now much more likely to attain a bachelor's degree. The unemployment rate for men is higher, too, and men without college degrees are opting out of the labor force at unprecedented rates. On July 30 Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order saying the state needs to do more to address the 'growing crisis of connection and opportunity for men and boys.' It's not a 'zero-sum' game, he wrote: the state can, and should, support everyone. But some state investments for women's education are lagging. In 2018, the Legislature agreed to put $10 million each year into a new initiative, the California Education Learning Laboratory, to 'close equity and achievement gaps,' including the underrepresentation of girls and women in science and technology. But two years later, the state imposed large-scale cuts to the initiative due to the pandemic. As the state faced more fiscal challenges in 2024, lawmakers cut its budget to about half its former size. This year, Newsom proposed cutting the Education Learning Laboratory altogether. After negotiations with the Legislature, Newsom agreed to fund the initiative through next year, at which point it's set to close unless new funding is secured. 'While I think women are faring better in college generally, I would be skeptical that we can say 'mission accomplished' in terms of achieving parity for women in STEM undergraduate degrees,' said Lark Park, the director of the Education Learning Laboratory, which uses public money to provide grants to schools and nonprofits. 'I think we've just gotten distracted and the cultural conversation has changed.' Private and corporate foundations fund numerous nonprofit organizations that support girls and women in STEM, but grant recipients say some money has moved toward other, more popular topics or less controversial ones. 'Funders focus on trends and they're very trendy in how they give,' said Dawn Brown, president of the EmpowHer Institute, which offers education programs to girls and women across Los Angeles County. One of her programs provides a free, five-week summer camp to girls, including a trip to Catalina Island, where they learn about environmental science and climate change. Since Trump took office, some corporate funders have pulled back support for the organization's programs, which may be perceived as supporting 'DEI,' she said. 'The words 'women,' 'girls,' 'climate change' — those are banned words.' Supporting women in math When Chloe Lynn, a rising junior at UC Berkeley and a double major in applied math and management science, started taking higher-level courses, she noticed a trend in her math classes: fewer women. 'I'll be one of three girls in a 30, 40-person class,' she said during an interview at the university's division of equity and inclusion. UC Berkeley has a center dedicated to promoting diversity in STEM, known as Cal NERDS, which features cozy study spots, a high-tech makerspace and various multi-purpose meeting rooms. The center receives much of its funding from the state but has a few grants from the federal government, some of which are currently on hold. On a Thursday last month, Lynn was one of 10 students who came to present their summer research in one of the multi-purpose rooms. More than half of the presenters were women or non-binary, and the rest were part of other underrepresented groups in STEM, including Hispanic, Black and LGBTQ+ students. She stood in front of a large poster, waiting for people to stop by and ask about her work. 'Say you're at an auction, and say there's n bidders and k identical items,' she said as another student approached. Over the next two hours, fellow mathematicians, classmates, friends and family stopped by, listening as she explained her formula for allocating resources in an optimal way. Some understood her work and asked questions about her variables, formulas or 3-D models. The rest nodded in admiration. By the end of the event, many students had abandoned their own posters in order to learn about their friends' research. In her free time, as the vice president of UC Berkeley's undergraduate math association, Lynn has been trying to build this kind of community among other female math majors by organizing events where students can meet each other. Her end goal is graduate school, either in applied math or industrial engineering. Women are also underrepresented in those graduate programs. 'Creating an inclusive and uplifting community is so important for anyone that's underrepresented,' she said after finishing her presentation. How STEM helps people The lack of women in STEM has nothing to do with their abilities. In fact, women who major in STEM at California State University campuses are more likely than men to graduate, according to data from the college system, and in biology, women are overrepresented. Over 64% of biology bachelor's degrees awarded in California during the 2022-23 school year went to women, according to the analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California. Brown said some female alumni of EmpowHer have said that college advisers push biology over other science, engineering or math courses, claiming that it's 'easier.' Better advising could create more parity, she said. Rosser, who trained as a zoologist before becoming a college administrator, said women's shift toward biology was a slow process, beginning in the 1970s. 'Women are particularly attracted to STEM when they can see its usefulness, particularly to help people,' she said. Biology is often 'an entryway to the health care professions,' she added, many of which are predominately female. She recommends that professors promote the application of their research as a way to increase the percentage of women in these fields. In her studies at UC Berkeley, Lynn said she's struggled with the relevance of her research. 'There's a lot going on in the world right now and I feel called to help,' she said. 'Even though I did theory research this summer, I've been thinking about ways to apply this theory to real-world applications I care about.' In particular, she wants her research to help her community in the Bay Area, where she grew up. 'Say you're an architect and you're in charge of reinforcing San Francisco's concrete structures in the event of an earthquake,' she said. 'You want to minimize cost in San Francisco, and that's going to help you choose which building you're going to reinforce.' It's just another resource allocation problem, she said, so it could be solved with a similar formula. 'It does hit close to home,' she said. In fact, the UC Berkeley campus lies on a fault line. ___ This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.


Medscape
31 minutes ago
- Medscape
More Pregnancies With Weight Loss Before IVF
Women with obesity who lost weight prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF) had increased pregnancy rates, especially unassisted conceptions, a systematic review and meta-analysis has found. The studies reviewed were small and heterogeneous, making it difficult to determine which weight loss interventions had the most efficacy, according to the authors. Still, they concluded that weight loss in this cohort might 'negate the need for treatment, and does not seem to increase the risk for pregnancy loss, although evidence on the effect on live births was unclear.' The results were published online August 12 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Obesity is associated with ovulatory dysfunction, reduced ovarian responsiveness to agents that induce ovulation, altered oocyte and endometrial function, and lower birth rates after IVF, according to an opinion published by the Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in 2021. Previously, it was unknown whether weight loss before IVF improves reproductive outcomes, so Moscho Michalopoulou, MSc, DPhil, a behavioral scientist at Oxford University in the United Kingdom, and a team of researchers reviewed 12 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of 1921 women with obesity who were offered a weight loss intervention before planned IVF. The studies included in the analysis were of women in upper-middle or high-income countries who had a median body mass index of 33.6 kg/m2. They were typically in their early 30s, and their weight loss prior to conception tended to be modest across the studies included. Nearly a quarter of women from nine studies had polycystic ovary syndrome. Weight loss in this PCOS population was associated with fewer unassisted conceptions. There were numerous weight loss interventions across the RCTs, and their median duration of an active weight loss phase was 12 weeks (range 5 - 24 weeks). Controls across the studies in the analysis received usual care, yet in six studies they received no or minimal intervention. In the remaining six studies, usual care was a less intense weight loss intervention than in the study arm. Participants across all intervention groups lost 4 kg more than controls, the researchers found. The difference in weight change between groups was larger when interventions were compared with no or minimal intervention rather than to an active control. The average follow-up for reproductive outcomes was 9.3 months (range 1.3 - 18 months) for intervention groups vs 11.2 months (range 4.3 - 24 months) for controls. Ten studies reported unassisted pregnancy rates (1466 participants). Eight studies favored intervention; however, most studies had few unassisted pregnancies, resulting in wide confidence intervals. Overall, the investigators found that weight loss interventions before IVF were associated with greater unassisted pregnancy rates (relative risk, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26 - 1.73). The effect size was greater in the RCTs with controls involving no or minimal intervention vs an active weight loss comparator, although the small number of studies and events limited formal comparison. No consistent pattern was observed when studies were sorted by the difference in weight change between groups, age, or baseline BMI, but the study authors found a tendency for fewer unassisted pregnancies with an increasing proportion of women with PCOS in the sample. 'There was inconclusive evidence on the effect of weight loss interventions on treatment-induced pregnancies. Overall, evidence on the association between weight loss interventions before IVF and live births was uncertain, although there was moderate certainty of no association with pregnancy loss,' the investigators write. The authors noted that a weakness in their study was a lack of follow-up on pregnancy outcomes. 'Unfortunately, fewer studies reported live birth outcomes, not all studies followed up on unassisted conceptions to determine live birth, and evidence on live births was further limited by heterogeneity in study design and clinical characteristics of recruited populations,' the authors write. Another deficit in the study, according to the authors, was that the studies reviewed had 'marked variability in eligibility and in participant characteristics that affect IVF success and could have influenced the effect of weight loss interventions on outcomes.' According to an accompanying editorial written by Alan S. Penzias, MD,'[The authors] highlight for future investigators the need for studies that include outcomes, including pregnancy loss and live birth, for both medically assisted and unassisted pregnancies.' Penzias directs the Fellowship Program in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the Boston IVF/Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and is an associate professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. The women in the studies Michalopoulou and her colleagues analyzed tended to be in their early 30s, which Penzias focused on in his editorial. 'A woman's age is the strongest predictor of successfully becoming pregnant,' he writes. 'The association of increasing age with reduced fecundity is so strong that some advocate consideration of IVF as a first-line treatment strategy in women older than 38 to 40 years. It is critical to balance the time it takes to achieve weight loss and the benefit of weight loss on medically unassisted conception.' Penzias suggested that in addition to a woman's age, her preferred family size, which cannot be determined by weight loss, must also be factored in when deciding whether to use IVF. 'It is important to understand that once an oocyte is retrieved via IVF, any embryo created from its fertilization will always carry the success rate associated with the woman's age at the time of retrieval,' Penzias writes. For Cate Varney, DO, an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville, the age of the woman seeking to become pregnant does matter, but that 'it is well-established that obesity plays a significant role in infertility. There is a gap in the data between the association and modifiable risk,' she told Medscape Medical News. 'The timing and amount of clinically meaningful weight loss will be important to identify so we can clarify the trade-offs between delaying IVF for weight loss vs age-related fertility decline,' said Varney, who is also the obesity medicine director at UVA Health. The study was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley. The study authors and editorialist Penzias reported no relevant financial relationships. Varney is an advisor and in the speaker's bureau for Eli Lilly.

Associated Press
32 minutes ago
- Associated Press
New Aeration Solution Delivers Natural Whole-Lake Visual Circulation in Texas Field Study
Innovative aeration pump provides whole-lake visual circulation without disrupting natural balance, offering scalable solutions for ecosystems of any size. 'With the BBCP, we deliver an industry leading lake aeration providing whole-lake visual circulation that supports fish habitats, reduces energy use, and scales from small ponds to large reservoirs.'— Jerry Kellgren, Inventor GORDONVILLE, TX, UNITED STATES, August 15, 2025 / / -- Big Bubble Technologies, Inc. has announced the launch of a groundbreaking four-day field study in Gordonville, Texas, showcasing its innovative Big Bubble Circulation Pump (BBCP). Early results already demonstrate the system's unmatched ability to generate surface ripples spanning more than four acres from a single 14-inch unit - setting a new standard in surface energy transfer while preserving the lake's natural thermal balance. The BBCP is engineered to lift 400–500 gallons per minute of deep, cool water straight to the surface in a narrow, non-mixing vertical large bubble plume. This unique approach avoids disrupting the thermocline, ensuring cooler, oxygen-rich bottom layers remain intact for fish habitat, while increasing oxygenation at the surface. The system is highly adaptable, with configurations available for lakes, ponds, and lagoons of any size, making it equally suited for recreational and wastewater treatment applications. Key Differentiators of the BBCP: The BBCP introduces a visual circulation method distinct from traditional small-bubble diffusers. By complementing existing aeration solutions, it offers: Thermocline Preservation: Protects warm and cool layers for healthier aquatic ecosystems. Large-Scale Surface Impact: A single unit produces ripple fields exceeding four acres that reflect and diffuse the sunlight required for weed and algae growth. Scalability: Customizable for everything from small ponds to large reservoirs. Targeted Energy Use: Moves deep water efficiently without unnecessary mixing. Reduced Evaporation: Cooler surface water slows evaporation in hot climates. During the August 26–29 field study, researchers will also compare BBCP performance with a Vertex XL-5 diffuser, which circulates over 12,000 GPM but mixes the entire water column, eliminating the thermocline. While the XL-5 will serve as a calibration benchmark for sonar imaging, the BBCP will be the focus of advanced testing using Mini DOT® loggers, thermal imaging drones, and Secchi disk clarity monitoring. Following the initial field phase, a year-long study will evaluate the BBCP's performance with supplemental low-flow diffusers and bubble tubing, designed to enhance oxygen delivery to deeper layers. Jerry Kellgren, BBCP inventor and co-founder of Big Bubble Technologies Inc, commented: 'This study isn't just about introducing another aeration product - it's about rethinking how we manage water bodies in both recreational and municipal settings. The BBCP offers a smarter, more efficient way to move water that preserves ecosystem balance and can be scaled to fit virtually any application.' Brett Kellgren Big Bubble Technologies Inc +1 314-574-1609 [email protected] Visit us on social media: LinkedIn YouTube Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.