Latest news with #TheNYT
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Science
- Indian Express
#arseniclife: Story of a viral study & a contentious retraction
Fifteen years ago, a group of scientists made the bold claim of having discovered a microorganism that could survive using chemistry different from any known life-form. On Thursday, the journal Science, where these findings were reported, formally retracted the 2010 paper, saying it was fundamentally flawed. While there is broad scientific consensus against the study's findings, the retraction nonetheless is contentious, and potentially opens a pandora's box for academic publishing. Living beings typically rely on a number of common elements, including carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur, to build biomolecules such as DNA, proteins and lipids. In 2009, researchers collected a microbe from Mono Lake, a salty and alkaline body of water in California. In the lab, they claimed to have found that this microbe could replace phosphorus with arsenic, an element that is typically toxic. Phosphorus is essential to the structure of DNA and RNA and to the function of the energy-transporter molecule ATP. If confirmed, the discovery would change scientists' fundamental conceptions about life on Earth, and possibly beyond. Naturally, the study received a lot of attention, and travelled well beyond the typical terrain of academic conferences and scientific journals. Many scientists around the world expressed serious concerns with the study's methodology and conclusions. Most notably, the discovery was picked up by the Internet. On the then nascent Twitter, it trended with the hashtag #arseniclife. The study's authors also faced extreme scrutiny into their personal lives. Science has not accused the paper's authors of misconduct or fraud, and instead cited its latest standards for retractions, which allow it to take down a study based on 'errors' by the researchers. The decision was made after The New York Times last year reached out to Science for a comment on about the legacy of the #arseniclife affair. That inquiry 'convinced us that this saga wasn't over, that unless we wanted to keep talking about it forever, we probably ought to do some things to try to wind it down,' Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science since 2019, told The NYT. 'And so that's when I started talking to the authors about retracting.' But the paper's authors disagree with the decision. Their defenders, including officials at NASA, which helped fund the original research, say the move is outside the norms of what usually leads to the striking down of a published paper. Ariel Anbar, a geochemist at Arizona State University and one of the paper's authors, has said that the data itself is not flawed, and if disputes about 'data interpretation' were acceptable standards for retraction, 'you'd have to retract half the literature'. As justification for the retraction, the Science statement cites the technical objections published alongside the paper, and failed replications of the findings in 2012. But the original paper's authors have responded to the objections and criticised replication experiments. Anbar has accused Science of not providing any 'reasonable explanation' for the retraction. Ivan Oransky, a specialist in academic publishing, told Nature that this retraction raises an interesting question. There are plenty of debunked papers in the literature that could be retracted, he says. Will other publishers get on board with trying to clean up the scientific record? And if so, 'where do you start?' INPUTS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES
NDTV
11-07-2025
- Health
- NDTV
"Children Had Missing Hands, Feet, Knees": British Doctor Recalls Mass Shooting In Gaza
A British doctor volunteering in Gaza says she witnessed dozens of Palestinians arriving dead or seriously wounded after a mass shooting near an aid distribution site. The "volume and intensity" of injuries was unlike anything she had seen in her 30-year medical career, Victoria Rose, a 53-year-old senior plastic surgeon from London's Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, said. She was nearing the end of a 21-day volunteer mission in Gaza on June 1 when she heard about a mass shooting near an aid site. She rushed to Nasser Hospital, the last major functioning hospital in southern Gaza, where she was based. "There were ambulances coming in, just bringing dead people, and then there were donkey-drawn carts bringing dead people," Ms Rose said in an interview from London. "By about 10 o'clock, we had 20 or so dead bodies, and then easily a hundred or so gunshot wounds," she told The NYT. Ms Rose travelled to Gaza with the British charity Ideals, which sends medical professionals to crisis zones. She has volunteered in Gaza three times over the past 14 months and said the number and severity of injuries have only worsened. "They weren't shrapnel wounds anymore, bits of them had been blown off," she said. "Children were coming in with knees missing and feet missing and hands missing." According to the Gaza Health Ministry, since June 1, more than 700 Palestinians have been killed and around 5,000 injured, near food distribution sites. The shootings occurred under a new aid mechanism led by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a programme backed by American contractors and coordinated with Israeli forces. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which operates a field hospital in Rafah, said it had treated more than 2,200 weapon-wounded patients in that period and recorded 200 deaths. "The scale and frequency of these incidents are without precedent," the organisation said. Israel and GHF have rejected the casualty numbers reported by the Gaza Health Ministry but have not released alternative figures. GHF said in a statement it "rejects that an incident took place at or in the immediate vicinity of a GHF distribution site" on June 1 and denied that any fatalities or injuries had occurred during its operations. Ms Rose said all of the patients she treated on June 1 told her they had been shot by guards near the distribution point. Some said they were fleeing when shot. Their wounds, mostly bullet injuries to the legs, torsos, and abdomens, were consistent with their accounts, she said. "We're in that point where people have been reduced to such a level of deprivation that they're prepared to die for a bagful of rice and a bit of pasta," she said. Dr Rose specialises in breast reconstruction and trauma care but said nothing in her 30-year career prepared her for the scale of suffering in Gaza. In May, she treated a three-month-old baby with severe burns from a bomb blast. "I've not seen this volume and this intensity before," she said. On her last mission, she treated an average of 10 patients a day, with around 60 per cent under the age of 15. She said malnutrition and antibiotic shortages worsened patient outcomes. "We were unable to prevent infection, and then unable to treat infection." The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has deepened since Israel's brutal war began following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack. More than 57,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed in airstrikes and bombings by the Israeli forces. Victoria Rose left Gaza on June 3. She said she still thinks about the children who did not survive and the colleagues she left behind.
Indian Express
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
What to know about US Supreme Court order on third-country deportations
The US Supreme Court on Monday (June 23) ruled that President Donald Trump could resume deportations of illegal migrants to countries that are not their homelands, that is, to third countries. In the process, it blocked a lower court order that required the government to give the deportees a 'meaningful opportunity' to establish the risk of torture they faced as a result. The apex court's 6-3 verdict marks the latest in the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration. According to a BBC report, the case concerns eight migrants from Myanmar, South Sudan, Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam, described by the Trump administration as 'the worst of the worst.' US courts had convicted all men of violent crimes, with most of them having either completed or nearing the end of their sentences. The government was legally authorised to deport them, according to a report in The New York Times. The group was initially held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centre in Texas on May 17, with the understanding that they would be deported to their respective home countries. Two days later, the administration informed the men of their intent to deport the group to South Africa and sought their signed acknowledgement, which all eight denied, The NYT reported. An emergency lawsuit was brought before Boston federal judge Brian Murphy the same day. He held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had given the men less than 24 hours' notice before they were deported, violating a court order from April on granting such migrants a 'meaningful opportunity' to explain a reasonable fear of torture. He also held that if the government found that they had failed to demonstrate such a fear, they would be allowed 'a minimum of 15 days' to challenge the legality of the deportations in court. According to The NYT report, the administration proceeded with its plan but decided to send the men to South Sudan instead on May 20. It is unclear if an agreement has been signed between the government for the same. The men travelled from Texas to Ireland before reaching South Sudan. On May 21, Judge Murphy said the Trump administration had violated his order barring deportations without allowing people time to object to their transfer to the African nation. The whereabouts of the group remained unknown until Trump took to social media the next day to post, 'EIGHT of the most violent criminals on Earth remain in Djibouti.' What did the Supreme Court ruling say? Monday's 6-3 ruling allows the government to potentially deport the men, currently being detained at a US naval base in Djibouti, to South Sudan, as planned. While the court did not describe its rationale in the brief order, the three liberal judges on the bench issued a lengthy dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court ruling exposes 'thousands to the risk of torture or death', while giving the Trump administration a free rein. She also referenced a separate case from April in which the administration decided to fly out four non-citizens to Guantanamo Bay, and from there to El Salvador, 'in violation of unambiguous' lower court orders. The government 'thus openly flouted two court orders,' even before it went to the Supreme Court, she wrote. 'The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,' she wrote in the dissent, also signed by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last.' This is not the first time the US has relied on other countries to take in its deportees. However, accepting countries typically have agreements with the US describing the deportation flights that can be accepted. Some countries, like China and Cuba, have refused to accept the deportation flights, while countries like Venezuela do not have diplomatic ties with the US. Others have limited the frequency of deportation flights. The NYT reported that Mexico has long been a destination to remove those who cannot be returned to their home countries. The Trump administration has pushed for countries to repatriate their own citizens, including China, Venezuela and Cuba, to ensure faster deportations to countries far away from the US. 'And the further away the better, so they can't come back across the border,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during an April cabinet meeting, according to an NPR report. The Trump administration is also in court over its deportation of Venezuelans whom it had described as dangerous gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The case has highlighted how the US has abandoned the principle of 'non-refoulement', a longstanding principle of international law and domestic policy that prevents sending people to places where they would be at risk of torture and other persecution. This can also include the home countries of refugees. It also aligns with other steps taken by the administration, such as an affidavit by Rubio wherein he declared the move to send migrants to South Sudan and Libya as part of a 'diplomatic push' to improve relations, according to a NYT report. Similarly, a statement by the US State Department noted that they would no longer indicate in annual human rights reports whether a nation had violated its obligations not to send anyone 'to a country where they would face torture or persecution.' It justified this, saying it would now focus the reports on 'human rights issues themselves rather than a laundry list of politically biased demands and assertions.' Lawyers for the eight deportees have sought to highlight the risk posed by repatriating the deportees in South Sudan, given its political instability and instances of violence after its independence from Sudan in 2011. More recently, political tensions in the country have threatened to escalate into another civil war. The US was the leading international donor to South Sudan, providing over $993 million in humanitarian assistance in FY 2022, the State Department said in a 2023 report. The report also noted the internal displacement of large sections of the population 'due to sub-national violence and natural disasters'. In 2022, an estimated 8.9 million South Sudanese (about 70 per cent of the country's population) needed some type of humanitarian assistance, with up to eight million facing crisis or worse levels of acute food insecurity, making South Sudan one of the most food-insecure countries in the world. The move also draws a comparison with the British Conservative government's 2022 deal with Rwanda to transfer asylum-seekers from the UK to the African nation. The arrangement transferred the responsibility of asylum-seekers to the national Rwandan system to consider their need for international protection. Regardless of their refugee or humanitarian status, people transferred to Rwanda would remain there, without the possibility of returning to the UK.
NDTV
24-06-2025
- Science
- NDTV
How Israel And US Use Missile Defence Systems. Why They Are Not Foolproof
The ongoing aerial conflict between Iran and Israel has put light on the complex reality of the missile defence system, a technological feat that is both astonishing and limited. On June 23, Iranian forces launched missiles at an American base in Qatar, retaliating against US strikes on nuclear facilities. According to two Pentagon officials, American anti-missile systems managed to shoot down the incoming rockets. Similarly, Israel's highly acclaimed air defence network has been busy countering a barrage of ballistic missiles from Iran. While most were neutralised, some slipped through. Follow live updates here Why Is It Hard To Stop Ballistic Missiles? Once a missile is launched, it follows a high-arching trajectory, leaving the atmosphere before descending at incredible speeds. As soon as the launch occurs, satellites have just seconds to detect the heat plume from the rocket's engines. Ground-based radars then attempt to track its flight path and predict its impact point. Defensive systems must react within moments. An interceptor, a missile meant to destroy incoming threats, is fired, aiming to collide with the missile mid-flight. But this is not simple. Long-range interceptors engage targets in space, where both the enemy missile and the interceptor are travelling at supersonic speeds and are separated by vast distances, The NYT reported. Once in space, the missiles shed their boosters and continue as small, fast-moving vehicles, making the interception equivalent to "hitting a bullet with another bullet." Even more complicated is the fact that modern ballistic missiles, such as those used by Iran, are only about three feet wide during the space phase of their flight. They can move at a speed of roughly two miles per second. As a result, interceptors only have a fraction of a second to make course corrections. What Happens If The Missile Makes It Back Into The Atmosphere? If the long-range interceptor misses its target, there's very little time left. Upper-atmosphere systems like Israel's Arrow 2 or the American THAAD serve as a second line of defence. These interceptors must launch and strike within seconds, a race against gravity and time. If the missile manages to get closer to its target, last-resort systems such as the US-made Patriot come into play. These short-range interceptors, with a reach of about 12 miles, are effective but can only protect very limited areas. Why Can't Missile Defence Guarantee Safety? Even after years of work and huge investments, missile defence systems are far from perfect. Israel, known to have one of the most advanced systems in the world, has also faced difficulties in recent weeks. Many Iranian missiles got past Israeli interceptors, leading to civilian casualties and infrastructural damage. The problem isn't just about the accuracy of interception but also the availability of interceptors. Supplies are finite. In the words of defence analysts cited by The New York Times, missile defence remains a critical shield but not an impenetrable one.
NDTV
18-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Explained: How Trump Took A U-Turn On Iran After Israeli Pressure
In his inaugural address in January 2025, US President Donald Trump made a promise: "Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable." As of June 18, 2025, America is closer than ever to entangling itself in West Asia, a region Trump often warned and criticised his predecessors' policies for. Driven by mounting pressure from Israel and his doubts about Iran's intentions, Trump on Monday asked Tehran for " unconditional surrender." By late May, US intelligence assessed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was preparing for a major strike on Iran's nuclear sites, possibly without American support. Netanyahu, who, for decades, pushed for action before Iran reached nuclear breakout capability, didn't get the backing from past US presidents, including Trump during his first term. They urged restraint. Though Trump initially backed diplomacy and rejected Netanyahu's call for a joint strike in April, tensions escalated. The Intelligence showed Netanyahu was serious. Trump now faced a tough choice: risk a new war or let Israel act alone with dangerous fallout. Frustration grew within the White House as Iran dragged its feet in negotiations. Despite intelligence assessments that Iran wasn't building a bomb, Trump began to distrust Tehran, echoing his past disappointment with Russia during the Ukraine talks. In the end, Trump chose a middle ground. He quietly backed Israel with intelligence support and increased pressure on Iran. While the US kept its distance during Israel's early June strikes, Trump's tone shifted once Israeli attacks began showing success. Now, Trump is reportedly considering sending American aircraft to assist Israeli combat jets and even targeting deeply buried nuclear facilities like Fordow with bunker-busting bombs. Despite Trump and Netanyahu's public displays of camaraderie, there has always been mutual suspicion. Trump once confided to an ally that Netanyahu was "trying to drag [him] into another Middle East war", the very kind he vowed to avoid during his re-election campaign, The NYT reported. But as intelligence showed Israeli ground forces were already inside Iran, and with Netanyahu adamant during a phone call on June 9 that the mission was moving forward, Trump told aides, "I think we might have to help him." Behind the scenes, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked to present Trump with clear military options. CIA Director John Ratcliffe sped up intelligence efforts to keep pace with Israel. Trump faced pressure from a divided Republican base, some opposed foreign wars, while others demanded full support for Israel. Unlike his first term's hawkish team, his current advisers mostly aligned with his instincts. In February, Netanyahu warned Trump that Iran was "days away" from having enough enriched uranium and urged immediate action before Iran could rebuild its defences. He even gave Trump a "disturbing" gift, weaponised pagers once used against Hezbollah, according to The Guardian. Still, Trump initially pursued diplomacy, sending a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in March, proposing peace. "I don't want war. I don't want to blow you off the map. I want a deal," Trump reportedly wrote, as per Ynet News. The breakthrough never came. In April, backchannel talks, led by Witkoff and Michael Anton of the State Department, with Iran began in Oman. By May end, the US presented a proposal to Tehran: Iran would end uranium enrichment, and a regional nuclear energy consortium would be created with the US, Iran, and Gulf states. Trump wanted diplomacy but believed military options would help in talks. The Pentagon already had strike plans, but Trump asked to refine them with Israel. By February, Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla had three main options prepared: help Israel with refuelling and intelligence, joint US-Israel strikes, or a US-led mission. A fourth option involving Israeli commandos was dropped quickly. In April, Israeli PM Netanyahu visited Trump and asked for a bunker-buster bomb to hit Iran's Fordow site. Trump said no, still hoping for a deal. But Israel moved ahead, worried about Iran's growing missile stockpile. On June 4, Iran's leader rejected the US offer. By Thursday, there was no sign of a deal. Trump knew the Israeli strike was about to begin. He told one associate, "I don't know about Bibi," adding that he warned Netanyahu against the attack. Trump watched the strikes unfold from the Situation Room, still open to a deal earlier that day. The first official response came from Marco Rubio, who distanced the US from the strikes. But as the media, especially Fox News, praised Israel's precision, Trump's view shifted. On Friday, he started suggesting he'd had a bigger role in the attacks than people knew. He even considered giving Israel the bunker-busting bombs. Will he get America directly involved in the conflict? The next few days may tell.
