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

THE JOURNEY TO mARS STARTS HERE ON EARTH JOALDA mORANCY

Courtesy of SpaceX

By 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 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 exArtist’s Rendition of Starships on a Mars base ploration advocate Dr. Robert Space Station. Along with the and that “a self-sustaining setZubrin, is one of the world’s inspiration and wonder that tlement on Mars…will give us largest space advocacy organi- comes from learning about an insurance policy, a Plan B” zations with 38 chapters world- the space around us, there are [10]. Scientists with similar wide in every continent except many practical benefits that views to Kaku claim that we Antarctica [6]. It works to build come from space exploration. need to make humans an inpublic interest in permanent LED lights, CAT scanners, and terplanetary species to avoid human presence on Mars and the portable computer all exist extinction. Despite putting so sees the planet as “the New because the idea stemmed from much effort into telling the pubWorld” [7, 8]. As time goes a NASA engineer working on lic why it is important, they fail on, this a specific space mission [9]. to put the same amount of efWHILE ORGANIzATIONS dangerous Technologies and techniques fort into dealing with the growARE WORkING TOWARD misconception that critical to modern life such as the use of satellites to analyze ing issue of our planet heating up. Furthermore, there are GETTING OFF THIS PLANET the planet weather and climate patterns some people who believe that AND mAkING HUmANS AN Mars can be our Plan on Earth, the Internet, and water purification systems are all we should in fact terraform the planet Mars. This feat would reINTERPLANETARY SPECIES, B may be- derivations of space explora- quire bombarding the Martian OUR OWN EARTH IS SLOWLY come more tion. Deep space exploration is atmosphere with volatile eleBURNING UP. substantial in peoan especially valuable scientific endeavor because by traveling ments to thicken it up in order to raise the surface temperature ple’s minds. Unless we actively to different planetary objects to a suitable level for human choose to work toward making in outer space, we may address life. Terraforming also includes our own planet habitable for ev- scientific questions and harvest potentially recreating the Mareryone who is living on it, put- valuable resources such as via tian magnetosphere, which ting the effort into colonizing asteroid mining. Traveling to shields the planet from cosmic another planet will only lead us Mars will help us learn more radiation and solar wind, which back down the rabbit hole of ig- about why the planet that was was lost during early solar sysnorance and fallacious hope. If once a blue marble with oceans tem formation. we choose to believe that this is full of liquid water is now a This effort not what we must work toward––a barren piece of rock, and how only necessitates new home on another planet we can apply this knowledge technology that while abandoning our original to Earth and prevent it from doesn’t currenthome––we will only fall into happening here. In exploring ly exist, but also the trap that is human error Mars, we are not only trying to requires an inand repeat the process of killing answer the fundamental ques- credible investa planet elsewhere. tions of our universe, but we ment of capital are also developing important and time. Why Despite the need to focus on the technologies and making sure not put that efissues threatening our home, Earth doesn’t follow suit. fort instead tospace exploration is valuable to ward something our lives, both theoretically and Despite the many benefits of that would be practically. The curiosity deep space exploration, the way we more impactful inside us leads humans to go go about it could harm the fu- like combating out and explore, trying to learn ture of humanity if we are not climate change? about the universe around us mindful of our methods of ex- Many can agree and why we exist. The desire to ploration. The colonization of on the imporexplore outer space has united Mars has been a long-sought tance of Mars people of different nationali- out plan that many prominent exploration, but ties and cultures, an example scientists have promoted. Phys- we should put a halt to this idea being the vast collaboration icist Dr. Michio Kaku stated of a permanent “human colthat supports the International that “extinction is the norm” ony” on a terraformed planet

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.

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, 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/.

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

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

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

COVID-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 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 to blow very hot air into a patient’s lung to eliminate the virus” [3].

Erroneous research has 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 added democratic determination 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 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].

Credit: CDC Image Library

NEARLY 40 ARTICLES REDACTED BECAUSE TAINED mISLEADING HAVE BEEN THEY CONOR INCOR“ RECT INFORmATION ABOUT THE NOVEL VIRUS [2].

COVID-19 molecule.

A bookstore shelf filled with scientific journals.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

the reliability of credible journals give credence to Previously, such profiteering was a threat mainly to the claims of these actors and can have long lastthe 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, coning public health effects. A working paper from the Becker Friedman Institute found that locations with greater exposure to media promoting misinformation on COVID-19, such as the claim that hydroxychloroquine was a cure, had a greater number of cases and deaths 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. cluding that the anti-malaria drug had no effect from the pandemic on the progression of the disease and was even [12]. Publishing miscorrelated with increased mortality. As a direct steps likely contributed result of the paper’s publication, the World Health not only to the spread Organization stopped the drug’s clinical trials. The of misinformation but also to the poor impleco-authors, all medical physicians, were highly re- mentation of COVID-19 prevention methods and garded in their field and believed they published therefore, a greater spread. The publishing and rework that positively contributed to the knowledge daction—of not only the Lancet paper, but of also of the disease and its treatments. Yet, soon after the 40 other COVID-19 papers—will likely generate paper was published, readers raised alarms about greater confusion and increase skepticism when a the researchers’ methods. A small and relatively viable cure or vaccine is presented. new company owned by one of the co-authors processed a large majority of the raw clinical data used Research publication was a flawed practice before in the study. It was unclear how such a company COVID-19. While alternatives like preprint servers could handle the study’s large amount of data while seemed to present a possible solution to traditional protecting patient confidentiality. The concerns publishing, they too have been compromised under were brought up with both the co-authors and the the stress of the pandemic. With easier and faster journal, both of which requested access to the raw information dissemination through social media, it data files. The company refused, leading the co-au- is more important than ever to reevaluate how scithors to request a redaction of their paper stating, ence is shared. It is far easier to reject a paper than “Because all the authors were not granted access to to redact it after it has been published. 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 VENT THE GATEkEEPING BURDEN redaction of such an article caused greater conEXPERIENCED BY JOURNALS IS TO fusion on the efficacy of DISmANTLE THE WHOLE PROCESS hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19.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 PUBLISHING mISSTEPS LIkELY CONTRIBUTED NOT ONLY TO THE SPREAD OF mISINFORmATION BUT “ ALSO TO THE POOR ImPLEmENTATION OF COVID-19 PREVENTION mETHODS AND THEREFORE, A GREATER SPREAD.

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.

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.