Latest news with #NobelLaureates
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Science
- Daily Maverick
Mirror life — addressing a potential biothreat
Given how severe the consequences could be, the creation of mirror bacteria by extreme malicious actors is a real concern that needs to be addressed in advance. In December 2024, a group of scientists did something rare: they published a warning against building a technology that some of them had spent years working toward. Even more eye-popping, this came at least a decade before the tech is even possible. The warning concerned mirror bacteria: hypothetical synthetic organisms built from mirror-image forms of the proteins, amino acids, DNA and other biomolecules used by life on Earth. In an analysis published in Science, we and 36 colleagues — including two Nobel Laureates and 16 members of national academies from around the world — argued that such organisms could be built within the next 10 to 30 years and could pose an extraordinary threat if they were. The analysis is that mirror bacteria could be resistant to many mechanisms of immunity in humans, nonhuman animals, and possibly plants. They could also be resistant to the predators that keep populations of wild bacteria in check. It's plausible, then, that mirror bacteria could act as an invasive species, causing fatal infections as they spread and irreversibly disrupting ecosystems in the process. Thankfully, the threat is not imminent. Scientists cannot yet make mirror-image versions of all the components that would be needed to create a mirror bacterium, and no researchers have successfully booted up a normal bacterium from entirely nonliving parts. The development of enabling technologies, however, is under way. Longer chains of mirror nucleic acids and large functional mirror proteins are successfully being synthesised, and continued progress on non-mirror synthetic cell research could one day provide a blueprint for starting up a functional synthetic cell. Although research on mirror proteins and peptides should be continued for their potential use as beneficial therapeutics, these advancements collectively mean that mirror bacteria could be created successfully in the coming decades. Mirror life should not be created unless future research convincingly demonstrates that it would not pose severe risks The scientific community has begun responding. To the best of our team's knowledge, all research with the goal of creating mirror bacteria has been halted. We are not aware of any scientists today who have the long-term goal of creating mirror life. Researchers from leading institutions in Asia, Europe, South America, and the United States increasingly agree on the need for exceptional caution: Following a meeting on mirror life's risks at Asilomar in February 2025, nearly 100 researchers, funders, and policymakers joined us in signing an entreaty arguing that 'mirror life should not be created unless future research convincingly demonstrates that it would not pose severe risks'. These instances of rare global cooperation underscore the seriousness of the risks. But scientific self-restraint is not enough: Scientists' concerns must now turn into durable policy. If the technology to create mirror bacteria became feasible, it is hard to imagine how anyone could stop a sufficiently motivated bad actor from building something that could cause egregious harm. Mirror life should not be created unless future research convincingly demonstrates that it would not pose severe risks Our paper calls on researchers, policymakers, science funders, civil society, and industry to come together to help ensure that mirror life is never created. We and our fellow authors, along with the new nonprofit Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund, are partnering with institutions around the world to continue this vital dialogue. The first international conference on mirror life will take place at the Institut Pasteur in Paris in mid-June, where biologists, policymakers, legal experts, ethicists and social scientists will further explore the risks of mirror bacteria and outline steps for future dialogue. The conversation will then move to the universities of Manchester and Singapore, where we hope to progress on appropriate global policy responses. In parallel, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are conducting an independent scientific investigation. Now is the time for global engagement. The risks of mirror life Synthetic biology is rapidly gaining ground. Ever since scientists successfully transplanted a synthetic genome into a natural bacterium in 2010, biologists have been exploring the possibility of booting up an entire bacterium from synthetic parts. At the same time, progress has advanced on the synthesis of mirror molecules whose chemical structure is identical to naturally occurring biomolecules but a reverse image. All known life uses 'left-handed' amino acids and 'right-handed' sugars — fixed orientations that evolved billions of years ago. Driven by scientific curiosity and potential applications — including the possibility of harnessing mirror cells to produce mirror molecules for use as therapeutics — a few scientists had a long-term goal of creating entirely mirrored bacteria that would use mirror molecules: 'left-handed' DNA and sugars and 'right-handed' proteins and amino acids. It is becoming clear, however, that the potential benefits don't outweigh the significant dangers. Building on a 300-page supplemental technical report that analysed the feasibility and risks of mirror bacteria in great detail, we and our fellow authors reported that mirror bacteria could pose two extraordinary risks. The first is immunological. Try putting your left hand into a right-handed glove — it doesn't fit. Experiments suggest that the same is true of the molecules in mirror bacteria: Immune systems don't easily recognise or clear them out. The result could be fatal infections in an unusually wide range of species. The second is environmental. Populations of natural bacteria in the environment are kept in check by natural predators such as viruses and amoebae. Mirror bacteria's reversed molecular structure means that they would likely be substantially resistant to these predators. That would remove a significant impediment to their growth, potentially allowing mirror bacteria to grow like an invasive species — and potentially evolve further fitness advantages as they spread. The result would be that a mirror bacteria population in the environment could function as a continuous source of infection. In turn, infections would give mirror bacteria new opportunities to spread and embed themselves in new ecosystems, potentially causing pervasive lethal infections in a substantial number of species, including humans. Even a mirror bacterium with a much narrower range of hosts, or one that could invade fewer ecosystems, could still cause unprecedented and irreversible harm. Although it could seem possible to make mirror bacteria safe — they could be designed to be artificially addicted to nutrients found only in the lab so that they could not spread in the wild — it does not seem possible to make them robustly secure. Once it's possible to build any kind of mirror bacterium, the engineering required to remove built-in safeguards would be relatively straightforward, requiring only moderate training in molecular biology to unleash an unprecedented global threat. Bioweapons have been banned internationally since the 1970s, but terrorists and even some states, such as the erstwhile Soviet Union, have at times pursued their development in secret, as South Africa did in the late stage of apartheid in the 1980s. Although it's hard to imagine anyone would want to use mirror bacteria as a bioweapon, given the indiscriminate harms that would result, an extremist group seeking to cause as much harm as possible could pursue them. Given how severe the consequences could be, the creation of mirror bacteria by extreme malicious actors is a real concern that needs to be addressed in advance. When scientists speak with one voice, the world should take note. Because doing so would still require incredible resources and technical expertise, opportunities remain to keep the technical barriers to mirror life creation high so that the resources for success remain out of reach of most actors. Toward robust governance A few things seem clear. For one, work on individual mirror-image molecules, which could be used to help treat infectious diseases, metabolic disorders, and cancer, does not pose the dangers of mirror bacteria and should continue. These molecules cannot replicate in the environment or evolve to become more dangerous. On the other hand, the risks of building a full mirror bacterium pose questions that scientists or policymakers in individual countries cannot answer on their own. These considerations include deciding where to draw the line between the chemical synthesis of molecules — such as mirror proteins — and the development of full mirror bacteria. Some mirror building blocks could be more useful than others in the potential creation of mirror life. Although science will likely need some restrictions on the creation of full mirror genomes and proteomes, it is unclear what those rules could be and how they would be enforced. Similarly, research funding bodies should find ways to discourage mirror bacteria creation while supporting beneficial mirror molecule research. Our paper in Science argues that funders should make clear that they won't support research with the goal of creating mirror bacteria. But that does not stipulate what should still receive funding and what is too dangerous to pursue. Although, as the recent Asilomar gathering showed, scientists increasingly agree that mirror life should not be built, they will likely need oversight to prevent bad actors from working on mirror bacteria. Some existing frameworks and agencies governing threats such as select agents, invasive species, or bioweapons could serve as inspiration for mirror life regulation. The scientific community needs to address these considerations now, which would require policymakers, research funders, civil society, the private sector and the public to come together in dialogue to chart a path forward. Given the implications of mirror life, that dialogue needs to be global. Our writing group for the Science paper was uncommonly interdisciplinary and international, including experts in synthetic biology, immunology, medicine, plant pathology, ecology, evolutionary biology, biosecurity and planetary sciences working in Brazil, China, India, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the US. Seeing this productive dialogue from scientists at leading institutions that transcends national boundaries is cause for optimism. When scientists speak with one voice, the world should take note. Too often, public health and biosecurity are reactive. Too often, policymakers establish guardrails only after a technology has caused harm — such as after chlorofluorocarbons had already torn a hole in the ozone layer. It's rare to have the luxury of time before a threat materialises. The early recognition of the risks of mirror life gives scientists and policymakers a precious window for reducing the risks without limiting work on beneficial applications of biology. This is a golden opportunity to mobilise and build collective anticipatory caution. Society cannot afford to miss it. DM Wilmot James is a professor and senior adviser to the Pandemic Center at the School of Public Health at Brown University. Patrick Yizhi Cai is chair professor of synthetic genomics at the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
South China Morning Post
6 days ago
- Science
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong must reform its degree offerings to attract West's brightest
For decades, the flow of academic and scientific talent has been largely one way: East to West. China's brightest minds packed their bags for the universities of Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and Cambridge in pursuit of better teachers, better laboratories and a better future. This has changed. US and British universities are still magnets of global talent but are no longer unmatched. Chinese universities, once dismissed as rigid and third-tier, are now engines of scientific and technological advances . Western students who want to stay on the cutting edge ought to consider a move previously unthinkable: studying in China. After the second world war, the United States and Britain dominated higher education. They hosted Nobel laureates and pumped funding into research that pushed the frontiers of knowledge. Groundbreaking studies on DNA in Britain gave birth to the biotech industry. America's invention of the semiconductor chip and internet led to the electronics industry and digital revolution. English became the global academic language. Talent went West. The fundamental difference is that in the West, each university chases its own academic excellence and pursues independent research aspirations. In China, universities operate like a national team. Each institution plays a strategic role in a coordinated research jigsaw puzzle, collectively delivering tech breakthroughs.
Time Business News
20-05-2025
- Science
- Time Business News
Erice Manuel: A Gateway to Scientific Collaboration and Innovation
The Erice Manuel represents a cornerstone in the pursuit of global scientific cooperation and ethical responsibility in scientific research. Named after the historic town of Erice in Sicily, Italy, the manual was born out of a series of international conferences held at the Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture (EMFCSC). Founded by Professor Antonino Zichichi in 1963, the centre was established as a hub for some of the brightest scientific minds across various disciplines. Its purpose was to foster open dialogue and exchange of ideas in a setting removed from political constraints and distractions. Over the years, the Erice gatherings became symbolic of intellectual unity and the shared commitment to scientific progress for the betterment of humanity. Origins and Evolution The Erice Manuel was developed in response to the growing concern over the misuse of scientific discoveries, particularly during the Cold War era, when scientific advancements were increasingly being directed towards weapons development and geopolitical competition. Scientists from around the world began to recognize the urgent need for a formalized ethical framework that would guide their work and help ensure that science remained a force for peace and human development. The manual thus emerged as a document of principles, born from the discussions and deliberations of global experts who assembled at Erice. It was not simply a set of rules but a living document reflecting the consensus and moral compass of the scientific community. Purpose and Principles At its core, the Erice Manuel hoodie emphasizes the social responsibility of scientists. It urges researchers to consider the implications of their work, not only for technological or academic advancement but also for the impact on society, the environment, and global stability. The manual underscores values such as transparency, integrity, collaboration, and the ethical use of knowledge. By encouraging scientists to transcend national and ideological boundaries, it promotes the idea that science should be a tool for understanding and solving universal human problems, from climate change and public health to energy security and poverty eradication. Global Impact and Endorsements The influence of the Erice Manuel has been felt worldwide. It has been endorsed and supported by numerous Nobel Laureates and internationally recognized scientists, many of whom have contributed to its refinement and dissemination. These endorsements have helped elevate the manual to a symbol of scientific integrity. Institutions across the globe have drawn inspiration from it to shape their own codes of conduct and research guidelines. The manual's presence has also been noted in dialogues within the United Nations and other international bodies, particularly in areas concerning disarmament, sustainable development, and ethical technology use. Scientific Culture and Interdisciplinary Collaboration One of the distinguishing features of the Erice approach is its emphasis on cross-disciplinary collaboration. The Erice Manuel reflects this ethos by advocating for cooperation between physicists, biologists, chemists, medical researchers, and experts in social sciences and humanities. This interdisciplinary perspective is essential in a world where challenges are increasingly complex and interconnected. For example, addressing a global pandemic requires not only biomedical solutions but also understanding human behavior, communication strategies, and socio-economic impacts. The Erice framework recognizes that no discipline alone holds all the answers and that shared knowledge is key to solving real-world problems. Education and Future Generations A significant part of the Erice Manuel is its focus on education. It calls for the development of curricula and learning environments that instill ethical awareness and global responsibility in young scientists. Future generations must be equipped not only with technical skills but also with a deep understanding of the consequences their work can have. Erice has hosted numerous schools and seminars targeting early-career researchers, fostering mentorship, dialogue, and a sense of duty toward the global scientific community. The manual is often used in these settings as a foundational text for introducing ethical thinking into scientific practice. A Living Document for a Changing World Although the original concerns that led to the creation of the Erice Manuel were rooted in the tensions of the 20th century, the document remains highly relevant today. As artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and climate engineering pose new ethical and societal challenges, the need for a guiding framework like the Erice Manuel is more urgent than ever. The manual continues to evolve, with ongoing contributions from international experts who bring fresh perspectives to its interpretation and application. It stands as a testament to the belief that science, guided by conscience and collaboration, can be a transformative force for peace, equity, and sustainability. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Fast Company
16-05-2025
- Science
- Fast Company
National Science Foundation funding cuts could threaten the economy, science, and safety
Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. No matter where you live, NSF-supported research has also made your life safer. Engineering studies have reduced earthquake damage and fatalities through better building design. Improved hurricane and tornado forecasts reflect NSF investment in environmental monitoring and computer modeling of weather. NSF-supported resilience studies reduce risks and losses from wildfires. Using NSF funding, scientists have done research that amazes, entertains and enthralls. They have drilled through mile-thick ice sheets to understand the past, visited the wreck of the Titanic and captured images of deep space. NSF investments have made America and American science great. At least 268 Nobel laureates received NSF grants during their careers. The foundation has partnered with agencies across the government since it was created, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% since 1950, meaning for every dollar U.S. taxpayers invested, they got back between $1.50 and $3. However, that funding is now at risk. Since January, layoffs, leadership resignations, and a massive proposed reorganization have threatened the integrity and mission of the National Science Foundation. Hundreds of research grants have been terminated. The administration's proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2026 would cut NSF's funding by 55%, an unprecedented reduction that would end federal support for science research across a wide range of discipines. At my own geology lab, I have seen NSF grants catalyze research and the work of dozens of students who have collected data that's now used to reduce risks from earthquakes, floods, landslides, erosion, sea-level rise, and melting glaciers. I have also served on advisory committees and review panels for the NSF over the past 30 years and have seen the value the foundation produces for the American people. American science's greatness stemmed from war In the 1940s, with the advent of nuclear weapons, the space race and the intensification of the Cold War, American science and engineering expertise became increasingly critical for national defense. At the time, most basic and applied research was done by the military. Vannevar Bush, an electrical engineer who oversaw military research efforts during World War II, including development of the atomic bomb, had a different idea. He articulated an expansive scientific vision for the United States in ' Science: The Endless Frontier.' The report was a blueprint for an American research juggernaut grounded in the expertise of university faculty, staff and graduate students. On May 10, 1950, after five years of debate and compromise, President Harry Truman signed legislation creating the National Science Foundation and putting Bush's vision to work. Since then, the foundation has become the leading funder of basic research in the United States. NSF's mandate, then as now, was to support basic research and spread funding for science across all 50 states. Expanding America's scientific workforce was and remains integral to American prosperity. By 1952, the foundation was awarding merit fellowships to graduate and postdoctoral scientists from every state. There were compromises. Control of NSF rested with presidential appointees, disappointing Bush. He wanted scientists in charge to avoid political interference with the foundation's research agenda. NSF funding matters to everyone, everywhere Today, American tax dollars supporting science go to every state in the union. The states with the most NSF grants awarded between 2011 and 2024 include several that voted Republican in the 2024 election—Texas, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania—and several that voted Democratic, including Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Colorado. More than 1,800 public and private institutions, scattered across all 50 states, receive NSF funding. The grants pay the salaries of staff, faculty and students, boosting local employment and supporting college towns and cities. For states with major research universities, those grants add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Even states with few universities each see tens of millions of dollars for research. As NSF grant recipients purchase lab supplies and services, those dollars support regional and national economies. When NSF budgets are cut and grants are terminated or never awarded, the harm trickles down and communities suffer. Initial NSF funding cuts are already rippling across the country, affecting both national and local economies in red, blue, and purple states alike. An analysis of a February 2025 proposal that would cut about $5.5 billion from National Institutes of Health grants estimated the ripple effect through college towns and supply chains would cost $6.1 billion in GDP, or total national productivity, and over 46,000 jobs. An uncertain future for American science America's scientific research and training enterprise has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Yet, as NSF celebrates its 75th birthday, the future of American science is in doubt. Funding is increasingly uncertain, and politics is driving decisions, as Bush feared 80 years ago. A list of grants terminated by the Trump administration, collected both from government websites and scientists themselves, shows that by early May 2025, NSF had stopped funding more than 1,400 existing grants, totaling more than a billion dollars of support for research, research training, and education. Most terminated grants focused on education—the core of science, technology and engineering workforce development critical for supplying highly skilled workers to American companies. For example, NSF provided 1,000 fewer graduate student fellowships in 2025 than in the decade before—a 50% drop in support for America's best science students. American scientists are responding to NSF's downsizing in diverse ways. Some are pushing back by challenging grant terminations. Others are preparing to leave science or academia. Some are likely to move abroad, taking offers from other nations to recruit American experts. Science organizations and six prior heads of the NSF are calling on Congress to step up and maintain funding for science research and workforce development. If these losses continue, the next generation of American scientists will be fewer in number and less well prepared to address the needs of a population facing the threat of more extreme weather, future pandemics, and the limits to growth imposed by finite natural resources and other planetary limits.
BBC News
15-05-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Matt Hancock ignored call to test all NHS staff, Covid inquiry hears
The government ignored an early warning by two Nobel prize-winning scientists that all healthcare workers should be routinely tested for coronavirus in the pandemic, the Covid inquiry has advice came in a strongly-worded letter sent in April 2020 by the chief executive of the Francis Crick Institute, Sir Paul Nurse, and its research director, Sir Peter Ratcliffe, to the then health secretary Matt and care home staff were not offered Covid tests until November 2020 in England, unless they had symptoms of the Hancock is due to appear at the inquiry next week, along with other health ministers from the four nations of the UK. Giving evidence, Sir Paul, who won the Nobel prize for medicine in 2001, said it was "disturbing" that he did not receive a response to his concerns until July 2020."For the secretary of state to ignore a letter from two Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine for three months is a little surprising, I would say," he told the inquiry."Rather than acknowledge they couldn't do it, because that would have indicated a mistake in their overall strategy, they remained silent."It was likely that the decision not to routinely test NHS and care home staff led to an increase in infections and deaths in the early stages of the pandemic, he added. Hospitals and care homes In the first six months of Covid, there was a frantic drive to increase testing for the disease. Matt Hancock set a target of 100,000 tests a day by the end of April 2020 in this time it had become clear to scientists across the world that Covid could be spread by people who had not developed any symptoms of the disease, such as a cough or Paul Nurse, Sir Peter Ratcliffe and their colleague Dr Sam Barrell wrote to Mr Hancock on 14 April 2020 saying they had "grave concerns" about "asymptomatic transmission" between healthcare staff and patients."We advise you that all NHS trusts and healthcare providers should be required to set up surveillance systems for the regular testing of all healthcare workers and patients with immediate effect," the letter scientists received a response on 6 July 2020, signed by a junior official in the Department of Health. That reply did not directly address the subject of healthcare workers, instead stating that testing was a "key part" of the government's strategy and that capacity was being "rapidly expanded". Lighthouse labs The Frances Crick Institute, headquartered in north London, is one of the largest biomedical research centres in the Covid hit, a team of 300 volunteers started using the organisation's laboratory space and equipment to process Covid tests for dozens of hospitals, GP surgeries and care homes in the local had the capacity to carry out 4,000 tests a day and to increase that to 10,000 with more funding, according to Prof March 2020, he wrote to the government offering to help with the national testing ministers decided to set up a network of giant privately-run Lighthouse his evidence, Prof Nurse accepted that the larger sites were needed, but said "insufficient attention" was paid to universities and other publicly-funded institutions, which could have more quickly processed tests for healthcare sixth part of the Covid inquiry, which looks at the performance of test, trace and quarantine systems across the UK, runs until the end of May.
