Author: n John Timmern

On Tuesday, Westinghouse announced that it had reached an agreement with the Trump administration that would purportedly see $80 billion of new nuclear reactors built in the US. And the government indicated that it had finalized plans for a collaboration of GE Vernova and Hitachi to build additional reactors. Unfortunately, there are roughly zero details about the deal at the moment.

The agreements were apparently negotiated during President Trump’s trip to Japan. An announcement of those agreements indicates that “Japan and various Japanese companies” would invest “up to” $332 billion for energy infrastructure. This specifically mentioned Westinghouse, GE Vernova, and Hitachi. This promises the construction of both large AP1000 reactors and small modular nuclear reactors. The announcement then goes on to indicate that many other companies would also get a slice of that “up to $332 billion,” many for basic grid infrastructure.

So the total amount devoted to nuclear reactors is not specified in the announcement or anywhere else. As of the publication time, the Department of Energy has no information on the deal; Hitachi, GE Vernova, and the Hitachi/GE Vernova collaboration websites are also silent on it.

Read full article

Comments

On Friday, the California Supreme Court ordered the University of California system to release the details of a proposed deal from the federal government that would restore research grants that were suspended by the Trump administration. The proposed deal, first issued in August, had remained confidential as a suit filed by faculty at UCLA made its way through appeals. With California’s top court now weighing in, the university administrators have released the document, still marked “draft” and “confidential attorney work product.”

Most of the demands will seem unsurprising to those familiar with the Trump administration’s interest: an end to all diversity programs and those supporting transgender individuals, plus a sharp crackdown on campus protests. The eye-opening portion comes at the price tag of nearly $1.2 billion paid out, with UCLA covering all the costs of compliance. And, as written, the deal wouldn’t stop the Trump administration from cutting the grants for other reasons or imposing more intrusive regulations, such as those mentioned in its university compact.

Familiar concerns

In many ways, the proposed deal is much more focused than the odd list of demands the administration sent Harvard University earlier this year, in that it targets issues that the administration has focused on repeatedly. These include an end to all diversity programs at both the faculty and student levels. It demands that UCLA agree to “remove explicit or implicit goals for compositional diversity based on race, sex, or ethnicity, including eliminating any secretive or proxy-based ‘diversity’ hiring processes.”

Read full article

Comments

One of the things that emerging diseases, including the COVID and Zika pandemics, have taught us is that it’s tough to keep up with infectious diseases in the modern world. Things like air travel can allow a virus to spread faster than our ability to develop therapies. But that doesn’t mean biotech has stood still; companies have been developing technologies that could allow us to rapidly respond to future threats.

There are a lot of ideas out there. But this week saw some early clinical trial results of one technique that could be useful for a range of infectious diseases. We’ll go over the results as a way to illustrate the sort of thinking that’s going on, along with the technologies we have available to pursue the resulting ideas.

The best antibodies

Any emerging disease leaves a mass of antibodies in its wake—those made by people in response to infections and vaccines, those made by lab animals we use to study the infectious agent, and so on. Some of these only have a weak affinity for the disease-causing agent, but some of them turn out to be what are called “broadly neutralizing.” These stick with high affinity not only to the original pathogen, but most or all of its variants, and possibly some related viruses.

Read full article

Comments

The end of the dinosaurs was clearly linked to an asteroid impact that brought the Cretaceous period to a close. But the details of their end have remained a matter of debate since the impact crater was discovered. There is a lot of evidence that the impact alone should have been enough to do them in. But the asteroid arrived amid major volcanic eruptions associated with previous mass extinctions. And fossils dating to just before the impact have suggested that dinosaur-dominated ecosystems had become less diverse, making them more prone to collapse.

Now, a new study has revealed that fossils we already know about originated within the last few hundred thousand years before the impact that killed off all dinosaurs except birds. The results indicate that species richness wasn’t likely to be a problem—at least in the neighborhood of the impact itself.

Wyoming vs. New Mexico

Most of what we know about the last days of the non-avian dinosaurs comes from the Hell Creek Formation, rich fossil beds in present-day Wyoming. These not only date from within a few hundred thousand years prior to the impact, but there may be deposits that capture the immediate aftermath of the impact. Beyond this area, which reflects the ecosystem of the northern Great Plains, we have little else. It hasn’t been clear whether the diversity of species present at Hell Creek reflects what was present more globally, or if there were regional differences in ecosystems

Read full article

Comments