Get smarter, faster. Subscribe to our daily newsletter.
2020 ties for hottest year on record, says NASA and NOAA
In a joint briefing at the 101st American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting, NASA and NOAA revealed 2020's scorching climate data.
16 January, 2021
(Photo: Adobe Stock)
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>You may have noticed a trend in the last few years. At the beginning of every year, NASA and NOAA share their analyses of the previous year's climate data. And every year, their data reveal the previous year to be <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/climate-change-2018-hot-year?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">one of the hottest on record</a>—with 2016 at the torrid top of 139 years of documentation. That's no coincidence. Climate change is happening, it's happening now, and it's human-caused.</p><p>That's the consensus of 97 percent of climate scientists, according to <a href="https://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/whatweknow_website.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 2014 report</a> from the <a href="https://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">American Association for the Advancement of Science</a>. That's the same percentage of physicians and cardiovascular scientists who agree that smoking causes lung cancer, and it's a consensus reached through decades worth of surveys and studies into the realities and causes of climate change.</p><p>Now, climate scientists have two more analyses to add to their overwhelming evidence. In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE7tphRMTMU&t=1527s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a briefing at this year's 101<sup>st</sup> American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting</a>, representatives for NASA and NOAA revealed their independent analyses of 2020's climate data. And the trend continues. </p>
A dead heat
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ2MDU4Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNzM0MzIwNH0.3NrKDBoOdpFL5IXF3cDbom-Dp2RlrzJgvAciXcb0GDE/img.jpg?width=980" id="69d06" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="886a2617e756181e6a11e20a00b65dff" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1266" data-height="654" />A graph showing the global mean temperatures from 1880–2020 (with the years 1951–1980 serving as the mean baseline).
(Photo: NASA and NOAA)
<p>For <a href="https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" target="_blank">its 2020 analysis</a>, NASA gathered surface temperature measurements from more than 26,000 weather stations. This data was incorporated with data from satellites as well as sea-surface temperatures taken from ship and buoy instruments. Once tallied, NASA's data showed 2020 barely edged out 2016 has the warmest year on record, with average global temperatures 1.02°C (1.84°F) above the baseline mean (1951-1980).</p><p>In a separate analysis of the raw data, NOAA found 2020 to be slightly cooler than 2016. This distinction is the result of the different methodologies used in each—for example, NOAA uses a different baseline period (1901–2000) and does not infer temperatures in polar regions lacking observations. Together, these analyses put 2020 in a statistical dead heat with the sweltering 2016 and demonstrate the global-warming trend of the past four decades.</p><p>"The last seven years have been the warmest seven years on record, typifying the ongoing and dramatic warming trend," <a href="http://email.prnewswire.com/ls/click?upn=OXp-2BEvHp8OzhyU1j9bSWuwMvMWelqIco5RbfBrouY-2BQCsSv6FnrhBjR9xReGqV57KGOs0rVc5GKMmgs-2FJKbOzjb0sJ6yjzUvrv2w75ulYk3EUck8pSjkzYhoy5ADXO0eOcn7LDjqsHyK2gp2NRf2UysMK-2F9SN4oYUmRylQcRtSUo6-2FcYeK-2B9naUetByXNCR2gF8u_FU3lc-2FvIcVOtjb4iEuBVjFYoW0IRF5dtM-2FDfzzkhmYHO5IVgq387-2BxdHEMunBZ1-2Fy0-2BJDgXnZEYvN604G1TWJfy4M4HKnIouyasgRyWEHIYmPTiDXeFrd9FqRmsl0JQfksEElkp2ITvgyFkkivWV3GiFH7z7tl1cTZ2rNh2c-2FbCRKQxkH4-2BChgYT6uWeYOvXusiC4cDsZkEBvw7lOEdPsPq78JT8F5x5gc5cMRaRJY-2FZ8q8peaKsS7Mfc5OQ6yjyEU5YUHR4QKJ1Fn-2FDuwJ5jk4Gm28sxJZNXX9IEO-2FOHlhyRcJbl6rMWcoeJZDEd-2BM8UJ5ZY-2FYqc1DHevd1Mz-2B1fQ-3D-3D" target="_blank">Gavin Schmidt</a>, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210115103020.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said in a release</a>. "Whether one year is a record or not is not really that important—the important things are long-term trends. With these trends, and as the human impact on the climate increases, we have to expect that records will continue to be broken."</p><p>And they are. According to the analyses, 2020 was the warmest year on record for Asia and Europe, the second warmest for South America, the fourth warmest for Africa and Australia, and the tenth warmest for North America. </p><p>All told, 2020 was 1.19°C (2.14°F) above averages from the late-19<sup>th</sup> century, a period that provides a rough approximate for pre-industrial conditions. This temperature is closing in on the Paris Climate Agreement's preferred goal of <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreemen" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">limiting global warming to 1.5°C</a> of those pre-industrial conditions.</p>2020's hotspot was—the Artic?
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ2MDU5My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTA5OTU1MH0.0ZCixGwhHbjmyO6By_eaMI-cXrM2-rsPq32J-pAVWPs/img.jpg?width=980" id="34c94" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="846b12bfa65c6d1b8d0a5b0d0214e091" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1106" data-height="672" />A map of global mean temperatures in 2020 shows an scorching year for the Arctic.
(Photo: NASA and NOAA)
<p>Heatwaves have become more common all over the world, but a region that really endured the heat in 2020 was the <a href="https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%2030%20years,climate%20change%20in%20the%20Arctic." target="_blank">Arctic</a>.</p><p>"The big story this year is Siberia; it was a hotspot," Russell Vose, chief of the analysis and synthesis branch of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, said during the briefing. "In May, some places were 18°F above the average. There was a town in Siberia […] that reported a high temperature of 104°F. If that gets verified by the World Metrological Organization, it will the first there's been a weather station in the Arctic with a temperature above 100°F."</p><p>The Arctic is warming at three times the global mean, thanks to <a href="https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%2030%20years,climate%20change%20in%20the%20Arctic." target="_blank">a phenomenon known as Arctic Amplification</a>. As the Arctic warms, it loses its sea ice, and this creates a feedback loop. The more Arctic sea ice loss, the more heat introduced into the oceans; the more heat introduced, the more sea ice loss. And the longer this trend continues, the more devastating the effects.</p><p>For example, since the 1980s, there's been a 50 percent decline in sea ice, and this loss has exposed more of the ocean to the sun's rays. That energy then gets trapped in the ocean as heat. As the <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ocean heat content</a> rises, it threatens rising sea levels and the sustainability of natural ecosystems. In 2020 alone, 255 zeta joules of heat above the baseline were introduced into Earth's oceans. In (admittedly) dramatic terms, that's <a href="https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/01/14/twin-cities-scientist-heat-of-5-to-6-hiroshima-atom-bombs-per-second-into-earths-oceans" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the equivalent of introducing 5 to 6 Hiroshima atom bombs</a> worth of energy every second of every day.</p><p>Looking beyond the Arctic, the average snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was also the lowest on record. Like the Arctic sea ices, such <a href="https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/snow/climate.html#:~:text=Snow's%20effect%20on%20climate,especially%20the%20western%20United%20States." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">snow cover</a> helps regulate Earth's surface temperatures. Its melt off in the spring and summer also provides the freshwater ecosystems rely on to survive and farmers need to grow crops, especially in <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/too-many-trees?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_self">the Western United States</a>.</p>Natural disasters get a man-made bump
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQ2MDU5NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MjUwMjE0Mn0.R_juvxCWUw-S9RDkAobjXeMn2qMHg-XVgsOHW74Uz-s/img.jpg?width=980" id="51830" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7b3e734e1d03eaec341dca40df0939f0" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1123" data-height="672" />A map of 2020's billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, which totaled approximately $95 billion in losses.
(Photo: NASA and NOAA)
<p>2020 was also a record-breaking year for natural disasters. In the U.S. alone, there were 22 billion-dollar disasters, the most ever recorded. Combined, they resulted in a total of $95 billion in losses. The western wildfires alone consumed more than 10 million acres and destroyed large portions of Oregon, Colorado, and California.</p><p>The year also witnessed a record-setting Atlantic Hurricane season with more than 30 named storms, 13 of which were hurricanes. Typically, the World Meteorological Organization <a href="https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames_history.shtml#:~:text=Instead%20a%20strict%20procedure%20has,is%20repeated%20every%20sixth%20year." target="_blank">names storms</a> from an annual list of 21 selected names—one for each letter of the alphabet, minus Q, U, X, Y, and Z. For only <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/914453403/so-2020-new-storm-forms-named-alpha-because-weve-run-out-of-letters" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the second time in history</a>, the Organization had to resort to naming storms after Greek letters because they ran out of alphabet.</p>For the record, there's a consensus about the record
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9bb94f5d5a58d40f03e1515f3c2e467c"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gzksqQDI_kE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Such records are a dramatic reminder of climate change's ongoing effect on our planet. They make for an eye-catching headline, sure. But those headlines can sometimes mask the fact that these years are part of decade-long trends, trends providing a preview of what a climate-changed world will be like. </p><p>And in case there was any question as to whether these trends were the result of natural processes or man-made conditions, Schmidt and Vose did not mince words. </p><p>As Schmidt said in the briefing: "Many, many things have caused the climate to change in the past: asteroids, wobbles in the Earth's orbit, moving continents. But when we look at the 20<sup>th</sup> century, we can see very clearly what has been happening. We know the continents have not moved very much, we know the orbit has not changed very much, we know when there were volcanoes, we know what the sun is doing, and we know what we've been doing."</p><p>He continued, "When we do an attribution by driver of climate change over the 20<sup>th</sup> century, what we find is that the overwhelming cause of the warming is the increase of greenhouse gases. When you add in all of the things humans have done, all of the trends over this period are attributable to human activity."</p><p>The data are in; the consensus is in. The only thing left is to figure out how to prevent the worst of climate change before it's too late. As bad as 2020 was, it was only a preview of what could come.<strong></strong></p>
Keep reading
Show less
How New York's largest hospital system is predicting COVID-19 spikes
Northwell Health is using insights from website traffic to forecast COVID-19 hospitalizations two weeks in the future.
14 January, 2021
Credit: Getty Images
Sponsored by Northwell Health
- The machine-learning algorithm works by analyzing the online behavior of visitors to the Northwell Health website and comparing that data to future COVID-19 hospitalizations.
- The tool, which uses anonymized data, has so far predicted hospitalizations with an accuracy rate of 80 percent.
- Machine-learning tools are helping health-care professionals worldwide better constrain and treat COVID-19.
<p>One of the most devastating aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been unpredictability. The nation's health systems—especially those in hard-hit areas like New York City—have had to adapt to sudden surges of COVID-19 cases, all while dealing with limited resources, existing patients, and a novel virus that's still not fully understood.</p><p>But what if health systems were able to forecast COVID-19 hospitalizations two weeks before they occur? Northwell Health, the largest health care system in New York state, recently deployed a predictive tool that does just that.</p><p>Northwell Health's <a href="https://www.northwell.edu/northwell-website-patterns-predict-covid-19-cases" target="_blank">surveillance dashboard</a> is able to predict COVID-19 hospitalizations by using insights from machine learning. In March, Northwell Health's Customer Insights Group developed an algorithm that's been mining data from online traffic to the Northwell.edu website, which has received more than 20 million hits since March.<strong></strong></p><p>The algorithm collects data through 15 different indicators, each of which reflects the online behavior of the website's visitors. For example, the tool analyzes metrics such as the length of time users spend on certain pages, searches for emergency department wait times, and specific symptoms users search for. Combined, this information translates into something like the "public mood" of the website on any given day.</p>
<blockquote>Since Northwell Health began using the predictive tool in September, it's predicted COVID-19 hospitalizations with an accuracy of about 80 percent.</blockquote>
<p>To understand how this mood relates to future COVID-19 cases, Northwell Health began comparing its data with a timeline of COVID-19 hospitalizations across 23 hospitals and nearly 800 outpatient facilities and in the metro New York area. This enabled the Customer Insights Group to see patterns of online activity that precede future increases or decreases in hospitalizations.</p><p>Since Northwell Health began using the predictive tool in September, it's predicted COVID-19 hospitalizations with an accuracy of about 80 percent.</p><p>"This is really the first tool that I've been exposed to that gives me a sort of guestimate of what two weeks from now may look like," said Dr. <a href="https://www.northwell.edu/find-care/find-a-doctor/emergency-medicine/dr-eric-scott-cruzen-md-mba-11346068" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eric Cruzen, </a>chief medical informatics officer of Northwell's emergency medicine services and chair of the emergency department at Lenox Health Greenwich Village in Manhattan.</p><p>"Even if the data can provide an idea of whether to expect an increase, decrease, or stasis, that's valuable. Because every day we're working to estimate what tomorrow's going to bring. Any tool that's going to shed light on that is a good tool in my book."</p>
The value of forecasting
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTA0Njk2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzM2NDQzOH0.rid9regiDaKczCCKBsu7wrHkNQ64Vz_XcOEZIzAhzgM/img.jpg?width=980" id="2bb93" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="31345afbdf2bd408fd3e9f31520c445a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1546" data-height="1056" />Northwell emergency departments use the dashboard to monitor in real time.
Credit: Northwell Health
<p>One unique benefit of forecasting COVID-19 hospitalizations is that it allows health systems to better prepare, manage and allocate resources. For example, if the tool forecasted a surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations in two weeks, Northwell Health could begin:</p><ul><li>Making space for an influx of patients</li><li>Moving personal protective equipment to where it's most needed</li><li>Strategically allocating staff during the predicted surge</li><li>Increasing the number of tests offered to asymptomatic patients</li></ul><p>The health-care field is increasingly using machine learning. It's already helping doctors develop <a href="https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2020/06/09/dc19-1870" target="_blank">personalized care plans for diabetes patients</a>, improving cancer screening techniques, and enabling mental health professionals to better predict which patients are at <a href="https://healthitanalytics.com/news/ehr-data-fuels-accurate-predictive-analytics-for-suicide-risk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">elevated risk of suicide</a>, to name a few applications.</p><p>Health systems around the world have already begun exploring how <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315944/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">machine learning can help battle the pandemic</a>, including better COVID-19 screening, diagnosis, contact tracing, and drug and vaccine development.</p><p>Cruzen said these kinds of tools represent a shift in how health systems can tackle a wide variety of problems.</p><p>"Health care has always used the past to predict the future, but not in this mathematical way," Cruzen said. "I think [Northwell Health's new predictive tool] really is a great first example of how we should be attacking a lot of things as we go forward."</p>Making machine-learning tools openly accessible
<p>Northwell Health has made its predictive tool <a href="https://github.com/northwell-health/covid-web-data-predictor" target="_blank">available for free</a> to any health system that wishes to utilize it.</p><p>"COVID is everybody's problem, and I think developing tools that can be used to help others is sort of why people go into health care," Dr. Cruzen said. "It was really consistent with our mission."</p><p>Open collaboration is something the world's governments and health systems should be striving for during the pandemic, said Michael Dowling, Northwell Health's president and CEO.</p><p>"Whenever you develop anything and somebody else gets it, they improve it and they continue to make it better," Dowling said. "As a country, we lack data. I believe very, very strongly that we should have been and should be now working with other countries, including China, including the European Union, including England and others to figure out how to develop a health surveillance system so you can anticipate way in advance when these things are going to occur."</p><p>In all, Northwell Health has treated more than 112,000 COVID patients. During the pandemic, Dowling said he's seen an outpouring of goodwill, collaboration, and sacrifice from the community and the tens of thousands of staff who work across Northwell.</p><p>"COVID has changed our perspective on everything—and not just those of us in health care, because it has disrupted everybody's life," Dowling said. "It has demonstrated the value of community, how we help one another."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Should law enforcement be using AI and cell phone data to find rioters?
The attack on the Capitol forces us to confront an existential question about privacy.
12 January, 2021
Supporters of US President Donald Trump enter the US Capitol's Rotunda on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC.
Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
- The insurrection attempt at the Capitol was captured by thousands of cell phones and security cameras.
- Many protestors have been arrested after their identity was reported to the FBI.
- Surveillance experts warn about the dangers of using facial recognition to monitor protests.
<p>If ever there were a reason to wear masks, the insurrection at the Capitol last week would have been it. But many of those present believed the anti-mask rhetoric being used as a distraction from the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">nation's skyrocketing death rate</a>. In fact, the day might even prove to have been a <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/capitol-hill-riot-prove-covid-19-superspreader-event/story?id=75134968" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">superspreader event</a>, with at least <a href="https://www.axios.com/rep-pramila-jayapal-covid-19-capitol-hill-riot-1a7cda3c-973f-4376-97ad-f4eb3306a28c.html" target="_blank">two congresspeople becoming infected</a> after the siege. </p><p>Those involved in the attempted coup d'état were not concerned about a virus. Nor, apparently, were they worried about shielding themselves from the tens of thousands of hours of recorded video taken by thousands of phones. In a strange merging of social media and dark web chat rooms come to life, separating actual insurrectionists from revolutionary tourists could prove to be a cumbersome vocation. One thing is certain: identifying them is not difficult. </p><p>Instagram-worthy sieges bring us to a longstanding existential question: should law enforcement be allowed to use AI and cell phone data to prosecute offenders?</p><p>Of the many security failures that day, one stood out: the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/us/dc-police-previous-protests-capitol/index.html" target="_blank">small number of arrests</a> for a breach of outsized magnitude. As the nation ogled at an <a href="https://religiondispatches.org/q-shamans-new-age-radical-right-blend-hints-at-the-blurring-of-seemingly-disparate-categories/" target="_blank">unemployed actor turned conspiracy shaman</a> behind the speaker's chair in real-time, scenes of horrendous violence took hours, even days, to be released. In a game of <a href="https://www.insider.com/internet-slams-fbi-ask-for-help-identifying-mob-2021-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">seemingly futile catch-up</a>, federal agencies <a href="https://tips.fbi.gov/digitalmedia/aad18481a3e8f02" target="_blank">opened tip lines</a> to identify the insurrectionists that should have easily been in their grasp. </p><p>But the public responded.</p>
Brad Templeton: Today's Surveillance Society is Beyond Orwellian
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="06eb4a2ab19b644f5a3c0bf35ac2f42b"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/awFrWxfDA30?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>There's the <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2021/01/capitol-rioter-larry-rendall-brock-identified-to-fbi-by-ex.html" target="_blank">ex-wife of a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel</a> whose neck gaiter was pulled down; the <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/capitol-insurrectionists-losing-jobs-social-media-identification-20210108.html" target="_blank">patriotic cohort of Internet detectives</a> crowd-sourcing information for the FBI; the director of the infamous pseudoscience film, "Plandemic," <a href="https://conspirituality.net/transmissions/plandemics-mikki-willis-joins-praises-violent-capitol-mob/" target="_blank">praising the "patriots" that breached the building</a> moments after he left the siege himself; and that unemployed actor who regularly attended QAnon events leaving the most public trail imaginable, and who is <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55606044" target="_blank">currently in custody</a> facing serious charges.</p><p>Fish in barrels, all of them. What of the remaining thousands? </p><p>This privacy discussion is not new. Arthur Holland Michel, founder and co-director of the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, <a href="https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/gorgon-stare-surveillance" target="_self">warned Big Think in 2019</a> about the dangers of surveillance technology—specifically, in this case, a camera known as Gorgon Stare. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Say there is a big public protest. With this camera, you can follow thousands of protesters back to their homes. Now you have a list of the home addresses of all the people involved in a political movement. If on their way home you witness them committing some crime—breaking a traffic regulation or frequenting a location that is known to be involved in the drug trade—you can use that surveillance data against them to essentially shut them up. That's why we have laws that prevent the use of surveillance technologies because it is human instinct to abuse them. That's why we need controls."</p><p>Late last year, University of Miami students <a href="https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/facial-recognition-software" target="_self">pushed back against school administrators</a> using facial recognition software for potentially insidious means—a protest not limited to that campus. Can you place students refusing to attend classes during a pandemic with armed insurrectionists attempting to change the results of a democratic election? Not even close. More to the point, however, we should leave political leanings out of the equation when deciding who we think should be monitored. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTQzNTgyMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTcxNzg2MH0.TLvfyh-a_svkgZVvOBDa11IoRDpdlvnA2ygBM9snU9w/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C49%2C0%2C49&height=700" id="81252" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ef0f43451bf9a466d323e52363fbea66" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />
Protesters enter the U.S. Capitol Building on January 06, 2021 in Washington, DC. Congress held a joint session today to ratify President-elect Joe Biden's 306-232 Electoral College win over President Donald Trump.
Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images
<p>Shortly after the siege, the New Yorker's Ronan Farrow <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-air-force-combat-veteran-breached-the-senate" target="_blank">helped reveal the identity</a> of the aforementioned lieutenant colonel while conservatives <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/07/antifa-capitol-gaetz-trump-riot/" target="_blank">claim the riots were actually antifa</a>—a conspiracy theory that's <a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748" target="_blank">been peddled before</a>. Politics simply can't be avoided in this age. Still, Albert Fox Cahn, founder of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, doesn't believe the insurrection attempt <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-capitol-attack-doesnt-justify-expanding-surveillance/" target="_blank">justifies an uptick in facial recognition technology</a>.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We don't need a cutting-edge surveillance dragnet to find the perpetrators of this attack: They tracked themselves. They livestreamed their felonies from the halls of Congress, recording each crime in full HD. We don't need facial recognition, geofences, and cell tower data to find those responsible, we need police officers willing to do their job."</p><p>The New Orleans City Council recently <a href="https://thelensnola.org/2020/12/18/new-orleans-city-council-approves-ban-on-facial-recognition-predictive-policing-and-other-surveillance-tech/" target="_blank">banned similar surveillance technologies</a> due to fears that it would unfairly target minorities. San Francisco was the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/facial-recognition-ban-san-francisco.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">first city to outright ban facial recognition</a> nearly two years ago. Cahn's point is that the FBI shouldn't be using AI to cover for the government's failure to protect the Capitol. Besides, the insurrectionists outed themselves on their own social media feeds. </p><p>When Pandora's box cracks open, it's hard to push the monster back in. Naomi Klein detailed the corporate takeover of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in "The Shock Doctrine." Real estate brokers, charter school companies, and government agencies didn't cause the flood, but they certainly profited from it. The fear is that companies like Clearview AI, which saw a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/technology/facial-recognition-clearview-capitol.html" target="_blank">26 percent spike in usage of its facial recognition service</a> following the attack, will be incentivized, as will police departments to use such technology for any means they choose.</p><p>Cahn comes to a similar conclusion: don't expose American citizens to the "anti-democratic technology" known as facial recognition. New Yorkers had to endure subway backpack checks for nearly a decade after 9/11; this slope is even slipperier. </p>As the US braces for <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/fbi-bulletin-armed-protests-state-us-capitol/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">further "armed protests"</a> in all 50 states over the coming week, phones need to keep capturing footage. Bystanders need to remain safe, of course. But if last week was any indication, the insurrectionists have difficulty deciphering between social media and real life. Their feeds should reveal enough.<p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>. His most recent book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
How will we govern super-powerful AI?
The AI constitution can mean the difference between war and peace—or total extinction.
08 January, 2021
- The question of conscious artificial intelligence dominating future humanity is not the most pressing issue we face today, says Allan Dafoe of the Center for the Governance of AI at Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute. Dafoe argues that AI's power to generate wealth should make good governance our primary concern.
- With thoughtful systems and policies in place, humanity can unlock the full potential of AI with minimal negative consequences. Drafting an AI constitution will also provide the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of past structures to avoid future conflicts.
- Building a framework for governance will require us to get past sectarian differences and interests so that society as a whole can benefit from AI in ways that do the most good and the least harm.
<div></div><ul class="ee-ul"></ul><div><br></div>
Keep reading
Show less
What is the purpose of universities?
For centuries, universities have advanced humanity toward truth. Professor Jonathan Haidt speaks to why college campuses are suddenly heading in the opposite direction.
08 January, 2021
Left: Professor Jonathan Haidt. Right: Artistotle.
Credit: Institute for Humane Studies, and Adobe Stock
Sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies
- In a lecture at UCCS, NYU professor Jonathan Haidt considers the 'telos' or purpose of universities: To discover truth.
- Universities that prioritize the emotional comfort of students over the pursuit of truth fail to deliver on that purpose, at a great societal cost.
- To make that point, Haidt quotes CNN contributor Van Jones: "I don't want you to be safe ideologically. I don't want you to be safe emotionally. I want you to be strong—that's different."
<p>Imagine someone had a knife and told you, "This is a great knife. The only problem is it can't cut anything."</p><p>You'd think, <em>Then it's not a great knife.</em></p><p>"<em>Telos</em> is the Greek word that Aristotle and others use to define the end or purpose of something," <strong>Jonathan Haidt</strong>, professor at New York University Stern School of Business and bestselling coauthor of <a href="https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0735224919?tag=amz-mkt-chr-us-20&ascsubtag=1ba00-01000-s1060-mac00-other-smile-us000-pcomp-feature-scomp-wm-5&ref=aa_scomp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>The Coddling of the American Mind</em></a>, says in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi499A4VsN8&t=28s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recorded lecture</a> at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs. The <em>telos</em> of a knife is to cut. What, Haidt asks, is the <em>telos</em> of a university?</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fe41f3c40d56a407f70ed931257fc710"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xi499A4VsN8?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p><span>Truth—that's the purpose of higher education, Haidt says. The academy aims to be an arena where truth is sought, discovered, and explored. When the university is functioning at its best, students learn to present arguments and receive counter-arguments in pursuit of truth.</span></p><p>The question is then: Are today's universities achieving their purpose?</p><p>In his lecture, Haidt suggests that changes in campus culture over the past decade have rerouted university resources away from the pursuit of truth and towards creating an emotionally and intellectually comfortable environment for students.</p><p>"From out of nowhere, students in 2014 began asking for trigger warnings," Haidt says. A growing contingent among student bodies and administrators seemed to believe students were fragile and needed to be aggressively protected from "bad" ideas, offensive imagery, and provocative arguments. Students began reporting faculty, protesting speakers, and publicly shaming peers whose words made them uncomfortable.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTI2NjQ3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NTY4MzI2Nn0.6sKah5XVHLOLAcK5dFmyuxRk65-XBNNll3Ow9QEOTSc/img.jpg?width=980" id="73a87" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="29b948cc5bcb85976d5337221ae99640" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="2000" data-height="1125" />
CNN contributor Van Jones speaks onstage at the EMA IMPACT Summit in 2018.
Credit: Michael Kovac/Getty Images for Environmental Media Association
<p>There are many places and institutions whose purpose, or <em>telos</em>, is comfort. But a university is not one of those places. To make that point, Haidt quotes CNN contributor Van Jones:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">I don't want you to be safe ideologically. I don't want you to be safe emotionally. I want you to be strong—that's different. I'm not going to pave the jungle for you. Put on some boots and learn how to deal with adversity. I'm not going to take all the weights out of the gym. That's the whole point of the gym. <em>This</em> is the gym.</p><p>By prioritizing comfort over the pursuit of truth, universities are ignoring their purpose. Higher education should be an arena of open inquiry and free expression, where ideas are exchanged, tested, and scrutinized. A liberal education should be "an invitation to be concerned not with the employment of what is familiar but with understanding what is not yet understood," <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Jpu7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT286&lpg=PT286&dq=%22an+invitation+to+be+concerned+not+with+the+employment+of+what+is+familiar+but+with+understanding+what+is+not+yet+understood.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=bmqaS1BxSm&sig=ACfU3U0aOokPZOGJlLFUVO9-a8VBV50tCw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_u-jd1_btAhWqzVkKHSdKBMsQ6AEwAnoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22an%20invitation%20to%20be%20concerned%20not%20with%20the%20employment%20of%20what%20is%20familiar%20but%20with%20understanding%20what%20is%20not%20yet%20understood.%E2%80%9D&f=false" target="_blank">according</a> to philosopher Michael Oakeshott.</p><p>What are the social repercussions if universities fail to achieve their purpose? New generations could lose more than academic muscle; they could lose the ability and inclination to pursue and prioritize truth. They could become so dependent on emotional comfort that they refuse to contemplate "what is not yet understood" in good faith, instead catastrophizing everything that doesn't fit into comfortable frameworks.</p><p>This is already happening, Haidt points out in his lecture. "We isolate young people from the adult skills that they will one day have to master," he says. This manifests in <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/28/727509438/college-students-and-their-parents-face-a-campus-mental-health-epidemic" target="_blank">growing anxiety, depression, and other disorders</a> among college students.</p><p>With college enrollment on the decline, and the global economy under tremendous strain, universities need to realize their <em>telos</em>—or they'll risk losing their essential role in society.</p>
You might also like:
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d1a3bbdeaba1ed201e5892b6a2ccbfb5"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IoXpNJLFngc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Keep reading
Show less
Survey shows Congress is more religious than America
A new survey shows who believes what and how it differs from what Americans believe as a whole.
07 January, 2021
Pope Francis addresses Congress in 2014.
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
- The newest survey of congressional religious beliefs shows our representatives aren't quite like us.
- Members of Congress are much more religious and more Christian than the general population.
- The effects of this disconnect are debatable.
<p> The Congress of the United States is much smaller than the national legislatures of other Western Democracies in proportional terms. Each member of The House of Representatives comes from a district of about 700,000 people, and each Senator can claim to speak for an entire state, the smallest of which contains nearly 600,000 people.</p><p>Because of the numbers involved, it is probably inevitable that the legislature's demographics are going to differ from that of the general population. For example, a higher percentage of them are <a href="https://www.ada.org/en/publications/ada-news/2020-archive/november/ada-member-dentists-elected-to-congress" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">dentists</a> than you might expect looking at the general <a href="https://www.ada.org/en/science-research/health-policy-institute/dental-statistics/workforce" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">population</a>. </p><p>The various rules and practicalities of office also produce some differences. The typical Senator is 62.9 years old, and the average Representative is 57.6. The median age for Americans is <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/u-s-median-age-highest-ever-4068948" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">38</a>. People elected to federal office also tend to have more money than the people they <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-is-rich-heres-wh_b_6311718?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADwKfC076wGPUKSPweSxmibgMqN55UCcjZ_F-AdnFsrAGapBFx9ZyLq_DkC77l9LXMQzAujvZJ5lyBT_AG8S7LrYQT0jRcAWByU4H2nIBv-9dlGj97p-VQVB9PSx96SxNqTFNtjQsYL61PokysW3KWAGWgAoN0PnA8bJV6Zm_VjS" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">represent</a>. </p><p>A new report from <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/2021/01/04/faith-on-the-hill-2021/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rel%20-%2021-01-04%20faith%20on%20the%20hill&org=982&lvl=100&ite=7652&lea=1693021&ctr=0&par=1&trk=" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Pew</a> reveals that the religious affiliations in Congress also dramatically differ from those of the people they represent. Taken as part of a series of similar reports, it reveals certain trends in Congressional demographics that differ from that of the country as a whole.</p>
The demographics of Congress and their constituents
<p> A whopping 88 percent of Representatives and Senators are Christians. Breaking this down, 55 percent of them identify as some sort of Protestant, and another 30 percent are Catholic. Mormons make up around 2 percent of the legislature, with Orthodox Christians following at just above 1 percent. This puts them well behind the Jews, which 6 percent of the body identified as. </p><p>Behind them came the Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Humanist, and Unaffiliated members. Each of these categories amounts to under one percent of Congress by themselves, for a collective total of 12 members. </p><p>Eighteen members refused to answer the survey; many of them also refused to answer two years ago—speculation as to why this is and what they actually believe continues elsewhere. </p><p>For comparison, only 65 percent of the general public identifies as a Christian. Beyond that, only 20 percent of the population is Catholic, and another 43 percent Protestant. People with no religious affiliation make up another 26 percent. Judaism is three times as common in Congress as it is elsewhere in the country, with only 2 percent of the population identifying as such. </p><p>Mormons and Orthodox Christians enjoy nearly propositional representation, as they make up 2 percent and just under 1 percent of the population nationally. The remaining represented religions are in a similar situation. They are under-represented but not nearly as much as the non-religious—Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus each make up about one percent of the general population. Unitarian Universalists are seated in Congress at the same rate as the aforementioned faiths but are just under one percent of the population. </p><p>Some trends emerge in this data. Since 1961, the year this survey was first sent out, the percentage of Christians has fallen, though by far less than the population overall. Like the rest of Protestant America, members of Congress are increasingly likely not to name a denomination, such as Lutheran or Baptist, but to instead identify with the more general term of Protestant. </p><p> It is also worth mentioning that there may be more to this topic than these questions can reveal.</p><p>Many Jewish people identify as such while also being agnostic or even <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">atheistic</a>. It is possible that the degree of actual belief among some of the members of Congress using the term varies dramatically. Likewise, the one "unaffiliated" member has stated before that they don't want to be bound by <a href="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2012/11/09/breaking-kyrsten-sinema-is-not-an-atheist/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">labels</a>, further reducing the usefulness of a survey that tries to label everybody.</p>Why might this be?
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yz8VbAxkaDw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> In addition to the previously mentioned difficulties of having an entirely representative legislature, some religious groups are still more electable than others.</p><p>A recent <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gallop poll</a> demonstrates that only about 60 percent of Americans would vote for a qualified atheist and that only a few more would support a similarly capable Muslim. While these numbers have increased over time and differ greatly based on party affiliation, it is probable that many non-Christian potential candidates justify not running on the grounds of these numbers. </p><p> Before you point out that these are majorities, that is who is <em>willing</em> to vote for such a person at all, not a list of people who <em>would</em> for sure. You'd probably want better numbers than that unless you're sure you can get all of them. </p>What does this mean for legislation?
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KS7pnPlQLcY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> It doesn't necessarily need to mean anything. Representatives of all faiths or lack thereof can govern in a secular manner that doesn't favor any particular worldview.</p><p>The Congressional Freethought Caucus, dedicated to fostering science and reason while defending the secular nature of <a href="https://secular.org/governmental-affairs/congressional-freethought-caucus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">government</a>, has 14 members. It is, obviously, impossible for all its members to be non-religious. Its members represent a variety of faiths and denominations of Christianity, including humanism, while supporting all people's rights.</p><p>A remaining concern is that the disproportionate representation could lead to specific points of view not being <a href="https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/01/04/the-religious-makeup-of-the-117th-congress-includes-a-few-surprises/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">heard</a>. There are no atheists in Congress to articulate their viewpoints on legislation that concerns others like them. This lack of representation is <a href="https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-representation-in-politics-matters" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">something</a> that <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/297143-why-our-representation-in-government-should-look-more-like-us" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">can</a> and <a href="https://genderwatch2018.org/scaling-womens-political-representation-matters/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">has</a> been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2018/oct/04/few-us-politicians-working-class" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said</a> for <a href="https://www.voanews.com/usa/why-arent-more-native-americans-members-us-congress" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other</a> demographic groups both now and at different points in our history. </p><p>In any small body representing a larger one, there will be strange demographic mismatches by necessity. In the case of the United States Congress, these differences are rather pronounced. While they may have only a limited effect on legislation, there may be other, less tangible ways that this disconnect causes issues. </p><p>Or, it might be nothing more than a statistical curiosity. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Should scientific studies be available for free?
Plan S is starting to take hold, but the cost is merely shifting even more to the researchers.
06 January, 2021
Credit: yurolaitsalbert / Adobe Stock
Technology & Innovation
- Launched in 2018, cOAlition S is trying to make all of the world's state-backed scientific papers open-access.
- Prestigious publishers like Springer Nature and Elsevier have now adopted a Plan S option for researchers.
- While more studies will be available to read for free, some of the expense is being passed back to authors, which could limit research in the future.
<p>In 2018 <a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cOAlition S</a> launched an ambitious program: to make all of the world's state-backed scientific papers open-access. Their agenda, Plan S—the S stands for "shock"—is backed by over a dozen European research agencies and funders. </p><p>While the group has fallen short of achieving their stated agenda by 2021, they're certainly making strides. Just this week, 160 Elsevier journals, including renowned publications by Cell Press, are registered as "<a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/160-elsevier-journals-become-plan-s-aligned-transformative-journals/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Plan S aligned Transformative Journals</a>." This could be a good move by Elsevier, which has been <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/is-elsevier-really-for-science-or-just-for-profit/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">severely criticized</a> in the past for price gouging practices—although critics cite increased researcher fees as a cause for alarm. </p><p>Unlike the 10-year-old Sci-Hub, which houses over 85 million research papers and regularly changes URLs to avoid the legal ramifications of providing access to paywalled studies, cOAlition S is changing the journal system from within. Their <a href="https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/open-access" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">10 principles</a> call for greater autonomy for researchers conducting scientific studies and having publication fees covered by universities, not researchers. The latter could prove pivotal, as publication budgets are often no match for journal fees. </p><p>In just three years, cOAlition S has gained the support of the World Health Organization, the European Commission, and research institutions and agencies in China, Sweden, France, Jordan, and the United States, including the Gates Foundation and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. While many journals initially opposed this agenda, a few have come around. Bureaucratic red tape and inflated prices have hamstrung science for decades. Plan S is not a perfect solution, but it's the closest we've seen. </p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5eb7732a29a1f312bd5d9b3e7dd11be4"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JpiOCxFxhUg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Science's associate news editor Jeffrey Brainard <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-mandate-highlights-costs-benefits-making-all-scientific-articles-free-read" target="_blank">breaks down</a> how open access works for authors. Publishing studies is an essential part of a researcher's career, bringing with it the potential for career advancement, tenure, peer respect, and, occasionally, popular renown. But it comes at a cost. </p><p><em>Golden open access</em> is one model used by journals such as The Lancet Golden Health, which charges researchers up to $5,000 to make their studies open access. Nature publications now clock in at up to $11,600 and Cell charges $9,900, though the median fee for journals is $2,600.</p><p>Pay-to-play doesn't only exist in music. The more respect a journal carries, the higher the fee. </p><p>When Springer Nature, publisher of the reputable Nature journals, announced it was <a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20201218a/full/" target="_blank">adopting a Plan S option</a> last month, the editorial team announced the $11,600 fee was mandatory for anyone requesting their articles be made open-access, regardless of their financial status. These journals are notoriously expensive: submitting an article for consideration costs roughly $2,700 with no guarantee of publication. One journal, Nature Physics, rejects 90 percent of submissions. </p><p>cOAlition S executive director Johan Rooryck <a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20201218a/full/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">expressed happiness</a> that Springer Nature is now offering an open-access model but stated "that doesn't mean we have signed a blank check and are willing to pay any price for the articles appearing in those journals."</p><p>Springer Nature has <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-mandate-highlights-costs-benefits-making-all-scientific-articles-free-read" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">also adopted</a> a model more in alignment with Spotify: universities and research institutions pay a single fee to publish their authors. Some publishers offer a hybrid approach: some articles are free while others live behind a paywall. There are also embargo models, where authors can offer their papers to the public free of charge after a six-month or year-long waiting period. </p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTI2MDA2My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MDE1MTk5MX0.QbqKqYS48gb6lHjShNUtQTOm_j6MjyKhj8i3sUCbTWw/img.png?width=980" id="8aad2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="29465fea7914455ba7b1fb7b5df11cae" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="2000" data-height="1036" />
<p class=""><br></p>Chart: Science
<p>The cost to publish remains prohibitive for some researchers, with certain journal prices for one article exceeding annual budgets. This has forced many researchers to confront an existential question: publish behind a paywall and wither in obscurity, or pay up and hope enough people read (and cite) your work.</p><p>While inflated journal prices have plagued the scientific community, Brainard notes that a purely open-access model could place even more of a burden on researchers. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"A complete shift to open access could lead publishers to boost publishing fees even further, to try to make up for lost subscription revenues[...] Although just over 30% of all papers published in 2019 were paid open access, subscriptions still accounted for more than 90% of publishers' revenues that year."</p><p>cOAlition S is advocating for increased transparency to push back on price gouging. Just as researchers must disclose funding and conflicts of interest, "Plan S requires publishers to disclose to funders the basis for their prices, including the cost of services such as proofreading, copy editing, and organizing peer review."</p><p>Although Brainard briefly mentions an increase in the number of non-researchers and institutions—laypeople—reading open-access journals, this topic is relevant to this conversation. America is suffering from a longstanding dearth of public science information, evidenced in the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-18/anti-vaxxers-team-up-alt-right-against-covid-19-vaccine" target="_blank">anti-vax fervor</a> that's growing in volume (<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/12/03/intent-to-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-rises-to-60-as-confidence-in-research-and-development-process-increases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">if not in numbers</a>) since the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines. </p><p>Access to scientific studies won't solve all of our woes. But lack of transparency is a major reason why so many citizens have grown suspicious of pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies. An ability to read studies without having to pay exorbitant prices (to the layperson) would be an important step in public health and science education. </p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Facebook</a>. His most recent book is</em> "<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08KRVMP2M?pf_rd_r=MDJW43337675SZ0X00FH&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy</a>."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
