Science in Society Review Autumn 2020 Edition by The Triple Helix at UChicago

SCIENCE IN CRISIS

SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEW A PRODUCTION OF THE TRIPLE HELIX AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

WINTER 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Public Trust in Science During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Dangers of a Partisan Divide Ayushi Hegde

8 12 16

The Expansion of Monoculture Farming and its Negative Impacts: Is There Hope? Alena Spreitzer

In the fight against climate change, we neglect our most vulnerable Corinne Stonebraker

The Journey to Mars Starts Here on Earth Joalda Morancy

COVID-19 Exacerbates Already Flawed Research Publications Annagh Devitt

COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Communities of Color: Implications for Vaccine Development and Distribution Annie Qiao The Future of a CatastropheRidden Nuclear Energy Nikhil Kumar

The Potential Benefits of Meditation During the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis Tara Chugh Scientific Adaptability in Times of Crises: How Research Reacts to Disease Outbreaks Eduardo Gabriel Gonzalez Santiago

The Fatal Threat of COVID-19 Misinformation through Social Media Megan Lee

About The Triple Helix Dear Reader, It is with great excitement that we bring to you the 2021 Winter Issue of The Science in Society Review. A new year has introduced new directions to consider in some of the most pressing scientific issues and newest innovations on the rise in society. Here at The Triple Helix, we understand the need to investigate these questions in an integrative manner. In this vein, our writers, aided by a strong support system of undergraduate editors and the executive board team, strive to incorporate the perspectives of multiple fields in their articles. We at The Triple Helix at UChicago continue to proudly uphold our mission of exploring the interdisciplinary nature of the sciences and how they shape our world through the work we present to you. We are honored to encourage our future leaders in their rigorous exploration of the key challenges in society today. It is our hope that the articles presented herein will stimulate and challenge you to join our dialogue. And so, I leave you with this: How do you see science in society? Emily Guernsey President, The Triple Helix UChicago uchicago.president@thetriplehelix.org

Science in society review

Letter from the Editor Dear Reader, Our second pandemic issue of Science and Society Review, appropriately themed “Science in Crisis,” follows the evolving, and often tenuous, dynamics between scientists, politicians, and citizens. Specifically, these relationships have been shaped and tested by the daily struggles of a global pandemic, institutional racism, and socioeconomic disparities in the United States. The way that we prioritize academia, research, and one another has been undeniably shaken and put under scrutiny within these past nine months. From the indiscriminate nature of COVID-19 to its disproportionate impact on minorities. From the psychological impact of meditation to the unrelenting evolution of research, public response, and social media, this issue of SISR analyzes how we as a society confront obstacles like COVID-19 and beyond. These articles posit a narrative of continual growth and the possibility of a future in which we fail or succeed to adapt to our situation. They inspect what we have learned from crises in the past and present as well as what we, as scientists and citizens, must commit ourselves to in the future. As successfully as we have developed solutions to the daily problems we face, new problems fatefully arise, highlighting the nuance of each old problem we’ve solved and every new problem we uncover. Sincerely, Caroline Kim and Allison Gentry Editors-in-Chief, The Science in Society Review

Winter 2021

Public Trust in Science During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Dangers of a Partisan Divide Ayushi Hegde

n February 12, 2020, Pew Research published an article commemorating the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Titled “Key findings about Americans’ confidence in science and their views on scientists’ role in society,” the piece was not intended to be groundbreaking. It summarized a series of surveys that spanned nearly four years, taken by the Fact Tank in an ongoing effort to study long-term trends in Americans’ perceptions of the scientific community. Yet its major findings—that public trust in scientists is often higher for ‘those on the left,’ and that ‘many cite lack of public understanding as a problem for science coverage’—could not have felt timelier. When the report was released in mid-February, the outbreak that would become the COVID-19 pandemic was in its earliest stages. The U.S. had reported its first case on January 20 and its first death on

February 6 [2]. In the months that followed, as the nation began a precipitous climb to its initial peak, questions about the role of science in American life took on an increasingly urgent tone. Images of Americans flouting social distancing guidelines— beaches packed with partying college students, a biotechnology conference in Boston and a funeral in Georgia later acknowledged as a superspreader event—were shared by news organizations and on social media [3]. Their underlying message was clear: at least in the United States, the seriousness of the pandemic was a product of Americans’ unwillingness to slow its spread. While the images shared on social media weren’t wholly representative of Americans’ attitudes toward COVID-19, their implications were not unfounded. Data collected by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health during the early months

Beachgoers photographed in Clearwater, Florida on March 17, 2020 [4].

Science in society review

“

i n u

of the pandemic indicated that nearly a quarter of Americans were skeptical of social distancing guidelines—still a minority, but one significant enough to explain the outbreak’s persistent spread [5]. More importantly, the study highlighted the critical role that science was beginning to play in the pandemic. While the media’s depiction of the outbreak implied a broader disregard for authority as Americans flouted in the United States, the serious- government-issued orders, ness of the pandemic was a prod- stay-at-home the Johns Hopkins uct of Americans’ unwillingness study pointed more to slow its spread. directly to an eroding trust between Americans and their scientists. Its implication—that Americans no longer trusted scientific advice—was supported by the country’s polarized reception of Dr. Anthony Fauci, as well as the increasingly vocal resistance to masks and social distancing in shared spaces.

“

Paradoxically, the Pew Research report released in early February seemed to imply the opposite about Americans’ trust in science. Data from Pew’s 2019 survey indicated that 86 percent of Americans reported at least a ‘fair amount’ of confidence in scientists to act in the public interest [6]. The large majority of those surveyed expressed positive views towards medical doctors and medical researchers, suggesting that overwhelmingly, Americans’ relationship to the scientific community appeared to be based on trust. Given Americans’ apparent disregard for scientific advice during the pandemic, it is difficult to account for the kind of broad faith reported by Pew. The report did not offer an explanation for its findings about the public’s confidence in scientists, nor did it address the issue’s relevance to current events. However, the overwhelmingly positive response to the 2019 survey included in the report—which indicated that a majority of the public agreed unambiguously on the importance of science—suggests that Americans pre-pandemic were united by their trust in scientists. This shared faith may have served as a point of national pride, stemming from broader beliefs in innovation and ingenuity with historical underpinnings. In that case, Americans’ faith in scientists would have pre-existed COVID-19.

Winter 2021

This interpretation breaks down when we view the pre-2019 data from another angle: how can a national value become so apparently fragile in the face of a global pandemic, when the need for trust in the scientific community is greater than ever? Data shows that Americans’ trust in their scientific leaders has remained roughly stable over the past few decades; close to 40 percent of adults consistently claimed to have a ‘great deal’ of confidence in scientists between 1973 and 2018, apart from minor fluctuations [7]. Yet the same small-scale changes become starker when we include Americans expressing ‘a fair amount’ of confidence in the scientific community. Combined with those who claim a ‘great deal,’ Pew reports that the number of positive responses to their survey jumped from 76 percent to 86 percent in the three years after 2016 alone [8]. The rapid rise suggests that Americans’ trust in scientists has been driven up by recent events, whether globally or in response to changes closer to home. While global changes to how we interact with science may have influenced Americans’ confidence in the scientific community, its more immediate underpinnings are political. Tensions between the scientific community and the president grew increasingly fraught in the years following the 2016 election, the same year that Americans’ trust in science began its rise. Topics like climate change, abortion, and research on embryonic stem cells—already contentious during previous presidencies—were thrown into the center of a larger debate challenging American policies and values. The result was that by 2016, America’s relationship with science was beginning to take on a To stand in solidarity with the more explicitly politscientific community is not ical tone.

“

only openly political; its message is explicitly progressive, a response to the anti-scientific rhetoric that became synonymous with the conservative platform in 2016.

This politicization of scientific issues falls short of explaining Pew’s findings on its own, but the data becomes clearer when we account for polarization. As Americans have grown divided over how (and whether) to respond to scientific issues like energy and the environment with specific policy actions, their views on science have come to reflect the coun-

try’s increasingly partisan landscape. To stand in solidarity with the scientific community is not only openly political; its message is explicitly progressive, a response to the anti-scientific rhetoric that became synonymous with the conservative platform in 2016. The same intense partisanization could explain Pew’s findings. Public confidence in the scientific community may be driven by liberals attempting to defend it from perceived institutional threats, suggesting that the issue breaks down along party lines.

ican puts it: “Is public trust in science enough to drive actions at scale sufficient to effectively combat a nationwide emergency like that of a pandemic? The answer seems to be ‘no’” [10]. Faith cannot replace funding or compliance with scientific recommendations, in the same way that Democrats’ show of solidarity cannot combat the harsh reality facing them: America’s flagrant disregard for social distancing guidelines has led to some of the highest infection rates, case numbers, and death tolls in the world.

In fact, the prediction is confirmed in one of Pew’s later reports—the first to address science’s role in the COVID-19 pandemic, released more than two months after the initial article in February. While the number of Americans with a great deal of confidence in the scientific community had risen since the start of the outbreak, the increase was almost entirely attributed to Democrats. 53 percent of left-leaning Americans strongly trust their scientists, up from 37 percent more than a year ago; for Republicans, that number has remained roughly constant at around 32 percent. [8] Questions about the effectiveness of social distancing; the importance of available testing; and whether scientists should play an active role in policy debates fall similarly along party lines, with Democrats responding to all three questions more positively than Republicans.

That conclusion may seem pessimistic. But with questions about a potential vaccine—a real,

Pew’s findings raise an important point about the partisan nature of our scientific trust: it leaves America in a position that is not only unstable, but incredibly dangerous. And the blame falls on more than Republicans. On its own, the liberal view is difficult to find fault with; as a recent Wired article puts it, “This should come as a relief. It’s far better that our faith in science should persist in spite of everything than that it should collapse and wallow in the gutter” [9]. At the same time, it reduces a real field—one with trained professionals working towards concrete Data published in goals—to a politicized ablate May, indistraction. Declaring our cating that public trust in scientists is easy; trust in the scienit is harder to offer them tific community the kind of tangible supbreaks down along port that would affirm their party lines [8]. work. As Scientific Amer-

Science in society review

tangible product of funded scientific work, more than an attestation of progressivism or economic strength—becoming fast politicized, a pessimistic conclusion might be the right one. As we lift ourselves out of a pandemic of historic importance, it is essential that we begin to question the nature of our faith in scientific institutions—not only for their sake, but for our own.

6. Funk, Cary, et al. “Trust and Mistrust in Americans’ Views of Scientific Experts.” Pew Research Center Science & Society, Pew Research Center, 2 Aug. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-ofscientific-experts/. 7. Funk, Cary, and Brian Kennedy. “Public Confidence in Scientists Has Remained Stable for Decades.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 27 Aug. 2020, www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2020/08/27/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/. 8. Funk, Cary, et al. “Trust in Medical Scientists Has Grown in U.S., but Mainly Among Democrats.” Pew Research Center Science & Society, Pew Research Center, 21 May 2020, www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/05/21/trust-in-medical-scientistshas-grown-in-u-s-but-mainly-among-democrats/.

References 1. Funk, Cary. “Key Findings about Americans’ Confidence in Science and Their Views on Scientists’ Role in Society.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 12 Feb. 2020, www. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-aboutamericans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/. 2. Susie Neilson, Aylin Woodward. “A Comprehensive Timeline of the Coronavirus Pandemic at 9 Months, from China’s First Case to the Present.” Business Insider, 29 Sept. 2020, www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-pandemic-timeline-history-major-events-2020-3. 3. Aschwanden, Christie. “How ‘Superspreading’ Events Drive Most COVID-19 Spread.” Scientific American, 23 June 2020, www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-superspreadingevents-drive-most-covid-19-spread1/. 4. Nesius, Steve. “People Crowd the Beach, While Other Jurisdictions Had Already Closed Theirs in Efforts to Combat the Spread of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in Clearwater, Florida, U.S. March 17, 2020.” U.S. News, 18 Mar. 2020, www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-03-18/nocoronavirus-party-us-spring-break-destinations-crack-downon-revelers. 5. Rogers, Lindsay Smith, and JH Bloomberg School of Public Health. “Trust in Science and COVID-19.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 17 June 2020, www.jhsph. edu/covid-19/articles/trust-in-science-and-covid-19.html.

Winter 2021

9. Engber, Daniel. “No, Public Trust in Scientific Institutions Has Not Eroded.” Wired, 2 Sept. 2020, www.wired.com/story/ no-public-trust-in-scientific-institutions-has-not-eroded/. 10. Carter, Jacob. “The American Public Still Trusts Scientists, Says a New Pew Survey.” Scientific American, 29 Sept. 2020, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-american-public-stilltrusts-scientists-says-a-new-pew-survey/.

Ayushi Hegde is a third-year at the University of Chicago. She is currently working towards a double major in French and Biology, a choice influenced by her passion for languages, literature and research. Outside of SISR, Ayushi is a member of SASA and Chicago Raas, a competitive team on campus that practices traditional dance from the Indian state Gujarat. She also works closely with Student Health and Counseling as a member of The Body Positive, a group that aims to promote positive body image, awareness of eating disorders and inclusivity on campus. In her free time, she loves to pet dogs, eat desserts and go on long runs.

The Expansion of Monoculture Farming and its Negative Impacts: Is There Hope? Alena Spreitzer

f you walk into a grocery store in the U.S. today, you may see aisles filled with fresh produce. Despite this access, the population shopping in cities is largely disconnected from the agricultural systems that help to sustain their lives. Distanced from the food production process, it can be difficult to understand the magnitude of these operations and the problems large-scale farming can cause.

The U.S.’s primary agricultural method is monoculture farming, a system best described as the planting of a single species of crop on the same land year after year. This method began to increase in popularity in 1910, and it reduced the time and effort required to produce crops [3]. The resulting production increase helped support the growing U.S. population. While population growth has slowed to around 1%, monoculture farming is still the predominant technique for feeding the 329 million people residing in the U.S. today [4]. In fact, 442 million acres are used for monoculture farming, which is 1/5 of the U.S.’s total land area [5].

Over the last fifty years, population growth has put immense pressure on our agricultural systems to constantly expand. Since 1950, the human population has increased by 4 billion [1]. While the population has continued to grow exponenThough monocultures are effectially, our food production rate tive at mass-producing a single has begun to slow [2]. This 20th crop, this farming method has century trend created concerns negative impacts on the enviabout the sustainability of our ronment. When only a single food systems and led many scicrop is grown on a given piece entists to develop innovations, of land, the soil has difficulty resuch as monoculture farming, taining the proper mineral conto maximize produccentration. Over time, the soil tion. Though the exis depleted of its nutrients and pansion of these techbecomes less suited for farming. niques has resulted in For example, most crops require an increase of our agsoil rich in ricultural productive shopping in cities is n i t r o g e n capacity, alleviating in order the problem of how largely disconnected to grow. to feed our large pop- from the agricultur- H o w e v e r , ulation, it has created ceral systems that help only a new environmental tain plants, to sustain their lives. such as soycrisis of its own.

“

beans, are able to fix nitrogen in the soil to replenish the stores of nitrogen. If a farm routinely plants only corn, which cannot fix nitrogen, the soil will eventually be depleted of nitrogen and nothing will be able to successfully grow [6]. In this way, monoculture farming methods can render land barren and unusable for agriculture, leading to a demand for increased farmland. Since arable land is finite, this decreases the longevity of the monoculture While population farming techgrowth has slowed nique.

“

to around 1%, monoculture farming is still the predominant technique for feeding the 329 million people residing in the U.S. today [4].

A d d i t i o n a l l y, monoculture plots require more pesticides and herbicides than a mixed culture plot does. When only one crop is grown in a given area, pests can flourish because of the bountiful food and shelter surrounding them; they thrive in the “resource-dense” setting, wreaking havoc on the crops [7]. As a result, there is a constant need to use pesticides. However, despite increases in pesticide application, there has still been a reduction in crop yield of, on average, 20-30% per year due to pests [8]. This trend demonstrates how monoculture farming not only has a negative

Science in society review

The application of pesticides to a field of crops.

Courtesy of Sagacious News Network

impact on the land quality but also on crop yield, a point of concern as the technique was developed explicitly to increase production due to population growth. With a large population to sustain, it is worth considering alternatives to monoculture farming that may decrease our

reliance on this unsustainable practice. For example, intercropping, a technique in which multiple crops are interspersed in the same area, helps prevent pest invasions because it increases the distance between each crop of preference and the pest populations are unlikely to proliferate across the different crops [7]. Crop rotation, the

“

monoculture farming methods can render land barren and unusable for agriculture, leading to a demand for increased farmland.

Courtesy of Dag Endresen

Winter 2021

A typical monoculture field. This field in particular is a wheat farming plot in Lund, Sweden.

cycling of various crop varieties throughout the growing season, can also reduce the need for herbicides and pesticides by improving soil health [9].

for 21% of this 31% [12]. Being mindful of expiration dates and avoiding over-buying are two strategies that can help reduce this waste.

As urbanization continues in the U.S. and globally, there is also increased interest in developing agInnovative farming rt ei cc hunl ti qu ur ea sl techniques such as tailored to crop rotation, inter- urban spaces. These techcropping, and green- niques focus house agriculture are on applying re e n h o u s e important to explore, gtechnologies particularly, as the to maximize global population p r o d u c t i o n in small, incontinues to grow. door spaces, a method that contrasts sharply with monoculture farming’s need for wide tracts of land [10]. However, the question of how to scale these solutions in order to support the size of the U.S. population remains to be answered.

Though the U.S. remains reliant on monoculture farming, there are a number of alternative approaches emerging. Innovative farming techniques such as crop rotation, intercropping, and greenhouse agriculture are

“

Even without altering modes of production, it is possible to improve the sustainability of our food system through reduction of food waste. In the U.S., 3040% of the food supply is wasted [11]. Often this waste occurs before the food even arrives at the grocery store, but consumers also play a role in the food waste problem. In 2010, 31% of the food supply at the retailer and consumer levels An example of was wasted, strip interand poor cropping with managebroomcorn ment by the and bush consumer beans [19]. a c c o u nt e d

important to explore, particularly, as the global population continues to grow. For example, countries in earlier stages of industrialization tend to have more exponential population growth rates [13], meaning that increasing food production is a key area of focus. The U.S. provides an interesting case-study of both the benefits and drawbacks of adopting monoculture farming as the predominant ag-

Courtesy of Goldlocki

An industrial greenhouse of tomato plants in the Netherlands.

Science in society review

ricultural production strategy. By reflecting on this history, we can potentially build stronger, more sustainable food systems in the future, using techniques that support our increased population while minimizing damage to the environment.

References 1. Bongaarts, John. “Human population growth and the demographic transition.” The Royal Society Publishing, 27 October 2009, https://royalsocietypublishing. org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2009.0137. Accessed October 31, 2020. 2. “Global agriculture toward 2050.” High Level Expert Forum, 2009, http:// www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/ docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf. Accessed November 22, 2020. 3. Sylvester, Kenneth. Cunfer, Geoff. “An Unremembered Diversity: Mixed Husbandry and the American Grasslands.” Agricultural History, 2009, https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2766303/. Accessed November 22, 2020. 4. Roser, Max; Ritchie, Hannah; Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban. “World Population Growth.” Our World in Data, 2013, https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth. Accessed October 31, 2020. 5. Eubanks, William S. II. “A Rotten System: Subsidizing Environmental Degradation and Poor Public Health with Our Nation’s Tax Dollars.” The United States Department of Justice. Accessed November 22, 2020. 6. Wilson, Victoria. “How the Growth of Monoculture Crops Is Destroying our Planet and Still Leaving us Hungry.” Our Green Planet, 2014, https://www. onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/ monoculture-crops-environment/#:~:text=Instead%20of%20rotating%20 different%20crops,to%20diminish%20 from%20the%20ground.&text=If%20 you%20do%20not%20rotate,depleted%20of%20this%20vital%20nutrient. Accessed November 22, 2020.

Winter 2021

7. Segoli, Moran; Rosenheim, Jay A. “Should increasing the field size of monocultural crops be expected to exacerbate pest damage?” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2012, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0167880912000242. Accessed November 22, 2020. 8. Altieri, Miguel A. “Modern Agriculture: Ecological impacts and the possibilities for truly sustainable farming.” University of California, Berkeley, http://parrottlab.uga.edu/Tropag/ CR2010/Pre-trip%20readings/Modern%20Ag%20&%20Sustainablity--Altieri.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2020. 9. Selim, Mostafa. “A Review of Advantages, Disadvantages and Challenges of Crop Rotations.” Egyptian Journals, 2019, https://journals.ekb.eg/article_24300.html. Accessed October 31, 2020. 10. Shamshiri, R et al. “Advances in greenhouse automation and controlled environment agriculture: A transition to plant factories and urban agriculture.” International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 2018, https://www. semanticscholar.org/paper/Advances-in-greenhouse-automation-and-controlled-A-Shamshiri-Kalantari/6f9a25f5c38d574157ff2e2d46503d6490417ca9. Accessed November 22, 2020.

15. Cassidy, Emily S. et al. “Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare.” Environmental Research Letters, 2013, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/pdf. Accessed November 22, 2020. 16. D’Silva, Joyce. “Factory Farming and Developing Countries.” World Farming Trust, January 2000, http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.4994&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed October 31, 2020. 17. Grubinger, Vern. “Ten Reasons to Buy Local Food.” The University of Vermont, 2010, http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/buylocal.html. Accessed November 22, 2020. 18. Larsen, Kristian; Gilliland, Jason. “A farmers’ market in a food desert: Evaluating impacts on the price and availability of healthy food.” Health & Place, 2009, https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1353829209000641. Accessed November 22, 2020. 19. Lithourgidis, A. & Dordas, Christos & Damalas, Christos & Vlachostergios, D.. (2011). Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 5. 396-410.

11. “Food Waste FAQs.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, https://www.usda. gov/foodwaste/faqs. Accessed November 22, 2020. 12. Buzby, Jean C.; Wells, Hodan F.; Hyman, Jeffrey. “The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States.” United States Department of Agriculture, 2014, https:// www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf ?v=0. Accessed November 22, 2020. 13. “Population growth (annual %).” The World Bank, https://data.worldbank. org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW. Accessed November 22, 2020. 14. Boucher, Doug. “The World’s Population Hasn’t Grown Exponentially for at Least Half a Century.” Union of Concerned Scientists, 9 April 2018, https://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/ world-population-growth-exponential. Accessed October 31, 2020.

Alena Spreitzer is a second-year student at the University of Chicago. She intends to major in Biology with a specialization in ecology and evolution. She is interested in modern agriculture, field research in phenology, and writing fiction and nonfiction. Alena can most frequently be found reading, losing her voice, or forcing friends to watch scary eel videos with her on her dorm room floor.

In the fight against climate change, we neglect our most vulnerable Corinne Stonebraker

s wildfires ravage the western United States and erosion and flooding plague coastal areas throughout the south and east, climate change has become an even more salient issue in contemporary medical, environmental, and political discourse. The environmental impacts of global warming and climate change receive a huge amount of attention, however, much of this attention is limited to a macroscopic level [1]. Public discourse and national conversation often centers around global trends and widespread consequences, but the reality is that climate The individuals who are change most most negatively affect- directly burdens specific ed by climate change are c o m mu n i t i e s often part of low-in- [2]. Low-income communities that come, elderly, Indigenous, are already dispro- and commuportionately neglect- nities of color bear the brunt ed by lawmakers, gov- of the environernment officials, and mental fallout the healthcare system. [3]. The city of Chicago is a microcosm of this issue, where the most vulnerable communities face financial hardship, deteriorating health, and potential displacement due to climate change and environmental injustices. The general public often looks to national policymakers to avert the course of the rapidly worsening climate, but state and local officials are often more directly involved in the legislation that informs how climate change and pollution directly affect their constituents [4].

“

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outlines two main ways that climate can impact society: 1) vulnerability and equity, and 2)

economic activities and services [3]. Vulnerability and equity describe how climate change can affect certain groups of people more than others. The individuals who are most negatively affected by climate change are often part of low-income communities that are already disproportionately neglected by lawmakers, government officials, and the healthcare system. These communities have seen a massive decrease in environmental and health quality over the last decade; yet, local, state, and national government officials often fail to hold accountable the entities responsible for these decreases [5]. The variation in the impact of climate change among different communities is primarily due to communities’ differences in residential location and in their abilities to cope with a changing climate. For example, urban areas often see increased sensitivity to heatwaves, since metropolitan infrastructure absorbs more heat during the day than suburban or rural infrastructure. Consequently, the excessive heat is exacerbated for residents of cities, particularly those who live in crowded, poorly ventilated housing [6]. How e v e r, not everyone in these urban areas is targeted equally, as low-income residents fare the worst; they lack the financial means to deal with high tempera-

Science in society review

“

Cour

tures, increasing energy costs, and pollution [7]. For instance, since early 2020, the United States has been battling the COVID-19 pandemic, a highly contagious respiratory illness. In April, when many cities saw peak numbers of daily cases, the Hilco Redevelopment Partners demolished a smokestack at a defunct power plant in Little Villower-income res- lage, a neighborhood on the Southwest Side of Chicago [8]. Almost idents lack the re- 100 years of built-up coal dust was sources to protect released into the air, and images of the six-block wide dust cloud quickthemselves from ly went viral amid public outcry. In the harmful ac- addition to criticism over the lack of tions of politicians. precautions taken during the demolition, Chicagoans slammed Hilco and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for allowing the demolition to take place during a respiratory pandemic [9]. Little Village, which had the highest proportion of COVID-19 cases of any neighborhood in Illinois at the time of the demolition, is a predominantly Latinx, low-income neighborhood [10]. Many of its residents are essential, blue-collar workers who live in crowded housing and often lack health insurance, which makes it difficult to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic and industrial pollution [10].

“

Furthermore, lower-income residents lack the resources to protect themselves from the harmful actions of polCourtesy of Maxwell Evans/Block Club Chicago (January 2020) iticians. For instance, many politicians have been implicated in plans to move polluting commercial plants to low-income South Side communities. The MAT Asphalt Plant, located in the McKinley Park neighborhood on the Southwest Side, sits directly across from the 72acre park that is

Winter 2021

the namesake of this neighborhood [11]. The representative of McKinley Park, 12th Ward Alderman George Cardenas, is the chair of the City Council’s Health and Environmental Protection Committee. Alderman Cardenas accepted donations from the Tadin family, the owners of MAT Asphalt, and advocated for the opening of the plant in 2017 [11]. Environmental activists cite this injustice as illustrative of a larger problem: local politicians forego the best interests of their constituents in favor of financial gain. The MAT Asphalt Plant is just one example of many industrial facilities that exist on the South Side. General Iron plans to move their scrap metal recycling plant from the wealthy, primarily white neighborhood of Lincoln Park to the low-income, largely Latinx Southeast Side [12]. This move was approved despite the plant’s history of frequent air quality violations and environmental pollution, as well as an explosion at the plant in May 2020, the second within five years [13]. The proposed new location will offer a reprieve from unpleasant fumes and unsightly scrap metal for Northside residents who have petitioned the city for years to have the plant removed from their neighborhood. Despite similar petitioning and outcry from Southeast Side residents and activists, the new location for the plant along the Calumet River will be only a mile away from George Washington High School, where students are already unable to hold sports practices out- As temperatures become side due to high levels of polmore extreme and unlution [12]. Damaged and unsafe infrastructure such as drainage, sewer, transportation, power, and storm protection systems are also common in low-income areas of cities, further exacerbating the hardships faced in extreme weather [6]. Even in the city of Chicago alone, there are a myriad of examples of environmental injustices against low-income residents. Lake Michigan, which borders the eastern side of Chicago, has seen rising water levels, higher temperatures, and nonstop storms, causing damage and erosion to the lakefront [14]. On the South Side of Chicago, where lakefront infrastruc-

A broken barrier wall separating Lake Michigan from the historic South Side Windsor Beach Apartments is battered by waves, flooding the building’s underground electrical room.

“

predictable, the quality and number of these crops diminish, threatening the livelihoods of many rural Americans, a group that has already been dealing with economic hardships for the better half of a century.

After the demolition of the Hilco smokestack, a cloud of dust and debris descends over a street in Little Village.

Courtesy of Maclovio (April 2020)

ture is neglected and deteriorating, there is a significant risk of flooding in residential properties. This risk is especially concerning because there are a number of waste disposal facilities located on the South Side lakefront, where flooding could potentially drain toxic waste into the water supply of residents [14]. In addition to low-income urban areas, climate change disproportionately impacts other vulnerable communities, like Indigenous populations and the elderly [3]. While the Indigenous communities that exist throughout the United States are unique, many of them share certain characteristics that magnify the effects of climate change on their communities. Many Indigenous peoples live in isolated rural or coastal regions, rely on their environment for food and natural resources, live with increased rates of chronic disease, and face numerous socioeconomic barriers to accessing healthcare [7]. All of these factors compound the negative effects of climate change on Indigenous communities, who already face centuries of discrimination in the United States. Older individuals often live in warmer, coastal regions of the country, which are directly affected by heatwaves and rising sea levels [3]. Additionally, elderly people often have comorbid conditions that are exacerbated by environmental changes, and many lack support networks to help

them cope with climate change impacts [15]. Climate change also disproportionately impacts economic activities and services in certain regions [3]. Many agricultural and tourism industries rely on proximity and access to natural resources. The dwindling of resources threatens the financial well-being of these industries’ workforces. Rural communities in the Midwest and South, whose economies depend on the production of crops like corn and wheat, rely heavily on a stable, moderate climate [3]. As temperatures become more extreme and unpredictable, the quality and number of these crops diminish, threatening the livelihoods of many rural Americans, a group that has already been dealing with economic hardships for the better half of a century. Although the tourism industry seems an unlikely target of climate change, a number of recreational activities necessitate very specific environmental and weather conditions [3]. Recreational snow activities like skiing require specific temperature and precipitation conditions. A warmer climate threatens the longevity of these activities, and ultimately, the tourism industry built around them. Similar effects can be seen in the hiking and camping tourism industries in the West, which are now threatened by a surge of wildfires, and in the coastal tourism industry, since beaches suffer from storm erosion and rising sea levels [6]. In areas

Science in society review

where the tourism industry provides the majority of employment opportunities, many working-class Americans face potential job insecurity and financial hardship. With copious amounts of evidence and a widespread consensus among scientists, it is clear that human actions are driving climate change [16]. As the issue takes center stage in global discussions of environmental policy, it is just as important to center the experiences of the communities that are directly impacted by climate change and to hold our local, state, and national politicians accountable for bringing these people justice.

References 1. Geiling, Natasha. “Why Doesn’t Anyone Know How to Talk About Global Warming?” Smithsonian Magazine, 1 May 2014, www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/talkingabout-climate-change-how-weve-failed-and-how-we-can-fixit-180951070. 2. Madrigal, Alexis. “The Local Impacts of Global Climate Change.” Wired, 4 June 2017, www.wired.com/2007/11/the-local-impac. 3. “Climate Impacts on Society.” The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Jan. 2017, www.19january2017snapshot. epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-society_.html#main-content. 4. Buckland, Peter, et al. “How We Can Combat Climate Change.” Washington Post, 2 Jan. 2019, www.washingtonpost. com/news/opinions/wp/2019/01/02/feature/opinion-here-are11-climate-change-policies-to-fight-for-in-2019.

stack in Little Village That Caused Dust Clouds.” Chicago Tribune, 18 Apr. 2020, www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-lightfoot-hilco-20200417-mjiqdypi5zhwjn527ayg27kzpy-story.html. 10. Bauer, Kelly. “Coronavirus Cases More Than Double In Chicago’s Latino Community.” Block Club Chicago, 6 May 2020, www.blockclubchicago.org/2020/05/06/coronavirus-cases-more-than-double-in-chicagos-latinx-community. 11. Arriaga, Alex, et al. “Chicago’s Climate Apartheid.” South Side Weekly, 22 Aug. 2020, www.southsideweekly.com/chicagos-climate-apartheid. 12. Whalen, Lucia, et al. “Resident Activists and Environmental Groups Advocate More Oversight for the Southeast Side.” South Side Weekly, 31 May 2020, www.southsideweekly. com/resident-activists-environmental-groups-advocate-oversight-southeast-side. 13. Hawthorne, Michael. “Pritzker IEPA Approves Move of Scrap Shredder to Predominantly Latino Neighborhood.” Chicago Tribune, 26 June 2020, www.chicagotribune. com/news/environment/ct-general-iron-chicago-state-allows-move-20200625-n7x5mbv7fnfxtdqoxyp5xpr3o4-story. html. 14. Pyzyk, Katie. “After the Flood.” Belt Magazine [Chicago, IL], 27 Aug. 2020, www.beltmag.com/after-the-flood. 15. US Census Bureau. “The Older Population in the United States: 2010 to 2050.” The United States Census Bureau, 18 Jan. 2018, www.census.gov/library/publications/2010/demo/p251138.html. 16. Earth Science Communications Team. “Do scientists agree on climate change?” NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2020, https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climatechange/ 17. Myers, Quinn. “Amid Pandemic, Activists Push to Close McKinley Park Asphalt Plant.” WTTW News, 13 May 2020, www.news.wttw.com/2020/05/13/amid-pandemic-activistspush-close-mckinley-park-asphalt-plant.

5. Alston, Philip. “UN Expert Condemns Failure to Address Impact of Climate Change on Poverty.” The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 25 June 2019, www.ohchr.org/EN/ NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24735&LangID=E. 6. Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe (eds.). “Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment.” United States Global Change Research Program, 2014, https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report 7. Kim, Ella J. “U.S. Global Change Research Program: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment.” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 82, no. 4, 2016, pp. 418–19. Crossref, doi:10.1080/0 1944363.2016.1218736. 8. Moore, Taylor, et al. “Risk Is in the Air.” South Side Weekly, 26 Apr. 2020, www.southsideweekly.com/risk-is-in-the-air-pollution-covid19. 9. Pratt, Gregory. “Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Announces $68,000 in Fines for Demolition of Coal Power Plant’s Smoke-

Winter 2021

Corinne Stonebraker is a fourth year in the College, double-majoring in Neuroscience and Biology. Her academic interests lie at the intersection of science and medicine, particularly how psychiatry and neurology are being redefined by basic and translational research. On campus, Corinne is a member of UChicago Emergency Medical Services and MEDLIFE, in addition to writing for The Triple Helix. When she's not in the Reg, Corinne likes to spend her time thrifting in Wicker Park, cooking dinner with friends, and doing yoga.

The Journey to Mars Starts Here on Earth Joalda Morancy

“ Courtesy of SpaceX

y the minute, the idea of humans walking on Mars becomes more tangible. We’re entering a modern Martian space race where various organizations are competing to send humans farther than ever before. NASA’s Moon to Mars program aims to “push the boundaries of human exploration” [1] by establishing a permanent presence on the moon and moving onwards to Mars in the 2030s. The private sector is also producing promising results, such as SpaceX’s Starship, a spacecraft-rocket system developed for deep space travel in the late 2020s that is on track to be the “most

powerful launch vehicle ever developed” [2]. While organizations are working toward getting off this planet and making humans an interplanetary species, our own Earth is slowly burning up. Increases in the production of greenhouse gases such as CO2 has led to an increase in global temperatures. This is causing many detrimental effects on our environment, including shrinking ice sheets, rising sea levels, and human health issues such as an increased risk of skin cancer [3, 4]. Damage due to climate change is becoming irreversible and has already

Artist’s Rendition of Starships on a Mars base

disrupted the lives of millions via hurricanes, droughts, and more. Based on current available data, greenhouse gas emissions are projected to double by the year 2050 and triple by 2100, though this is if no action is taken [5]. This is leading many scientists to urge the public and powerful individuals to work towards a more sustainable future. As the future on Earth becomes bleaker, many have looked to Mars exploration as an opportunity to start fresh and escape from the ongoing issues on our planet. For example, The Mars Society, founded by human ex-

Science in society review

ploration advocate Dr. Robert Zubrin, is one of the world’s largest space advocacy organizations with 38 chapters worldwide in every continent except Antarctica [6]. It works to build public interest in permanent human presence on Mars and sees the planet as “the New World” [7, 8]. As time goes on, this dangerous While organizations misconcepare working toward tion that getting off this planet the planet can and making humans an Mars be our Plan interplanetary species, B may beour own Earth is slowly come more substantial burning up. in people’s minds. Unless we actively choose to work toward making our own planet habitable for everyone who is living on it, putting the effort into colonizing another planet will only lead us back down the rabbit hole of ignorance and fallacious hope. If we choose to believe that this is what we must work toward––a new home on another planet while abandoning our original home––we will only fall into the trap that is human error and repeat the process of killing a planet elsewhere.

“

Despite the need to focus on the issues threatening our home, space exploration is valuable to our lives, both theoretically and practically. The curiosity deep inside us leads humans to go out and explore, trying to learn about the universe around us and why we exist. The desire to explore outer space has united people of different nationalities and cultures, an example being the vast collaboration that supports the International

Winter 2021

Space Station. Along with the inspiration and wonder that comes from learning about the space around us, there are many practical benefits that come from space exploration. LED lights, CAT scanners, and the portable computer all exist because the idea stemmed from a NASA engineer working on a specific space mission [9]. Technologies and techniques critical to modern life such as the use of satellites to analyze weather and climate patterns on Earth, the Internet, and water purification systems are all derivations of space exploration. Deep space exploration is an especially valuable scientific endeavor because by traveling to different planetary objects in outer space, we may address scientific questions and harvest valuable resources such as via asteroid mining. Traveling to Mars will help us learn more about why the planet that was once a blue marble with oceans full of liquid water is now a barren piece of rock, and how we can apply this knowledge to Earth and prevent it from happening here. In exploring Mars, we are not only trying to answer the fundamental questions of our universe, but we are also developing important technologies and making sure Earth doesn’t follow suit. Despite the many benefits of space exploration, the way we go about it could harm the future of humanity if we are not mindful of our methods of exploration. The colonization of Mars has been a long-sought out plan that many prominent scientists have promoted. Physicist Dr. Michio Kaku stated that “extinction is the norm”

and that “a self-sustaining settlement on Mars…will give us an insurance policy, a Plan B” [10]. Scientists with similar views to Kaku claim that we need to make humans an interplanetary species to avoid extinction. Despite putting so much effort into telling the public why it is important, they fail to put the same amount of effort into dealing with the growing issue of our planet heating up. Furthermore, there are some people who believe that we should in fact terraform the planet Mars. This feat would require bombarding the Martian atmosphere with volatile elements to thicken it up in order to raise the surface temperature to a suitable level for human life. Terraforming also includes potentially recreating the Martian magnetosphere, which shields the planet from cosmic radiation and solar wind, which was lost during early solar system formation. This effort not only necessitates Unless we activetechnology that ly choose to work doesn’t currenttoward making our ly exist, but also requires an in- own planet habitcredible invest- able for everyone ment of capital and time. Why who is living on it, not put that ef- putting the effort fort instead tointo colonizing anward something that would be other planet will more impactful only lead us back like combating climate change? down the rabbit Many can agree hole of ignorance on the imporand fallacious hope. tance of Mars exploration, but we should put a halt to this idea of a permanent “human colony” on a terraformed planet

“

January 2020 tweet by Elon Musk regarding Mars colonization Credit: Twitter

until we have a well-thought out sustainable plan for our home planet. How exactly are powerful institutions and individuals working toward combating climate change? As of November 2020, the United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, an accord where many nations have agreed to work toward cutting down their carbon emissions over time so global warming can slow down. Though the Biden Administration plans to reenter the Paris Agreement and has plans for combating climate change, they are still supporters of fracking, a process that is known to be terrible for the environment, especially in poisoning and polluting bodies of water [11]. We have yet to make the necessary move of prioritizing clean energy sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power or even nuclear energy,

even though science points to those as our best options for a cleaner future [12]. Space tech giants like Elon Musk have put in the effort to work towards a sustainable future, but it is questionable whether or not these efforts have been valuable to the general public. Musk has worked on electric cars, solar panels and batteries, though some argue that he himself is not actively promoting a sustainable future based on not living a greener lifestyle. His work is also disproportionately only providing the wealthy and geographically lucky this chance at living a sustainable lifestyle [13]. This also plays into his plans for Mars, where individuals who want to buy a ticket to live on the red planet will most likely be part of the upper class while the individuals who don’t have enough money will have to work for their life while on Mars, hinting at interplanetary indentured servitude. Musk

wrote in a tweet this January that there will be “loans available for those who don’t have money”, which is very similar to the system of indentured servitude created by the Virginia Company in the early 17th century [14]. These servants received passage to colonial America in exchange for work, similar to how Musk is offering passage to Mars to those willing to work off a loan. Even though it wasn’t considered slavery, indentured servants lived harsh lives and things may be similar on Mars. Robert Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society, has extreme views on this topic as well. In an interview, he stood by the idea that American colonization “worked”. He entertained this idea of indentured servitude, and in response to questions about exploitation of these workers, he stated, “Well sure, that's what people do to each other all the time” [15]. Before we have even arrived,

Science in society review

people like Zubrin have accepted the idea of human exploitation. Elon Musk, Robert Zubrin, and many others have the power to help us right the ship when it comes to reversing the damage that we have done to Earth. If they want to see a successful colony on Mars, it will require looking at human history and learning from our mistakes that led us to our climate crisis, something that has yet to be accomplished based on the current state of the world. In order for us to truly learn, we need to get on track to saving our planet and providing a sustainable future for incoming generations. Space exploration is important for humanity, but protecting our only home must be the priority, and to attempt to escape from the consequences may prove to be disastrous.

References 1. Dunbar, Brian. “Moon to Mars Overview.” NASA, NASA, 29 June 2018, www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-tomars/overview. 2. “Starship.” SpaceX, www.spacex. com/vehicles/starship/. 3. “Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?” NASA, NASA, 6 Oct. 2020, climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

14. Wattles, Jackie. “Colonizing Mars Could Be Dangerous and Ridiculously Expensive. Elon Musk Wants to Do It Anyway.” CNN, Cable News Network, 8 Sept. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/ tech/spacex-mars-profit-scn/index. html

4. Bharath, A K, and R J Turner. “Impact of Climate Change on Skin Cancer.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, The Royal Society of Medicine, June 2009, www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697050/. 5. “Temperatures.” Temperatures | Climate Action Tracker, climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/. Chapters of the Mars Society, chapters. marssociety.org/. 6. “Why Mars?” The Mars Society, 1 July 2019, www.marssociety.org/whymars/. 7.“About the Mars Society.” The Mars Society, 1 July 2019, www.marssociety. org/about/. 8. “JPL.” NASA, NASA, www.jpl.nasa. gov/infographics/infographic.view. php?id=11358. 9. Kelsey-Sugg, Anna, and Fegan, Sasha. “What Is the Future of Humanity? Physicist Michio Kaku Believes It's out of This World.” ABC News, ABC News, 15 Nov. 2018, www.abc.net.au/ news/2018-11-15/physicist-michiokaku-says-we-need-a-back-up-planfor-survival/10495782. 10. Elkind, Elizabeth. “What Is Fracking, and Where Do Trump and Biden Stand on It?” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 28 Oct. 2020, www.cbsnews.com/ news/trump-biden-what-is-fracking/. 11. “Benefits of Renewable Energy Use.” Union of Concerned Scientists, July 14, 2008, www.ucsusa.org/resources/benefits-renewable-energy-use. 12. Marx, Paris. “Elon Musk Is Planning for Climate Apocalypse.” Jacobin, Jan. 2020, jacobinmag.com/2020/01/ elon-musk-climate-apocalypse-teslaspacex.

Winter 2021

13. “Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/ opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/.

Joalda Morancy is a third-year at the University of Chicago majoring in Geophysics and Astrophysics. Her academic interests lie in planetary science, climate change, astronautics, and high-energy astrophysics. In addition to writing for SISR, Joalda runs a space RSO on-campus called SEDS-UChicago that aims to help students make an impact on space exploration. She also does research at the UChicago Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics and is an Earth Science intern at NASA JPL. In her free time, Joalda really enjoys Zooming with her friends, playing video games, and scrolling through Twitter.

COVID-19 Exacerbates Already Flawed Research Publications Annagh Devitt

OVID-19 is a stress test for the already flawed industry of scientific journal publishing. Nearly 13,000 papers have been published on the virus between January 1 and June 30, accounting for just about 50% of all the papers published in that time period [1]. Yet, the tremendous influx of papers does not necessarily correspond to a greater understanding of the disease, placing a heavy burden on legitimate journals. Perhaps most importantly, nearly 40 articles have been redacted because they contained misleading or incorrect information about the novel virus [2]. The incredible number of papers of varying quality and the astronomical burden journals face in sorting through them have revealed the vulnerable points in each step of the publishing process— from the papers to the journals to their readers. Some of the papers rushed to publication contained crucial information on the nature and spread of the virus, such as its transmission rate, the effectiveness of masks, and viable treatments. However, much of the influx was considered “worthless research” [3]. Some of these purportedly useless papers were written in good faith by data

Credit: CDC Image Library

analysts using good methods to produce unactionable findings. Unfortunately, a significant number of submitted papers either served the self-interest of the researcher or suggested ludicrous solutions, as one reviewer experienced: “My favourite example is a suggestion nearly 40 articles have been to blow very hot air into redacted because they cona patient’s lung to elimitained misleading or incornate the virus” [3].

“

rect information about the

Erroneous research has novel virus [2]. always been a problem for journals, especially prominent ones. A researcher at the University of Regensburg found that “the most prestigious journals publish the least reliable science” [4]. However, not all of the blame falls on the publisher. Larger journals like Nature, Science, and Cell have a wider readership and so—with more eyes— readers can identify more errors. Furthermore, because these papers are widely reputed for their credibility and can have significant impacts on one’s career, they often attract bad faith articles. The rise of COVID-19 has fueled such submissions. There is no obvious solution to this Catch-22: Nature only receives such poor-quality research because they are credible, and if they allow such faulty research in their pages, faith in their credibility is lost. One possible solution to prevent the gatekeeping burden experienced by journals is to dismantle the whole process of review through preprint servers.

Researchers use preprint servers to post their work before it goes to peer-review and publication. While such servers are more common in the fields of math and physics, the demands of COVID-19 have increased their popularity in biological and medical fields. While these servers offer many benefits—faster dissemination, more collaboration, and the COVID-19 added democratic determinamolecule.

Science in society review

been the

A bookstore shelf filled with scientific journals.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

tion of a paper’s worth—they have also been a large target for misinformation. The double-edged sword of lacking a review process means both quicker research turnaround and greater potential for poor-quality research to gain scientific credibility. For example, papers that promoted the conspiracy theory that the virus originated in a laboratory rather than from a bat were originally printed on preprint servers [5]. Some make the case that preprint servers are just as reliable—or, rather, unreliable—as journals. In fact, it is estimated that there is only a 5% difference in the quality between preprinted and published literature [1]. Yet, publishing in a journal is still a compelling achievement for many researchers, which unfortunately has fueled the rise of predatory journals. Predatory journals exploit researchers by posing as credible journals while offering none of the editing, peer review, or renown of a legitimate journal. They often charge scientists to print papers rather than readers to access the content [6]. While some are clearly a scam, like Bio Bulletin, a website full

Winter 2021

of broken links with the vague mission statement, “Bio Bulletin seeks to disseminate novel scientific results in broadly related fields of biology,” others are harder to spot [7]. So-called “hijacked journals” use the name and branding of authentic journals to scam those who stumble upon them. For example, the legitimate and indexed Transylvania Review, a journal on Romanian history, was hijacked by a website using the URL transylvanianreviejournal.org, which in its most recent edition published a number of completely unrelated articles from an investigation of Korean wine auctions to a paper on determining someone’s sex by footprint alone [8]. The pandemic has only increased these exploitative and deeply worrying activities, especially in medicine and biology journals. In a spot study by The Economist, an estimated four and a half new predatory journals are created for every six new reliable journals in the field of health [6]. Cabells, a for-profit website devoted to cracking down on predatory journals, says that of their 13,000 blacklisted journals (up from 1,000 in 2010), nearly a third relate to health [9].

Previously, such profiteering was a threat mainly to the scientific community; now, with increased public interest in and access to research, any missteps in the review and publishing processes can have a direct effect on public health. A paper posted on a preprint server, peer reviewed, and later published in the elite medical journal, The Lancet, added to the confusion around one of the pandemic’s most notorious misinformation campaigns: hydroxychloroquine. The paper reported on a number of clinical trials that used hydroxychloroquine, concluding that the anti-malaria drug had no effect on the progression of the disease and was even correlated with increased mortality. As a direct result of the paper’s publication, the World Health Organization stopped the drug’s clinical trials. The co-authors, all medical physicians, were highly regarded in their field and believed they published work that positively contributed to the knowledge of the disease and its treatments. Yet, soon after the paper was published, readers raised alarms about the researchers’ methods. A small and relatively new company owned by one of the co-authors processed a large majority of the raw clinical data used in the study. It was unclear how such a company could handle the study’s large amount of data while protecting patient confidentiality. The concerns were brought up with both the co-authors and the journal, both of which requested access to the raw data files. The company refused, leading the co-authors to request a redaction of their paper stating, “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article” [10]. While the paper’s conclusion was later verified by other studOne possible solution to pre- ies, the publication and redaction of such an arvent the gatekeeping burden ticle caused greater conexperienced by journals is to fusion on the efficacy of for dismantle the whole process hydroxychloroquine treating COVID-19.

the reliability of credible journals give credence to the claims of these actors and can have long lasting public health effects. A working paper from the Becker Friedman Institute found that locations with greater exposure to media promoting misinformation on Publishing missteps likely COVID-19, such as contributed not only to the the claim that hydroxyspread of misinformation but chloroquine was a cure, had a greater number also to the poor implementaof cases and deaths tion of COVID-19 prevention from the pandemic [12]. Publishing mis- methods and therefore, a steps likely contributed greater spread. not only to the spread of misinformation but also to the poor implementation of COVID-19 prevention methods and therefore, a greater spread. The publishing and redaction—of not only the Lancet paper, but of also 40 other COVID-19 papers—will likely generate greater confusion and increase skepticism when a viable cure or vaccine is presented.

“

Research publication was a flawed practice before COVID-19. While alternatives like preprint servers seemed to present a possible solution to traditional publishing, they too have been compromised under the stress of the pandemic. With easier and faster information dissemination through social media, it is more important than ever to reevaluate how science is shared. It is far easier to reject a paper than to redact it after it has been published.

“

of review through preprint servers.

The redacted Lancet paper did not solely account for the confusion around hydroxychloroquine. The sensationalism around the malaria drug was also largely due to political forces such as President Trump’s tweets and speeches and coverage by Fox News [11]. Nonetheless, doubts over

Science in society review

References 1. “Scientific research on the coronavirus is being released in a torrent.” The Economist, 7 May 2020. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/05/07/scientific-research-on-the-coronavirus-is-being-released-in-a-torrent. Accessed September 2020. 2. “Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers.” Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/. Accessed November 2020. 3. King, Anthony. “Fast news or fake news?: The advantages and the pitfalls of rapid publication through pre-print servers during a pandemic.” EMBO reports vol. 21,6 (2020): e50817. https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7271647/. Accessed September 2020.

Annagh Devitt is a fourth-year at the University of Chicago, double-majoring in Molecular Engineering and Chemistry and minoring in Biology. She has a passion for science communication which led her to write for the Triple Helix. Some of her favorite science writers include Ed Young and Bernd Heinrich. In her socially-distanced free time, Annagh enjoys reading, illustrating, and running.

4. Belluz, Julia. “Do prestigious science journals attract bad science?” Vox, 11 Jan 2016. https://www.vox. com/2016/1/11/10749636/science-journals-fraud-retractions. Accessed October 2020. 5. Marshall, Michael. “Did coronavirus come from a lab?” New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/term/coronavirus-come-lab/. Accessed November 2020. 6. “How to spot dodgy academic journals.” The Economist, 30 May 2020. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/30/how-to-spot-dodgy-academic-journals. Accessed September 2020. 7. Bio Bulletin. Research Trend. https://www.biobulletin.com/. Accessed September 2020. 8. Al-Amr, Mohammed. “How did content from a hijacked journal end up in one of the world’s most-used databases?” Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/09/01/howdid-content-from-a-hijacked-journal-end-up-in-one-of-theworlds-most-used-databases/#:~:text=A%20few%20years%20 ago%2C%20a,were%20authored%20by%20Iraqi%20researchers. Accessed November 2020. 9. “Predatory Reports.” Cabells. https://www2.cabells.com/ about-predatory. Accessed September 2020. 10. Piller, Charles and Servick, Kelly. “Two elite medical journals retract coronovarius papers over data integrity questions.” Science, 4 June 2020. https://www.sciencemag.org/ news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions. Accessed September 2020. 11. Owens, Brian. “Excitement around hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19 causes challenges for rheumatology.” Lancet Rheumatology vol. 2,5 (2020), e257. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2665-9913(20)30089-8. Accessed November 2020. 12. Bursztyn, Leonardo, et al. “Misinformation During a Pandemic.” Becker Friedman Institute, 1 Sep 2020. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2020-44/. Accessed September 2020. 13. Kelly, Éanna. “COVID-19 pandemic leads to flood of ‘useless’ science.” Science Business, 25 June 2020. https://sciencebusiness.net/covid-19/news/covid-19-pandemic-leads-flooduseless-science. Accessed September 2020.

Winter 2021

COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Communities of Color: Implications for Vaccine Development and Distribution Annie Qiao

he omnipresence of masks covering the faces of strangers and friends alike. Signs taped to the windows of businesses reading “no masks, no service.” Gatherings limited to ten people or less, social distancing recommended. And, in Chicago, an unsettling silence dimming its once bustling and lively streets as people adjust to life in the middle of a pandemic.

Courtesy of Eva Marie Uzcategui/Getty Images

As 2020 came to a close, the number of COVID-19 cases in the United States continued to rise higher and higher, with the nation accounting for 231,000 of the 1.2 million deaths and 9.21 million out of the 46.2 million cases worldwide [1]. Moreover, the virus continues to disproportionately affect people of color, especially Hispanic and Black communities. For example, in Illinois, out of those who

specified their race on a recent survey, Hispanic and Black Americans accounted for 47.8% of confirmed cases despite only making up around 32% of the population combined [2]. In addition, both groups had an age-adjusted mortality rate 3.2 times greater than that of white Americans infected with COVID-19 [3]. Consequently, as scientists scramble to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus,

When a vaccine for COVID-19 is eventually distributed, both the vaccine itself and information about the trials must be accessible to people of color.

Science in society review

“

there must be a corresponding conversation about the access of the future vaccine to communities of color. From provider stereotyping to inequitable access to health insurance, it is no secret that racial disparities persist in the United States healthcare system. In fact, racism itthe virus continues self negatively impacts physical to disproportion- health by creately affect peo- ating chronic Allostatple of color, espe- stress. ic load can best cially Hispanic and be explained as the physical Black communities. cost of chronic stressors that an individual faces throughout their lifetime. When the body systems responsible for regulating stress are continuously perturbed, there can be negative implications for long-term health status [4].

“

Using biomarkers—objective biological indicators, such as blood pressure and heart rate, that measure the presence or progress of a disease—researchers found that higher levels of perceived discrimination for Black adolescents predicted higher allostatic loads, stress hormones, and blood pressure at age 20 [4]. Another study conducted in 2012 found that Black Americans tended to have higher allostatic loads than white Americans and that increases in the allostatic load score were associated with increased cardiovascular and diabetes-related mortality [5]. Consequently, in part due to chronic stress, Black communities have elevated rates of hypertension and diabetes. These pre-existing conditions can, in

Winter 2021

turn, cause COVID-19 to manifest more severely [6]. In fact, a national report published in August by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that people of color were around five times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than white people [7]. Disproportionately impacted by the virus, it is crucial that minority communities are represented in vaccine trials. In fact, immunologist Anthony Fauci recommended that minorities should be overrepresented in trials because they have been hit the hardest by the coronavirus (Cohen). However, according to the FDA, nearly 3 out of 4 subjects in trials for novel drugs last year were white [8], revealing a broader shortcoming in clinical research to recruit diverse groups of participants for drug trials. Underrepresentation of minorities in clinical trials leaves unanswered questions on the effects of the vaccines on these communities and could foster distrust about the vaccine, potentially hindering distribution efforts down the line. At a series of listening sessions organized by the FDA, people of color voiced a range of concerns regarding the vaccine, including “I would not be first in line and I would want to see some data” and “We are not going to be guinea pigs again” [9]. This distrust stems from a context much broader and more complex than just the COVID-19 vaccine trials. The Tuskegee Experiment, in particular, is one of the most egregious examples of the American scientific community

abusing minorities in a medical research setting [10]. In a clinical study that spanned from 1932 to 1972, 600 Black Americans living in Macon County, Alabama were misinformed of a study regarding the natural history of untreated syphilis, as they were told that they were being treated for “bad blood,” a colloquial term for illnesses like syphilis, anemia, and fatigue that were major causes of death for southern Black Americans at the time. Throughout the trial, both information about the nature of the study and access to treatment once penicillin was discovered to be an effective antibiotic were withheld. When the fact that the scientists had knowingly misinformed participants and withheld treatment came to light, it further damaged the relationship between medical authorities and the Black community, generating deep distrust for Underrepresentaresearch projects tion of minorities backed by the federal govern- in clinical trials ment in partic- leaves unanswered ular [15]. This questions on the historical context is critical to un- effects of the vacderstanding the cines on these comchallenge of recruiting partici- munities and could pants for vaccine foster distrust studies today and about the vaccine, further illumihinnates why people potentially may be hesitant dering distribution to receive the efforts down the vaccine.

“

line.

So far, community leaders have played an important role in the push towards building trust in the COVID-19 vaccine trials. For example, the

COVID-19 continues to disproportionately affect communities of color, especially Black Americans.

Courtesy of Spencer Platt/Getty images

New York Times recently followed pastor Father Paul as he attempted to have such conversations with people in his predominantly Black Pittsburgh neighborhood [11]. A trusted figure in the community, he was able to communicate transparently about the vaccine process and ultimately increased local participation in the vaccine registry [11]. Meanwhile, in Chicago, response teams like the nonprofit West Side United have dedicated themselves to leveraging resources to improve health equity, successfully opening city testing sites in priority neighborhoods, distributing informational pamphlets, and securing $3.1 million in grants for COVID-19 relief [12]. Such efforts will eventually transition to support the Chicago Department of Public Health’s Healthy

Chicago 2025 plan to address health disparities in the city more long-term [12].

efficiently get a vaccine into those communities affected most by the virus.

As of November 18, Pfizer and BioNTech recently concluded their phase 3 study for the COVID-19 vaccine trial, announcing a 95% efficacy rate for their vaccine. They have reported that 42% of participants in their trials had “racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds” [13]. After sharing data with other countries and getting the vaccine officially approved, the companies project that they will manufacture over 1.3 billion doses of their vaccine worldwide by the end of 2021 [14]. As clinical trials draw to a close, we must turn our attention to equitable distribution efforts, learning from leaders such as Father Paul in order to effectively and

Science in society review

References 1. “Covid in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Mar. 2020, www. nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html. 2. “COVID-19 Statistics.” COVID-19 Statistics | IDPH, www.dph.illinois.gov/ covid19/covid19-statistics. 3. “COVID-19 Deaths Analyzed by Race and Ethnicity.” APM Research Lab, www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deathsby-race. 4. Brody, Gene H., et al. “Perceived Discrimination Among African American Adolescents and Allostatic Load: A Longitudinal Analysis With Buffering Effects.” Child Development, vol. 85, no. 3, 2014, pp. 989–1002., doi:10.1111/ cdev.12213.

es e-

5. Duru, O Kenrik et al. “Allostatic load burden and racial disparities in mortality.” Journal of the National Medical Association vol. 104,1-2 (2012): 89-95. doi:10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30120-6. 6. “Certain Medical Conditions and Risk for Severe COVID-19 Illness.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/ people-with-medical-conditions.html. 7. Artiga, Samantha and Corallo, Bradley. “Racial Disparities in COVID-19: Key Findings from Available Data and Analysis.” KFF, 17 Aug. 2020, www. kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/racial-disparities-covid-19-key-findings-available-data-analysis/. 8. Hopkins, Jared S. “Covid-19 Vaccine Trials Have a Problem: Minority Groups Don't Trust Them.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones &amp; Company, 5 Aug. 2020, www.wsj.com/ articles/covid-19-vaccine-trials-have-aproblem-minority-groups-dont-trustthem-11596619802. 9. Wamsley, Laurel. “Researchers Find Doubts About COVID-19 Vaccine Among People Of Color.” NPR, NPR, 22 Oct. 2020, www.npr. org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/10/22/926813331/researchers-find-doubts-about-covid-19-vaccine-among-people-of-color.

Winter 2021

10. “More People Of Color Needed In COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.” NPR, NPR, 23 Aug. 2020, www.npr. org/2020/08/23/905181731/more-people-of-color-needed-in-covid-19-vaccine-trials. 11. Hoffman, Jan and Lee, Chang W. “Vaccine Trials Struggle to Find Black Volunteers.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/health/coronavirus-vaccine-trials-african-americans. html.

public health vol. 100,5 (2010): 940-6. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.129312. 19. Stewart, Ada. “Minorities Are Underrepresented in Clinical Trials.” AAFP Home, 4 Dec. 2018, www. aafp.org/news/blogs/leadervoices/entry/20181204lv-clinicaltrials.html.

12. “COVID-19 Health Equity Initiatives: Chicago Racial Equity Rapid Response Team.” American Medical Association, www.ama-assn. org/delivering-care/health-equity/ covid-19-health-equity-initiatives-chicago-racial-equity-rapid. 13. Callaway, Ewen. “What Pfizer's Landmark COVID Vaccine Results Mean for the Pandemic.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 9 Nov. 2020, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-02003166-8. 14. “Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints.” Pfizer, www.pfizer.com/ news/press-release/press-release-detail/ pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3study-covid-19-vaccine. 15. “Tuskegee Study - Timeline.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 Mar. 2020, www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm. 16. Cohen, Elizabeth. “Moderna Increases Minority Numbers in Its Vaccine Trial, but Still Not Meeting Fauci's Goal.” CNN, Cable News Network, 29 Aug. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/ health/moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-minorities-goal/index.html. 17. O'Connor, Mary I. “To Build Trust on COVID Vax in Black Community, Learn From the Flu.” Medical News and Free CME Online, MedpageToday, 16 Nov. 2020, www.medpagetoday.com/ infectiousdisease/covid19/89695. 18. Peek, M Kristen et al. “Allostatic load among non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people of Mexican origin: effects of ethnicity, nativity, and acculturation.” American journal of

Annie Qiao is a firstyear planning to major in HIPS. She is on the pre-medical track and was a member of and editor for her high school newspaper.

The Future of a Catastrophe-Ridden Nuclear Energy Nikhil Kumar

he phrase Statue at The University “nuclear enof Chicago commemoergy” strikes a rating the world’s first nerve in most people man-made, self-sustainon the planet. It can ing nuclear fission chain bring to mind imagreaction in a reactor. es of war, death and destruction. Some remember the arms race of the Cold War and related events like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war [1]. Others may remember the sheer power of the nuclear warheads detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, costing more than 100,000 lives [2]. Others may recall Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima for their explosive nuclear meltdowns that together led to the deaths of more than 2,300 people and irreversibly changing the lives of hundreds of thousands more [3]. In the United States specifically, public support for nuclear energy production mirrors these events, most recently falling to a 20 year low of 44% in 2016 in the 5 years following Fukushima. It is therefore surprising, then, that since its inception, around half of all Americans have supported nuclear power [4]. This raises a few important questions: Why does nuclear energy retain its appeal today, and what place does nuclear energy have in the future of energy production, considering the risks it poses to society?

“

Nuclear energy is produced by a process called nuclear fission, which occurs when neutrons bombard the nuclei of large atoms like uranium, causing the nuclei to split apart.

To understand why nuclear energy has so much potential, it is important to understand how it is produced and how it started. Nuclear energy is produced by a process called

nuclear fission, which occurs when neutrons bombard the nuclei of large atoms like uranium, causing the nuclei to split apart. This process generates an immense amount of energy in the form of heat, used to convert water to steam, which pushes turbines connected to a generator. What makes nuclear energy special, however, is the chain reaction, in which the neutrons generated from the splitting

Science in society review

“

of one nucleus can split another and continually produce large amounts of heat, as long as fuel exists [5]. The first practical nuclear project was at the University of Chicago in 1942, where a team of scientists, led by Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, created the world’s first man-made, self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction in a reactor called Chicago Pile-1 [6]. FerIn the United States, nuclear mi’s experiment would go on to inspire innovaenergy is the largest source tions in nuclear energy of clean power, generating such as the production more than 800 billion kilo- of electricity from fission in 1951 and the watt-hours of energy each first nuclear plant in year[, which is] equivalent to 1954 [5]. Nuclear energy was seen as unique, taking 100 million cars off being a form of clean the road in terms of carbon energy, which means it emissions avoided [8]. produces no emissions of greenhouse gases, while generating a tremendous amount of energy from little fuel. These innovations were surprising, however, since they were discovered after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite the devastation this technology had caused, scientists and governments were determined to use the same technology for peaceful and more positive purposes, dedicating large investments to create a promising new industry [7].

“

On the surface, nuclear energy appears to be the solution to our environmental concerns when pitted against fossil fuels. First and foremost, nuclear energy is a source of clean energy. In the United States, nuclear energy is the largest source of clean power, generating more than 800 billion kilowatt-hours of energy each year. When that same amount of electricity is generated by fossil fuels, more than 470 million metric tons of carbon emissions are produced. Generating this energy through nuclear means would be equivalent to taking 100 million cars off the road in terms of carbon emissions avoided [8]. While the primary byproduct of nuclear energy is steam, fossil fuels produce pollutants with damaging effects on the environment, such as greenhouse gases (which contribute to global warming) and toxic materials like sulfur dioxide, arsenic, cadmium and mercury (which adversely affect indigenous flora and fauna). Nuclear also comes out on top in terms of efficiency, where 0.1 ounce of nuclear fuel produces the same energy

Winter 2021

as 120 gallons of oil, and cost, where producing a kilowatt-hour of electrical energy costs approximately $0.02438 for nuclear, but $0.03541 for fossil fuel steam plants [9]. However, nuclear energy does have its disadvantages. One major problem is the production of radioactive waste, which occurs when the larger atoms are split up into smaller radioactive materials. Radioactive waste is produced in small quantities and has standard containment procedures to prevent interaction with the environment, allowing nuclear energy to maintain its clean energy status. The levels of radiation produced by most radioactive waste is low, so materials like bitumen and concrete can effectively block the effects of low level radioactive waste [10]. However, if radioactive waste is leaked, the radiation can have carcinogenic or mutagenic effects on nearby organisms which can irreversibly affect the surrounding ecosystems [11]. Another major problem with nuclear energy is the time and effort required to manufacture a nuclear plant. High capital costs, the necessity of regulatory approvals, and construction delays are just some of the reasons that make nuclear energy a poor shortterm solution to energy problems and high carbon emissions [8]. In 2020, the United States was involved in the construction of just 2 reactors and closed down 37 pre-existing reactors, possibly due to the reasons mentioned above, along with lower public support [12]. Perhaps the most prominent reasons for public distrust in nuclear energy, are the power plant accidents that rocked the world. The disastrous events at Chernobyl and Fukushima permanently tainted the legacy of nuclear energy. In 1986, High capital costs, the necesa steam explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear sity of regulatory approvplant, located near the als, and construction delays now-abandoned city of Pripyat in northern are just some of the reasons Ukraine, released at that make nuclear energy a least 5% of the radioacpoor short-term solution to tive reactor core into the environment. The blast energy problems and high caused 38 plant worker carbon emissions [8]. deaths (28 from acute radiation syndrome), 6,500 cases of thyroid cancer (with 15 known fatalities), and the relocation of 350,000 people [13]. The event caused a period

“ 29

Damaged nuclear reactor buildings left from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

of low support for nuclear energy lasting until the 2000s [4]. Just when the world had begun to reconsider nuclear energy as a viable energy alternative to fossil fuels, on March 11, 2011, Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was hit by a magnitude 9.0 Credit: Wikimedia Commons earthquake. While the power plant survived the earthquake and moved to emergency power, a 15-meter high tsunami wiped out both the cooling systems and the power supply, leading to three nuclear meltdowns and the release of high doses of radiation. While there were no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the meltdown, 100,000 people were forced to evacuate, resulting in 2259 evacuation-related deaths [3]. In both cases, the potentially devastating consequences of nuclear energy production were brought to public attention. Despite the tragedies following nuclear energy since its inception, polls suggest that public opinion about this controversial energy source may be starting to change. A Gallup poll conducted in 2019, showed that 49% of Americans supported nuclear power production. According to the same source, this marked a distinct increase from 2016 of 44% support, the lowest point in over A Gallup poll conducted in 25 years [14]. Anoth2019, showed that 49% of er literature review this idea, Americans supported nuclear supports claiming that Amerpower production. ican support for nuclear energy was rising for the first time since 2010 (before Fukushima’s disaster) [4]. These studies coincided with another poll in 2019 which showed 60% of Americans supported reductions in fossil fuel usage and a vast majority supported expansion of renewable energy [15]. These data suggest that as time passed after nuclear disasters, the American people began to accept nuclear energy as a way to fight back against

“ 30

climate change and global warming. On top of this, legislators on both sides of the aisle appear to finally be on the same page, with Republican leaders already in support and the 2020 Democratic platform recently supporting nuclear technologies to prevent carbon emissions [16]. While early drafts of the Green New Deal (a non-binding resolution to counter climate change) seemed to oppose nuclear plants, a major sponsor of the bill, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, clarified that nuclear could remain a possibility [17]. While nuclear power plant production can be set aside temporarily due to its risks, the government and private investors should take advantage of the opportunity to invest in nuclear energy research, to not only regain public support, but also drive development of safer and cheaper nuclear technologies. Today, new innovations in renewable energy are being developed across the planet. Solar energy was shown in October 2020 to have finally become the cheapest form of energy in history [18]. It may be tempting, considering all the problems associated with it, to end all efforts toward nuclear energy production and push forward with less risky forms of energy. Nuclear research, however, is experiencing major advances simultaneously. India is making an ambitious plan to produce thorium reactors which could produce more energy with safer longterm nuclear waste [19]. Controlled nuclear fusion (which uses the same energy production method as the Sun) is another innovation on the horizon which could enable vast amounts of clean energy [20]. Until these projects reach commercial viability, despite major strides in other forms of clean en-

Science in society review

ergy, research in nuclear energy must continue and be promoted. Despite scaling back nuclear energy production, we must never forget the positive potential of one of the greatest forces on Earth.

12. Tiseo, Ian. “Number of under Construction Nuclear Reactors Worldwide 2020.” Statista, Ian Tiseo, 2 Sept. 2020, www. statista.com/statistics/513671/number-of-under-construction-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/. 13. “Chernobyl Accident 1986.” World Nuclear Association, Apr. 2020, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx.

References

14. Reinhart, RJ. “40 Years After Three Mile Island, Americans Split on Nuclear Power.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 20 Nov. 2020, news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx

1. “The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis.

15. McCarthy, Justin. “Most Americans Support Reducing Fossil Fuel Use.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 20 Nov. 2020, news.gallup. com/poll/248006/americans-support-reducing-fossil-fuel.aspx.

2. “Total Casualties.” The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents, Atomicarchive.com, www. atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_chp10. html.

16. Nuclear News Staff. “After Decades, Democrats' Platform Endorses Nuclear Energy.” American Nuclear Society, 25 Aug. 2020, www.ans.org/news/article-463/after-48-years-democrats-endorse-nuclear-energy/.

3. “Fukushima Daichii Accident.” World Nuclear Association, May 2020, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident. aspx.

17. Meinetz, Bob. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Green New Deal ‘Leaves the Door Open’ for Nuclear Energy.” Energy Central, 26 May 2020, energycentral.com/c/cp/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-gr een-new-deal-leaves-door-open-nuclear-energy.

4. Gupta, Kuhika, et al. "Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data." Energy Policy 133 (2019): 110888.

18. Shahan, Zachary. “Solar Power = ‘Cheapest Electricity In History.’” CleanTechnica, 26 Oct. 2020, cleantechnica. com/2020/10/26/solar-power-cheapest-electricity-in-history/.

5. Nunez, Christina. “What Is Nuclear Energy and Is It a Viable Resource?” Nuclear Energy Facts and Information, National Geographic, 29 Mar. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/reference/nuclear-energy/. 6. “Nuclear Energy.” UChicago Arts, The University of Chicago, 12 Oct. 2015, arts.uchicago.edu/public-art-campus/browsework/nuclear-energy.

19. Tagotra, Niharika. “India's Ambitious Nuclear Power Plan – And What's Getting in Its Way.” The Diplomat, 9 Sept. 2020, thediplomat.com/2020/09/indias-ambitious-nuclear-powerplan-and-whats-getting-in-its-way/. 20. “Nuclear Fusion.” World Nuclear Association, July 2020, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx.

7. Outline History of Nuclear Energy.” World Nuclear Association, Nov. 2020, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/ current-and-future-generation/outline-history-of-nuclear-energy.aspx. 8. “Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy.” Energy.gov, www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy. 9. Sen, Debashree. “Nuclear Energy Vs. Fossil Fuel.” Sciencing, 2 Sept. 2019, sciencing.com/about-6134607-nuclear-energy-vs-fossil-fuel.html. 10. “Radioactive Waste Management .” World Nuclear Association, Feb. 2020, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/ nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx. 11. Rinkesh. “Dangers and Effects of Nuclear Waste Disposal.” Conserve Energy Future, 25 Dec. 2016, www.conserve-energy-future.com/dangers-and-effects-of-nuclear-waste-disposal. php.

Winter 2021

Nikhil Kumar is a second year student at the University of Chicago, planning on pursuing a major in Biology/Pre-med with a minor in Cinema and Media Studies. He is especially interested in regenerative medicine and physiology which he hopes to research in the future. Apart from academics, Nikhil is a member of the UChicago Quiz Bowl team and the Table Tennis club on campus, in addition to writing for Triple Helix. Nikhil likes to spend his free time in quarantine perfecting his baking skills, writing parts of his never-ending novel or playing video games with friends.

The Potential Benefits of Meditation During the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis Tara Chugh Introduction When surveyed in June 2020, a staggering 40% of Americans reported suffering from a mental or behavioral health condition related to the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. Those infected with COVID-19 are subject not only to the possibility of physical trauma but also emotional distress, which can lead to insomnia, fear, and anxiety. Moreover, people who are under lockdowns and stay-athome orders can suffer from anxiety, depression, and social isolation because of the drastic changes to their lifestyles. High stress levels negatively affect immunity [2], so in a public health crisis, it is particularly important to find ways to mitigate the negative effects of stress. A number of recent studies have explored meditation as a practice which both alleviates some pandem-

“

A number of recent studies have explored meditation as a practice which both alleviates some pandemic-related mental health issues and has possible physiological benefits.

ic-related mental health issues and has possible physiological benefits.

What is meditation and how can it change our brains? Meditation is a formal practice of mindfulness, a broad range of activities that have to do with being focused on the present moment. It is a state in which a person is not asleep but metabolic activity is decreased, triggering mental and physical relaxation [3]. There are many different types of meditation, and one type that scientists have studied is Cognitive Based Compassion, in which people use the breath as an object of focus to first stabilize the mind and then use a variety of focusing techniques to explore how their suffering and desires can help them be more compassionate towards themselves and others. These feelings of compassion reduce stress and encourage optimism, which is particularly valuable in the trying times of the pandemic [4]. By using meditation techniques like this one, people can “react to their environment and anything that arises in the course of their day with more calm and equanimity” [5].

ing effects thanks to the human brain’s neuroplasticity. The neuroplastic nature of the brain means that we can reshape and strengthen parts of our brains. That is to say, our “brain potential” is not defined at birth [6]. When people meditate, brain circuits that positively control their physical and mental health can be “rewired,” meaning that their neural connections can change in size. Notably, the gray matter in brain areas used for emotional processing gets denser, and neuronal connections all over the brain get stronger when one meditates [7], demonstrating how meditation can have long-term positive effects on people’s overall health.

Meditation has such far-reach-

Science in society review

Meditation to combat social isolation, depression, and their effects on the immune system Humans are naturally prone to “obsess over the past and worry about the future” instead of anchoring themselves in the present moment [8]. These tendencies are intensified when people spend a lot of time alone, and they often have serious mental health implications [9]. By practicing a type of meditation called Loving-Kindness Meditation, people can induce positive mental states that make themselves feel more socially connected [9]. These feelings of connectedness not only help lower anxiety and depression levels, but they may also go so far as to increase self-esteem, empathy, and immunity [9]. A 2008 study published in Emotion followed amateur meditators as they were led through 7-minute sessions of Loving-Kindness Meditation. In their sessions, participants imagined a loved one and sending their love to them [10]. Then, they were shown a digital photograph of a stranger and were instructed to target feelings of compassion toward that person. The study found that partic-

Winter 2021

Graph of U.S. depression rates 2019 (before pandemic) vs 2020 (during pandemic) ipation in meditation sessions had a significant impact on the participants’ positivity toward the unknown people on the screens [10]. This study shows the effects that meditation can have on people’s feelings of connectedness, even if the other person is only an image on a screen, a pertinent finding during the current times when virtual meetings are common. Moreover, it demonstrates that people do not need to be experienced meditators nor meditate for hours each day in order to experience the benefits. Addressing social isolation caused by the pandemic is particularly important because it can lead to depression, which in turn has negative effects on people’s immune systems. In September 2020, 27.5% of U.S. adults shared that they had symptoms of depression compared to only 8.5% of U.S. adults in 2019 [11]. These depressed feelings stem from social isolation, grief for friends who passed away, a sense of helplessness, sudden changes to daily routines, and unem-

ployment or financial insecurity [12]. This trend is especially significant because depression can have long-term impacts on people's brain structures [12]. For example, the hippocampus is a part of the brain that specializes in emotional memory regulation and recalling [13]. When people experience depression, their hippocampuses become hypoactive, which means the hippocampuses are performing their functions to a lesser degree than usual. In contrast, multiple types of meditation have been shown to increase the growth These feelings of conand develo p m e n t nectedness not only of brain help lower anxiety and tissue in depression levels, but the hippocampus they may also go so far and in- as to increase self-escrease the activity of teem, empathy, and imthe hip- munity [9]. pocampus [3]. In this way, meditation can lessen and actively combat the negative effects that depression has on the brain.

“ 33

Depression is also harmful to people’s bodies; many individuals who suffer from depression also experience immune system suppression. Specifically, people with depression have been shown to have decreased natural killer cell and antibody activity [3]. Natural killer cells are a type of lymphocyte (white blood cell) that play an important role in the immune system because they work to discard virally infected cells and tumors from the body [14]. Antibodies are blood proteins which identify and connect to foreign invaders in the body in order to remove them [15]. Additionally, people with depression have higher levels of inflammatory cytokines in their bodies [3]. Inflammatory cytokines are signaling molecules that immune cells release, and they promote inflammation (the body’s immune response). However, immune cells are not able to effectively regulate the release of inflammatory cytokines when people have depression, and thus these people may experience extra inflammation [16]. There are a few ways in which

meditation can help people with depression build back immunity. Meditation can lower the amount of biomarkers of inflammation in people’s bodies, including the C-reactive protein, which is a protein released by a person’s liver in response to inflammation [17]. In addition, meditation can increase the body’s levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines, which also counteract the inflammation caused by depression [3].

Meditation, melatonin, and a possible therapy for Covid-19 One of the other ways meditation supports the immune system is through the hormone melatonin. While commonly known for its role in sleep regulation, melatonin also acts against the immunosuppressive effects of stress [18]. In fact, the hormone melatonin “likely impacts every cell in every organism throughout the plant and animal kingdoms” [19]. Past research suggests that melatonin has beneficial effects against severe viral infections such as West Nile virus, herpes, and HIV/AIDS [9]. Based on these findings, scientists hypothesize that melatonin may be an important area of research during the rush to develop COVID-19 treatments [9].

Interestingly, regular meditation can cause melatonin levels to increase drastically [20]. A 2001 study found that resting levels of melatonin are 150% higher in seasoned meditators than in non-meditators of the same gender, age, and fitness level [9]. A study that looked at people experienced in Acem Meditation, a Norweigen practice in which “you repeat a meditation sound mentally without effort,” also found that a group of meditators displayed significantly greater melatonin concentrations than a group of non-meditators [9]. Ultimately, the association between meditation and enhanced melatonin is a promising, yet underdeveloped, area of research with potential implications for the fight against COVID-19.

Conclusion While the antiviral effects of melatonin continue to be explored, it is already evident that the practice of meditation can serve as a protective factor against the emotional and physical effects of COVID-19 in a variety of other ways. Meditation can reduce inflammation, thus meditation can lessen boosting the and actively combat immune systhe negative effects tem, and certain medita- that depression has tive practices on the brain. can increase feelings of social connectedness, thereby decreasing feelings of anxiety and depression associated with lockdowns. Ultimately, this brief examination of the benefits of meditation during the COVID-19 pan-

“

Science in society review

demic provides a case-study of how there is great potential to harness the power of neuroplasticity in the face of a public health crisis.

References

9. Bushell, William, et al. “Meditation and Yoga Practices as Potential Adjunctive Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19: A Brief Overview of Key Subjects.” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol. 26, no. 7, 2020, pp. 547–556., doi:10.1089/acm.2020.0177. 10. Hutcherson, Cendri A., et al. “Loving-Kindness Meditation Increases Social Connectedness.” Emotion, vol. 8, no. 5, 2008, pp. 720–724., doi:10.1037/ a0013237.

1. “Charted: The Coronavirus' Staggering Toll on America's Mental Health.” Advisory Board, 14 Aug. 2020, www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/08/14/ covid-mental-health.

11. Van Beusekom, Mary. “Depression Triples in US Adults amid COVID-19 Stressors.” CIDRAP, 3 Sept. 2020, www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/09/depression-triples-usadults-amid-covid-19-stressors.

2. Petram, Teri. “How Stress Affects The Immune System.” Sunshine Community Health Center, 18 Sept. 2020, www.sunshineclinic.org/blog/how-stress-affectsyour-immune-system/.

12. Vatansever, Deniz, et al. “Covid-19 and Promising Solutions to Combat Symptoms of Stress, Anxiety and Depression.” Neuropsychopharmacology, 2020, doi:10.1038/s41386-020-00791-9.

3. Reddy Kasala, Eshvendar, et al. Effect of Meditation on Neurophysiological Changes in Stress Mediated Depression, vol. 20, no. 1, Feb. 2014, pp. 74–80., doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ctcp.2013.10.001.

13. Brühl, Annette Beatrix, et al. “Real-Time Neurofeedback Using Functional MRI Could Improve Down-Regulation of Amygdala Activity During Emotional Stimulation: A Proof-ofConcept Study.” Brain Topography, vol. 27, no. 1, 2013, pp. 138–148., doi:10.1007/s10548-013-0331-9.

4. “Compassion Training as a Pathway to Lifelong Health and Well-Being.” Research Link, Francis Mcclelland Institute for Children, Youth, and Families at the University of Arizona, vol. 4, no. 3. 5. Behan, C. “The Benefits of Meditation and Mindfulness Practices during Times of Crisis Such as COVID-19.” Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 2020, pp. 1–3., doi:10.1017/ipm.2020.38. 6. “Harnessing Neuroplasticity: 9 Key Brain Regions Upgraded Through Meditation.” EOC Institute, eocinstitute.org/ meditation/10-key-brain-regions-upgraded-with-meditation-2/. 7. “The Effects Of Meditation On The Brain.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 15 May 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/15/the-effects-of-meditation-on-the-brain/?sh=2c7b50d2ddb1. 8. “How Meditation Makes Us Feel At One, Conquers Loneliness.” EOC Institute, eocinstitute.org/meditation/how-

Winter 2021

meditation-makes-us-feel-at-one-conquers-loneliness/.

14. “Natural Killer Cell.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/ terms/natural_killer_cell.htm. 15. “Antibody.” Encyclopædia Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/antibody. 16. Zhang, Jun-Ming, and Jianxiong An. “Cytokines, Inflammation, and Pain.” International Anesthesiology Clinics, vol. 45, no. 2, 2007, pp. 27–37., doi:10.1097/ aia.0b013e318034194e. 17. “C-Reactive Protein (CRP) Test.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 30 July 2020, medlineplus. gov/lab-tests/c-reactive-protein-crptest/. 18. Maestroni, Georges J. M. “The Immunoneuroendocrine Role of Melatonin.” Journal of Pineal Research, vol. 14, no. 1, 1993, pp. 1–10., doi:10.1111/ j.1600-079x.1993.tb00478.x.

19. Reiter, Russel J., et al. “Melatonin: Exceeding Expectations.” Physiology, vol. 29, no. 5, 2014, pp. 325–333., doi:10.1152/physiol.00011.2014. 20. Solberg, Erik E., et al. “The Effects of Long Meditation on Plasma Melatonin and Blood Serotonin.” Medical Science Monitor, 2004. 21. Bauer, Brent A. “Pros and Cons of Melatonin.” Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 13 Nov. 2020, www.mayoclinic. org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/ expert-answers/melatonin-side-effects/ faq-20057874. 22. Carlson, Linda E., et al. “Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction in Relation to Quality of Life, Mood, Symptoms of Stress, and Immune Parameters in Breast and Prostate Cancer Outpatients.” Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 65, no. 4, 2003, pp. 571–581., doi:10.1097/01. psy.0000074003.35911.41. 23. Dowell, Scott F. “Seasonal Variation in Host Susceptibility and Cycles of Certain Infectious Diseases.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 7, no. 3, 2001, pp. 369–374., doi:10.3201/eid0703.017301. 24. “The Method.” Acem, acem.com/ the_method. 25. Yanyu, Jiang, et al. “Meditation-based Interventions Might Be Helpful for Coping with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).” OSF Preprints, 20 Mar. 2020. Web.

Tara is a first-year at the University of Chicago studying Computer Science and Molecular Engineering. She is very interested in meditation and neuroplasticity and is starting to practice meditation herself. Outside of school, she enjoys playing squash, writing for a food blog, doing personal coding projects, and playing in the snow.

Scientific Adaptability in Times of Crises: How Research Reacts to Disease Outbreaks Eduardo Gabriel Gonzalez Santiago

he continuous pursuit of scientific discoveries and innovation has been an integral part of the development of civilization throughout human history. However, science does not exist within a bubble separate from the events that occur in the world around it. The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a prime example of this, as we can examine how the disease’s rise and its comparisons to previous disease outbreaks can affect biological research. As part of this exploration, I spoke with the University of Chicago’s Dr. Kenneth Polonsky, dean of the Division of Biological Sciences and the Pritzker School of Medicine, and president of the University of Chicago Medicine health system in order to obtain his unique

perspective on how researchers at the University of Chicago have responded to the global health crisis. An example of a recent global pandemic often used as a point of comparison for COVID-19 is the swine flu pandemic. However, differences in the way people viewed the two diseases’ severities resulted in different reactions from the scientific community. In 2009, a new strain of influenza emerged in Mexico which would later become known as the swine flu. While it was comparably contagious to other flu strains, the more severe symptoms it triggered in younger patients as well as its intercontinental spread led the World Health Organization (WHO) to label it a pandemic [1]. National and interna-

“ 36

Science in society review

“

Winter 2021

i v e r s it y o f C h i c of T h e Un e sy

u rt Co

The Ebola virus and its outbreak serve as another informative example of how science adapts during disease outbreaks. In 2014, the largest outbreak of the Ebola virus originated in Guinea. Later when a significant number of cases arose in Sierra Leone and Liberia, it was designated an epidemic. Though it is nowhere near as contagious as the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-Cov-2, it had a mortality rate of almost 40% [2]. The fear sparked by Ebola’s lethality around the world was much greater than what was experienced during the swine flu pandemic. Even though it was never designated as a pandemic, the Ebola virus outbreak marked a very large step in the trajectory of the global health field. When this epidemic in West Africa reached Texas, the global interconnectivity was made highly evident. The Ebola virus then became one of the main catalysts to changes in “As a result of the global- the landscape of interization of clinical trials and national research. “As result of the globalaccompanying external in- aization of clinical trials vestment, developing coun- and accompanying extries have increased their ternal investment, developing countries have capacity and resources for increased their capacity conducting research, and and resources for conresearch, and increasingly they have also ducting increasingly they have tried to ensure the research also tried to ensure the agenda is relevant to the research agenda is relevant to the health chalhealth challenges they face” lenges they face” [2]. The [2]. sentiment expressed in this statement by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) runs parallel with what has occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ago

tional responses varied widely, in part because the public perception of the virus was that it was not a serious threat and thus did not qualify as a true emergency. As a result, oftentimes a full effort was not made to study it and create robust vaccination programs. Therefore, the swine flu pandemic was markedly different from the current COVID-19 pandemic in terms of its ability to affect how many people have led their lives, and it was insufficient to cause a change in the normal proceedings of research.

D r. K

e n n et h S. Pol onsk y

The advancements in global health and international collaborative research that were absent during the swine flu pandemic and were in development during the Ebola epidemic is best exemplified by the international scientific community's response to the Dengue virus. Dengue has been the centerpiece of several epidemics in different parts of the world such as Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific. Its continued existence has forced many researchers to work together to develop new tools in order to combat the disease [3]. Collaboration has ranged from scientists studying fundamental molecular interactions all the way to doctors conducting vaccine trials. The synergy within and between biological research fields is an important factor when it comes to addressing crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. In regards to the current pandemic, I spoke with Dr. Kenneth Polonsky. He started off his career as an endocrinologist, dedicating himself to the study of Type II diabetes. In his current position, Dr. Polonsky no longer conducts research himself, but he oversees many research projects and works directly

with principal investigators (PIs) in all branches of the biological sciences. Dr. Polonsky’s roles have given him a unique perspective on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in the healthcare and biological research fields. Dr. Polonsky details how the quarantine and stay-at-home orders had effectively put a halt to all research at the University of Chicago, with the exception of those who maintained cell lines and took care of animal test subjects. Although the halt disrupted many research projects, it was helpful in that it gave researchers time to write and grant proimproved interdisciplin- papers posals [4].

“

The ary collaboration could very well be residual after the pandemic comes under control, changing the landscape of future research.

The pandemic opened the door for many researchers to contribute to the study of the virus. Dr. Polonsky said that PIs have fallen into three categories as a result of the pandemic: those who already studied viruses and infectious diseases, and thus only needed to minimally shift the their focuses to address COVID-19; those from other biological fields who shifted their focuses to include study of COVID-19 in their research; and those who continued with their own research. Shifts in research focus resulted in the cultivation of a network of scientists from across different fields communicating and collaborating to obtain a better understanding of the coronavirus. For example, the Argonne National Laboratory set up a core facility in order to facilitate all this communication between labs. The improved interdisciplinary collaboration could very well be residual after the pandemic comes under control, changing the landscape of future research for many scientists who have been able to learn from colleagues in other fields as well as form connections through this entire process [4].

ticular—to understand how the disease is affecting organs from an advanced imaging standpoint. Cases like this one can propel scientists and the institutions for which they work to see the interdisciplinary potential in their research, even if they do not continue to study the disease following the end of the crisis. Dr. Polonsky emphasized that while the pandemic is tragic, there are silver linings to be found in new opportunities to spur innovation, collaboration, and advancement from scientists that seek to solve the pandemic [4]. Regarding those that remained steadfast in continuing their research without shifting their focus to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr Polonsky offers a very insightful perspective: it is only natural that some looked at the opportunities that the pandemic provided and decided to continue with their own research. Biological researchers may be categorized into three groups of equal imporBiological researchers may tance: those who study fundamental interactions be categorized into three in nature, those who do groups of equal importance: translational work by applying fundamental those who study fundamenfindings, and those who tal interactions in nature, conduct clinical research those who do translational in order to benefit the general population. Each work by applying fundamengroup of researchers can tal findings, and those who contribute to solving disease outbreaks by work- conduct clinical research in ing collaboratively. Dr. order to benefit the general Polonsky believes that population. even though research does have to adjust to the circumstances of the surrounding world, each step in the process of finding a solution is essential in both normal science and science during a crisis [4].

“

One researcher mentioned by Dr. Polonsky who shifted their research to address the pandemic was Dr. Maryellen Giger, a faculty member of the Radiology Department. Dr. Giger studies imaging, and normally works with artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve the diagnosis of breast cancer with mammograms. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, she pivoted to address COVID-19 through her own lens of expertise by taking images of COVID-19 patients' organs—their lungs in par-

Science in society review

References 1. Carlsen, Benedicte, and Glenton, Claire. “The Swine Flu Vaccine, Public Attitudes, and Researcher Interpretations: a Systematic Review of Qualitative Research.” BMC Health Services Research, BioMed Central, 24 Jun. 2016, bmchealthservres. biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-016-1466-7. 2. NASEM: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “Integrating Clinical Research into Epidemic Response: The Ebola Experience.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 26 Jun. 2017, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441679/. 3. Katzelnick, Leah C, et al. “Dengue: Knowledge Gaps, Unmet Needs, and Research Priorities.” The Lancet. Infectious Diseases, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Mar. 2017, www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5967882/. 4. K. Polonsky, MD. Personal interview. 28 Nov. 2020.

Eduardo G. Gonzalez is a third year student at the University of Chicago, majoring in Biological Sciences, Biological Chemistry, and Chemistry. His interests fall primarily on the study of molecular interactions as a framework for understanding more complex processes undertaken by microorganisms and viruses. Besides writing for SISR, Eduardo is an Emergency Medical Responder for UCEMS, a student-run first responder unit, and a chair for both MUNUC and ChoMUN, Model UN organizations that run conferences. In his free time, Eduardo enjoys writing science fiction, being bad at basketball, watching romantic comedies, and discussing cinematic masterpieces like Space Jam, Sharkboy and Lavagirl, and others.

Winter 2021

The Fatal Threat of COVID-19 Misinformation through Social Media Megan Lee Introduction A viral video embracing hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug with unproven efficacy against COVID-19, is only the latest in a series of rumors, conspiracy theories, and false information that have spread like wildfire on social media. This particular video, along with President Trump’s viral tweet, received millions of views and shares [1]. Not only do these videos directly contradict guidance from the nation's top public health advisors, but they also reflect the challenges that arise in combating the dissemination of misinformation [2]. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, quickly corrected the statement, explaining that Trump’s comments were based on anecdotes and not a controlled clinical trial. Similar to

Trump's hydroxychloroquine tweet, other public leaders have openly questioned the effectiveness of certain mitigation and control measures (e.g., the use of masks), equating the virus to the seasonal influenza, and politicizing the development of a vaccine. The spread of misinformation is no recent phenomenon. In fact, misinformation has been a part of the conversation since the Enlightenment and the birth of free press [3]. However, in today's digitally-tuned world, most people associate misinformation, or “fake news,” with the spread of false information through online outlets [4]. The bottom-up communication on social media makes it easy to spread misinformation, or “any false or inaccurate information deliberately intended to deceive an audience,” as stated by The Pan Health Organization,

especially when promoting certain political agendas. The U.S. political climate in 2016 set a precedent for the more recent COVID-19 infodemic, in which the rampant nature of fake election news created an atmosphere of mistrust and paranoia that strained The spread of misinthe relationship between formation is no rethe American cent phenomenon. In press and the fact, misinformation public [5].

“

has been a part of the

BuzzFeed an- conversation since alysts found Enlightenment that, during the the last three and the birth of free months of the press [3]. 2016 presidential campaign, the top 20 fake election news stories circulated on Facebook garnered 8.7 million shares, comments, and reactions [6]. In contrast, the top 20 real news articles gathered just 7.3 million on the platform. Fake content on Facebook skyrocketed and surpassed that of the content from major news outlets right before the election, which may have swayed the results.

Tweet from President Trump on March 21, 2020 on the so-called efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. Credit: Twitter

Science in society review

Total engagement for top fake election news stories on Facebook compared to 19 major news outlets combined.

Why does misinformation spread efficiently?

Today, 500 million tweets are sent every day and an estimated 2.4 billion people go online daily [7]. People are now able to access information and share their ideas in a way that was not possible in a previous generation. While the internet has increased the overall frequency of communication, it has also reshaped the way in which we consume news. Unlike the work produced by professional newsrooms, it no longer matters how valid or well-informed one’s ideas are when posting on social media. Yet, these social media users have a potentially greater ability to influence people's views, as seen in the Buzzfeed analysis.

ation the since ent

The reason why misinformation spreads so quickly is because outlets, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, tailor their content to align with each user’s individual beliefs. People naturally prefer listening to others who are most

Winter 2021

like themselves culturally and politically, who speak simply, and those who provide messages they want to hear. False information outlets can then use this system to maximize views for profit because the mechanics of social media encourage the formation of a filter bubble, or a state of intellectual isolation that website algorithms use to selectively guess what information a user would like to see based on information about the user, such as location, past click-behavior and search history [8]. These filter bubbles allow people to seek out information that reinforces their preexisting views, similarly to how families, friends, and other social communities may validate our own opinions [9].

Covid-19 Misinformation: To censor or not? While the U.S. prides itself on the freedom of expression, the COVID-19 pandemic reflects the challenges of adhering to this principle. It has become

more difficult to weed out misinformation when people can freely share their opinions and spread inaccurate information without fearing accountability. Major social media platforms have taken it upon themselves to mitigate the spread of misinformation by instilling specific rules and policies for posting on their sites. However, censorship on these platforms raises serious concerns about the future of free speech. The now-retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in an opinion on a 2017 First Amendment case, called the modern cyber age a revolution of historic proportions [10]. Misinformation on all He states, “we cannot aspects of COVID-19 has a p p re c i ate been spreading on soyet its full dimensions cial media, from how and vast the virus originated to potential to its cause, treatment, alter how mechanism of we think, and express our- spread. selves, and define who we want to be.” According to Justice Kennedy social media is

“ 41

rate information? Curbing the spread of such incendiary misinformation on social media should be a necessary compromise for protecting the greater global health system.

Censored content by President Trump on Twitter.

Credit: Twitter

one of the most important places for the exchange of views. He compares social media to a public forum, akin to a public street or park. The question then becomes whether the censorial actions of private companies on social media is in violation of the First Amendment and denies their users full access to public spaces. While the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship, social media platforms are operated by private corporations - they are free to exercise editorial judgement as they see fit. These companies regularly remove content that they consider objectionable based on categories outlined in their policies. Examples of “objectionable content” include “hate speech”, “glorification of violence”, and “harmful and dangerous content” [11]. But given their growing role in public discourse, should social media companies be responsible for censoring

dangerous misinformation? If so, who exactly defines “misinformative content” and how do they deem certain content be false or harmful? As stated by The World Health Organization, the COVID-19 outbreak and response has been accompanied by a massive infodemic: “an overabundance of information—some accurate and some not—that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it.” With billions of users, social media companies have immense power to shape the opinions and perspectives of many people, especially when it comes to the virus. One can argue that censorship single-sidedly dictates what the public ought to know and what ought to remain concealed on social media. However, in times when international public health is at stake, don't social media companies have a responsibility to protect their users from inaccu-

Misinformation on all aspects of COVID-19 has been spreading on social media, from how the virus originated to its cause, treatment, and mechanism of spread. Inaccurate information can be circulated and absorbed very quickly, changing people’s behavior, and potentially leading them to take greater risks [12]. This infodemic can even have psychological consequences, as it makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance. This can affect one’s mental health by inducing anxiety and depression, causing one to feel overwhelmed, emotionally drained, and unable to meet important demands [13]. Therefore, in the face of this pandemic, it is essential that social media platforms Misinformation costs censor misinformation lives. Without better for the sake coordination between of public safety and the medical community, mental well- governments, and the ness.

“

mass media, diagnostic tests will go unused, immunization campaigns will not meet their targets, and the virus will continue to thrive.

Facebook's decision to remove one of Donald Tr u m p’s posts from its platform is one example of a social media platform taking on their fact-checking responsibility. The censored video

Science in society review

featured President Trump on a Fox News interview, stating that “children are almost immune from the coronavirus.” On Fox & Friends earlier that same week, Trump said, "If you look at children, children are almost—and I would almost say definitely—but almost immune from this disease.” A Facebook spokesperson stated that the clip “includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19,” which is in direct violation of their policies around harmful COVID misinformation [14]. This was the first time that Facebook removed one of Trump’s posts for coronavirus misinformation. Twitter also asked a Trump campaign account to remove the same video before the campaign could tweet again. While some may find it difficult to overlook politically motivated censorships on online platforms, the removal of misinformation related to medical topics such as COVID-19 should belong to a different category— not political, but rather one of science, where information can be objectively judged based on scientific consensus. Misinformation costs lives. Without better coordination between the medical community, governments, and the mass media, diagnostic tests will go unused, immunization campaigns will not meet their targets, and the virus will continue to thrive. Although censorship might seem controversial on the surface, it is necessary in the case of COVID-19 in order to protect the greater global health system. Social media platforms wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to

Winter 2021

censor or delete information, to control what people see or do not see, and ultimately shape the interpretation of public events. They have the potential to help stop the spread of this virus once and for all. As stated by WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “To fight the pandemic we need trust and solidarity. We must join forces to fight it and to promote science-based public health advice.”

References 1. Bump, Philip. “Analysis | Trump's Stunning Claim That He's Taking Hydroxychloroquine Could Trigger a Cascade of Negative Effects.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 19 May 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/2020/05/18/trumps-stunn i n g - c l a i m - t h at - h e s - t a k i n g - hy droxychloroquine-could-trigger-cascade-negative-effects/. 2. Bull-Otterson, Lara. “Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Prescribing Patterns by Provider Specialty Following Initial Reports of Potential Benefit for COVID-19 Treatment - United States, January–June 2020.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3 Sept. 2020, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ wr/mm6935a4.htm. 3. Mansky, Jackie. “The Age-Old Problem of ‘Fake News.’” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 7 May 2018, www.smithsonianmag. com/history/age-old-problem-fakenews-180968945/. 4. “FAKE NEWS: Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary.” FAKE NEWS | Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary, dictionary.cambridge. org/us/dictionary/english/fake-news. 5. Mark Jurkowitz, Amy Mitchell. “U.S. Media Polarization and the 2020 Election: A Nation Divided.” Pew Research Center's Journalism Project, 28 Aug. 2020, www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/ u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020election-a-nation-divided/. 6. Silverman, Craig. “This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook.” BuzzFeed News, BuzzFeed News, 16 Nov. 2016, www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viralfake-election-news-outperformed-realnews-on-facebook. 7. Shandrow, Kim Lachance. “10 Fascinating Facts About the World Wide Web on Its 25th Birthday.” Entrepreneur, 12 Mar. 2014, www.entrepreneur.com/ article/232149. 8. “What Is a Filter Bubble? - Definition from Techopedia.” Techopedia.com, www.techopedia.com/definition/28556/ filter-bubble.

9. Meserole, Chris. “How Misinformation Spreads on Social Media-And What to Do about It.” Brookings, Brookings, 9 May 2018, www.brookings.edu/ blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/09/ how-misinformation-spreads-on-social-media-and-what-to-do-about-it/. 10. Hudson Jr., David L. “Free Speech or Censorship? Social Media Litigation Is a Hot Legal Battleground.” ABA Journal, www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/ social-clashes-digital-free-speech. 11. Abrougui, Afef. “How Social Media Platforms Censor You.” IFEX, 8 Nov. 2016, ifex.org/how-social-media-platforms-censor-you/. 12. Mian, A., Khan, S. Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation. BMC Med 18, 89 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12916-020-01556-3 13. Zarefsky, Marc. “Why Depression, Anxiety Are Prevalent during COVID-19.” American Medical Association, 18 Aug. 2020, www.ama-assn. org/delivering-care/public-health/ why-depression-anxiety-are-prevalent-during-covid-19. 14. “Facebook Removes Donald Trump Post For False Coronavirus Claim, While Twitter Briefly Restricts Campaign Account - Update - News.” WOW!, 6 Aug. 2020, wowway.net/ news/read/categor y/news/article/ deadline-facebook_removes_donald_trump_post_for_making_fals-rpenskemc. 15. C. Calisher, D. Carroll, et al. “Coronavirus: the Spread of Misinformation.” BMC Medicine, BioMed Central, 1 Jan. 1970, bmcmedicine.biomedcentral. com/articles/10.1186/s12916-02001556-3.

18. Trump, Donald. “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN.” Twitter, Twitter, 21 Mar. 2020, twitter.com/realDonaldTrump. 19. “UNDERSTANDING THE INFODEMIC AND MISINFORMATION IN THE FIGHT AGAINST COVID-19.” PAHO, 2020, iris.paho.org/bitstream/ handle/10665.2/52052/Factsheet-infodemic_eng.pdf?sequence=14&isAllowed=y. 20. Wong, Julia Carrie. “Hydroxychloroquine: How an Unproven Drug Became Trump's Coronavirus 'Miracle Cure'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 Apr. 2020, www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/hydroxychloroquine-trump-coronavirus-drug.

S Megan Lee is a third year pre-medical student at the University of Chicago, double-majoring in Biology (with a specialization in Global Health) and Political Science. On campus, she investigates the causes and outcomes of multiple myeloma due to various racial and genetic factors for the Chiu Lab. Outside of SISR, she is on the executive board of the Pre-Medical Students Organization, UNICEF, and the Korean Students Organization. As a Scholar in Ethics and Medicine, Megan also works closely with The Hyde Park Institute, where she collaborates with physician-scholars and medical ethicists to discuss the traits required of a good healthcare clinician. When she is not frantically studying in the Reg, Megan enjoys running along the Point and exploring the Chicago food scene.

16. CBS News. “Coronavirus Cases and Exposures Sideline 260 Employees in Georgia's Largest Public School District.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 3 Aug. 2020, www.cbsnews.com/ news/georgia-covid-gwinnett-countyschool-district-260-employees-out/. 17. Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Did Fake News On Facebook Help Elect Trump? Here's What We Know.” NPR, NPR, 11 Apr. 2018, www.npr. org/2018/04/11/601323233/6-facts-weknow-about-fake-news-in-the-2016election.

Science in society review

MEET THE STAFF SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEW

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Allison Gentry // Caroline Kim MANAGING EDITORS Airi Kogishi // Mallory Moore // Nick Ornstein ASSOCIATE EDITORS Katherine Boggs // Josie Brown // Natalie Choi // Wonyoung Jang // Yoonseo Lee // Ziqi Lei // Thea Applebaum Licht // John Naughton // Neil Sashti // Helen Wei // Sophie Yang // Victor Hou Yuan Yang WRITERS Tara Chugh // Annagh Devitt // Ayushi Hegde // Nikhil Kumar // Megan Lee // Joalda Morancy // Annie Qiao // Eduardo Gabriel Gonzalez Santiago // Alena Spreitzer // Corinne Stonebraker

SCIENTIA

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Josh Everts // Rita Khouri MANAGING EDITORS Plash Goiporia // Isabel O’Malley-Krohn // Arundhati Pillai

SPECTRUM

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Pascale Boonstra // Olivia Paraschos MANAGING EDITORS William Cerny // Tanya Cukierman // Avery Rosado

PRODUCTION

SISR DIRECTOR Ariel Pan SCIENTIA DIRECTOR Bonnie Hu team francesca chu // caitlin ellithorpe // stephanie zhang

EVENTS

director hannah dubinski Coordinators Adrian kwiatkowski // rosalind pan // tania pena reyes

EXECUTIVE Winter 2021

PRESIDENT Emily Guernsey VICE PRESIDENT Rohan Kumar

Science in society review

Science in Society Review Autumn 2020 Edition

Articles inside

IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CLImATE CHANGE WE NEGLECT OUR mOST VULNERABLE CORINNE STONEBRAkER

THE JOURNEY TO mARS STARTS HERE ON EARTH JOALDA mORANCY

THE EXPANSION OF mONOCULTURE FARmING AND ITS NEGATIVE ImPACTS: IS THERE HOPE ALENA SPREITzER