Welcome to the NEW Golden Age

This is twist this week in science episode number 1070 recorded on Wednesday August 5th 2026. Welcome to the new golden age. Hey everyone, I'm Dr. Kiki and tonight on the show we will fill your heads with ants, bubbles, and space tiles. But first, thanks to our amazing Patreon sponsors for their generous support of Twist. You can become a part of the Patreon community at patreon.com/thisweek science. Disclaimer. Disclaimer. Disclaimer. I was never the one known to disclaim. Definitely to explain, maybe rarely complain. But who am I but a pale comparison of the voice of reason that began this mission? A replacement bargain found in a basement. Will those opinionated words return? We ask with no small sense of trepidation. Only the shadow knows and it's not telling. But we have much more for you here on this week in science. Coming up next. [music] >> I want to learn everything. I want to fill it all up with new discoveries that happen every day of [music] the week. There's only one place to go to find the knowledge I seek. I want to know what's happening. What's happening? What's happening this week in science? What's happening? What's happening? What's happening this week [music] in science? >> Good science to you, Kiki. >> And a good science to you too, Blair, and everyone out there. Welcome to another episode of this week in science. We are back again to joy to joy to joy in no to enjoy the fruits of the sciences. You ready? Yeah, I'm ready to to revel. [laughter] Rev your engines. Let's revel and let's have uh let's have a good show. Let's enjoy everybody. We have things to discuss. It's been a week and I have stories this week about Yeah. I'm going to bring some science policy to you related to what's happening in on the hill and this golden age of science we're in. I've also got a story that's developing related to gene modification. I've got some space tiles for Blair and Dodd brains people telling awkward robots to go away. Well, not really that, but go away awkward robots. And also then a bedtime story for kids. Oh, >> so much. [laughter] >> They're sure. They're not all long stories, though. What do you have, Blair? >> Oh my goodness. I have a monkey machine. I have bubbles. And I have ants. [laughter] >> I like that list. It's a good list. It's a list of three. Did you get it from AI? No. >> No. Although, my first story is about AI. No spoilers. >> Good. We should be talking about that. Okay. We got to talk about this stuff here. Real people talking about real issues for society and science. And uh yeah, nothing artificial about us here. >> Yeah. All right. Before we jump into the show, everyone, I do want to remind you that we broadcast weekly, 8:00 p.m. Pacific timeish on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitch. I see John Hogan saying that uh they're watching on Facebook. Also, we've got John Hogan also on Facebook telling people watching on YouTube. Well done there. >> Thanks, John. >> Crossostarama. [laughter] I love it. >> Bring everybody with you. >> Yeah. So, we record weeklyish and we do our best to to be here bringing you the the science news and curious discussion of it every week. You can watch us live. You can also find us as a podcast wherever you love to find podcasts. We're pretty much on all of the places that are out there where podcasts are found. So look for this week in science twists twist science on the social networks and um our website is twist.org. Without any further ado, let's jump into the science. You ready? Yeah. >> Yay. Okay. this last year or so, you know, I like to eat the toad first. So, we're going to talk about this the good, the bad, and the ugly of uh science policy that's happening right now. And um I actually have I'm going to start with the first story that is a little bit of a sigh of relief. It doesn't mean things are solved. It doesn't mean anything's fixed, but I've been talking on the show for a while now about the need for people to have written in about um the OM rules that would impact grants and funding related to science. The reality is that it's not just science, it's pretty much any federal grants or funding that is uh that's given. And so this has been a huge conversation. They ended up getting thousands, tens of thousands of letters in related to the um people asking that the new regulations that had been proposed by Russell VA um that they not be initiated. And currently the idea is that they would be initiated as of October 1st. And that would be be the beginning of these new rules that uh pertain to uh whether or not a grant can just be taken away because suddenly a president decides that it doesn't align with their priorities. um all sorts of things that these grants rules uh could really impact not just for science but for nonprofits, for state funding, for all sorts of things across our countries, anything socially related. Anyway, yeah, over 60,000 comments got shared so far. And this is a massive number of comments to our um our government system for, you know, these rules that most people normally don't pay any attention to. So, this is number one, very exciting. senators this last week um they bipartisanly decided to initiate a stop gap funding bill senators they're hoping were hoping to pass the bill they did uh and and they're going to be uh hopefully they I think they passed it actually but this is before their fiveweek a August recess it is a bipartisan stop to these proposed OM rules because uh apparently across the board senators who are Republicans and Democrats on the appropriations committee agree that this would these new rules would be harmful. And so we have Democrats and Republicans coming together to basically say uh no, you can't have these new grants come into play without without the people's say without us making a decision. And so now, um, this short-term spending bill would, uh, pause this implementation of this controversial proposed OM rule until through December 11th. So, it would be a little bit longer. And I think one of the interesting things about that is that it is after the election. M so I find that and I find it very interesting the the delay from this stop back gap bill. I mean I know it it it falls in line with the uh congressional calendar but it's also a very interesting timing that instead of October 11th which is or uh yeah October beginning of October which is prior to the elections that now this rule would not go into place until after the elections. So um I'm just reporting, not commenting. >> You know, I am really nostalgic for the time that I didn't have to pay as much attention to politics. [laughter] There were periods where, you know, I there were things happening and you kind of had to you always got to keep your finger on the pulse, but you don't have to pay attention to quite as much like grant writing rules and things like that that we just didn't the things you take for granted. Yeah. >> You go, "Oh, >> yeah, >> man. You mean the the government government officials aren't supposed to sell insider information and get rich off of it?" [laughter] Like I That has to be said. >> Yeah, >> they might. >> Yeah, it should. I mean, it shouldn't have to be said. It's a rule and it should be followed. We don't want this. But anyway, the the um the this bipartisan movement I think is very exciting because uh what it means is that we have some time for more work to be done uh behind the scenes in policym for scientists, for people who depend on government funding to talk to their lawmakers, talk to the policy makers and to to see if we can't get these corrupt changes shifted and or at least maybe stopped completely. >> Yeah. I mean, the interesting timing aside, whatever reason they're doing it at this point, I don't really care. [laughter] As long as it's the right thing, whatever gets you to do the right thing, it's you know what, fine. >> [gasps] >> Yeah. And there there are people who are very very you know it's it's uh Republican Senate Senators Susan Collins and Senator Patty Murray who's uh from Washington. They are the top Republican and Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee and both expressed their opposition to OM's proposal. But many people have been saying, you know, a uh you know, maybe a little uh you know, from experience that the the reason that Susan Collins can come out in opposition to this bill is because there's other people who are in uh who are going they have enough votes on the re Republican side anyway, so it doesn't matter whether or not she opposes it even though she's the top thing. Anyway, politics are crazy everybody, but we're not politicians here. We're the scientists and so the but we're also citizens. So, we're on the side of scienceving society, right? And what you know, we want a good scientific in endeavor for the United States and globally. We want collaboration. We want innovation. We want also safety. We want things to be regulated and done correctly so that there's minimal harm. Like there we really should move forward on this planet with a do no harm [laughter] >> ethos. And I feel like we have to settle for a do less harm at this point. >> Yeah, kind of. [laughter] >> And so there are a few um a few things that people should be reading right now to understand what's happening in the state of of science. Um there is a new imagining people have been talking for a while about um the uh old Bush Vanavar Bush one Vanavar Bush and his science the endless frontier which basically set up what we know of as the infrastructure the funding and the departmental infrastructure for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. that basically set up that process of government funding to a body that would then decide, you know, and distribute funding um in an egalitarian manner based on um you know, the the the how good a proposal is, the merit of a proposal to and this would go to scientists within universities. It would support inver universities. It could support the growth of R&D in the United States. And we know that we all benefited from an incredible growth in research and development from the 1950s onward. In the past couple of decades though, people have been like, it's not going, it's things are changing. It's not quite right anymore. What's happening? Um, and so yes, there are concerns from across the board, bipartisan scientists, people outside of science, what there's all sorts of things people think could be done to not only change the culture of science, but to improve the way that it's done so that it works better for everybody. Well, the uh director of the office of science and technology policy, Michael Katzios, has has released his vision, science, a new golden age. And it is a reimagining of this endless bush's endless frontier. It's definitely not an endless frontier 2.0. Um it and it it it approaches solving problems like researchers have too much paperwork and it's really hard to keep up with all of the grant writing and the paperwork and all this stuff and actually do the research which is a really honest complaint that a lot of researchers have. The overhead the the managerial administrative overhead required for a lot of government grant and funding is really difficult. That's why they have entire UN university offices dedicated to helping researchers manage this kind of stuff. Anyway, they're approaching this kind of stuff. And so there's some things in there which are like, yeah, okay, I can get behind that. But what it in in essence is doing it is an attempt to take funding and and research research uh I guess I I was going to say power but it's just resources really away from universities and give them to private individuals so to scientists themselves with no money going to universities to um also to very specific ventures related to presidential interests. Um and so this is not like necessarily like presidents always have their thing. You know, we've had the moonshot for cancer. We've had, you know, people trying Reagan er people trying to solve uh the pro problems of HIV and AIDS, which we're still still trying to solve, right? You know, all these things we're still getting there. But the in essence this is a um Silicon Valley model of science versus an academic model of science. So it's very uh application first as opposed to curiositydriven. And so basic science under this kind of uh under this kind of a model will or vision as they say will suffer. But if you don't have basic science, how can you have the giant leaps? They don't come from nowhere. Mm- >> And are the labs that are startup labs working on fiveyear profit return are they going to be funding curiositydriven endeavors? No, they're not. So um there are people writing about this all over. I highly, you know, I have broken this down into this is like the tiniest summary of what this thing is and it's my opinion. it is not that of everyone else. You know, I think uh they allowed Michael Katzios to have a uh an editorial in the Washington Post this last weekend. Um which people are in a you know in a furer over that because you got to be angry at something. Um but then on on top of that, it is all of this is available through the White House. They have released as of July 21st, OSTP director releases landmark report and recommendations for renewing American scientific discovery. >> Um, yeah, you know, and I and like I said, so not the the whole thing isn't a terrible thing because there is repair that needs to happen, but it is a very one. It's a very singular perspective and it is very politically oriented as opposed to anybody else's ideas. It just kind of I don't know if this is too graphic, but it kind of feels to me like somebody walked up like broke both of your legs with a baseball bat and then was like, "You know what? You need a toupe." [gasps] Like it's just like No. Do you understand what I'm trying to say though? Like >> Yes, I do. So much of science has been hobbled, you know, for lack of a better term, by all of these weird restrictions. Like you can't do women's studies, you can't have anything involving, you know, LGBTQ plus initiatives, you can't >> you can't research climate change. Like you can't do all this kind of stuff. But then they're like, "Oh, but we want to usher [laughter] in a golden age." Like what are you talking about? [gasps] >> Yeah. like you have to be able to basically function before you can try to it's anyway it seems crazy to me >> kind of tonedeaf I don't know >> and it is again exactly what you've said so they are saying and now they're and now they're putting it's a you know white house declaration and they are waiting to hear from all of the government offices about how they're going to align themselves and their programs with this new >> vision, right? They want to see where the money's going to be spent. They want to see how it's all going to work. They want to They are now like, "Here's what we're going to do. Everybody get underneath us. Let get behind us. Let's do it." You know, >> but they have taken all of the resources away. They fired all the people. Right now there is a huge hiring boom in the in DC for government offices at NSF and NIH because they let all of their career like institutional knowledge go >> they did and then also a lot of other people fled >> and people fled. It's yeah this working for the federal government right now in general is not u soughta I will [laughter] say >> right and so but so now this is um you know maybe we do need some part of the American research enterprise to be more nimble you know like the Silicon Valley kind of ethic of you know just break it and you know [laughter] see what happens. Yeah. But see, okay, but I would say, you know, >> but you don't break everything. It's called diversification. >> Currently is is calling from inside the Silicon Valley bubble. >> Yeah. >> I will say that one of the biggest problems about the Silicon Valley mentality is very similar to this, which is the like I want the best science. Like mine is the best. Like let's do it better. It's just like this very like um buzzwordy uh kind of uh a lot of talk without a lot of actual data or or ideas behind it's the it's the Elon Musk of it of like I'm going to do it but mine is going to be best and it's like but how >> how is much better how and I feel like that's a big part of the value thing is like >> is you know a few people in tech will have a really good idea their idea will take off and then a bunch of other people will say but if I do this but I give it this cool name and I tell you that we're shifting the narrative or what if I do the exact same thing but I hire on this really important guy and then I also I like tell you I'm disrupting and just like you know it's there's not a lot behind it and I think that's exactly it is if they're trying to silicon valleyify national public funded research I think that's bad because ultimately Silicon Valley is also trying to turn a profit and doesn't do very good at it generally speaking, [laughter] >> right? And that's something that's really important for us to to think about is >> when scientists can start at an observation and work backwards. But very obt what you try to do is you follow the evidence, right? And if you can get to a cure or a treatment for something, then that's amazing. But you cannot do it single-mindedly. You have to do it in a way where, oh, this actually is not going to do the thing I wanted it to do. I have to follow the evidence >> and maybe it'll do something else or maybe it will lead nowhere and I have to start over. Whereas in in in technology very often these days, it's I have a solution for people. not even considering whether or not it's a problem [laughter] is not solving >> inventing a problem that your product solves, right? Yeah. That's like a marketing technique. >> Yeah. >> But it's also like tech doesn't always have to work inside of morality in the same way that medical research does too, >> which is the issue with artificial intelligence, which we will get to with your next story. >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Also that. So that >> Yeah, but I I think you're absolutely right with the morality aspect is essential and so I've got a morality story, but I'd like to hear >> Yeah. >> I'd like to hear uh what you were going to say about AI monkeys. >> Oh, yes. Yes. So, I I listen, I spent a lot of time on this show talking trash about AI, and I will continue to do so. Okay, [laughter] let me set the record straight here. Oh, is this why you were looking at me funny when I was trying to segue? [laughter] >> All in all, I was like, are you ready for this? Um, all in all, I think it's uh bad. But [laughter] there there um certain applications of AI that I think are really cool. And one of the big ones in is in any sort of uh facial or individual recognition in studies of wildlife because camera trapping, you know, we've had citizen science where people spend hours and hours like combing through camera trap footage and they try to say like, "Oh, well this raccoon looks like this raccoon. I think it's the same guy." Okay. And we know now that you can train AI to scrub through just insane amounts of data like that because that's what AI is good at is pattern recognition. That's what it's good for. It is not good at drawing new conclusions. It is not good at fabricating things, but it is very good at pattern recognition. And so if you can find a way to leverage that to help with ecological study, there's a lot of really cool applications for that. So this is a study where they looked at capuchin monkeys um or capuchins depending on how you want to say it. You know what I was raised in the ' 90s and I said >> you worked in a zoo so you actually think you think about these things. >> Yeah. And you know it's it's whatever you want it to be I suppose. But um >> I say Indiana Jones monkeys. No that's not [laughter] >> or you know Marcel from France. Um yeah. Anyway, so they trained this AI to uh recognize among some different lab monkeys, six lab monkeys. It was able to recognize which of these six lab monkeys it was looking at. Okay, so that's pretty well established. AI's been doing that for a long time. But then um they kind of did this two-piece AI design for camera trapping and doing behavioral experimentation with wild monkeys, which is something that is really difficult to do because usually you have to like have a monkey in a lab. You have to train it to use a touchscreen. You have to teach the either the researchers or an AI which monkey is which. Then they they learn how to use the touchcreen. and you try to teach them a task, they do the task. Then you can associate, okay, this monkey does it this way, this monkey does it this way. Right? So that's how it works in a lab. But in the wild, you could have 10 or a hundred monkeys coming and going. Um, you don't know them as well because they're wild monkeys. There might be a monkey that you've never seen before, and you're like, is that Steve or is that a new guy? I don't know. And so it's like really hard to to measure that behavior. but also you don't get consistent um exposure to the same monkeys in over and over. So teaching them a behavior and um a behavior that then can lead to an experimental process is really really difficult. So you know that's like a really long way for me to say they trained an AI to uh recognize what a capuchin looks like as opposed to any other animal. And that is where they started was just, you know, since we have all these individuals, we might see some for the first time. We can't train the AI on individuals and name them. Like they just need to know what is a capuchin, what is not a capuchin. And so if a capuchin comes up, it would essentially turn on the machine. And the expectation was that the monkey would touch the touch screen and they would be delivered a little dried banana. And from that the the first couple days like no monkeys wanted to touch it or go anywhere near it. But eventually uh kind of um a more adventurous larger male came up and started like hitting the machine and banging it on the back and trying to figure out what's going on cuz it could smell the the banana and eventually he touched the screen and the banana came out and like bam I got it. Other monkeys watched him doing that. They were able to come up figure out how to do it. So monkeys figured out that they could kiss the touchcreen and get a banana, which I think is so funny. [laughter] >> Oh my gosh. >> I like a I would like a banana. >> Yes, exactly. Banana, please. Um, but so then uh from that they were able to have this machine recognize monkeys or capuchins versus other animals like kowadis and stuff like that. But then they were able to based on frequency have it start to recognize individuals and when they rec when the machine recognized an individual it could then essentially deploy an experiment. Um so it could recognize a condition and then switch modes from just touch you get a treat to some sort of condition and you get a treat. So this is very preliminary, but what's so cool about it is that like this is completely you set it up and you walk away and it collects data and it could recognize capuchins versus other animals. It can recognize individuals when given enough exposure and then it can also do kind of a two-phased experimentation approach. So it can have phase one which is to teach a wild monkey how to use the machine and then the second is the actual experimentation case. So, um it's a really cool kind of complicated two-step system um for using AI to study cognitive or social or any number of abilities in wild primates, which I think is so cool. >> But it does also like I mean primates are special in their cognitive faculties and their curiosity and their uh probably their willingness to engage with this kind of a setup. >> Yeah. I mean, you could talk about any other animal and, you know, a little wild boar would come along and be like, you know, not climb up onto the platform and not be able to engage. >> Did Kadis came up on the platform quite a bit. They recognized, oh, that's not a capuchin. And it didn't turn on the touch screen. >> And they didn't get any bananas. Nope. >> And nobody broke the box. >> No. And and quadis are related to raccoons. like they're they could definitely do some damage, but they Yeah, it was it was well proofed. >> All right. So, they were able to specify like what animal they're looking at, a particular species because of AI. The AI was able to did it it it did identify them eventually. Uh so of so basically after they collected a bunch of information from this touch screen just like touch it get a treat they were able to take that data bring it back to the lab train the AI on the monkeys it saw and put it back out there. So the AI was able to categorize the kind of the cataloged data that it had collected so that then it could have this two-step system. So in this case, we're looking at, you know, Pedro shows up and it's like, oh, I know Pedro. Here you can do this this test on like pick the triangle or whatever, you know, like this is all very, this is a proof of concept. They didn't actually do any data collection yet. But essentially, the machine could recognize I know this monkey. I'm not just going to give it a treat if it touches the screen. I'm gonna give it a treat if it touches the screen the right way or if it I would >> What would you do if you were like just going through, you know, your normal day and there was a thing that suddenly it was like, >> yeah, oh, I'll get a free thing if you do this and you did it and like suddenly it's really nice to you and eventually you find out that it's learning that you're Blair. [laughter] >> Do are you talking about >> Blair likes bananas? >> Cuz that's what the internet does. I know. They're making the >> It sends you your targeted ads. >> They're doing targeting. They're doing they are doing targeting for primates in a jungle. >> That's fascinating. >> But I think it's great because like yes, primates are special, but birds would definitely do this. We know pigeons do this, right? So lots of bird species would do this. >> I think quite a few other mammal species would do this. >> Put it in Australia with all the cockatos. Yeah, we know that um uh certain bugs actually respond to screens. We know this, right? So like >> there's there's a lot of potential for [snorts] uh for use. Another thing that occurred to me is like >> in um New Zealand where they're trying to um chemically castrate cats, [laughter] [gasps] um they'd be able to recognize, oh, I know this cat. I already got this one. Don't accidentally do it again. >> Yeah, [sighs] >> double castration, man. >> Yeah, but um you know, it's just I think it's a it's a neat use for all the you know, the trash talk I do of AI. I I do think this is a really cool way to ga gather a lot of data really quickly and also bring behavioral experimentation into the wild which is a big missing missing piece of a lot of research is we know how animals act in a lab but we know that's not also how they act in the wild. [laughter] What else you got for me Kiki? All right, I have a couple of uh a couple of more stories before we just we dump we jump into the animal. >> Jump and dump if you want. >> Jump and dump. >> Yeah, >> jump and dump and dump and jump. Okay. Um first the there's a story that's been reported on by Science and by Retraction Watch. It's also been talked about since their original reporting on Nature, on New York Times, on Bloomberg, on a whole bunch of places. Um, and this has echoing refrains of um the Hei Jangqui research with uh genetic modification of embryos to get rid of potential traits that would, you know, that would make them susceptible to AIDS or other um infectious diseases. And it also has brought up in the story writing um uh re reminders of our own United States work where researchers did early work in gene editing on um on a young man who later Jesse Gellzinger who died in early US gene therapy and it really put a stopper on gene therapy. for at least a decade. Like it really slowed everything down because people were moving pushing very fast and the the work was getting ahead of the regulation was getting ahead of people having the conversations about the ethics and how everything is going to work. So the recent story is that a family in China, a a husband and wife who have asked to be kept anonymous and their daughter who they are calling May um which stands for beautiful which which means beautiful that they had reached out to a researcher in China who um was working at a hospital that should have taken care of everything. Everything just seemed like it should have been within the bounds of good work. Um, but they were they were working with Gininoa Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Xiao Chong University School of Medicine. It is acclaimed for its pediatrics department according to the to science magazine and their researcher Jilong Chu is a neuroscientist at the university's brain center and he is one of the people who in this around the globe has been pushing forward genetic modification for disease and he has used crisper and other um method methodologies to actually treat people for different disorders. So, uh base using base editing um another individual called baby KJ KJ Moldun who had a life-threatening metabolic disorder had received an intravenous infusion of a treatment that in 2025 was a runner up for the for a breakthrough of the year. Turns out that these parents thought that uh she could give their daughter a treatment for what is in some cases on the extreme end can lead to um a disability and muscle weakness and um so that a person cannot thrive as an adult. and she was 5 years old, four years old, not and beginning she was a great vibrant little girl and started to fall behind her peers. Um, and so they had her tested and it was one thing after another and people like maybe she's on the autism spectrum, maybe this, maybe that. But then they found that there is a single gene mutation that is responsible for what could lead to a very extreme gap in her ability to to thrive in adult society. However, there are only some 200 odd people in the world who have the disorder that's like the full extreme disorder where they are not really able to it's a very rare disease. There are many others who have the mutation but are they the effects are not seen as extremely and at the age that the child was there's no way to know exactly what her >> trajectory was >> trajectory was right yeah so they got into autism support groups they started talking with other parents they learned about this researcher who had done this amazing work for another disorder, not the same one that their daughter has at all. Um, but the parents ended up talking with the reaching out to the researcher once they found their chromosomeal uh, you know, they got their chromosome sequence, they everything and they said, "Woo, we got this thing." And they sent it to the researcher and very shortly after the researcher said, "Ooh, this is interesting." The parents ended up paying out of pocket, not to the hospital, but basically into like they gave personal payments to the lab manager. They gave personal payments to the corporation that was potentially a startup if this all worked and they would be, you know, part of making it all go. Anyway, they supported the development of knockout mice who had a similar disorder to what their daughter had. They supported the research that led to the researchers then after creating the disorder in the mice, curing the disorder in the mice, they supported the research that led to um looking at the disorder or the treatment, a test of the efficacy of the treatment in four monkeys. That research since has been published, but there's no reference to the little girl anymore because she died and her parents, every reference was taken out of the paper about the work that was related to the young girl's genetic mutation, the funding of the research by the parents. Um and basically the condition was not degenerative but they didn't the parents wanted the best for their child and the researcher convinced their parents that there was no danger. >> They there could be some kidney issues but there apparently there was never any discussion of the fact that she could die from having amuno viruses injected into her spinal fluid. 6 days after going in for treatment, 3 days after she started having a fever. They had to um reduce fluids cuz she was not urinating. It was a sign of kidney damage. All four of the monkeys that had gone through the trials before the doctor did this to the little girl. All four of the monkeys had kidney damage and kidney failure or kidney failure. All four of them. They obviously didn't tell the parents that >> they did, but they said it would be fine. They It would be easy to ameliorate, to moderate, whatever. And so this is, you know, this isn't a Chinese hospital. It's a different system there. But we've had stuff like that here. And so this is just a I mean, I'm I I I've read this story and I'm so angry for these parents. And this is a researcher who trained here in the United States and is a globally renowned researcher for the work that he has done. And it is he's done really good work. But somewhere along the way, it became okay to tell the parents a story of success when there was a chance that their little girl would not make it. And she did not. >> And it was it's not it wasn't urgent. Like I think that's the >> it was not urgent. It was not a >> determined this had to be dealt with. It could have been dealt with >> later >> later. They wanted to do it while she was still young and her mind her brain was still developing was the you know the the the thinking behind it. But >> this makes me feel sick. >> I know this story I I I am so mad about this story right now. And but what it there are a number of things. We all have we regulations in our own country, regulations in other people go to other countries to have operations to have procedures that are not allowed say in the United States, right? Not allowed in the UK, wherever they go places where it's allowed because the regulations are more lax. When the regulations are more lax, what does that mean overall? And if we're not having a global conversation about you know who like these parents now are they're they're they're so [laughter] I mean they're their life is in chaos and shambles. It's they they don't have their little girl anymore. They thought they were doing something that would be good. Instead they she did not come back from the hospital. Um, and so how do how do we make sure that this doesn't happen again? This is the second third time that this kind of thing has happened within Chinese institutions. There are amazing doctors and institutions in China. But you know that we're we're hearing this story right now, but um it's because the research came out and the parents came out and they found out the research had been published >> without a mention. >> It wasn't in there >> without a mention of anything to do with their daughter. And they they feel a responsibility that this never happens to another child, right? So they they're like this, you know, anyway, this makes me so mad. >> Yikes. There's just so many people that had to go along with this. Also, like, >> yeah, >> the medical institution, for starters, hosted this. I >> They were charged $3,500 for their um you know, not filling out the right forms. >> [laughter] [sighs and gasps] >> in the hospital because um everything everything was done okay. But the whole thing, the scientist went outside the funding, the normal funding and approval structure and got the parents to pay almost $900,000 almost a million dollars to help, you know, pay for the development of the >> Does it feel so much dirtier, too? Because there's a clear there's a clear reason to essentially fabricate expectations. >> Yeah. because he was getting money >> and if it was working then it would bring him even more acclaim. That's really the question is like did he think did he really truly think that this was ironclad or was >> maybe he told himself it was >> right like because how do how do you >> how do you how are you in the medical profession and take risks like this with other people with other families? >> It's called it's not you and it's your ego. >> [laughter] >> You have to really truly believe you can do it or just a really bad person. >> But like maybe at a certain point in your head you're so convinced that you're right. >> Yeah. >> That of course it's going to work. >> Yeah. >> You know, um this is, you know, this is definitely the the minority of scientists and people doing work in the world. But I'm just and I just I think I want to bring it back to like the whole idea of giving funding to individual scientists. I think this is an example of why that is not necessarily the right idea for the you know for the federal funding model. >> We want to if we want to push things forward >> what are we seeing over the last 15 20 years Blair? It's collaboration. It's consortiums. >> Yeah. It's people working together on ideas. The lone wolf who goes out on his own >> can I mean they're going to do great stuff. But anyway, >> wasn't the whole like drama about human cloning that came out of China too, right? >> Yeah, that was the Jang Qui that I was saying. Yes. >> Yeah. So like so but but the the world came together and went nuh-uh. So and that's like that's the kibos has been on that now for decades. Like I feel like it's been like no you may not. Um so I guess it's time >> to set expectations worldwide >> for how gene editing experimentation goes in humans. What safeguards there are when you are allowed to proceed to a human trial and how that >> telling where the money is coming from >> is is is [laughter] processed. Right. Because also everything you just told me about the story doesn't sound like a human medical trial. >> It sounds like >> and they called it a clinical trial. >> Yeah, that's not trial. Variables being controlled. There's no governing body watching things. There's no understanding by the people in in it what the risks are. Like there's no um you know uh overall expectation that the that the benefit outweighs the potential cost. There's no addition like enough safeguarding from nonhuman trial where someone has gone yes you may proceed to humans now like that h I my the mind boggles that that is not standardized. >> Yeah. >> Yep. And there are, I guess, like these differences between hospital clinical trials and things that are out of hospitals and the way that the the infrastructure works and between or or from the United States to China to other, you know, not every system works exactly the same and how they have that set up, but it's kind of like, you know, subprime mortgages. Maybe it's time that we remind everybody that was a bad idea to go loosey goosey on things. Let's tighten it up again, >> right? >> Yep. >> Yeah. Um, and then because we were talking a while ago about radiation into space related to um, data centers in space blair, I found a story about a company Sophia space working with Caltech to create basically ba basically silicon chip infrared radiators. So, they're like little panels that could clip together so that they could take in solar energy and then that solar energy would power the computer chip within the tile. >> But then on the other side, everything is baked into a an infrared radiator. And that is the key to getting rid of heat in space is radiating it in the infrared. Okay. >> So, if it's just heat on its own, it's going to build up, build up, but help build up and slowly turn into infrared and be able to dissipate. But the idea is that with these radiators attached to each individual chip that the energy would be dissipated and it would be number one space data centers built with these interlocking chip tiles would be able to you know they're in space. They're all they could always be where the sun is. So the solar power, they wouldn't have a problem for energy. If they're dissipating heat off the radiative side, tada, there goes the heat. That's great. So maybe they've maybe they're solving that now. And that is one of the big uh questions and what they're going to be testing moving forward. And so Sophia Space, which is this California startup, they have a patent for this chip cooling system. It's called Sophia Tile. >> Okay. >> And yeah, so they think they could put thousands of these things interlocking together and maybe basically you launch a system up into space and it unfolds into different panels >> and blocks out the sun. I get it. Yeah. >> Yeah. We Who needs to put giant like reflectors for, you know, climate change out in space anymore? Data centers. But perhaps the data center aspect is like a little ahead of itself because you got to put the information up to the data center then it processes it and then you have to get it back down. So people are suggesting that maybe at first it will just be processing data from spacecraft so that the stuff that we have in space would beam it to the space data centers. The space data centers would process it and then send the data down to Earth for the Earth scientists to work. >> Can I make an interview request for the show? >> Yeah. Who? >> I don't I don't know who, but somebody who can tell me why we need all these gosh darn data centers because I don't get it. >> I don't get it. I don't think >> a lot of people don't. >> I don't think we need all these. >> We We did fine without them before. >> [laughter] >> Faster, better, stronger, Blair. I mean, come on. Come on. >> There's one that's being built literally across the street from my office. >> No, really? >> Yeah. Um, why? Why? Why? >> I know why. >> Okay. Well, anyway, I would like to hear that because also I feel like there's better things we could do than put a bunch of garbage into space also. So, >> I agree with this. I was just telling you someone has a solution to this this heat problem. Now >> I don't think it's a solution. I think the solution is [laughter] stop using AI for stupid things. Stop and stop mining Bitcoin. Like that that's the solution. [laughter] >> Use AI for tracking monkeys and medical research. Don't use it for anything else. Stop making it write your emails or make flyers that you could make yourself with a crayon. >> Okay, >> make flyers. Just make it yourself. I mean, it forgot to put the date on it for goodness sakes. >> Anyway, uh I'll stop. [laughter] [gasps] Yeah. Yeah. We won't have a 100 mile long uh Cat 6 cable. Eric Knap, it's going to be special data beams. Pew, data lasers, bet. >> And by that you mean it won't actually be doing anything. It'll all be a scam to get investors to pay into data centers in space and they'll just be out there just sitting there looking pretty >> in. All right. >> Yeah. >> This is This Week in Science, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us for another episode. We do hope that you are enjoying the show. If you enjoy us, hang out more often. We're here every Wednesday, 8:00 p.m. Pacific timeish. Might start a little bit late sometimes, but you know, we have lives. You have lives. It's all good. We try. We do what we can. Curiosity around science every single week on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitch. and of course all of the places you can find the podcast. If you go to twist.org, that's where you can find our Zazzle store. If you're interested in supporting the program, please click on that Zazzle link. You can find our merchandise there. You can get a t-shirt or a mouse pad or, you know, some blanket that you can wrap the AI machine up in and throw it in the closet with. or maybe you can click on the Patreon link and directly support us in an ongoing fashion. Anyone who gives $10 and more per month, I will thank you by name at the end of the show. I promise I'm going to try and pronounce your name right. Some people I have been incorrectly pronouncing their names for what now I understand is years and it's really hard to stop habits like that. So, um, sorry. >> That's what they're pay they're paying for the privilege to hear you say it, right? [laughter] >> That's right. It was perk. >> Perk. Let me mispronounce your name at the end of the show. Come on. Additionally, yeah, it doesn't have to be $10 or more. It can be any amount. It's And and we also have a PayPal link, too, if you'd rather give through PayPal, but I understand why you wouldn't want to do that either. But whatever you can do, your your support helps keep us going. It helps pay the bills for the internet and the computers and the Streamyard and all the stuff that we use to keep this show going. Thank you so much for being a part of the show every week. Can't do it without you. Coming on back right now, it is time for that wonderful part of the show. [music] She loves our creatures great and small. Buy [music] a pet mill a pet. No pet at all. You want to hear about [music] animals? She's your girl. Except for giant squirrel. >> What you got, Blair? >> Yeah, [laughter] the vibes today are chaotic. But it's great. Um, hey, so >> welcome to my world. >> Uh, University of St. Andrews did a study on sperm whales. Did you know that sperm whales sleep vertically? >> I did not. >> They're the only whales that have been um observed doing this thing. Uh, they also, according to National Geographic, as far as I could tell, um, despite their payw wall, um, was [laughter] >> they they do some of the least of any mammal. I don't know what the the English term for that. The the least sleep rested, the less sleep require. I don't know. They only sleep like 7% of the day. Um >> they're insomniacs. >> Yeah. So, they don't sleep very much, but when they do, they sleep with their nose up in the air uh under the water, but just just below the surface of the water and then their tail below them. So, it's truly wild to see sperm whales sleeping. Um, it's been known that they do that for a bit, but what kind of didn't make sense is how they create neutral buoyancy. They don't bo up into the surface. They don't sink down low. So, how do they maintain this position vertically in the water column while they are, as far as we can tell, asleep? Uh they're naturally positively buoyant because they have large amounts of sper spermaceti oil in their heads, hence the name sperm wheel. Um and so the oil of course is positively buoyant. Oil floats on water and so it um it kind of pushes them to the surface of the water. And they're also breathold divers. Um so they they're they're holding their breath when they're underwater. They don't release air while they're underwater and and diving. But while what it appears from this study is that as they slowly drift up while they're resting, the gas in their lungs expands and they release bubbles out of their blow hole, which counteracts the expanding diving gas that allows them to achieve neutral buoyancy. So, as the as the um oil pushes them up, they release some bubbles that pulls them back down. Then they kind of get pulled back up. They release some bubbles that gets pulled back down. As far as they can tell, they're doing this while they're asleep. >> So they're basically those bath toys. >> Yes. >> Where you pull the string and they stink and then the bubbles come out and they go >> Yes. [laughter] Yes. Yeah. >> But they're doing this without a string. >> Yeah. And they're doing this while they're asleep or while they're resting, right? Um, and so this is something that of course to us feels so crazy to think that you could make fine scale adjustments to your buoyancy while you're asleep. >> But if you live in water, >> it becomes second nature. We roll over >> if we're in a bad position in our sleep. If we stop breathing, we go and then like move change positions. Not that that was me last night or anything. Don't worry about it. Let's move on. >> You don't need that CPAP isn't >> necessary. No, no, no. I took the sleep study. I only stopped breathing nine times an hour. So, I don't need a CPAT machine. Anyway, [laughter] >> it's not high enough of a number for the CPAT machine. [sighs and gasps] Um, American healthcare a different conversation we need [laughter] to have. >> Chaotic, right? I said chaotic. Um, but yes, so the this is this this of course could be helpful as they always say in like, hey, let's make some buoyant robots, right? [laughter] >> So, this could help figure out neutral buoyancy in robots and diving robots. Um, but it also uh just helps kind of understand more of this really weird behavior that only sperm whales do as far as we know. >> So they are the only whales or citations that do this vertical orientation >> as far as we know. >> As far >> as has been observed. >> Why have we observed them and not I mean how many other >> they're huge. [laughter] Um >> I mean I guess we have but I mean is it we've had other whales in captivity but >> well yeah so sperm whales we haven't really had any fulls size sperm whales but they're too big um but they're uh we I feel like we've observed a lot of whales because they hang they they breathe air so they have to go up to the surface. It's it's all those little critters that hang out underwater that breathe underwater that are like in the depths that we have no idea what's going on with them. But I feel like marine mammals you have a pretty good handle on because they all have to surface to breathe. >> What was the one um was it sea lions or the uh >> elephant seals can all seals that would go up and then down. >> Oh yeah. Yeah, those elephant seals. Yeah. And it's it's more than an hour. I said an hour. It's definitely more than that. I can't. >> But basically, they're like submerging and go way way down and then come way up to the surface long time. But it's all while they sleep. >> Yeah. Up to two hours are elephant seals. They hold their breath. Yeah. Yeah. And they do that by slowing down their metabolism, >> right? And that was something that we recently discovered. But >> I think this is so interesting. The it's bubbles. you're losing some of your air, right? You're you've taken you've got some of your air that is reserved >> for buoyancy. >> So, some of the theory here that um future studies could look at is that there actually is offging happening. So, for example, that they could be releasing carbon dioxide, >> carbon dioxide. >> So, that this could be them slowly exhaling as they sleep, >> but that has not yet been studied. They only know about the correlation between the release of bubbles and the >> bubbles and the buoyancy. >> Yes. So, future studies could tell us more about that. >> Oh, man. Next summer's uh you know, swim classes are going to be really fun. It's pretend you're a sperm whale. [laughter] >> My goodness. There was another sperm whale study this week that I didn't have time for that basically just said that they're like the loudest thing in the ocean. Wow. Really? >> Which uh I I don't know. It's I I read into it and it's a little more complicated than that, but apparently also they're Yeah, they're very loud. [laughter] >> It depends on the frequencies, right? And Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's like they have the largest disruption or something like that. Like it was some weird measurement. I was like, h this is I don't know. I don't know about this guys. But yeah, >> we can talk about it later. I want to know about it. >> They were in the news quite a bit. All right. Do you want to hear about uh ant teamwork? >> No, because they're all over my kitchen again. >> Well, they're smarter the more of them there are. >> No, I know. That makes sense. That makes too much sense. >> Unlike humans, right? [laughter] Um there's like the whole like group think hypothesis which there's like a bell curve on how smart a group of humans and some other vertebrates are where if you have more people and more people and more people they get smarter and that a certain point they actually get dumber the more people are contributing to something and it's because like >> it creates all sorts of weird social dynamics and mentalities and if like a couple really outspoken people say something wrong other people go ah maybe they're right rights are not like that. Ants actually are better at problem solving the more ants there are. Um, this is a really cool kind of experiment design, which is part of the reason I wanted to talk about this is that um, this is from the Wiseman Institute of Science. They looked at a study aiming at exploring how ant teams tackle problems of varying complexity. And um, this all came because they were observing how ants cooperatively transport large food loads into their nest. When they reach the nest, a lot of the time the food item is irregularly shaped and cannot fit through the narrow entrance. And so they have what is essentially a geometric puzzle to try to figure out how to get the food load into the nest. And [snorts] uh they designed they had these uh yeah they had these little their letters um capital I's or H's depending on which way you want to look at it. Go. They had T's. They had lowercase eyes, which is just basically a stick, and they had to go through a hole. And so, um, you can imagine it's quite challenging to get an uppercase eye through a hole that is narrower than the the sticks of the eye. I guess the the top and the bottom horizontal lines. >> It's like moving a sofa into a new >> the whole pivot situation [laughter] for sure. >> Second Friends reference of the day. Very unusual for me. Um so [laughter] they tried to figure out what size of ant team influences the complexity of problems that can be tackled. So they had a series of field experiments looking at these different letters um and trying to get them through the holes. They uh first they started by just having ants carry tiny objects through a maze. And um they had no problem with that. uh it it really they had success in small groups or large groups in moving through a maze. That wasn't an issue. But when they tried to get through this kind of geometric puzzle, um they the number of ants actually had quite a large impact. Larger ant groups were able to tackle more complex puzzles puzzles than smaller groups. Um but the differences between small and large groups only became apparent when problems became more complex. Um, so ant groups performed well on straightforest tasks when they went through their simple maze, but when the mazes were more intricate or they had these like opening issues, the larger groups were more efficient than the smaller ones. Then they also ran a computer simulation in which they tried to solve the same puzzles tackled by ants with physical forces or theories. So they had to like change the gravity or the the topography of a space and just kind of like tilt the board to see if it was similar because then you're looking more at like random chance versus problem solving. >> Uh and the simulation showed that simple puzzles could be solved by gravity- based models. Um and uh if you tilted it the right way, it would eventually fall out. But as puzzles grew more difficult, they had to supplement physics to antlike properties to be able to like rotate things and things like that for them to be able to get them through the hole. And so that kind of really proved that problem solving was at the core there. >> Um, and it wasn't just like if you give a bunch of ants the letter I, they'll eventually turn it the right way so that it fits through. No, they were actually like trying like, oh, not this way. Back up. Okay. What about this? Okay. Back up. Okay. Turn it. Ah, perfect. Now rotate. Okay. And through we go. Right. So, >> right. And it's not just, oh, gravity helped us or it's not just, oh, just because it was oriented this way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, because the models were random and unknowing, the ants, they have a little bit more complex thought than just a random model. And so um the >> so the ants are thinking they're like >> the ants are thinking and they're working together. Yeah, >> it's it's uh it's computation but it's simil it's like slime mold or something but it's computation based on the >> multiplex of all of the inputs from the individual ants involved >> and not just natural properties of the situation. Yeah, >> it wouldn't be a study on animal cognition without a mention of AI or robots at the end. So, here we go. In the future, the insights gathered by this experiment could inspire the development of new AI systems and swarm robotics frameworks. People have been doing swarm robotics for a while and they're they're >> I just think it's so funny that they always have to kind of tack on like and this is why it's marketable information to have like it's not good enough for us to just know that >> together and stuff but we actually have to be like but this is how it could be monetized in the future. So really this don't take my funding away. [laughter] >> It's the new golden age Blair. It's the new golden age. This is how it works. [laughter] No knowledge for knowledge sake, huh? >> Not anymore. Good gracious. >> Okay. All right. Well, anyway, that's what I have. Tell me about dodos. >> Okay. I'm going to tell you about dodos. Dodos. They're the old birds that everybody is like, "Oh, they weren't that smart. That's nice." I mean, why call them a dodo? >> They were just friendly ultimately, I think. Right. Wasn't that a deal? They never encountered humans. >> Yeah. >> Before the humans came and went, "Oh, they're so dumb. They die so easily." Just the They didn't have predators. They were >> He was begging me to eat him. >> No, not true. But okay, everybody and the the dodos because they were so easily murdered by humanity arriving on isolated islands where they had uh evolved. Poor dodos. The dodos got a bad rap. And so researchers have now taken dodo skulls from natural history museums and they've done um they've done mapping scanning of the interiors of the dodo skulls because we've talked about this kind of stuff before. Now >> you can map >> yes >> the space that's empty inside the skull. And because of the ridges and the bumps and everything that's you can get an idea of what what what jello bits were there when the animal was alive. And we know from extant living organisms and others that we've you know that we've been looking at their heads, their brains, etc. We know what pigeon brains look like. we know what other relatives of the dodo brains are like. And so they said, "Hey, let's see what the dodo's brain might have been like. Let's give it a let's give the dodo brain a chance." How did the dodo experience the world around it? That was the question that they asked. And so they digitally reconstructed that internal space of the skull by CT scanning and doing some really high resolution work to figuring out what was going on there. Um, and we know the dodo was a ground dwelling bird. It was a flightless bird and that most of its foraging was probably on the ground. It was not a predatory bird. It was uh something that was probably foraging, you know, within the grasses, under the trees, uh on the ground doing just being a nice dodo. But they took uh these these uh skulls from one from the natural history museum museum in Denmark and with CT scanning got a 3D model that they were able to use to show that it is similar to pigeon and do dove brains. The internal cavity the brain case is very similar to those living organ those living animals that we still know today. So pigeons and doves, we still don't think of them as the most intelligent creatures on the planet, but they're intelligent and they do pretty cool things. And so the anatomy that they have found suggests that the dodo might not have only been a daylight only active bird that because of its optic tectum and its optic loes. So that's the areas responsible for sight that it could also have been active that its eyes were big enough and the information coming in could have allowed it to be kpuscular. I know that's one of your favorite words Blair that it could have been active from dusk at dusk or at dawn. So at those you know the golden hours. Um, additionally, it had a really, really big old factory lobe, or it seems like it, and so it may have relied on smell more than pigeons and doves. And it seems as though its upper beak might have had because of um tap areas of the brain related to tactile input, they think that the that the beak of the bird may have been very sensitive to touch. Oh, >> and so it might actually have used the beak and its sense of smell for probing and finding its food. >> I just love that in my lifetime we went from being like, "Birds don't smell. What are you talking about?" >> Yeah. >> Just every time I think about that all the time. But um first of all, this picture uh this Dodo is clearly wearing uh platform leather boots uh kneeh's. This [laughter] is very good. That's very good. sassy. >> It's very sassy, fashionable. I know. I I hope to see it next year at the uh >> whatever that big Metropolitan Museum of Art fashion thingy is. The gala the Met Gala. >> Um so really we ate them so fast that they didn't even know if they were kpuscular or diner like this. >> No idea. Just didn't bother. Huh. >> Didn't bother. They're just daytime birds. >> Plentiful. plentiful daylight daytime birds on an isolated island that did not run away so you could eat them. Um, >> I don't think you get to be this large of a flightless bird and be dumb, >> right? >> Because you'd get eaten by everything. >> You're you're big. You're like you're not a >> You are bigger than birds. >> You're not This is bigger than a broiler chicken. Yeah, like like [laughter] the birds that that I'm like, how are how do you even exist? Like they fly so they can get away [laughter] or like emus. Not very smart. Sorry, emus. Um there's no predators. >> Yeah, [laughter] >> but there's predators where these guys lived. So like they can't be that dumb, >> right? So, I mean that's >> also foraging and um and scavenging is a you have to be smart to do that. >> Yep. And you have to not be not be killed by other predators. But the fact that it was so friendly, not afraid. Uh it suggests that maybe it was able it could have defended itself against predators if it knew there was danger or it knew how to hide. >> Yeah. Look at those eyes and those nails. That's >> it's those right there are very ostrich-like nails at the end of the feet. >> Um and it's a big beak. So there's >> I am really sad I never saw one of these alive. >> Yeah. And uh the researchers say the dodo has become a symbol of extinction, but in many ways it remains surprisingly mysterious. >> Yeah, cuz we ate it too fast. [laughter] >> We ate them too fast. Every new piece of evidence helps us move beyond myths and build a more accurate picture of how this extraordinary bird lived before it disappeared. >> I can't wait for the study where they're like, "We think we know what they tasted like [laughter] >> cuz you know it's coming. You know it's coming. They're going to 3D print some dodo meat and they're going to be like come have a dodo burger." >> Oh my gosh. Seriously, if they've got things, they're like, "Oh, we have DNA. We made it out of a chicken. Tastes like chicken." >> I mean, it's gonna taste like chicken ultimately, right? Like >> a bird. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Either a chicken or like a a big feeasant or something. I don't know. >> Um, moving on. I I don't want to eat a dodo. Just so everybody is very clear about I have no no intention in my future or >> don't know more >> don't don't know I I do like prefect says dodo go-go boots >> I would like yeah we could have a synthetic version of the dodo go-os I would like that >> um okay two more quick studies uh journals science robotics researchers had people talk to robots. >> Mhm. >> In kind of this healthc care settings, workplace settings, >> some of the robots, >> okay, [laughter] >> some of the robots were >> expressive, some of the robots were not expressive. Um, and they had the robots, um, some of them very smooth, wonderful robots, just very smooth. Some of them they got awkward. They made mistakes. They didn't do things the right way. Um, and so they, the researchers were trying to figure out how people, how people started thinking about the robots and how they felt about the robots. and how human emotions changed as they were interacting with robots. And so they used a very specific robot. It's a humanoid robot named Pepper. >> Okay. >> Yes. And Pepper has a has a little It's humanoid, of course. It's white. Um >> Pepper has blue eyes. and just a face. But the eyes can move, the pupils can dilate. There is, you know, expressiveness to the in the way that the arms can move, the voice, how the voice works. And there's a so it's very humanoid. It has a touch screen on the chest area of uh of of the robot so that people can touch the robot and respond to things. Uh and so anyway, they measured in the participants brain activity, levels of hormone, oxytocin, self-reported trust, and also observations of how the robots influenced the participants decisions. And then so for some participants, like I said, the robot was emotive and animated and it had eye contact and others it was just motionless and very robotic. The interesting result here is that when you hear oxytocin, how do you think of oxytocin? If you if somebody's oxytocin levels go up when interacting with somebody else, what do you think that means? love, >> right? We have been told that oxytocin is a love hormone. >> Yeah, >> it's a trust hormone. But in this case, what they saw, oxytocin levels increased in individuals where expressive robots, the ones that were more humanlike, didn't interact normally, where they were awkward, where they made bumbling errors, where their limbs didn't move correctly or whatever. And so even though oxytocin is known as the love hormone for social bonding, it also is involved in signaling trust. And in the people who were involved with awkward robots, their oxytocin levels went up, signaling distrust. >> What? >> Yes. They trusted the robot less. They didn't take its advice as often and it basically led them to be more suspicious of the robot. >> See, that's interesting because I would almost assume the opposite that like the more perfect a robot is, the closer you get to like uncanny valley and people would be like, "What's your motive here?" [laughter] >> But that So this is this is what's what they think is going on. So you've got a robot that's more ammo aminoid. I was going to say animated humanoid. Um, and so you've got this animated humanoid robot. Definitely not human, but closer trying to be >> but then not doing it right. >> Uhhuh. >> Hitting uncanny valley, doing things wrong. And so instead of being trust inducing, it was it led to suspicion as opposed >> robot stuff instead of like a flawed machine. >> Yes. Basically where whereas the robotic version of Pepper that did was not animated, didn't move at all, was just a robot, >> it didn't have the same impact. >> Yeah. Because it's like you wouldn't you wouldn't distrust the selfch checkckout machine. You'd just be like hot right. >> Yeah. It's not working. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And and so what they're suggesting is that for human robot interactions in places like [snorts] health healthcare environments or you know workplaces where humans and robots work closely together. If you can't get rid of the uncanniness of it, then you should just not try to go there because it might actually work better just for a person to work with a machine knowing it's a machine. >> Stop making humanoid robots. We don't need them. >> Yeah, >> we don't need them. It's the least mechanically sensical choice. And it's just because you want to have dominion over a humanoid. Like I feel like that's the weird subtext that's going on is that someone wants to be able to boss a humanoid around. Like just leave it. Just make it a box with an arm and a screen. >> Nobody. >> Is it my computer? It's my computer. There we go. >> Nobody needs a humanoid robot. Nobody. >> Stop it. >> Stop it. Yeah. So >> I sound like such a ker in this episode. [laughter] So, I'm chaos. You're ker woods. >> We're all gonna get into the We're gonna get gonna get into wrestling next. Blair Chaos and Kermagin. >> Yeah. Yeah. Very good. >> Take it over. [snorts] >> Or that's a French uh uh comic strip maybe also. >> That would be so good. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, anyway, researchers are trying to figure out, you know, how oxytocin like it's not just the love hormone, everybody. it goes much deeper like so many of these hormones and neurotransmitters that people like to simplify in the valley of silicon. Um, additionally, we're trying to figure out how we can have, you know, do we need relationships when people can't have cats and they live on their own and they're alone as they're getting older? What do we do about our aging populations? What do we do about you know the engagement that pe that people need that is the social engagement the contact that that we require as human beings? How do we begin to create systems that support all of this? Do we need to create social robots? >> Robot dog. Just make a robot dog. You don't need a humanoid robot. Nobody needs a humanoid robot. >> Um yeah, why not robot cat, robot dog. whatever. >> I mean, a robot cat can still sit in your lap and take your like heartbeat and, you know, it can take so many medical readings while it's sitting in a person's lap, right, as the person's person's petting it. It could be such a useful tool. Anyway, what's next? They're going to be uh looking at multiple robot robot designs. They're going to try and do mixed methods with different cultures. And you know, can ask the question, can the re robots repair trust >> after a mistake? >> Yeah, just make them not look like a human. >> Don't be a robot. [laughter] >> Make Johnny five. It'll be fine. >> Last story for the night. Um, UC Davis study. I love bringing stuff from UC Davis because it's my alma mater. But researcher Jason Smuknney uh from the department of psychiatric psychiatry and behavioral sciences was looking at specifically the relationship between mental health symptoms and academic and social functioning in children between the ages of 10 to 13 years old. The one factor that was the strongest What do you think it is? One factor strongest associated with better grades and fewer social problems. >> Le screen time. Less screen time. >> That was number two. >> Okay. >> Number one, sleep. >> Okay. And so when a kid's school starts at 7:30, how does that figure into that? [gasps] You're going to have a a chaotic relationship with your child as an adult trying to get them to go to sleep every night and to convince them that they need to go to sleep to get up that early in the morning. Unless of course your child is a morning lark, >> which mine is not. My parenting's hard. >> Mine currently [laughter] is. He wakes up at 6:15 every day. >> That's lovely for you. >> No, it's not. [laughter] 6:45, sir. >> Give me a little longer. Yes. Yeah. I don't know. Right now, I just have to convince my 15year-old that 5:00 a.m. is not okay to go to bed at anymore. No. No. Just cuz I went to bed does not mean you get to stay up all night long. You have to go to college, child, and then you can do what you want. >> Yeah. >> Oh my goodness. >> Uh, so sleep, sleep is the main predictor. That makes sense. I mean, like that messes with your home hormones, that messes with your metabolism, that messes with your brain chemistry, it messes with every it messes with your circadian rhythm, it makes you psychotic. Just go to bed. And so what they found is that uh this from this adolescent brain cognitive development study these sleep habits explained a a significant proportion of this relationship. But this lifestyle factor just getting adequate sleep it led to uh it it accounted for 18.5% of the association with depression 36.3% with anxiety and 8.3% with psychotic like disturbances and screen time was 5% of the association with anxiety 6.3 with depression and 6.2 with psychotic like disturbances. Exercise and diet were also important but had much smaller effects. >> It's sleep. >> Sleep hygiene is the thing now, right? So >> sleep. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. [sighs] >> Which it's hard to teach our children when we are bad at it also. >> I know. [laughter] I try. I really do. [sighs] Oh my. But on that note of go to sleep, I'm going to finish out the show with a letter from a listener who was listening to our conversation about the Vanta Black coating. >> Oh, right. >> Of that uh that statue a while back >> and you were asking a bunch of questions and so Alan Irwin wrote in and said, "I was listening to this week's episode and I heard you discussing the Vanta Black coating and you had a couple of questions. In my previous job, I'm retired now. I had the opportunity to work with Vantablack. We manufactured black bodies and other calibration equipment for infrared systems. >> Cool. >> Several of your questions were about touching the material. I'm unfamiliar with the work of University of Suri on Vantablack 310, but it's probably around trying to make it more appropriate as a coating. The problem with Vantablack is that it's extremely fragile. We could not touch it or that would destroy its properties. >> Vantablack is basically a random collection of nano tubes, random orientation and diameters that capture or absorb photons. It can be somewhat tuned for spectral ranges limiting the range of nan nano tube diameters and is highly efficient, but those tubes are fragile. The surface with the coating cannot withstand much of any impact. Again, we could not touch it without destroying its proper properties. Answering Blair's question about touching it. Although, I would guess that you couldn't feel much of anything since it's a collection of nano tubes. >> That's also why it's only a pipe dream that someday it could be incorporated into a fabric suit of some kind. So, no invisibility cloak. And yes, I intentionally made the pun pipe dream. >> Very good. Very good. Blair also mentioned about it being matte, which is tech, it is technically, but matte at a nano photonic level. So, not perceptible to human touch. >> This is so cool. Wow. >> Yeah. Such a great great great answer. We could use it because the surface of a black body isn't meant to be touched and it can withstand high temperatures. Cleaning it, however, is its own challenge. And yes, it's so black that all features become invisible. It was mentioned that pictures look like you just cut out the part of the image that's coded. And it's true in real life as well. When you can walk around something with the coating and it looks like a hole in space. Nothing reflects. It is freaky cool. And it teaches you about how things you thought were black really aren't. >> Wow. >> The black surfaces we're familiar with still reflect light, especially when there are features on the surface. So that's my experience actually working with material. Thanks for the breath of topics you explore on Twist. >> What a good letter. Thank you >> Alan. Thank you. This was >> awesome. >> Awesome. Like honestly >> I made me want to touch it so much more. [laughter] >> Don't touch the red button. [laughter] >> That's so cool. Yeah. Thank you, Alan, so much for answering those questions of Blair's. And if anybody else has insight on stuff that we talk about on the show, I would love to read your answers and you can send me an email, kirsteniscience.com. But other than that, man, we had a fun. Blair said chaotic show. >> Yeah, >> thank you, Blair. >> Yeah, absolutely. Happy to add to the vibe. >> [laughter] >> Thanks everyone. [gasps] Time for us to say good night. Thank you all for listening. Thanks everyone in the chat room for being here. I love all your comments and it's fun now to now that I've got this thing on StreamYard where I can put your chats up on the screen where people can see them. I think it's really fun for people to be able to see what people from all of our different channels are talking about in our in our mixed stream here. Thank you for being here. Thank you to people who help with the show. Fonda, thank you so much for your help with social media and show notes. Gourd, thank you. And ArinLore, thank you for helping with the chat room. And really, everyone, thank you for making sure the chat room is a good place, respectful place to be. Identity 4, thank you for recording the show. I'm sorry that there were uh technical difficulties tonight. They were not mine. I didn't do it. [laughter] It was the internet solar flares. But I appreciate your patience. And Rachel, thank you for your patience as you get to edit the show that had the te technical difficulties this week. Additionally, now thank you to our Patreon sponsors. Thank you to Aaron Anathema, Adam Mishkan, Alan Viola, Alli Coffin, Andrew Swanson, Ardum, Arthur Kepler, Bob Cler, Brandon Minish, Brian Carrington, Chris Wnjak, Christopher Drier, Rich Christopher Rapen, Craig Landon, Greg Pototts, Daryl Mshack, Dave Wilkinson, David Young Bloodood, David Derek Schmidt, Don Mundus, EO, Eden Mundell, Eric Knap, Flying Out, Fred 104, G Burton, Latimore, Greg Briggs, Jack Jason Olds, John Atwood, John McKe, John Rottna, Swami, Johnny Gidley, Ken Hayes, Kent Northcoat, Kevin Perachchan, Kevin Ren, Kurt Larson, Lon Makes, Lauren Gford, Mary Girtz, Marjgerie, Mark Hessenflow, Mark Jenkins, Noodles, Patrick Pecaro, Paul Paul D, Disney, Paul Ronovich, Pierre Velazarb, Richard Badge, Robert Norland, Robert W. Farley, Rodney Lewis, Rudy Garcia, Hemi Day, Sean Clarence, Lamb, Shu, Bruce, Stephanie Embry, Steven Alberon, Steve Leeman, aka Zema, Sue Doster, Teresa Smith, Tony Steel, Vaggard, Chef's dad, and what the if. Thank you all for your support of Twists on Patreon. And if anyone out there is interested in supporting us on Patreon, head over to twist.org and click on that Patreon link. It'll take you to the Patreon platform where you can sign up to support us at the at the amount of your choosing. I'm not going to tell you what to do. There are hard times right now, but if you can help, it's very appreciated on next week's show. >> We will be back on Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. Pacific time broadcasting live from Twitch, YouTube, and Facebook channels. >> Oh, yeah. And if you want to listen to us as a podcast, just search for This Week in Science wherever podcasts are found, if you got if if if you like the show, get your friends to subscribe, too. Don't hoard the information. Come on, >> share it, baby. For more information on anything you've heard here today, show notes and links to stories will be available on our website. That's www.twist.org. You can also sign up for a newsletter, which will come someday. >> It will. I really really really really really mean to do this thing. We love your feedback and if there is a topic if you if you know somebody who can tell us why data centers are necessary [laughter] you know >> if you have a suggestion for an interview let us know on one of our social media accounts or send us an email. Put twists in the subject line though so your email doesn't get spam filtered into wear blare. >> Oh, I'm gonna cover it up with Vanta Black. You'll never be able to see it. >> It's gone. Just a hole in space. >> Uh we look forward to discussing science with you again next week. And if you've learned anything from the show, remember >> it's all in your head. >> This week in science. [music] This week in science. This week in [music] science. This week in science. It's the end of the world. So I'm setting up shop. [music] Got my banner unfurled. It says the scientist is in. I'm going to sell my advice. Show them how to stop the robot with a [music] simple device. I'll reverse global warming with a wave of my hand. And all it'll cost you is a [music] couple of grand. Cuz this week, science is coming your way. So [music] everybody [singing] listen to what I say. I use a scientific method for all that it's worth. And I'll broadcast my opinion all over the earth. [music] Cuz it's this week in science. This week in science. This week [music] in science. Science. Science. Science. This week in science. This week in science. This week [music] in science. This week in science. This week in science. This week in science. [music] This week in science. This week in science.