# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the factors driving water scarcity are complex and vary widely across countries and regions, UNICEF works at multiple levels to introduce context-specific technologies that increase access to safe water and address the impacts of water scarcity. We focus on:

Identifying new water resources: We assess the availability of water resources using various technologies, including remote sensing and geophysical surveys and field investigations.

Improving the efficiency of water resources: We rehabilitate urban water distribution networks and treatment systems to reduce water leakage and contamination, promoting wastewater reuse for agriculture to protect groundwater.

Planning for urban scarcity: We plan for future water needs by identifying available resources to reduce the risk of cities running out of water.

Expanding technologies to ensure climate resilience: We support and develop climate-resilient water sources, including the use of deeper groundwater reserves through solar-powered water networks. We also advance water storage through small-scale retention structures, managed aquifer recharge (where water is pumped into underground reserves to improve its quality), and rainwater harvesting.

Changing behaviours: We work with schools and communities to promote an understanding of the value of water and the importance of its protection, including by supporting environmental clubs in schools.

Planning national water needs: We work with key stakeholders at national and sub-national levels to understand the water requirements for domestic use and for health and sanitation, and advocate to ensure that this is reflected in national planning considerations.

Supporting the WASH sector: We develop technical guidance, manuals and online training programmes for WASH practitioners to improve standards for water access.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the factors driving water scarcity are complex and vary widely across countries and regions, UNICEF works at multiple levels to introduce context-specific technologies that increase access to safe water and address the impacts of water scarcity. We focus on: Identifying new water resources: We assess the availability of water resources using various technologies, including remote sensing and geophysical surveys and field investigations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Comfortably seated in the fertility clinic with Vivaldi playing softly in the background, you and your partner are brought coffee and a folder. Inside the folder is an embryo menu. Each embryo has a description, something like this:

Embryo 78 - male
No serious early onset diseases, but a carrier for phenylketonuria (a metabolic malfunction that can cause behavioural and mental disorders. Carriers just have one copy of the gene, so don't get the condition themselves).
Higher than average risk of type 2 diabetes and colon cancer.
Lower than average risk of asthma and autism.
Dark eyes, light brown hair, male pattern baldness.
40% chance of coming in the top half in SAT tests.

There are 200 of these embryos to choose from, all made by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) from you and your partner's eggs and sperm. So, over to you. Which will you choose?

If there's any kind of future for "designer babies", it might look something like this. It's a long way from the image conjured up when artificial conception, and perhaps even artificial gestation, were first mooted as a serious scientific possibility. Inspired by predictions about the future of reproductive technology by the biologists JBS Haldane and Julian Huxley in the 1920s, Huxley's brother Aldous wrote a satirical novel about it.

That book was, of course, Brave New World, published in 1932. Set in the year 2540, it describes a society whose population is grown in vats in an impersonal central hatchery, graded into five tiers of different intelligence by chemical treatment of the embryos. There are no parents as such - families are considered obscene. Instead, the gestating fetuses and babies are tended by workers in white overalls, "their hands gloved with a pale corpse‑coloured rubber", under white, dead lights.

Brave New World has become the inevitable reference point for all media discussion of new advances in reproductive technology. Whether it's Newsweek reporting in 1978 on the birth of Louise Brown, the first "test-tube baby" (the inaccurate phrase speaks volumes) as a "cry round the brave new world", or the New York Times announcing " The brave new world of three-parent IVF " in 2014, the message is that we are heading towards Huxley's hatchery with its racks of tailor-made babies in their "numbered test tubes".

The spectre of a harsh, impersonal and authoritarian dystopia always looms in these discussions of reproductive control and selection. Novelist Kazuo Ishiguro, whose 2005 novel, Never Let Me Go, described children produced and reared as organ donors, last month warned that thanks to advances in gene editing, "we're coming close to the point where we can, objectively in some sense, create people who are superior to others ".

But the prospect of genetic portraits of IVF embryos paints a rather different picture. If it happens at all, the aim will be not to engineer societies but to attract consumers. Should we allow that? Even if we do, would a list of dozens or even hundreds of embryos with diverse yet sketchy genetic endowments be of any use to anyone?

I don't think we are going to see superman or a split in the species any time soon, because we just don't know enough

Henry Greely, bioethicist

The shadow of Frankenstein 's monster haunted the fraught discussion of IVF in the 1970s and 80s, and the misleading term "three-parent baby" to refer to embryos made by the technique of mitochondrial transfer - moving healthy versions of the energy-generating cell compartments called mitochondria from a donor cell to an egg with faulty, potentially fatal versions - insinuates that there must be something "unnatural" about the procedure.

Every new advance puts a fresh spark of life into Huxley's monstrous vision. Ishiguro's dire forecast was spurred by the gene-editing method called Crispr-Cas9, developed in 2012, which uses natural enzymes to target and snip genes with pinpoint accuracy. Thanks to Crispr-Cas9, it seems likely that gene therapies - eliminating mutant genes that cause some severe, mostly very rare diseases - might finally bear fruit, if they can be shown to be safe for human use. Clinical trials are now under way.

But modified babies? Crispr-Cas9 has already been used to genetically modify (nonviable) human embryos in China, to see if it is possible in principle - the results were mixed. And Kathy Niakan of the Francis Crick Institute in the UK has been granted a licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to use Crispr-Cas9 on embryos a few days old to find out more about problems in these early stages of development that can lead to miscarriage and other reproductive problems.

Most countries have not yet legislated on genetic modification in human reproduction, but of those that have, all have banned it. The idea of using Crispr-Cas9 for human reproduction is largely rejected in principle by the medical research community. A team of scientists warned in Nature less than two years ago that genetic manipulation of the germ line (sperm and egg cells) by methods like Crispr-Cas9, even if focused initially on improving health, " could start us down a path towards non-therapeutic genetic enhancement ".

Besides, there seems to be little need for gene editing in reproduction. It would be a difficult, expensive and uncertain way to achieve what can mostly be achieved already in other ways, particularly by just selecting an embryo that has or lacks the gene in question. "Almost everything you can accomplish by gene editing, you can accomplish by embryo selection," says bioethicist Henry Greely of Stanford University in California.

Because of unknown health risks and widespread public distrust of gene editing, bioethicist Ronald Green of Dartmouth College in New Hampshire says he does not foresee widespread use of Crispr-Cas9 in the next two decades, even for the prevention of genetic disease, let alone for designer babies. However, Green does see gene editing appearing on the menu eventually, and perhaps not just for medical therapies. "It is unavoidably in our future," he says, "and I believe that it will become one of the central foci of our social debates later in this century and in the century beyond." He warns that this might be accompanied by "serious errors and health problems as unknown genetic side effects in 'edited' children and populations begin to manifest themselves".

For now, though, if there's going to be anything even vaguely resembling the popular designer-baby fantasy, Greely says it will come from embryo selection, not genetic manipulation. Embryos produced by IVF will be genetically screened - parts or all of their DNA will be read to deduce which gene variants they carry - and the prospective parents will be able to choose which embryos to implant in the hope of achieving a pregnancy. Greely foresees that new methods of harvesting or producing human eggs, along with advances in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of IVF embryos, will make selection much more viable and appealing, and thus more common, in 20 years' time.

PGD is already used by couples who know that they carry genes for specific inherited diseases so that they can identify embryos that do not have those genes. The testing, generally on three- to five-day-old embryos, is conducted in around 5% of IVF cycles in the US. In the UK it is performed under licence from the HFEA, which permits screening for around 250 diseases including thalassemia, early-onset Alzheimer's and cystic fibrosis.

As a way of "designing" your baby, PGD is currently unattractive. "Egg harvesting is unpleasant and risky and doesn't give you that many eggs," says Greely, and the success rate for implanted embryos is still typically about one in three. But that will change, he says, thanks to developments that will make human eggs much more abundant and conveniently available, coupled to the possibility of screening their genomes quickly and cheaply.

Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield in the 2010 film adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, in which clones are produced to provide spare organs for their originals. Photograph: 20th Century Fox/Everett/Rex

Advances in methods for reading the genetic code recorded in our chromosomes are going to make it a routine possibility for every one of us - certainly, every newborn child - to have our genes sequenced. "In the next 10 years or so, the chances are that many people in rich countries will have large chunks of their genetic information in their electronic medical records," says Greely.

But using genetic data to predict what kind of person an embryo would become is far more complicated than is often implied. Seeking to justify unquestionably important research on the genetic basis of human health, researchers haven't done much to dispel simplistic ideas about how genes make us. Talk of "IQ genes", "gay genes" and "musical genes" has led to a widespread perception that there is a straightforward one-to-one relationship between our genes and our traits. In general, it's anything but.

There are thousands of mostly rare and nasty genetic diseases that can be pinpointed to a specific gene mutation. Most more common diseases or medical predispositions - for example, diabetes, heart disease or certain types of cancer - are linked to several or even many genes, can't be predicted with any certainty, and depend also on environmental factors such as diet.

When it comes to more complex things like personality and intelligence, we know very little. Even if they are strongly inheritable - it's estimated that up to 80% of intelligence, as measured by IQ, is inherited - we don't know much at all about which genes are involved, and not for want of looking.

At best, Greely says, PGD might tell a prospective parent things like "there's a 60% chance of this child getting in the top half at school, or a 13% chance of being in the top 10%". That's not much use.

We might do better for "cosmetic" traits such as hair or eye colour. Even these "turn out to be more complicated than a lot of people thought," Greely says, but as the number of people whose genomes have been sequenced increases, the predictive ability will improve substantially.

Ewan Birney, director of the European Bioinformatics Institute near Cambridge, points out that, even if other countries don't choose to constrain and regulate PGD in the way the HFEA does in the UK, it will be very far from a crystal ball.

Nearly anything you can measure for humans, he says, can be studied through genetics, and analysing the statistics for huge numbers of people often reveals some genetic component. But that information "is not very predictive on an individual basis," says Birney. "I've had my genome sequenced on the cheap, and it doesn't tell me very much. We've got to get away from the idea that your DNA is your destiny."

If the genetic basis of attributes like intelligence and musicality is too thinly spread and unclear to make selection practical, then tweaking by genetic manipulation certainly seems off the menu too. "I don't think we are going to see superman or a split in the species any time soon," says Greely, "because we just don't know enough and are unlikely to for a long time - or maybe for ever."

If this is all "designer babies" could mean even in principle - freedom from some specific but rare diseases, knowledge of rather trivial aspects of appearance, but only vague, probabilistic information about more general traits like health, attractiveness and intelligence - will people go for it in large enough numbers to sustain an industry?

Greely suspects, even if it is used at first only to avoid serious genetic diseases, we need to start thinking hard about the options we might be faced with. "Choices will be made," he says, "and if informed people do not participate in making those choices, ignorant people will make them."

The Crispr/Cas9 system uses a molecular structure to edit genomes. Photograph: Alamy

Green thinks that technological advances could make "design" increasingly versatile. In the next 40-50 years, he says, "we'll start seeing the use of gene editing and reproductive technologies for enhancement: blond hair and blue eyes, improved athletic abilities, enhanced reading skills or numeracy, and so on."

He's less optimistic about the consequences, saying that we will then see social tensions "as the well-to-do exploit technologies that make them even better off", increasing the relatively worsened health status of the world's poor. As Greely points out, a perfectly feasible 10-20% improvement in health via PGD, added to the comparable advantage that wealth already brings, could lead to a widening of the health gap between rich and poor, both within a society and between nations.

Others doubt that there will be any great demand for embryo selection, especially if genetic forecasts remain sketchy about the most desirable traits. "Where there is a serious problem, such as a deadly condition, or an existing obstacle, such as infertility, I would not be surprised to see people take advantage of technologies such as embryo selection," says law professor and bioethicist R Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin. "But we already have evidence that people do not flock to technologies when they can conceive without assistance."

The poor take-up of sperm banks offering "superior" sperm, she says, already shows that. For most women, "the emotional significance of reproduction outweighs any notion of 'optimisation'". Charo feels that "our ability to love one another with all our imperfections and foibles outweighs any notion of 'improving' our children through genetics".

All the same, societies are going to face tough choices about how to regulate an industry that offers PGD with an ever-widening scope. "Technologies are very amoral," says Birney. "Societies have to decide how to use them" - and different societies will make different choices.

One of the easiest things to screen for is sex. Gender-specific abortion is formally forbidden in most countries, although it still happens in places such as China and India where there has been a strong cultural preference for boys. But prohibiting selection by gender is another matter. How could it even be implemented and policed? By creating some kind of quota system?

And what would selection against genetic disabilities do to those people who have them? "They have a lot to be worried about here," says Greely. "In terms of whether society thinks I should have been born, but also in terms of how much medical research there is into diseases, how well understood it is for practitioners and how much social support there is."

Once selection beyond avoidance of genetic disease becomes an option - and it does seem likely - the ethical and legal aspects are a minefield. When is it proper for governments to coerce people into, or prohibit them from, particular choices, such as not selecting for a disability? How can one balance individual freedoms and social consequences?

"The most important consideration for me," says Charo, "is to be clear about the distinct roles of personal morality, by which individuals decide whether to seek out technological assistance, versus the role of government, which can prohibit, regulate or promote technology."

She adds: "Too often we discuss these technologies as if personal morality or particular religious views are a sufficient basis for governmental action. But one must ground government action in a stronger set of concerns about promoting the wellbeing of all individuals while permitting the widest range of personal liberty of conscience and choice."

"For better or worse, human beings will not forgo the opportunity to take their evolution into their own hands," says Green. "Will that make our lives happier and better? I'm far from sure."

A scientist at work during an IVF process. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA

Easy pickings: the future of designer babies

The simplest and surest way to "design" a baby is not to construct its genome by pick'n'mix gene editing but to produce a huge number of embryos and read their genomes to find the one that most closely matches your desires.

Two technological advances are needed for this to happen, says bioethicist Henry Greely of Stanford University in California. The production of embryos for IVF must become easier, more abundant and less unpleasant. And gene sequencing must be fast and cheap enough to reveal the traits an embryo will have. Put them together and you have "Easy PGD" (preimplantation genetic diagnosis): a cheap and painless way of generating large numbers of human embryos and then screening their entire genomes for desired characteristics.

"To get much broader use of PGD, you need a better way to get eggs," Greely says. "The more eggs you can get, the more attractive PGD becomes." One possibility is a one-off medical intervention that extracts a slice of a woman's ovary and freezes it for future ripening and harvesting of eggs. It sounds drastic, but would not be much worse than current egg-extraction and embryo-implantation methods. And it could give access to thousands of eggs for future use.

An even more dramatic approach would be to grow eggs from stem cells - the cells from which all other tissue types can be derived. Some stem cells are present in umbilical blood, which could be harvested at a person's birth and frozen for later use to grow organs - or eggs.

Even mature cells that have advanced beyond the stem-cell stage and become specific tissue types can be returned to a stem-cell-like state by treating them with biological molecules called growth factors. Last October, a team in Japan reported that they had made mouse eggs this way from skin cells, and fertilised them to create apparently healthy and fertile mouse pups.

Thanks to technological advances, the cost of human whole-genome sequencing has plummeted. In 2009 it cost around $50,000; today it is most like $1,500, which is why several private companies can now offer this service. In a few decades it could cost just a few dollars per genome. Then it becomes feasible to think of PGD for hundreds of embryos at a time.

"The science for safe and effective Easy PGD is likely to exist some time in the next 20 to 40 years," says Greely. He thinks it will then become common for children to be conceived through IVF using selected genomes. He forecasts that this will lead to "the coming obsolescence of sex" for procreation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Designer babies: an ethical horror waiting to happen?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly 40 years since the first 'test-tube baby', how close are we to editing out all of our genetic imperfections - and should we even try to do so?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Q: What is "CRISPR"?

A: "CRISPR" (pronounced "crisper") stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, which are the hallmark of a bacterial defense system that forms the basis for CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology. In the field of genome engineering, the term "CRISPR" or "CRISPR-Cas9" is often used loosely to refer to the various CRISPR-Cas9 and -CPF1, (and other) systems that can be programmed to target specific stretches of genetic code and to edit DNA at precise locations, as well as for other purposes, such as for new diagnostic tools. With these systems, researchers can permanently modify genes in living cells and organisms and, in the future, may make it possible to correct mutations at precise locations in the human genome in order to treat genetic causes of disease. Other systems are now available, such as CRISPR-Cas13's, that target RNA provide alternate avenues for use, and with unique characteristics that have been leveraged for sensitive diagnostic tools, such as SHERLOCK.

Q: Where do CRISPRs come from?

A: CRISPRs were first discovered in archaea (and later in bacteria) by Francisco Mojica, a scientist at the University of Alicante in Spain. He proposed that CRISPRs serve as part of the bacterial immune system, defending against invading viruses. They consist of repeating sequences of genetic code, interrupted by "spacer" sequences - remnants of genetic code from past invaders. The system serves as a genetic memory that helps the cell detect and destroy invaders (called "bacteriophage") when they return. Mojica's theory was experimentally demonstrated in 2007 by a team of scientists led by Philippe Horvath.

In January 2013, the Zhang lab published the first method to engineer CRISPR to edit the genome in mouse and human cells.

For more on many of the scientists and teams who contributed to the understanding and development of the CRISPR system from the initial discovery to the first demonstrations of CRISPR-mediated genome editing, visit our CRISPR timeline.

Q: How does the system work?

A: CRISPR "spacer" sequences are transcribed into short RNA sequences ("CRISPR RNAs" or "crRNAs") capable of guiding the system to matching sequences of DNA. When the target DNA is found, Cas9 - one of the enzymes produced by the CRISPR system - binds to the DNA and cuts it, shutting the targeted gene off. Using modified versions of Cas9, researchers can activate gene expression instead of cutting the DNA. These techniques allow researchers to study the gene's function.

Research also suggests that CRISPR-Cas9 can be used to target and modify "typos" in the three-billion-letter sequence of the human genome in an effort to treat genetic disease.

An artist's depiction of the CRISPR system in action.
Illustration by Stephen Dixon

Q: How does CRISPR-Cas9 compare to other genome editing tools?

A: CRISPR-Cas9 is proving to be an efficient and customizable alternative to other existing genome editing tools. Since the CRISPR-Cas9 system itself is capable of cutting DNA strands, CRISPRs do not need to be paired with separate cleaving enzymes as other tools do. They can also easily be matched with tailor-made "guide" RNA (gRNA) sequences designed to lead them to their DNA targets. Tens of thousands of such gRNA sequences have already been created and are available to the research community. CRISPR-Cas9 can also be used to target multiple genes simultaneously, which is another advantage that sets it apart from other gene-editing tools.

Q: How does CRISPR-Cpf1 differ from CRISPR-Cas9?

CRISPR-Cpf1 differs in several important ways from the previously described Cas9, with significant implications for research and therapeutics.

First, in its natural form, the DNA-cutting enzyme Cas9 forms a complex with two small RNAs, both of which are required for the cutting activity. The Cpf1 system is simpler in that it requires only a single RNA. The Cpf1 enzyme is also smaller than the standard SpCas9, making it easier to deliver into cells and tissues.

Second, and perhaps most significantly, Cpf1 cuts DNA in a different manner than Cas9. When the Cas9 complex cuts DNA, it cuts both strands at the same place, leaving 'blunt ends' that often undergo mutations as they are rejoined. With the Cpf1 complex the cuts in the two strands are offset, leaving short overhangs on the exposed ends. This is expected to help with precise insertion, allowing researchers to integrate a piece of DNA more efficiently and accurately.

Third, Cpf1 cuts far away from the recognition site, meaning that even if the targeted gene becomes mutated at the cut site, it can likely still be re-cut, allowing multiple opportunities for correct editing to occur.

Fourth, the Cpf1 system provides new flexibility in choosing target sites. Like Cas9, the Cpf1 complex must first attach to a short sequence known as a PAM, and targets must be chosen that are adjacent to naturally occurring PAM sequences. The Cpf1 complex recognizes very different PAM sequences from those of Cas9. This could be an advantage in targeting, for example, the malaria parasite genome and even the human genome.

Q: What other scientific uses might CRISPR have beyond genome editing?

A: CRISPR genome editing allows scientists to quickly create cell and animal models, which researchers can use to accelerate research into diseases such as cancer and mental illness. In addition, CRISPR is now being developed as a rapid diagnostic. To help encourage this type of research worldwide, Feng Zhang and his team have trained thousands of researchers in the use of CRISPR genome editing technology through direct education and by sharing more than 40,000 CRISPR components with academic laboratories around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Q: What is "CRISPR"? A: "CRISPR" (pronounced "crisper") stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, which are the hallmark of a bacterial defense system that forms the basis for CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Now that you understand how gene engineering is accomplished, you can begin to imagine the impact it can have. Currently, genome editing using CRISPR is seen in many different disciplines: medicine, agriculture, and beyond. This section focuses on the broad genome editing applications, and how they will impact your day-to-day life.

1. The Impact of Genome Engineering in Medicine

There is no greater place to see the power of genome engineering than in medicine. The ability to modify the genetic code provides researchers and clinicians new and more effective ways to prevent, study, and treat diseases.

Drug Discovery

Successful drug discovery has led to safe and efficacious therapies for a number of diseases. The monetary and human cost of disease strongly indicates the need for discovering and producing novel treatments.

While the impact is high, drug discovery is not cheap or easy. It is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process that, understandably, goes through an arduous process of checks and balances before patients even know the drug exists. Ways to speed up the path from the lab to the patient will not only save time and money, but hopefully save lives as well.

Past genome engineering tools (such as RNAi and TALENs) have been useful, but are not without some drawbacks. CRISPR-Cas9 editing addresses the many issues of past strategies that have hindered or slowed down the drug discovery process. The feasibility and accessibility of CRISPR technology to all scientists provides a greater opportunity for screening and manufacturing new drugs for a wider audience. Early applications of this are seen and felt in the cancer biology field, where CRISPR trials of cancer immunotherapy are already in progress.

Therapeutics

The basis of genetic diseases is errors or 'typos' in the genetic code. These typos can often lead to loss of function of proteins that are essential for basic human functions. Knowing this, genome engineering is tailor-made for therapeutics to treat diseases that are driven by genetic changes, either by inheritance or by mutational load (cancer).

The advantages of CRISPR-high specificity, low off-target effects, ease of use-has made therapeutics development easier and more efficacious. Recently, scientists used CRISPR to develop a therapy for sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disorder where red blood cells cannot carry oxygen through the body causing chronic pain and potentially fatal complications. Scientists have demonstrated that CRISPR can be used to correct mutations in the gene causing sickle cell, highlighting the power of CRISPR as a therapeutic power.

CRISPR applications in therapeutics are not only limited to sickle cell anemia. A number of CRISPR clinical trials are underway for a variety of other diseases with no known cure, which have been notoriously difficult to treat.

Diagnostics

CRISPR can also be used as a powerful diagnostic tool. Due to its targeted nature, CRISPR is currently being used to detect infectious and non-infectious diseases. A recent example is CRISPR-Chip, where researchers used a graphene-based field transistor combined with CRISPR for electronic detection of target genes.

In another example, scientists have unveiled a new diagnostic tool using CRISPR called SHERLOCK that is similar to a pregnancy test, where a strip of paper is dipped into the sample and a yes/no readout is revealed - almost instantly. The principle of SHERLOCK relies on the cleaving of genetic material by Cas13, and releases a signaling molecule that is detected by the paper. The long-term applications of this diagnostic technology can include disease detection, or monitoring agricultural or food supplies.

Not surprisingly, new companies are popping up to start using CRISPR for diagnostic purposes. Mammoth Biosciences is one of the top CRISPR startups looking to develop diagnostic tools to detect certain diseases using CRISPR technology.

Listen to this podcast interview with Trevor Martin, CEO of Mammoth Biosciences, to learn more about how CRISPR is changing the way of medical diagnostics.

Disease Models

Genome engineering has widely been used to model diseases in vitro and in vivo. In vivo models are generated by genetic modifications of mouse embryonic stem cells and delivery into blastocytes by microinjection. The advent of CRISPR shortened the time it takes to go from cell to organism.

CRISPR is currently being used to modify the genome prior to generating animal models such as rodents and non-human primates, or stem cell organoids. While classically, animal models of disease are thought to be via gene knockout, HDR or CRISPR knock-in strategies can be used to generate fluorescently tagged models for live animal imaging or disease monitoring, or for generating animals harboring specific genetic changes that are essential for a specific disease.

2. Genome Engineering Applications in Agriculture

The term "genetically modified organisms" (or GMOs) is often met with controversy because the process behind generating these is misunderstood or not clear to the public. Genome editing of crops and specific foods can yield dramatically beneficial results to the food supply by addressing pitfalls that contribute to compromises in food safety and food availability.

In agriculture, for example, scientists are using genome engineered cattle and salmon to harbor disease resistance, increase sustainability, and improve their nutritional and therapeutic value. Listen to this podcast episode with Alison Van Eenennaam, a geneticist at UC Davis, talk about how they use CRISPR in cattle welfare and sustainability projects.

The principles of genome engineering, specifically CRISPR, are also being applied to specific crops to address issues of food intolerance and food spoilage. This intersection of farming and laboratory science is currently seen in everyday foods including chocolate, wine, rice, and coffee.

The most applicable use of genome engineering in crops is in the wheat supply. Scientists are now using CRISPR-Cas9 to modify and improve the immunogenicity of wheat - the main cause of celiac disease. With this in mind, it is becoming clearer that genome editing is positively impacting agriculture.

3. Using Gene Editing & Gene Drives to Lower Disease Transmission

Gene drives, a mechanism where a desired genetic variant is transferred through a population faster than normal inheritance, can effectively stop the spread of an undesired trait. While the idea of gene drives to alter large populations is not new, advances in genome engineering in the past decade has made it much more feasible.

CRISPR gene drives are now being used to combat the spread of diseases transmitted by insects. Most notably, scientists are genetically engineering mosquitoes harboring a sterilizing mutation as a potentially novel weapon in the fight against the spread of malaria.

4. Genome Engineering and Biomaterials: A Two-Way Relationship

Biomaterials-products that are made to interact with biological systems-are often used in medicine to act as an aid, or replace the normal physiological function of the human body. Genome engineering has accelerated advancements in biomaterials and bioengineering.

For example, " DNA origami " projects may require stringing together long sequences of DNA to enable their three-dimensional folding into the desired shape. However, folding and assembling large pieces of DNA is not an easy task. This is where genome editing comes in. Since the backbone of CRISPR is cutting genetic sequences, CRISPR-Cas9 can cut large sequences into smaller pieces that are easier to fold together.

The relationship between biomaterials and genome engineering is a two-way street: while genome engineering is transforming biomaterials, biomaterials are making genome editing more feasible and efficient. The delivery of CRISPR components into cells for editing is being accelerated by advancements in biomaterials.

5. CRISPR-Mediated Biofuels Are Helping the Environment

One may commonly associate genome engineering with its transformative role in medicine or agriculture. However, the ability to change the genetic code is helping scientists protect the environment by aiding biofuel research. Scientists are using genome editing technologies to address major environmental issues from exploring novel sources of sustainable, renewable energy to decreasing the carbon footprint.

Specific genetic manipulation of microbes by CRISPR is being used to improve tolerance to biofuels, which is a limiting factor in producing economically-friendly fuel production.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Essential Guide To Genome Engineering: Techniques & Applications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genome engineering is the ability to modify the DNA that makes up our genome. Evolving techniques to edit genes are impacting many fields, including medicine and agriculture. This article guides you through the history, applications, and the future of genome engineering.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Greg Licholai

Lecturer, Yale School of Management; Chief Medical and Chief Innovation Officer, ICON plc

Recently, HBO's John Oliver opened a Last Week Tonight segment with a series of video clips about gene editing-some of them news reports promising amazing breakthroughs, others movie scenes depicting genetic engineering gone terribly wrong.

"It seems gene editing is going to eliminate all disease," he concluded. "Or kill every last one of us."

For decades, advances in genetic engineering have prompted both breathless predictions of a wondrous future and warnings of apocalypse. Both have gotten louder in the five years since the development of CRISPR, which allows for much more precise editing of genes than previously existing tools.

In 2017, for the first time, scientists used CRISPR to repair a genetic mutation-one that could cause a heart defect-in an embryo. Reporting the breakthrough, the New York Times said that "it raises the prospect that gene editing may one day protect babies from a variety of hereditary conditions." But in the article's third paragraph, the newspaper added that the successful experiment "is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism."

In the last few months, more immediate concerns have arisen about CRISPR. A series of studies have suggested that CRISPR may cause cells to lose their cancer-fighting ability, and that it may do more damage to genes than previously understood. "It is important that anyone thinking of using this technology for gene therapy proceeds with caution, and looks very carefully to check for possible harmful effects," said researcher Allan Bradley in a release from the Wellcome Sanger Institute.

Do CRISPR's benefits outweigh the risks? Yale Insights asked Dr. Gregory Licholai, a biotech entrepreneur who serves as a lecturer at Yale SOM and chief medical and information officer at PRA Health Sciences, to explain the technology's potential and dangers.

What is CRISPR and how is it different from the methods that have been used to manipulate genetics before?
CRISPR is this fascinating, powerful technology. It's got a very clunky name. It's called Clustered Regularly-Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. Now what does that mean? The name actually refers to the way it interacts with DNA. It's a way to manipulate DNA, to edit DNA, in a way that is much more powerful than previous methods, much simpler, much cheaper. And the important part is it's exceptionally precise.

So as you probably know, our book of life is made of DNA. DNA itself is many millions of base-pairs, which is like a language. And within that language, there are certain regions which code for genes, and those genes are incredibly important because those genes go on to make up everything about us. There's 40,000 proteins that become outputs of those genes and they are involved in our health, our wellbeing, and any defect in those genes becomes problematic and causes disease.

What was previously attempted with gene editing was to manipulate genetic information in blocks, basically in big pieces. It's kind of like trying to edit a book by only being able to rip out a page at a time and transfer a page at a time, without really being able to control the actual words. The power of this technology: it literally comes down to the individual letters. So the precision is far better than anything that has happened before. The excitement in the scientific community is being able to go in and very precisely make changes in DNA of actual genes that you can actually turn off bad genes or you can potentially repair genes that have got mutations in them where the code is written incorrectly.

There had been previous gene-editing technologies, such as viral gene editing, gene replacement, and those have developed over several decades. One of the most fascinating things about CRISPR is how quickly everything is developed, so in less than 10 years since the initial descriptions and initial papers were written, this technology has just exploded. It's been less than five years since the initial patents were written, and since then at least a half-dozen companies have been formed, all of them are racing forward to try to get a leg up on each other to try to proceed with using CRISPR for various applications.
What are some of the applications, in the somewhat reasonable, predictable future?
"We think we're measuring exactly what changes we're doing to the genes, but there's always the possibility that our technology can't pick up on other changes."

There are three main applications for CRISPR. One is in manipulating genes to turn them on or off within people. Another is to create medications that can be infused, or in some cases, self-therapy-taking blood and certain cells out of a body, manipulating them with CRISPR, and then putting them back in. The third, which sometimes is overlooked, is actually in farming. Both farming with animals as well as farming with crops. And in fact, the application of CRISPR to foods has already been done. There are companies that have already been using CRISPR to create enhanced foods to resist bacteria or viruses. To create even better-tasting foods. And that's already being done.

Similarly, the application of CRISPR to animals has already been done. They actually call them CRISPR mice, and they are already being used in the research community. The ability to apply it to larger animals such as food animals is in the very near future.
Can you give an example of a disease that could be treated?
In terms of human health, we can divide that into two different categories. One is taking cells out of the body, manipulating them in the laboratory-either removing a defective gene or adding and enhancing an ability to do something by turning on a gene or fixing a gene-and then putting those cells back in the body. That's one category. The other category would be actually injecting something into the body which can edit people's genes so that within their own tissues those genes can either be turned on or off. And all of these have got some pretty profound complications and risks.

There are over 7,000 monogenetic diseases that we can trace back to a single gene that has a defect. Often those genes have multiple mutations. But at least a single gene has been identified. The most promising application of CRISPR would be to modify those monogenetic diseases. And those monogenetic diseases, they broadly fall into two categories, curiously named toxic gain of function and toxic loss of function.

Toxic loss of function is kind of intuitive. That means the gene has got a defect in it; the person loses the function of that protein and that causes the disease. So a well-known, well-studied example would be sickle-cell anemia. A single base-pair mutation actually causes a change in the structure of hemoglobin that then creates this unique sickle-cell shape for red blood cells.

An example of toxic gain of function is disease called transthyretin in which a mutation causes a clumping up of different proteins. And that leads to a disease called amyloidosis, where these proteins, which normally don't stick together, because of this kink in them due to the mutation, they become very sticky. They form aggregates and those aggregates can build up in various cells in the body. Sometimes the brain, sometimes the heart.

CRISPR could potentially be useful in either one of those, and in fact there are companies that are looking at those diseases, as well as a number of others. Other monogenetic diseases would be cystic fibrosis, beta thalassemia, glycogen storage disease, Behçet's disease, Fabry disease. Some of these are quite rare, like Fabry disease, but some are more common, like cystic fibrosis, which is the most common genetic disease in Caucasians.

So genetic diseases is one category. Another category is oncology. It's been well known now for some years that our own immune system has the ability to fight cancer cells and essentially dissolve micro-tumors. But cancer is a clever entity-it evades the body's internal immune system. So what that means is that the cancer becomes invisible to our immune cells, and that invisibility is due to certain proteins that are created as checkpoints to interfere with the immune system attacking ourselves. Cancers, essentially, mimic our own cells by taking advantage of these checkpoints.
What are the risks of this? Are the risks to the patient? Or to all of us?
So one of the applications of CRISPR would be to remove immune cells from the body, apply the CRISPR technology, and then turn off these checkpoints and put those immune cells back in the body with the hope that then those immune cells would clear the tumor away.

One of the biggest risks of CRISPR is what's called gene drive, or genetic drive. What that means is that because you're actually manipulating genes and those genes get incorporated into the genome, into the encyclopedia, basically, that sits within cells, potentially those genes can then be transferred on to other organisms. And once they're transferred on to other organisms, once they become part of the cycle, then those genes are in the environment.
Is there consensus on how to proceed?
That's probably the biggest fear of CRISPR. Humans manipulating the genetic code, and those manipulations get passed on generation to generation to generation. We think we know what we're doing, we think we're measuring exactly what changes we're doing to the genes, but there's always the possibility that either we miss something or our technology can't pick up on other changes that have been made that haven't been directed by us. And the fear then is that those changes lead to antibiotic resistance or other mutations that go out into the population and would be very difficult to control. Basically creating incurable diseases or other potential mutations that we wouldn't really have control over.

There's been discussion in the scientific community in the United States and globally about how to proceed with CRISPR. And particularly some very high-placed scientists, in the United States, for example, the former director of the National Institute of Health, have called for a self-imposed ethical moratorium on CRISPR until more is known. Not on all types of CRISPR research, but for certain types of CRISPR research. Particularly on these germline mutations that could potentially be passed on through generations. Some of the inventors of the patent-holders of CRISPR technologies who are now the inventors of the various companies in biotechnology, they've also imposed their own moratoria on working in germ lines until more is understood. So there are parts of the scientific community that are very concerned and are trying to be very thoughtful about how to proceed and how to proceed safely.
You mentioned that there's, in the U.S. at least, there's a moratorium on germline mutations. Do the kinds of treatments that you've talked about before, do those require the germline modification, or can they be done within the stricture of that moratorium?
In the United States, there have been some regulations against moving forward in areas that aren't safely understood. That doesn't exist in other parts of the world, in particular in China. So there's been several examples now of where China has leaped ahead of what's going on in Europe or the United States but, the concern is, without the kind of regulatory and ethical safeguards that are in place in other countries.

No, the treatment of most of those diseases, monogenetic diseases-things like cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell, beta thalassemia-those are not germline mutations. So theoretically, it would be safe to be able to treat those patients without the theoretical concern of affecting germ lines and affecting gene drive. The same thing with oncology. Theoretically you're just taking cells out. You're only treating immune cells and they're not going replicate. On the other hand, as soon as people start talking about stem cells and then manipulating stem cells and then reusing those, then those stem cells can potentially affect other cells that replicate. The risk is low, but there's definitely a risk there.
You mentioned that Chinese researchers are operating in different structure. Can you expand on that, on what regulations they have and what that means in terms of their competition with companies in the U.S.?
One of the other places that this is being actively worked on is, again, in animals. The idea would be to introduce mutations into, say, malaria-bearing mosquitoes, and let them in the wild and eradicate mosquitoes. Or eradicate certain types of invasive plants by introducing some kind of genetic manipulation that gets passed on and, again, you take out that one particular species. Again, it raises concerns. We think we know what we're affecting if we manipulate one gene for that particular species. We think we know what we're affecting if we just affect one particular species in an ecosystem. The truth is we probably don't, and there's always some surprises.

One of the dramatic examples happened in 2016. There had been a self-imposed moratorium in the United States and Europe to work on germ cells, germ lines. And that would include human embryos. Now, at the same time, reports came out of China that researchers had begun working on human embryos. Initially in 2015 and '16, the reports were that the experiments were negative, and at least the Chinese researchers had claimed that they were working with nonviable human embryos anyway. In the short time since then, in the year and a half since then, those experiments have been repeated, apparently with scientific success, whatever that means. But without the kind of self-imposed regulation or even organizationally imposed regulation that we would have by the NIH or the scientific community in the United States and Europe.

Another example is that researchers in China have actually proceeded to human clinical trials using CRISPR much faster than has been possible in the United States. Normally, the clinical trial process to test any new therapy requires several very well studied stages. The first stage is to test in animals to make sure that there's complete safety. Then it goes into very limited testing in human beings, just for safety, and then proceeds from there. Apparently in China, they took the animal data and they went right into therapeutic trials in human beings. And the most recent reports that are that somewhere between 80 and 100 people are already being tried, or already being tested using CRISPR.
How fast is this technology changing? Given that it's moved as far as it has in 10 years, where do you expect it to move in another 5 or 10 years?
We know that in China, they're using CRISPR for cancer therapy. That's the example where cells are taken out of the body, their immune cells are manipulated with CRISPR and then they're re-infused. It's too early to tell if it's successful or not. But there is a lot of concern that the regulatory authorities in China have been extremely permissive with allowing these technologies to move forward. And that has a lot of profound implications.

It's changing pretty fast. Just in the last few months, there's new developments in the field in CRISPR. Some is around competition, with new companies being formed. In fact, one of the original developers of CRISPR science that comes out of the Broad Institute at Harvard/MIT just set up a new company. Another scientific development is that there's now scientific evidence that perhaps in some people, they have naturally occurring immunity, if you will, to CRISPR. They have naturally occurring substances that actually will turn off any kind of CRISPR that's put into them.
Are there any other safety concerns with CRISPR?
All of these things are brand new, and they're all being sorted out by scientific community, by these biotech companies. So it is changing very quickly. And the other thing that's changing is the effect of this international competition. I don't think anybody could have predicted that other countries, and China in particular, would be so quick to embrace this technology and really leap forward ahead of everybody else.
How can we ensure that the field progresses in a safe way?
As with any new technology, there could be scientific bumps in the road. The safety concern is that in this field is moving so quickly and some researchers want to get into human clinical trials right away, even before the CRISPR technology paradigm has been fully validated. There are some recent reports in the scientific literature that this approach is not as precise as advertised. In other words, we think we are editing one letter of the book of life, but it actually entire pages might be getting altered in unintended areas. The long-term danger is unintended changes to the genome of an organism that go on and get carried through to the next generation. The safety risk is unknown changes in genes that get transferred to the population that could have no consequence or could be harmful.
Interviewed and edited by Ben Mattison.
The drug development process is tightly regulated across the world. In the United States the FDA closely monitors safety of any investigational drug, and all CRISPR drugs intended to go into people would have to meet the same rigorous testing standards. The same situation exists for Europe and the rest of the world where regulatory authorities largely work in harmony. However, there are exceptions, as with some of the human embryo testing that has been reported in China. We should make sure that the level of international scientific regulation and cooperation continues so the scientific developments can continue but also ensure safety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Greg Licholai, a biotech entrepreneur and a lecturer at Yale SOM, explains the gene-editing technology's potential and its dangers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Professors at the University's schools of medicine, law, business, and government saw He's announcement as a turning point in the discussion about heritable gene therapies and shared their perspectives on the future of this technology with the Gazette.

Here are their thoughts, issue by issue:

Bioethics

Aside from the safety risks, human genome editing poses some hefty ethical questions. For families who have watched their children suffer from devastating genetic diseases, the technology offers the hope of editing cruel mutations out of the gene pool. For those living in poverty, it is yet another way for the privileged to vault ahead. One open question is where to draw the line between disease treatment and enhancement, and how to enforce it, considering differing attitudes toward conditions such as deafness.

Robert Truog, director of the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School (HMS), provided context:

"This question is not as new as it seems. Evolution progresses by random mutations in the genome, which dwarf what can be done artificially with CRISPR. These random mutations often cause serious problems, and people are born with serious defects. In addition, we have been manipulating our environment in so many ways and exposing ourselves to a lot of chemicals that cause unknown changes to our genome. If we are concerned about making precise interventions to cure disease, we should also be interested in that.

"To me, the conversation around Dr. He is not about the fundamental merits of germline gene editing, which in the long run will almost certainly be highly beneficial. Instead, it's about the oversight of science. The concern is that with technologies that are relatively easy to use, like CRISPR, how does the scientific community regulate itself? If there's a silver lining to this cloud, I think it is that the scientific community did pull together to be critical of this work, and took the responsibility seriously to use the tools available to them to regulate themselves."

Business

When asked what the implications of He's announcement are for the emerging field of precision medicine, Richard Hamermesh, faculty co-chair of the Harvard Business School/Kraft Precision Medicine Accelerator, said:

"Before we start working on embryos, we have a long way to go, and civilization has to think long and hard about it. There's no question that gene editing technologies are potentially transformative and are the ultimate precision medicine. If you could precisely correct or delete genes that are causing problems - mutating or aberrant genes - that is the ultimate in precision. It would be so transformative for people with diseases caused by a single gene mutation, like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Developing safe, effective ways to use gene editing to treat people with serious diseases with no known cures has so much potential to relieve suffering that it is hard to see how anyone could be against it.

"There is also commercial potential and that will drive it forward. A lot of companies are getting venture funding for interesting gene therapies, but they're all going after tough medical conditions where there is an unmet need - [where] nothing is working - and they're trying to find gene therapies to cure those diseases. Why should we stop trying to find cures?

"But anything where you're going to be changing human embryos, it's going to take a long time for us to figure out what is appropriate and what isn't. That has to be done with great care in terms of ethics."

Medicine

George Q. Daley is dean of HMS, the Caroline Shields Walker Professor of Medicine, and a leader in stem cell science and cancer biology. As a spokesperson for the organizing committee of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing, he responded swiftly to He's announcement in Hong Kong. Echoing those remarks, he said:

"It's time to formulate what a clinical path to translation might look like so that we can talk about it. That does not mean that we're ready to go into the clinic - we are not. We need to specify what the hurdles would be if one were to move forward responsibly and ethically. If you can't surmount those hurdles, you don't move forward.

"There are stark distinctions between editing genes in an embryo to prevent a baby from being born with sickle cell anemia and editing genes to alter the appearance or intelligence of future generations. There is a whole spectrum of considerations to be debated. The prospect includes an ultimate decision that we not go forward, that we decide that the benefits do not outweigh the costs."

Asked how to prevent experiments like He's while preserving academic freedom, Daley replied:

"For the past 15 years, I have been involved in efforts to establish international standards of professional conduct for stem cell research and its clinical translation, knowing full well that there could be - and has been - a growing number of independent practitioners directly marketing unproven interventions to vulnerable patients through the internet. We advocated so strongly for professional standards in an attempt to ward off the risks of an unregulated industry. Though imperfect, our efforts to encourage a common set of professional practices have been influential.

"You can't control rogue scientists in any field. But with strongly defined guidelines for responsible professional conduct in place, such ethical violations like those of Dr. He should remain a backwater, because most practitioners will adhere to generally accepted norms. Scientists have a responsibility to come together to articulate professional standards and live by them. One has to raise the bar very high to define what the standards of safety and efficacy are, and what kind of oversight and independent judgment would be required for any approval.

"We have called for an ongoing international forum on human genome editing, and that could take many shapes. We've suggested that the national academies of more countries come together - the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K. are very active here - because these are the groups most likely to have the expertise to convene these kinds of discussions and keep them going."

Law

Cohen, speaking to the legal consequences of germline human genome editing, said:

"I think we should slow down in our reaction to this case. It is not clear that the U.S. needs to react to Dr. He's announcement with regulation. The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] already has a strong policy on germline gene editing in place. A rider in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 - since renewed - would have blocked the very same clinical application of human germline editing He announced, had it been attempted in the U.S.

"The scientific community has responded in the way I'd have liked it to. There is a difference between 'governance' and 'self-governance.' Where government uses law, the scientific community uses peer review, public censure, promotions, university affiliations, and funding to regulate themselves. In China, in Dr. He's case, you have someone who's (allegedly) broken national law and scientific conventions. That doesn't mean you should halt research being done by everyone who's law-abiding.

"Public policy or ethical discussion that's divorced from how science is progressing is problematic. You need to bring everyone together to have robust discussions. I'm optimistic that this is happening, and has happened. It's very hard to deal with a transnational problem with national legislation, but it would be great to reach international consensus on this subject. These efforts might not succeed, but ultimately they are worth pursuing."

Science

Professor Kevin Eggan of Harvard's Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology said, "The question we should focus on is: Will this be safe and help the health of a child? Can we demonstrate that we can fix a mutation that will cause a terrible health problem, accurately and without the risk of harming their potential child? If the answer is yes, then I believe germline human genome editing is likely to gain acceptance in time.

"There could be situations where it could help a couple, but the risks of something going wrong are real. But at this point, it would be impossible to make a risk-benefit calculation in a responsible manner for that couple. Before we could ever move toward the clinic, the scientific community must come to a consensus on how to measure success, and how to measure off-target effects in animal models.

"Even as recently as this past spring and fall, the results of animal studies using CRISPR - the same techniques Dr. He claimed to have used - generated a lot of confusion. There is disagreement about both the quality of the data and how to interpret it. Until we can come to agreement about what the results of animal experiments mean, how could we possibly move forward with people?

"As happened in England with mitochondrial replacement therapy, we should be able to come to both a scientific and a societal consensus of when and how this approach should be used. That's missing."

According to Catherine Racowsky, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, constraints on the use of embryos in federally funded research pose barriers to studying the risks and benefits of germline editing in humans. She added:

"Until the work is done, carefully and with tight oversight, to understand any off-target effects of replacing or removing a particular gene, it is inappropriate to apply the technology in the clinical field. My understanding of Dr. He's case is that there wasn't a known condition in these embryos, and by editing the genes involved with HIV infection, he could also have increased the risks of susceptibility to influenza and West Nile viruses.

"We need a sound oversight framework, and it needs to be established globally. This is a technology that holds enormous promise, and it is likely to be applied to the embryo, but it should only be applied for clinical purposes after the right work has been done. That means we must have consensus on what applications are acceptable, that we have appropriate regulatory oversight, and, perhaps most importantly, that it is safe. The only way we're going to be able to determine that these standards are met is to proceed cautiously, with reassessments of the societal and health benefits and the risks."

Asked about public dialogue around germline human genome editing, George Church, Robert Winthrop Professor of Genetics at HMS, said:

"With in vitro fertilization (IVF), 'test tube babies' was an intentionally scary term. But after Louise Brown, the first IVF baby, was born healthy 40 years ago, attitudes changed radically. Ethics flipped 180 degrees, from it being a horrifying idea to being unacceptable to prevent parents from having children by this new method. If these edited twins are proven healthy, very different discussions will arise. For example, is a rate of 900,000 deaths from HIV infection per year a greater risk than West Nile virus, or influenza? How effective is each vaccine?"

Science, technology, and society

Sheila Jasanoff, founding director of the Science, Technology, and Society program at HKS, has been calling for a "global observatory" on gene editing, an international network of scholars and organizations dedicated to promoting exchange across disciplinary and cultural divides. She said:

"The notion that the only thing we should care about is the risk to individuals is very American. So far, the debate has been fixated on potential physical harm to individuals, and not anything else. This is not a formulation shared with other countries in the world, including practically all of Europe. Considerations of risk have equally to do with societal risk. That includes the notion of the family, and what it means to have a 'designer baby.'

"These were not diseased babies Dr. He was trying to cure. The motivation for the intervention was that they live in a country with a high stigma attached to HIV/AIDS, and the father had it and agreed to the intervention because he wanted to keep his children from contracting AIDS. AIDS shaming is a fact of life in China, and now it won't be applied to these children. So, are we going to decide that it's OK to edit as-yet-to-be children to cater to this particular idea of a society?

"It's been said that 'the genie is out of the bottle' with germline human genome editing. I just don't think that's true. After all, we have succeeded in keeping 'nuclear' inside the bottle. Humanity doesn't lack the will, intelligence, or creativity to come up with ways for using technology for good and not ill.

"We don't require students to learn the moral dimensions of science and technology, and that has to change. I think we face similar challenges in robotics, artificial intelligence, and all kinds of frontier fields that have the potential to change not just individuals but the entirety of what it means to be a human being.

"Science has this huge advantage over most professional thought in that it has a universal language. Scientists can hop from lab to lab internationally in a way that lawyers cannot because laws are written in many languages and don't translate easily. It takes a very long time for people to understand each other across these boundaries. A foundational concept for human dignity? It would not be the same thing between cultures.

"I would like to see a 'global observatory' that goes beyond gene editing and addresses emerging technologies more broadly."
To learn more: Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: Consuming Genetics: Ethical and Legal Considerations of New Technologies: http://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/events/details/2019-petrie-flom-center-annual-conference

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harvard researchers share views on future, ethics of gene editing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harvard researchers and others share their views on the issues involved in gene editing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Netflix and Vox have launched a new show with 20-minute episodes on topics that drive our lives or our world. It's called Explained. They've already launched four very heterogeneous episodes: the racial wealth gap, the practice of monogamy, the k-pop phenomenon and the fascinating world of design DNA. I'm going to focus on the final one.

We've spoken in several articles about CRISPR and about ethical reflections about whether we should evolve ourselves. The episode of Explained raises some interesting questions but the most powerful thing is the way they structured them. After a brief introduction to CRISPR with powerful names like Jennifer Doudna, it raises a first division in the use of genetic editing. On the one hand there is the genetic edition of somatic cells (blood, brain, skin), most of the cells of our body and whose DNA is not transmitted to our children. On the other hand are the germ cells (ovules, sperm) whose DNA does pass to the next generations.

In the first we can treat an individual (diseases, for example) but if we modify the second, we would be influencing the future of our species. Then they add a new dimension to the graph, the purpose: therapy or enhancement. If we focus on therapy in somatic cells we are talking about medical treatments; which is where we are right now. What happens if we focus on somatic cells for improvement? We would be talking about plastic surgery but with genetic editing, something that hasn't been done yet but it will come. At this point there would be people improved, augmented, not because of health problems but to acquire a competitive advantage. The first debate is who will access to these possibilities and what effects will generate. It's no longer to be more beautiful, but to be superior in some skills. What will happen to the world of sports, for example? Will there be a division only for genetically modified ones?

If we take the germline, things get complicated. If we talk about therapy we would be influencing the health of future generations. We could eradicate diseases by treating this type of cells in our next generations, something that if done well, I don't think it will generate any debate, right? But what do we consider disease? The borders are very blurry. In the documentary you can hear testimonies of people with down syndrome or with dwarfism explaining their point of view. And finally, if we put ourselves in the line of enhancement, we would be talking about generating changes in our species that have nothing to do with diseases, but with what we believe will be competitive advantages, directly influencing in our evolution. This is the most complex terrain of all, taking us to scenarios seen in Nazism or in films like Gattaca.
Very interesting reflections, although futuristic, we are talking about a relatively near future ... What do you think?
#365daysof #crispr #genetic #netflix #futurism #day119

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Netflix and Vox have launched a new show with 20-minute episodes on topics that drive our lives or our world. It's called Explained . They've already launched four very heterogeneous episodes: the racial wealth gap, the practice of monogamy, the k-pop phenomenon and the fascinating world of design DNA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For as long as he could remember, Razel Colón had known pain. It ripped down his neck and back, shot through his legs and traveled on to his feet, often leaving him writhing and incapacitated. He suffered occasional attacks of "acute chest," in which breathing suddenly becomes difficult. "It felt like an elephant was sitting on my chest, with tight, tight pain," Colón tells me. Trips to the emergency department and the hospital were commonplace. "If I was lucky," he says, "I could stay away for a month."

Colón, from Hoboken, N.J., is just 19, but the sickle cell disease that produced these effects had been a constant, if unwelcome, companion. But he tells his story now from the perspective of one who has gonea year and a half without that pain. He can do things that previously were out of the question: play basketball, lift weights,swim in cold water. His treatment, says his long-time physicianStacey Rifkin-Zenenberg, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Hackensack University Medical Center, "changed him from having the disease to being a carrier."

Colón's case represents a point on the curve of an emerging technology that may forever alter our approach to treating diseases like sickle cell. That world, the cutting-edge world of innovative genomic therapies, is once again in the midst of explosive change-and designer DNA lies at the heart of the conversation.

This is daring new territory. Some strategies, such as gene therapy, have been available for some time, including the ability to genetically modify cells in order to produce a therapeutic effect-that is, to add a corrected gene into the genome in order to try to treat disease. Traditionally, viruses have been used to deliver healthy genes into cells, but the past decade has been witness to profound change. Multiple gene therapies have been approved to treat a variety of conditions: squamous cell skin cancer, a rare form of inherited blindness, melanoma, blood disorders and so on.

It was this type of treatment, as part of the largest lentivirus ongoing gene therapy trial led by Bluebird Bio, that effectively arrested Colón's sickle cell condition.Unpublished interim data from 19 participants in the trial followed for at least six months, with a history of severe vaso-occlusive events (VOEs), or sickle cell crises similar to Colón's, demonstrated complete resolution of severe VOEs in all patients, according to a company spokesperson. The trial is ongoing, and data are not yet complete, so caution is prudent, but "the promise is tremendous," the spokesperson said.

The next-generation technology, gene editing, is another level altogether. Gene editing enables scientists to precisely target abnormal genes of many organisms (bacteria, plants, animals), snip the DNA, then remove, replace or add new DNA at the incision site. "Imagine you have a car with a flat tire," says Fyodor Urnov, a gene editing expert at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Innovative Genomics Institute. "Gene therapy is taking a fifth wheel and putting it somewhere on the car and hoping it runs. Gene editing is repairing the flat."

The technology received a huge boost with the arrival in 2012 of a gene-editing tool called CRISPR, an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. The CRISPR technology is easier to use, cheaper and more efficient than older genome editing methods, enabling scientists to quickly alter DNA sequences to modify gene function. That could positively affect the health of the organism, or even reverse disease symptoms.

"It is often described as 'molecular scissors,'" says Jennifer Doudna, its co-inventor and Nobel laureate in chemistry. "Scientists can harness CRISPR to not just cut specific locations in DNA of any organism, but also to provide a template to repair the DNA."

In sickle cell disease, or SCD, a single mutation in the beta-hemoglobin gene leads to red blood cells that become crescent-shaped, or sickled. These sickled cells are sticky, and they clog arteries, preventing adequate oxygen delivery to tissues in the body. This can cause acute debilitating pain episodes, such as the kinds that Colón experienced, and may result in any number of complications: anemia, strokes and organ damage involving the lungs, heart, kidney, spleen, etc.

Patients often have a poor quality of life because of repeated hospitalizations and transfusions, and face the prospect of early deaths. In regions like Africa and the Middle East where health care resources are much more limited, many children die of SCD before their fifth year of life.

CRISPR is accelerating the pace at which treating such disease via genetic engineering is moving. Matthew Porteus, a gene-editing pioneer, founder of CRISPR Therapeutics and professor of pediatrics at Stanford School of Medicine, says researchers currently employ two primary gene-editing strategies in their attempt to cure sickle cell patients. One type uses CRISPR to essentially flip a genomic switch, turning on healthy fetal hemoglobin production again, which was shut down early in life. The advantage? The fetal hemoglobin doesn't sickle.

A second gene editing strategy, gene correction, directly fixes the mutation in a faulty gene that has caused disease. In the case of sickle cell, the correction allows the body simply to produce normal hemoglobin. Researchers have logged a staggering amount of work trying to get to this point.

While progress has been made with the approval of several new drugs to help alleviate the symptoms of SCD, they are not curative. Bone marrow (stem cell) transplants are the only option for cure, but finding healthy donor matches can be challenging. Enter the genomic therapies, which Theodore Friedmann of the University of California, San Diego, first proposed for genetic disease in 1972, and which took a step toward reality the same year with the production of recombinant DNA by Paul Berg at Stanford University. In the 1980s, scientists showed how DNA could be delivered into cells, and by 2003 the entire human genome had been deciphered.

There were setbacks, and even when gene editing systems came to be as the new century opened, using them remained challenging and time-consuming. Then, came CRISPR, slicing and dicing its way into the clinical arena, poised to potentially change not only treatment but prevention of disease. The technology is already being employed by scientists researching cancer, lymphoma, AIDS, cystic fibrosis and more, for diagnostics including SARS-CoV-2 detection, and even in agricultural efforts to engineer larger tomatoes, non-browning apples, and longer-lasting mushrooms.

In real time, the hope is that genetic editing will provide a curefor a very common and debilitating inherited disease, sickle cell. Several experts with whom I spoke suggested, for the first time, that a cure for SCD may be in the offing.

That is an astounding thought. In practice, the ability to excise nonworking genes and replace them with normally functioning ones may help blunt the worst effects of a wide variety of diseases. When the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier for their invention of this technology, the secretary-general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Goran K. Hansson, put it plainly: "This year's prize is about rewriting the code of life."

And scientists are already working on next-gen CRISPR technology that's more precise. "Base editors," which correct single-letter DNA mutations without cutting the DNA double helix, have been shown recently to treat sickle cell disease in mice. And then there are "prime editors" which can replace even larger DNA snafus.

It's all pretty remarkable-and it's still early. "The field of genomic therapies for the hemoglobinopathies is not a zero-sum game," says Urnov. " I am convinced ultimately that there will be multiple approved medicines. There will be multiple gene therapy approvals, and there will be multiple gene-editing approvals."

There remain many questions to consider, including the moral implications of how far a concept like gene editing might be taken, as well as cost, safety and accessibility (experts say current treatments can run to $2 million). Says Doudna, "A true cure means a treatment for everyone who needs it, which is why we're hard at work on the next generation of therapies to bring down the cost and make it more accessible."And, as gene editing is not perfect, "The long-term safety of all the genetic modification therapies will have to be studied carefully," says Porteus.

In the coming months, a University of California Consortium (U.C. San Francisco, U.C. Berkeley and U.C.L.A.), will conduct the first human open label phaseI-II trial using nonvirally delivered CRISPR technology developed at the Innovative Genomics Institute. Scientists hope to alleviate the suffering of sickle cell trial participants by substituting their faulty beta-globin gene-the one that causes the disease-with a corrected one, directly fixing the mutation in their blood stem cells.

"The more of the mutations that are corrected and propagated in healthy red blood cells, the more likely a cure is to follow," says Mark Walters, the trial's principal investigator and a professor of pediatrics at U.C. San Francisco. "Sickle cell disease will be cured using genomic therapies." That is the highest use of the technology, after all-and it may become a reality even as we continue to learn about the field.

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A genomic revolution is poised to cure sickle cell and other genetic diseases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Site traffic information and cookies

We use cookies to collect and analyse information on our site's performance and to enable the site to function. Cookies also allow us and our partners to show you relevant ads when you visit our site and other 3rd party websites, including social networks. You can choose to allow all cookies by clicking 'Allow all' or manage them individually by clicking 'Manage cookie preferences,' where you will also find more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statistical Review of World Energy | Energy economics | Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This year's 71st edition of the bp Statistical Review of World Energy helps to make sense of the greatest challenges and uncertainties facing the global energy system for almost 50 years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cumulative carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions represents the total sum of CO₂ emissions produced from fossil fuels and cement since 1751, and is measured in tonnes.

Interactive visualization requires JavaScript

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cumulative carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions represents the total sum of CO₂ emissions produced from fossil fuels and cement since 1751, and is measured in tonnes. Interactive visualization requires JavaScript

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alternative fuels include gaseous fuels such as hydrogen, natural gas, and propane; alcohols such as ethanol, methanol, and butanol; vegetable and waste-derived oils; and electricity. These fuels may be used in a dedicated system that burns a single fuel, or in a mixed system with other fuels including traditional gasoline or diesel, such as in hybrid-electric or flexible fuel vehicles.

Some vehicles and engines are designed for alternative fuels by the manufacturer. Others are converted to run on an alternative fuel by modifying the engine controls and fueling system from the original configuration.

Biodiesel Fuel Fact Sheets

Learn more about converting a vehicle or engine to run on a different fuel.

Learn more about alternative fuels on the Department of Energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alternative fuels include gaseous fuels such as hydrogen, natural gas, and propane; alcohols such as ethanol, methanol, and butanol; vegetable and waste-derived oils; and electricity. These fuels may be used in a dedicated system that burns a single fuel, or in a mixed system with other fuels including traditional gasoline or diesel, such as in hybrid-electric or flexible fuel vehicles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No more oil by 2068

In 2018, there were an estimated 1.73 trillion barrels of oil in the world. Enough oil to last another 50 years with an average global oil consumption of 95 million barrels per day.

Global consumption of oil continues to grow

Demand for oil has grown non-stop more or less since the industrial revolution and is expected to continue to grow until at least 2030. In the last quarter of 2019, global oil demand increased by 1.9 million barrels per day, mainly due to increased oil consumption in China.

Peak oil

Oil production is expected to reach its top somewhere around 2030. A situation known as "peak oil". But it's impossible to know for sure when it will happen. And oil production can potentially stay at very high levels long after peak oil thereby continuing to contribute to global CO2-emissions and climate change.

Oil consumption in history

Since global oil consumption really took off around 1950, total world oil consumption is estimated at almost 1.5 trillion barrels (in 2018).

The estimated reserves are about the same - 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. So if we use up all the world's reserves, we will burn as much oil in the 50 years from 2018 to 2068 as we did in the 68 years from 1950 to 2018.

The End of Oil needed to save the world

But if we continue to burn all the world's oil there's little chance to save the climate from runaway global warming. We need to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses very significantly if global temperature increases are to be kept at 2 degrees Celsius in this century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2018, there were an estimated 1.73 trillion barrels of oil in the world. Enough oil to last another 50 years with an average global oil consumption of 95 million barrels per day. Demand for oil has grown non-stop more or less since the industrial revolution and is expected to continue to grow until at least 2030.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taylor Wilson: Yup, I built a nuclear fusion reactor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Taylor Wilson believes nuclear fusion is a solution to our future energy needs, and that kids can change the world. And he knows something about both of those: When he was 14, he built a working fusion reactor in his parents' garage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Citation metadata

Document controls

Main content

Page 510

Definition

Hurricanes are intense rotating (cyclonic) storms that form over warm tropical waters. The names for tropical cyclones vary, depending on which part of the world they are formed. In the Eastern Pacific and Atlantic oceans, these storms are called hurricanes; in the Western Pacific, they are called typhoons; and in the Indian Ocean, they are called cyclones. Other local names also exist.

Description

Hurricanes form in a series of stages, beginning as systems of strong thunderstorms. Under certain conditions, these storm systems will become tropical depressions and then strengthen into tropical storms. Tropical storms become hurricanes when winds exceed speeds of 74 mph (120 km/h).

Hurricanes remain strong only while over warm waters. Typically when hurricanes strike land and move inland, they immediately start to disintegrate. The radius of a major hurricane can be 100 mi (160 km) or greater. Major hurricanes can cause widespread destruction of property and loss of life, due primarily to storm surges-walls of seawater or the temporary rise in sea level associated with hurricanes-and to high winds along coastlines. Thunderstorms, hail, and tornados are also frequently produced by hurricanes, and major storms such as these may cause additional flooding and destruction hundreds of miles inland from the point of initial landfall.

Hurricane structure and movement

The center of a hurricane is called the eye. It is an area of relative calm, few clouds, higher temperatures, and it represents the center of the low-pressure system. Cyclonic circulation in hurricanes is caused by two forces acting on the air: the pressure gradient (the changes in pressure between two areas) and the Page 511 Coriolis force (a manifestation of the rotation of the Earth underneath atmospheric systems). Usually in association with initial intense thunderstorm formation, air rises at the center of a hurricane, creating a lower barometric pressure area. Air flows from regions of higher pressure to regions of lower pressure. This pressure gradient force creates strong winds. As the air moves toward the low pressure center, the Coriolis force deflects the air to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere) to form a counterclockwise rotation (when viewed from above).

Atlantic hurricanes usually move from east to west near the tropics, but when they migrate toward either the North or South Pole, moving into the mid-latitudes-the areas between the tropics and the polar regions-they can get caught up in the general west to east wind flows.

Hurricane strength

Hurricanes are currently measured on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which assigns hurricanes to categories-from Category 1 to Category 5-based upon their wind speed. A Category 1 storm has winds between 74 and 95 mph (120 and 153 km/h). Hurricanes in this category generally have a low storm surge and cause minimal damage to building structures. At the other extreme, a Category 5 hurricane has top sustained winds greater than 155 mph (250 km/h) and often comes ashore with a high storm surge with enormous destructive power. Although wind speed is an important indicator of strength, the storm surge is often the most damaging part of a hurricane.

Recent major hurricanes

With specific regard to hurricanes impacting the United States, the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons produced 4 of the 10 most intense Atlantic hurricanes on record. Hurricane Ivan slammed the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2004. In 2005, major hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma were among the most intense hurricanes recorded. As they crossed the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, all four of these storms reached Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale.

Hurricane Katrina, which made landfall three times during August 2005, was by far the most damaging and deadly of the 2004 and 2005 storms. Katrina caused more than $60 billion in damage, making it the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history. Katrina's storm surge, arriving at an already high tide, reached 30 ft. (9.14 m) and was the highest ever recorded in the United States. Strong winds in excess of 140 mph (225 km/h) also whipped waves on top of the surge to more than 60 ft. (18 m) in height. Extensive damage ranged from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle. The approach of Katrina as a Category 5 hurricane prompted a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, a city largely below sea level. Despite Page 512 warnings, many residents remained in the city either by choice or necessity. Most of the city was flooded when heavy rains and the storm surge caused levees between New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain to fail after the storm had passed. In September 2010, five years after the storm and subsequent flooding, estimates of the number of people killed by the storm varied from 1,800 to 3,600. Many bodies were unidentified or remain unclaimed. Significant storm damage is still visible along the Gulf Coast from Texas to the Florida panhandle. Repairs to about 350 miles (563 km) of levees, along with installation of a renovated pumping system, continued. Engineers estimated completing the levee repairs and renovations before the 2011 hurricane season. Both environmental and engineering experts argued that renovation and restoration of Louisiana's wetlands, currently lost at a rate of approximately 24,000 acres (9712 hectares) per year, will be required to provide adequate protection from the strongest categories of hurricanes. Such storms normally carry a substantial storm surge that can be blunted only by wetlands and barrier islands.

Sidebar: Hide Show

HURRICANE SANDY (OCTOBER 2012)

On October 24, 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall near Kingston, Jamaica. Her winds were close to 80 mph, and her path was far-reaching. There has been much speculation as to the correlation between global warming and Sandy's power. Scientists state that warmer temperatures increase the atmosphere's ability to retain water and produce greater storms. Also, the jet stream pattern that typically keeps Atlantic Coast storms from reaching landfall was disrupted due to a high pressure system over Greenland. Some believe this high pressure ridge was the result of global warming.

On October 31, the storm dissipated. The worldwide damage was colossal, with 253 confirmed fatalities. Twenty-four of the fifty United States were affected by Sandy, and over 8.5 million households lost power.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie, a staunch Republican, worked closely with President Obama to assess his state's damage. It was less than a month before the 2012 presidential election, yet Christie crossed party lines to publicly praise Obama for his rapid response to this natural disaster.

Obama granted immediate financial assistance to storm victims in certain devastated geographical areas, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) accepted additional applications for financial aid. FEMA's assistance included home repairs and funding for temporary housing. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) also offered low-interest disaster loans for smalls businesses affected by the storm.

In 2008, Hurricane Ike killed more than 600 people and caused massive flooding and homelessness in the Caribbean before crossing the Gulf to strike Galveston Island off the Texas coast near Houston. Although it struck the United States as a Category 2 storm, Ike was such a large storm-with a high storm surge more characteristic of a Category 4 or Category 5 storm-that it caused tremendous flooding and damage. Hurricane Ike became the third costliest hurricane to strike the United States behind Hurricanes Katrina and Andrew (1992).

Global warming and hurricanes

Climate scientists and climate models vary in their predictions about the impact of global warming on hurricanes. Studies released late in 2009 suggested that global warming would result in fewer, but more intense, hurricanes. Although 2004 and 2005 produced a number of highly destructive hurricanes, there were also four years during the same decade (2000 to 2009) when no hurricane made landfall in the United States.

Page 513

Atlantic hurricane formation is also strongly correlated to a number of climate and weather factors that influence hurricane formation and strength. For example, El Nińo events are historically associated with decreased hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

Disclaimer: This information is not a tool for self-diagnosis or a substitute for professional care.

Source Citation

Gale Document Number: GALE|CX2491100153

Google Drive™

OneDrive™

Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Page 510 Hurricanes are intense rotating (cyclonic) storms that form over warm tropical waters. The names for tropical cyclones vary, depending on which part of the world they are formed. In the Eastern Pacific and Atlantic oceans, these storms are called hurricanes; in the Western Pacific, they are called typhoons; and in the Indian Ocean, they are called cyclones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses.

According to recent research published in the journal Science, "Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in 2002 to 2003 in southern China. The origin of its etiological agent, the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV), remains elusive."

"Here we report that species of bats are a natural host of coronaviruses closely related to those responsible for the SARS, outbreak. These viruses, termed SARS-like coronaviruses (SL-CoVs), display greater genetic variation than SARS-CoV isolated from humans or from civets," wrote W.D. Li and colleagues at CAS in Wuhan.

The authors concluded, "The human and civet isolates of SARS-CoV nestle phylogenetically within the spectrum of SL-CoVs, indicating that the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak was a member of this coronavirus group."

Li and colleagues published their study in Science (Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses. Science, 2005;310(5748):676-679).

For additional information, contact Z.L. Shi, CAS, Wuhan Institute Virology, State Key Laboratory Virology, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.

The publisher's contact information for the journal Science is: American Association Advancement Science, 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA.

Keywords: Wuhan, People's Republic of China, Epidemiology, SARS Coronavirus, Bat Reservoir, Genetic Variation.

This article was prepared by Health & Medicine Week editors from staff and other reports. Copyright 2006, Health & Medicine Week via NewsRx.com.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses. According to recent research published in the journal Science, "Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in 2002 to 2003 in southern China. The origin of its etiological agent, the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV), remains elusive."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Definition

Disease X is a placeholder in the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of priority diseases. It represents the possibility that a serious international epidemic could result from an as-yet unknown pathogen.

Demographics

Disease X could affect large portions of the global population. COVID-19, caused by the newly emergent virus SARS-CoV-2, is considered the first Disease X, and it affected people of all ages in countries around the world.

Description

In 2018, the WHO made a list of priority diseases for which it recommended accelerated research and development. These diseases included hemorrhagic viral fevers such as Ebola, Marburg, and Lassa fever, Zika, Rift Valley fever, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and Nipah and other henipaviral diseases. The WHO considered adding other diseases such as chickungunya, other hemorrhagic fevers caused by arenaviruses, other coronavirus diseases, emergent non-polio enteroviruses, monkeypox, leptospirosis, and severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome. All the diseases that made the priority list present a significant epidemic potential, and there are no known measures to counter them. The WHO recommended prioritizing research and development to improve public health surveillance and diagnostic methods.

Disease X landed on the list due to the knowledge that there are pathogens currently unknown to the public health community that could cause serious global pandemics. Disease X is a recognition of the fact that a major epidemic could arise from an unexpected source. It offers the international public health community a target to focus efforts on general improvement of surveillance and diagnostics so that health systems are ready if and when a novel pathogen arises. Global research needs to focus on different classes of microbial threats, not just specific diseases of the moment, to better respond to the next pandemic threat.

KEY TERMS

Pathogen-

Something that causes a disease, such as a virus or bacterium.

Reservoir-

An animal that harbors a particular pathogen than can spread to humans.

Vector-

An arthropod such as a tick or mosquito that transmits a pathogen from a host such as an animal to another organism, such as a human.

Zoonotic-

Caused by pathogens that spread from animals to humans.

Although SARS-CoV-2 is considered the first emergent Disease X agent, it will not be the last one.

Morbidity and mortality rates

Disease X could produce a local outbreak, or the very high morbidity and mortality rates of a pandemic, depending on its characteristics and how efficiently it is recognized.

Public health role and response

To combat Disease X, public health authorities work to improve surveillance so that they can detect sudden changes in animals, climate, or human healthcare-seeking behavior. It is especially important to extend surveillance efforts to neglected communities. Governments can help by providing funding for efforts to combat epidemics. Public health also needs research and development for the rapid production of treatments and preventatives such as vaccines, along with supply chains, to ensure that materials get to regions suffering from Disease X.

International efforts

Scientists from many countries are working together to identify new pathogens and predict likely outbreaks of novel diseases. The WHO's Scientific Advisory Group on the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) was formed to guide investigations of emerging high-threat pathogens and to help create policies to reduce the chances of zoonotic diseases spreading widely in human populations. Some experts have been working on the creation of Page 132 international repositories of blood and serum samples to facilitate research on emerging pathogens.

Risk factors

Several factors drive the global development of pathogens, including ecosystem changes as humans encroach into wilderness areas, changing weather patterns that can enhance the reproduction and growth rates of arthropod vectors such as ticks and insects, and urbanization, which causes many people to live together in crowded cities. Areas of crowding, poor sanitation, and general poverty are especially likely to see an emerging infectious disease gain a foothold.

Causes and symptoms

Disease X could be caused by any type of pathogen, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, or even parasites. Disease X is likely to be caused by a zoonotic virus spilling over from animal reservoirs through animal vectors into human populations. For example, bubonic plague bacteria can live in rats, the reservoir. Fleas are the vectors. They bite the rats, pick up the bacterium, and then inject it into humans when they bite them.

Disease X could also come from acts of bioterrorism or through laboratory accidents. Emergency preparedness protocols include preparing for nuclear meltdowns, chemical spills, and sudden releases of pathogens such as anthrax.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Disease X in its earliest stages will be challenging because it is likely to be new and unforeseen. Healthcare practitioners will have to fall back on what they know about similar diseases, as well as information about circulating diseases from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO.

Treatment

Treating Disease X may be difficult or impossible, especially in the early days when little is known about it. In the absence of specific treatments, health clinics can provide supportive treatment of symptoms, such as fluids and oxygen therapy.

Prognosis

Prognosis depends on the characteristics of the disease and the patient. Disease X might affect people of all ages equally, or it might have much higher morbidity and mortality in the very young or the elderly. Health system surveillance can analyze infection and mortality data to develop a more precise prognosis as the epidemic progresses.

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOUR DOCTOR

When will Disease X appear?

Are any emergent diseases circulating in the area where I live or work?

What can I do to protect myself from illness in general?

Prevention

Prevention measures for Disease X will depend on what category of disease it falls into. Most predictions of Disease X presuppose zoonotic transmission of a highly transmissible virus from an area with a dense population and population dynamics that will produce rapid transmission among humans.

Resources

BOOKS

Beran, George W.,and James H. Steele. Handbook of Zoonoses, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2019.

Gillespie, Stephen H., and Kathleen Bamford. Medical Microbiology and Infection at a Glance, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2022.

Roossinck, Marilyn J. Virus: 101 Incredible Microbes from Coronavirus to Zika. Brighton, UK: Ivy Press, 2020.

Rubsamen-Schaeff, Helga, and Helmut Buschmann. New Drug Development for Known and Emerging Viruses. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH, 2022.

PERIODICALS

Simpson, Shmona, et al. "Disease X: Accelerating the Development of Medical Countermeasures for the Next Pandemic." Lancet Infectious Diseases 20, no. 5 (May 17, 2020):E108-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30123-7 (accessed May 15, 2022)

Van Kerkhove, Maria, Michael Ryan, and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. "Preparing for 'Disease X.'" Science 373, no. 6566 (October 13, 2021):377.doi: 10.1126/science. abm7796 (accessed May 15, 2022).

ORGANIZATIONS

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, (800) CDC-INFO (232-4636),cdcinfo@cdc.gov, https://www.cdc.gov .

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, (800) 232-4636, https://www.cdc.gov/ncezid .

World Health Organization (WHO), Ave. Appia 20, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland 1211 Geneva 27, https://www.who.int .

Amy Hackney Blackwell, PhD

Disclaimer: This information is not a tool for self-diagnosis or a substitute for professional care.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disease X is a placeholder in the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of priority diseases. It represents the possibility that a serious international epidemic could result from an as-yet unknown pathogen. Disease X could affect large portions of the global population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Scientists Are Rushing to Hunt Down 1.7 Million Unknown Viruses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Image credit: CDC/Jessica A. Allen) There may be more than 1.67 million unknown viruses infecting the animals of Earth - and scientists want to find them. In a research letter published in the journal Science this week, an international team of scientists described a sweeping new partnership called the Global Virome Project, scheduled to launch later this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fleas seem like just an itchy nuisance for your pets, yet they were responsible for two of the most devastating plagues in human history. The bacteria Yersinia pestis, carried by fleas from rodent to rodent, was responsible for the Plague of Justinian in the sixth century and the Black Death in the 14th century. The Plague of Justinian cost 100 million lives in the Roman Empire, while the impact of the Black Death was as high as 200 million souls across medieval Europe. Now classified as a reemerging infectious disease, plague has taken several thousands lives in the past few years, almost exclusively in developing nations.

Environmental exposures led to previous pandemics

Historically, pandemics were most commonly associated with environmental exposures such as raw sewage, according to Jay Purdy, MD, PhD, vice president and therapeutic area lead in anti-infectives in the department of Global Medical Affairs at Pfizer. Purdy points out that a lack of basic hygiene in centuries past meant people frequently bathed in and drank from feces-polluted rivers and streams.

"The classic example is the cholera outbreak in London in 1854 in which a communal pump was implicated," he says. "Even though it had this reputation of offering very fresh-tasting water compared to some of the other water sources in London, it was disseminating cholera and killing large numbers of folks there." Local authorities concluded that an easy solution was the removal of the pump's handle.

The zoonotic origins of pandemics

More recently, pandemics have tended to occur in a very different way: as a result of spread from animals. Animals as the root cause of pandemics is nothing new--the infamous Black Death, which struck Europe in the 14th century and then again in the 17th century, caused huge death tolls worldwide thanks to fleas that hitched rides on shipboard rats--but now that water supplies have been sanitized and basic hygiene measures understood, modern pandemics jump from animals into human populations.

This century alone, the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak of 2002-2003, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), which first appeared in 2012, and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) have been identified as likely zoonotic in origin, with host animals such as bats, palm civets, and camels enabling the spread to humans. ¹ It is bats, however, that Purdy maintains play a central role in modern pandemics; genetic markers demonstrate close associations between bats and the viruses that cause so much human misery.

"Bats are an interesting species in that if you read books on zoonotic spreads and zoonotic risks, they're probably the number one category, and there's a number of reasons for that," Purdy says. "They have the ability to move across large distances and they live in colonies so they spread pathogens readily from one to another, but there's certainly more than that. There's something about their genetic makeup that allows them to harbor viruses that can be spread to humans."

Wild primates also can be vectors for disease. According to Purdy, HIV likely made its way from monkeys and chimpanzees into humans when indigenous people hunted, dressed, and ate primates infected with one of the many simian immunodeficiency viruses in existence.

The origins of COVID-19 have not been definitively determined, leading to a theory among some that the virus was leaked from a laboratory. "While it's possible for pathogens to escape from labs dedicated to their understanding and control, it is unlikely given the safeguards in place," Purdy says. "For SARS-CoV-2, it is much more likely that the virus entered the human population from wild bats."

Can avoiding certain animals prevent future pandemics?

Despite this risk, bats have an important role to play in our ecosystem. "Bats serve a really important purpose," Purdy says. "They consume huge amounts of insects, including some that carry things like malaria, yellow fever, and dengue fever. You don't want to eradicate bats."

While steering clear of bats and their habitats is generally a good idea in the interest of avoiding disease, Purdy acknowledged that certain cultures have a history of interacting with bats and other potential animal vectors that will make it difficult to prevent future zoonotic outbreaks.

"Are we ever going to be able to avoid all outbreaks?" Purdy asks and answers. "No, I just don't think that's the case. There's always something. The community of bacteria and viruses and protozoa are very good at adapting and becoming better at infecting their hosts." Combine that with our modern society, he added, with air travel and an increasingly mobile populace, and the potential exists for more rapid disease spread than ever before.

The positive news is that we have potent weapons at our disposal to contain outbreaks once they arise. Vaccine development has advanced by leaps and bounds, with messenger RNA vaccines acting as a tool that can potentially be adapted quickly to combat new pathogens. Nations and their leaders also need to have the will to implement and follow disease-dampening measures that can slow or halt transmission of future outbreaks, Purdy emphasizes: "It's social distancing, it's masks, it's hand washing--things that we used to think didn't make a difference. They do make a difference, to be sure, until we're able to develop a vaccine and disseminate that vaccine."
References:
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. "COVID-19, MERS & SARS." Available at: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/covid-19. Last reviewed August 18, 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fleas seem like just an itchy nuisance for your pets, yet they were responsible for two of the most devastating plagues in human history. The bacteria Yersinia pestis, carried by fleas from rodent to rodent, was responsible for the Plague of Justinian in the sixth century and the Black Death in the 14th century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At a glance

Rather than injecting a whole pathogen to trigger an immune response, subunit vaccines (sometimes called acellular vaccines) contain purified pieces of it, which have been specially selected for their ability to stimulate immune cells. Because these fragments are incapable of causing disease, subunit vaccines are considered very safe. There are several types: protein subunit vaccines contain specific isolated proteins from viral or bacterial pathogens; polysaccharide vaccines contain chains of sugar molecules (polysaccharides) found in the cell walls of some bacteria; conjugate subunit vaccines bind a polysaccharide chain to a carrier protein to try and boost the immune response. Only protein subunit vaccines are being developed against the virus that causes COVID-19.

Other subunit vaccines are already in widespread use. Examples include the hepatitis B and acellular pertussis vaccines (protein subunit), the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (polysaccharide), and the MenACWY vaccine, which contains polysaccharides from the surface of four types of the bacteria which causes meningococcal disease joined to diphtheria or tetanus toxoid (conjugate subunit).

Advantages and disadvantages of protein subunit vaccines

Well-established technology

Relatively stable

Relatively complex to manufacture

How do subunit vaccines trigger immunity?

Subunit vaccines contain fragments of protein and/or polysaccharide from the pathogen, which have been carefully studied to identify which combinations of these molecules are likely to produce a strong and effective immune response. By restricting the immune system's access to the pathogen in this way, the risk of side effects is minimised. Such vaccines are also relatively cheap and easy to produce, and more stable than those containing whole viruses or bacteria.

A downside of this precision is that the antigens used to elicit an immune response may lack molecular structures called pathogen-associated molecular patterns which are common to a class of pathogen. These structures can be read by immune cells and recognised as danger signals, so their absence may result in a weaker immune response. Also, because the antigens do not infect cells, subunit vaccines mainly only trigger antibody-mediated immune responses. Again, this means the immune response may be weaker than with other types of vaccines. To overcome this problem, subunit vaccines are sometimes delivered alongside adjuvants (agents that stimulate the immune system) and booster doses may be required.

How easy are they to manufacture?

All subunit vaccines are made using living organisms, such as bacteria and yeast, which require substrates on which to grow them, and strict hygiene to avoid contamination with other organisms. This makes them more expensive to produce than chemically-synthesised vaccines, such as RNA vaccines. The precise manufacturing method depends on the type of subunit vaccine being produced. Protein subunit vaccines, such as the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine, are made by inserting the genetic code for the antigen into yeast cells, which are relatively easy to grow and capable of synthesising large amounts of protein. The yeast is grown in large fermentation tanks, and then split open, allowing the antigen to be harvested. This purified protein is then added to other vaccine components, such as preservatives to keep it stable, and adjuvants to boost the immune response - in this case alum. For polysaccharide or conjugate vaccines, the polysaccharide is produced by growing bacteria in industrial bioreactors, before splitting them open and harvesting the polysaccharide from their cell walls. In the case of conjugate vaccines, the protein that the polysaccharide is attached to must also be prepared by growing a different type of bacteria in separate bioreactors. Once its proteins are harvested, they are chemically attached to the polysaccharide, and then the remaining vaccine components added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are protein subunit vaccines and how could they be used against COVID-19?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rather than injecting a whole pathogen to trigger an immune response, subunit vaccines (sometimes called acellular vaccines) contain purified pieces of it, which have been specially selected for their ability to stimulate immune cells. Because these fragments are incapable of causing disease, subunit vaccines are considered very safe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

For your reference and to satisfy a curiosity of mine around the contagiousness of microbes and pathogens, especially Ebola.

To give a universal metric for infectiousness contagiousness, this graphic uses the average 'basic reproduction number' (also rate or ratio), the number of additional cases generated by a single case of the disease. It's a statistical measure of how likely an infectious disease might spread through a population - if nothing is done to contain the outbreak. These numbers are scattered around in the literature so quite a lot of mining was necessary to surface them.
Update: Oct 2018 - Refreshed and made the viz interactive. Added multiple new metrics. New diseases. New research. New data. And a suite of interactive stories around the data. Enjoy.
Correction 20th Oct 2014 - Relabelled the horizontal axis "contagiousness" (how spreadable a disease is through a population) rather than "infectiousness" (how communicable a disease is person-to-person).
Learn to Create Impactful Infographics
" See the data
" See our original graphic
" See the image & discussion on The Guardian
" Check out our beautiful books
" Learn to be a dataviz ninja: Workshops are Beautiful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The MicrobeScope - Infectious Diseases in Context - Information is Beautiful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to content For your reference and to satisfy a curiosity of mine around the contagiousness of microbes and pathogens, especially Ebola. To give a universal metric for infectiousness contagiousness, this graphic uses the average 'basic reproduction number ' (also rate or ratio), the number of additional cases generated by a single case of the disease.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Error processing SSI file

In the spring of 2009, a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus emerged. It was detected first in the United States and spread quickly across the United States and the world. This new H1N1 virus contained a unique combination of influenza genes not previously identified in animals or people. This virus was designated as influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus. Ten years later work continues to better understand influenza, prevent disease, and prepare for the next pandemic.

The (H1N1)pdm09 virus was very different from H1N1 viruses that were circulating at the time of the pandemic. Few young people had any existing immunity (as detected by antibody response) to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus, but nearly one-third of people over 60 years old had antibodies against this virus, likely from exposure to an older H1N1 virus earlier in their lives. Since the (H1N1)pdm09 virus was very different from circulating H1N1 viruses, vaccination with seasonal flu vaccines offered little cross-protection against (H1N1)pdm09 virus infection. While a monovalent (H1N1)pdm09 vaccine was produced, it was not available in large quantities until late November-after the peak of illness during the second wave had come and gone in the United States. From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.

Since the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the (H1N1)pdm09 flu virus has circulated seasonally in the U.S. causing significant illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Additionally, CDC estimated that 151,700-575,400 people worldwide died from (H1N1)pdm09 virus infection during the first year the virus circulated.** Globally, 80 percent of (H1N1)pdm09 virus-related deaths were estimated to have occurred in people younger than 65 years of age. This differs greatly from typical seasonal influenza epidemics, during which about 70 percent to 90 percent of deaths are estimated to occur in people 65 years and older.

Though the 2009 flu pandemic primarily affected children and young and middle-aged adults, the impact of the (H1N1)pdm09 virus on the global population during the first year was less severe than that of previous pandemics. Estimates of pandemic influenza mortality ranged from 0.03 percent of the world's population during the 1968 H3N2 pandemic to 1 percent to 3 percent of the world's population during the 1918 H1N1 pandemic. It is estimated that 0.001 percent to 0.007 percent of the world's population died of respiratory complications associated with (H1N1)pdm09 virus infection during the first 12 months the virus circulated.

The United States mounted a complex, multi-faceted and long-term response to the pandemic, summarized in The 2009 H1N1 Pandemic: Summary Highlights, April 2009-April 2010. On August 10, 2010, WHO declared an end to the global 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. However, (H1N1)pdm09 virus continues to circulate as a seasonal flu virus, and cause illness, hospitalization, and deaths worldwide every year.

Historical Resources

Read a summary of key events of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and CDC's response activities between April 2009-April 2010.

Learn more about the timeline of major events that took place during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

View images taken during CDC's response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Videos from 2009 H1N1 Pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A summary of key events of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the CDC's response activities between April 2009 and April 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cell-based meat, also known as cultivated meat, cellular agriculture or lab-grown meat, is one of the biggest recent trends in food technology. By cultivating such proteins in-vitro in large fermentation vats similar to those used to brew beer, researchers, marketers and investors hope to attract a broad base of customers. The hope is that many people want to enjoy meat without the cruelty and the destructive health, climate and environmental impacts of concentrated animal feedlots.

Billions of dollars in speculative investment have flowed into this space, especially in the wake of Singapore's approval of cell-based chicken analogues. Given this capital tsunami and the growing public relations push, the entry of such products into the global food system at scale seems likely. While it is hard to imagine such new endeavors will be anywhere as bad as the conventional meat industry, how should we assess the potential impacts to supply chains, human health and the environment of cell-based meats? Let's start with a couple of examples from food history as context.

Over a hundred years ago, Procter & Gamble introduced hydrogenated oils, or trans fats, into the food supply, an innovative trend that took off during the Great Depression and World War Two years when butter was scarce. With growing concerns connecting these oils to inflammation, heart disease and cholesterol, much of the food industry started moving away from trans fats for the last two decades (and unfortunately switched to palm oil, but that is another story). A few decades ago, the biotechnology sector introduced the world to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Within a few years, farmers rapidly adopted the new crop technologies due to beneficial traits that controlled pests, suppressed weeds and increased yields. Today, nearly 90% of cash crops such as corn, soy, canola and cotton are genetically modified, and their ingredient derivatives are found in the majority of processed foods. But after decades of denial and obfuscation, the companies that make the chemical inputs necessary for cultivating GMO crops, particularly glyphosate which is the active ingredient in RoundUp, have been the subject of cancer lawsuits, health and environmental concerns and hefty settlements.

Is this the meat farm of the future? Fermentation tanks, commonly used for beer or wine. (Photo by ... [+]
Getty Images

With the intention of learning from some of the unforeseen consequences of previous large scale food tech innovation, here are some lines of inquiry regarding cell-based meats:

How will such products be labeled and marketed to consumers on retail shelves and in restaurants and food service?

What is in the feed stock for the nutrient medium that such products are grown in? The volumes of meat needed to turn a profit for investors will necessitate millions of pounds or gallons of nutrient mix annually. Will the feed stock be derived from cheap, plentiful but chemical-laden byproducts of GMO agriculture , particularly soy and/or corn? Or is there some other readily available supply chain being developed? And what are the environmental and health impacts of these feedstock raw materials?

What is the "feed" conversion ratio? For every million pounds of cell-based meat produced for consumption, how much feedstock is needed? Feed conversions ratios for live chicken is 1.6:1, meaning 1.6 pounds of feed for 1lb of chicken. Considering the yield of a live chicken is 70%, would this mean that you would need 1.6 pounds of feed for .7 pounds of cultivated meat? Likewise, for a beef cow, the feed ratio is 6:1, 6 pounds of grain to 1 pound of meat. Assuming a 60% yield for live beef, should we assume that 6 pounds of feed would be needed for .6 pounds of cultivated analogous meat? And feed conversion for a healthy, young dairy cow is about 4:1. Would the feedstock requirements for cell-based dairy production be a similar ratio, or will this depend on the specific product line? Would some varieties enable the nutrient uptake to be more efficient, and if so, how and why? And how much acreage per pound of finished product will be necessary to grow such raw materials further upstream?

Will growth hormones be involved in the cultivation of these products, and if so, would the final consumer-facing product contain hormone traces or residue?

What else is in this growth media and what is the disposal method for the spent media once the protein is extracted? How many gallons or pounds of spent media will be produced per pound of cultivated meat? Will it need to be regulated and handled as a biohazard or will it be compostable or disposable in municipal sewage and waste management systems? Are there other byproducts or waste materials from processing that contain contaminants or biohazards that will need to be mitigated and dealt with?

How much "poop", or metabolic waste material, will each pound of cell-based meat produce over the span of cultivation until harvest? What is in it and how will its disposal be managed? Who cleans up the "poop"?

Are animal derived ingredients, including fetal bovine cells, in the production mix? What about the use of antibiotics in cell cultures to control growth of unwanted microbes? Will antibiotic resistant material remain in the growth media after protein extraction and removal and if so, how will it be dealt with? Will there be antibiotic residue in the final consumer product? And if so, will antibiotic free options be available?

What are the types of molecular scaffolds that such products will be built on and will such ingredients be transparent to consumers? Will they be animal derived, GMO-derived/plant-based or plastic/synthetic? How will they influence the allergenicity of the final product if derived from common allergens such as soy, corn, crustaceans, fungi or insects? How will insect or crustacean derived scaffolding affect Kosher or halal certification?

Will genetically engineered microorganisms, such as the yeast that produces the soy leghemoglobin (aka heme) used as the colorant and tasty, umami-rich flavor in Impossible® Burgers, have a role in the production process?

What other novel, unintended proteins or byproducts will be present in the finished product? Will these also need to be identified and labeled for consumer transparency?

Will consumers or their family members with food sensitivities/allergies, autoimmune or inflammation issues , or otherwise afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme disease or PANDAS be able to safely consume such products? Will there be independent, peer-reviewed, third party research to guide doctors or health care providers on this?

What is the bioavailability and nutrient density compared to various techniques of animal-based agriculture, ranging from concentrated feedlot beef to Organic, Grassfed or Regenerative beef?

Will the cell-based analogues be patented and subject to intellectual property protections? And will secrecy and knowledge hoarding enabled by patents and IP protections make these conversations around transparency a moot point?

What types of social equity are being built into the supply chains and organizational structures of cell-based agriculture companies? Who owns, governs and makes decisions? How many companies outside of Asia will have women, people of color and otherwise not cis-hetero white men in charge? What is the distribution and allocation of shares and profits in such companies? Are any pursuing B-Corp certification, open book management, true cost accounting or other progressive corporate models? How many such companies will consider employee ownership or becoming worker cooperatives? Will such companies embrace collective bargaining and unionization efforts, and greater worker input into the labor process and decision making?

Or perhaps the technology should be put into the public sector, especially if research is underwritten by public funds (like previous large scale tech endeavors such as the internet, cellular networks, and LCD technology) in order to ensure that it's commercialization does not add to the critical levels of inequality, food apartheid, inaccessibility and precarity so common in the food industry. A public sector solution could ensure that all such information can be in the public domain, open sourced and accessible, with patents waived. While the technology intends to challenge the most egregious forms of animal-based agriculture, how will cell-based meat companies improve the living standards and well-being of blue-collar employees in their supply chain? Considering the competition, this should not be a high bar to overcome.

Lentils and beans: tasty, cheap, and excellent sources of protein. (AP Photo/Hermann J. Knippertz)
ASSOCIATED PRESS

These are some of the many questions we should be asking about this new food technology as it enters the market. Transparency and openness, a clear understanding and mitigation of production externalities, plus justice and equity in business models will be signs that cell-based meat companies are a new breed of food tech. Meanwhile, ethical, meat-averse consumers still have healthy, delicious and compelling alternatives to both cell-based and CAFO meat. But we can hope to cultivate trust and accountability.

(Disclosure: The author is a Board Member of the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit organization that believes that everyone has a right to know what is in their food.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Questions Should We Be Asking About Cell-Based Meats?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cell-based meat, also known as cultivated meat, cellular agriculture or lab-grown meat, is one of the biggest recent trends in food technology. By cultivating such proteins in-vitro in large fermentation vats similar to those used to brew beer, researchers, marketers and investors hope to attract a broad base of customers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tropical cyclones form over the ocean, but not all waters have what it takes to spin them up. Only those oceans whose waters are capable of reaching a temperature of at least 80 F (27 C) for a depth of 150 feet (46 meters), and those situated a minimum of 300 miles (46 kilometers) away from the equator are considered to be hurricane hotspots.

There are seven such ocean regions, or basins, around the world:

1. the Atlantic

2. the Eastern Pacific (includes the Central Pacific)

3. the Northwest Pacific

4. the North Indian

5. the Southwest Indian

6. the Australian/Southeast Indian

7. the Australian/Southwest Pacific

In the following slides, we'll take a brief look at the location, season dates, and storm behavior of each.

The Atlantic Hurricane Basin

If you live in the United States, the Atlantic basin is probably the one you're most familiar with.

The average Atlantic hurricane season produces 12 named storms, of which 6 strengthen into hurricanes and 3 of those into major (Category 3, 4, or 5) hurricanes. These storms originate from tropical waves, mid-latitude cyclones that sit over warm waters, or old weather fronts.

The Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) responsible for issuing tropical weather advisories and warnings across the Atlantic is the NOAA National Hurricane Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prefer to Live or Vacation Near These Oceans? So Do Hurricanes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tropical cyclones form over the ocean, but not all waters have what it takes to spin them up. Only those oceans whose waters are capable of reaching a temperature of at least 80 F (27 C) for a depth of 150 feet (46 meters), and those situated a minimum of 300 miles (46 kilometers) away from the equator are considered to be hurricane hotspots.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Investment in the development of plant-based meat, dairy and egg alternatives, cultivated meat and alternative protein fermentation companies reached $5 billion in 2021, according to the Good Food Institute, an alternative protein advocacy group. The figure is 61% greater than the 2020 investment of $3.1 billion.

"The investor community is beginning to see the huge potential of alternative proteins to transform our food system, as well as the strong potential to meet their target returns," said Sharyn Murray, senior investor engagement specialist with the GFI. "With more and more investors acknowledging that climate risk is investment risk, alternative proteins offer a scalable solution that gets the world closer to a more secure, carbon-neutral food system. Managing climate risks is impossible without addressing food, and agriculture and alternative proteins offer us a tool to do that."

Investments in cultivated meat and alt protein fermentation companies surged during the year. Cultivated meat companies received $1.4 billion in 2021, up from $400 million in 2020. Investments included $347 million to Future Meat Technologies in a Series B round, $100 million to Aleph Farms in a Series B round, and $60 million to BlueNalu.

Fermentation companies focusing on alternative proteins raised $1.7 billion in 2021, up from $600 million in 2020. Investments included $350 million in Nature's Fynd, $350 million in Perfect Day and $226 million in Motif Foodworks.

Investments in plant-based meat, dairy and egg alternative companies slowed to $1.9 billion in 2021, down from $2.1 billion in 2020. While the amount may be lower, the category's investor based grew 40% from the prior year and reached 1,093, according to the Good Food Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alternative protein investments reached $5 billion in 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Investment in the development of plant-based meat, dairy and egg alternatives, cultivated meat and alternative protein fermentation companies reached $5 billion in 2021, according to the Good Food Institute, an alternative protein advocacy group. The figure is 61% greater than the 2020 investment of $3.1 billion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Globally, we consume around 350 million tons of meat a year

Meat production puts immense pressure on Earth's ecosystems. And global meat consumption is increasing non-stop.

Demand for meat is only going up

The production of meat has doubled in the 30 years from 1988 to 2018 and increased four-fold since the mid 1960s. And production is expected to continue to grow. By 2050, global meat consumption is projected to reach between 460 million and a staggering 570 million tons. 570 million tons would mean a consumption of meat twice as high as in 2008.

Why is a high consumption of meat a problem?

There are many reasons meat consumption is problematic. Meat is a very "inefficient" food source. It requires more energy, water and land to produce meat than any other food source. Meat production is also a large source of greenhouse gas emissions and thereby plays a major role in climate change.

Meat is very "inefficient" food

Meat has a much higher "energy footprint" than any other food. It takes 75 times more energy to produce meat than corn. And it takes an area of vegetation 7 times the size of the EU to produce food for the cattle and other livestock animals in Europe.

Meat consumption around the world

The consumption of meat varies widely between countries. The top meat-eating countries are (kilos per person per year):

The US: 124 kilos

Australia: 122 kilos

Argentina: 109 kilos

New Zealand: 101 kilos

Spain: 100 kilos.

On the other end of the spectrum, a number of African countries consume less that 20 kilos of meat per person a year.

Eating so much resource intensive meat is a problem

There is a limit to how long we can continue our current diet in western countries. With unchanged eating habits, the world population could be too big to feed itself by 2050 when we will reach a global population of almost 10 billion people.

If everyone shared the meat-heavy diet of the average american, the world could feed just 2.5 billion people

Meat production reduces biodiversity

Because meat production is so demanding in terms of resources, it also affects biodiversity and contributes to the extinction of species. A report from the WWF finds that 60% of global biodiversity loss is caused by meat-based diets.

Meat production requires fossil fuel

It takes an estimated 2-3 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein from soybeans, corn, or wheat. For beef it takes 54 calories of fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein.

Over 8 liters of gasoline is required to produce one kilo of grain-fed beef.

Meat is a very "inefficient" food source

One hectare of rice or potato cropland can feed between 19 and 22 people in one year. For beef or lamb one hectare can feed only 1 or 2 people. At the same time, the world's cropland area is shrinking. By 2050, we may have less than 0.1 hectares per person on the planet.

Meat consumption contributes to global food crisis

Almost HALF of the world's harvest is fed to animals. Globally, 90 percent of the ever-increasing soybean harvest goes for animal feed. Reduced meat consumption is needed to feed a world population of 10 billion people by 2050.

Meat and climate change

By 2050, food related greenhouse gas emissions are expected to reach 11.4 gigatons of CO2-equivalents (GtCO2-eq). With approximately 7,3 GtCO2-eq, meat contributes almost two thirds of these emissions.

Livestock production needs to reach its peak before 2030 in order to tackle the climate emergency, scientists have warned. The problem is that meat consumption is projected to keep increasing until at least 2050.

90%

Reduction in western beef consumption needed

According to research from Oxford University published in Nature, consumption of beef in western countries must be reduced by around 90 percent to mitigate climate change.

Meat production is highly water demanding

All food requires water. Meat - and especially beef - is among the most water demanding food products.
Half of all water consumed in the US is used to grow grain for cattle feed.
Water use for 1 kilogram of the product:

Chocolate: 24,000 liters

Coffee beans: 21,000 liters

Beef: 15,500 liters

Sheep and goat meat: 8,800 liters

Pig meat: 6,000 liters

Cereals: 1,600 liters

Fruit: 1000 liters

Vegetables: 300 liters

72,000,000,000

Number of animals slaughtered for human meat consumption annually

95% are chicken but the numbers include over 300 million cattle and 1.5 billion pigs.

Types of meat produced

Poultry (mainly chicken), pigmeat and beef make up over 92 % of global meat production. In 2018, the distribution was the following:

Poultry: 127 million tons

Pig: 121 million tons

Beef & buffalo: 72 million tons

Sheep & goat: 15 million tons

Other (including duck, goose, camel, horse): 11 million tons

Current patterns must change

Worldwide meat production increased nearly 5 times in the second half of the 20th century, and the amount eaten per person doubled. By 2050 meat consumption could increase by as much as another 160 percent. This will put enormous pressure on crop and water resources.

Food waste still a major problem

Though we are heading for a food crisis and the food industry plays a big part in climate change, we still waste almost half of our food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meat production puts immense pressure on Earth's ecosystems. And global meat consumption is increasing non-stop. The production of meat has doubled in the 30 years from 1988 to 2018 and increased four-fold since the mid 1960s. And production is expected to continue to grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1 to 5 rating based only on a hurricane's maximum sustained wind speed. This scale does not take into account other potentially deadly hazards such as storm surge, rainfall flooding, and tornadoes.

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale estimates potential property damage. While all hurricanes produce life-threatening winds, hurricanes rated Category 3 and higher are known as major hurricanes*. Major hurricanes can cause devastating to catastrophic wind damage and significant loss of life simply due to the strength of their winds. Hurricanes of all categories can produce deadly storm surge, rain-induced floods, and tornadoes. These hazards require people to take protective action, including evacuating from areas vulnerable to storm surge.

*In the western North Pacific, the term "super typhoon" is used for tropical cyclones with sustained winds exceeding 150 mph.

Category

Sustained Winds

Types of Damage Due to Hurricane Winds

1

74-95 mph
64-82 kt
119-153 km/h

Very dangerous winds will produce some damage: Well-constructed frame homes could have damage to roof, shingles, vinyl siding and gutters. Large branches of trees will snap and shallowly rooted trees may be toppled. Extensive damage to power lines and poles likely will result in power outages that could last a few to several days.

2

96-110 mph
83-95 kt
154-177 km/h

Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage: Well-constructed frame homes could sustain major roof and siding damage. Many shallowly rooted trees will be snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near-total power loss is expected with outages that could last from several days to weeks.

111-129 mph
96-112 kt
178-208 km/h

Devastating damage will occur: Well-built framed homes may incur major damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes.

130-156 mph
113-136 kt
209-251 km/h

Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

157 mph or higher
137 kt or higher
252 km/h or higher

Catastrophic damage will occur: A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

Your browser does not support the video tag.

More Information

If you have trouble viewing linked files, obtain a free viewer for the file format:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1 to 5 rating based only on a hurricane's maximum sustained wind speed. This scale does not take into account other potentially deadly hazards such as storm surge, rainfall flooding, and tornadoes. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale estimates potential property damage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It looks like a burger, so we'll see how it tastes.

This is the impossible burger. It was engineered by food scientists in Silicon Valley. Their goal, to match the taste, texture and bloody look of a hamburger. So even the most committed carnivores will consider going veg.

In general I don't like things trying to be things that they're not. If you're not going to drink beer, why would you drink non-alcoholic beer? What's the point?

I don't seek this kind of food out. I mean, I was a really reluctant to do this.

The burger is actually vegan. The key ingredient is heme, the iron-rich molecule found in blood. Heme is that special something that makes a burger tastes like a burger. Impossible Foods figured out how to extract heme from plants instead of animals and produce it using fermentation.

So does it make it taste like a real hamburger?

It's very good, but it doesn't -- I wouldn't think it was an actually meat hamburger.

But I think it's really good as a plant-based option. I'm actually surprised. I'm kind of a skeptical bastard.

I can tell this is not meat.

It has a very, like, meaty flavor. Like a sort of a deep beef flavor. I don't think I've ever tasted that in a non-meat product.

Like a lot of other startups, Impossible Foods wants to change the world. Cows use a ton of resources while emitting greenhouse gasses, which are terrible for the environment.

To me the environmental and ethical arguments are stronger than the health arguments, even though I am a cardiologist.

It doesn't taste threatening. It's making me a little conscious about the plants now, though. It's like oh my God, they bleed. It's freaking me out.

It seems like it could replace meat in the long run. Not this version, but I think about it in the way that I think about how, like, electric cars.

Like, I'm always going to have a job. You know, there's been butchers since time immortal.

I would order it when I was going out to eat. Although I probably, I mean, if I wanted a hamburger, I probably would still order a hamburger.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It looks like a burger, so we'll see how it tastes. This is the impossible burger. It was engineered by food scientists in Silicon Valley. Their goal, to match the taste, texture and bloody look of a hamburger. So even the most committed carnivores will consider going veg.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Questions and Answers

Billions of intelligent animals, capable of feeling fear and pain, suffer in the dark without sympathy or compassion at a scale that is hard to imagine.
Do animals feel pain?
The desire to survive is a basic evolutionary precept not exclusive to humans. Pain is both a critical indicator of injury or illness as well as a strong motivator to avoid actions that lead to (or prolong) injury or illness. While there is no reason to assume non-human animals don't feel pain, the scientific community has explored and debunked the myth many times over. Cows, chickens, and many crustaceans and fish feel pain.
Do animals fear their death?
Yes. Many of the animals we eat are highly intelligent creatures capable of feeling fear and empathy.

Numerous scientific studies demonstrate that the animals we eat fear for their own wellbeing. Animals including fish, rats, and mice defend and even mourn the loss of their family and friends.

Until recently, most people were unaware that pigs are as smart as dogs. Pigs use tools, understand symbolic language and mirrors, can be house trained, wag their tails when happy, control their environment, and are empathetic. Even less intelligent animals like chickens, rats and mice demonstrate empathy.
I like eating meat. Can I still help?
If you're not ready to go vegan, you can still save animals without dramatically changing your diet. Here are a few completely effortless ways that you can make a big difference:

At the grocery store, purchase only the amount of meat that your family is certain to eat. American consumers throw away 21.7% of the meat they purchase-needlessly killing billions of animals.

Opt for products from animals that haven't been tortured. When purchasing meat, egg, or dairy products, look for obvious animal welfare labeling on the packaging. And never eat veal or fois gras.

Eliminate one animal product from one meal each day (e.g. drop the sausage at breakfast, grilled chicken from your salad, or bacon from your club sandwich).

Offset your animal cruelty footprint by donating to a highly rated animal welfare charity. These organizations uncover animal abuse and advocate for the humane treatment of the animals you eat.

Explore animal-free dietary options. There are amazing new cruelty-free substitutes for everything from milk and ice cream to hamburgers and cold cuts coming to market every year.

Check out the charities noted above for more information and ideas on ways to help. Additionally, learn about becoming a reducetarian with a diet that includes fewer animal products.
Isn't this just the natural order?
We often hear: "it's the natural order of things" or "just what god intended." The fact that something is natural does not automatically make it good. Disease and murder are natural. Treating animals humanely is no more an affront to nature than curing disease or criminalizing murder.

Nature can be cruel; industrializing that cruelty is wrong.
How many animals are killed for food in the US each year?
The United States Department of Agriculture reports that 9.76 billion land animals were slaughtered in 2020:

Chickens: 9,346,660,000

Turkeys: 223,003,000

Cattle (incl. calves): 33,242,000

Pigs: 131,563,000

Ducks: 22,484,000

Sheep (incl. lambs): 2,225,000

Accounting for U.S. animal meat imports and exports ², 8.2 billion land animals were killed to support the U.S. food supply:

Chickens: 7,835,037,000

Turkeys: 201,638,000

Cattle (incl. calves): 33,714,000

Pigs: 101,916,000

Ducks: 22,484,000

Sheep (incl. lambs): 6,768,000

Adjusting for pre-slaughter farmed animal mortality rates ³, industrial farming claimed the lives of 8.53 billion land animals in 2020 to support the U.S. food supply:

Chickens: 8,127,632,000

Turkeys: 214,509,000

Cattle (incl. calves): 36,164,000

Pigs: 124,061,000

Ducks: 23,275,000

Sheep (incl. lambs): 7,499,000

Aquatic animal deaths are challenging to calculate since these lives are measured in tons. A very thorough analysis completed by Counting Animals estimated that 3.8 billion finned fish and 43.1 billion shellfish were killed to support the U.S. food supply in 2013. Total U.S. fish landings remained flat at these levels at least through 2018.

Taken together, more than 55 billion land and sea animals die annually to support the U.S. food supply. Adding in bycatch (sea creatures caught and discarded--injured or dead) and feed fish, the total number jumps substantially.

To put this in perspective, during World War II--the deadliest conflict in human history--more than 60 million people were killed over 6 years. The same number of animals die in support of the American food supply every ten hours.
How many animals die for food in the United States every second?
Land animals only (USDA 2020 slaugher + imports - exports + pre-slaughter deaths) ⁴:

Every year: 8,533,141,000

Every day: 23,378,000

Every hour: 974,100

Every minute: 16,234

Every second: 271

Inclusive of land and aquatic animals:

Every year: 55,429,141,000

Every day: 151,888,000

Every hour: 6,328,000

Every minute: 105,480

Every second: 1,758

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Billions of intelligent animals, capable of feeling fear and pain, suffer in the dark without sympathy or compassion at a scale that is hard to imagine. Do animals feel pain? The desire to survive is a basic evolutionary precept not exclusive to humans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rep. Sylvia Garcia introduced a bill to Congress on June 1 that would prohibit the president or any federal agency from nuking hurricanes.

The bill, she said, was drafted in response to a question Trump reportedly posed last August, when he asked advisors during a briefing about hurricanes: "Why don't we nuke them?"

His idea, according to Axios, was a nuclear solution to the tropical storms that plague the southeastern US every summer and fall: "They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?" Trump asked.

The president later called the Axios report "fake news," but Garcia, a democrat representing Texas's 29th district, seems to be taking no chances.

Her proposed bill would ban the use of nuclear weapons to alter weather patterns or address climate change.

"Normally I wouldn't think we'd need to legislate something so obvious, but given remarks this president made in August 2019, apparently, we do. Such use would result in radioactive fallout and cause significant public health and environmental harm," Garcia said in a statement.

According to hurricane researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), if the US were to nuke a hurricane, radioactive fallout could spread to island nations in the Caribbean or states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Exposure to too much radiation in a short time can damage the body's cells and permanently contaminate land.

"Needless to say, this is not a good idea," the NOAA experts concluded in an article published in 2014.

Fallout concerns aside, the researchers also described why it would be impossible to disrupt a hurricane with a bomb: We don't have nuclear bombs powerful enough for the task, nor the resources to build enough of them to combat even one hurricane.

We don't have nukes powerful enough to match a hurricane

Hurricanes are vast cyclones that result from low-pressure pockets forming over warm water in the Atlantic. If either of those elements dissipate - the warm air or area of low pressure - the hurricane loses strength and breaks down.

So meteorologist Jack Reed suggested in 1959 that a nuclear explosion could potentially push the warm air up and out of a storm's eye, which would enable colder air to take its place and eliminate the low-pressure band fueling a hurricane.

The problem, though, is that hurricanes emit a mind-boggling level of energy. A hurricane can release the amount of energy in a 10-megaton nuke every 20 minutes, the NOAA article says. That's more than 666 times bigger than the "Little Boy" bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945.

So we don't have nukes big or powerful enough to continuously match a hurricane's strength; that would require almost 2,000 "Little Boys" per hour.

In terms of size alone, Hurricane Katrina - which was 400 miles wide - was 283 times the size of the blast radius of "Little Boy." Katrina's eye, at 37 miles in diameter, covered 11 times the area of 15 kilo-ton explosive detonated over Hiroshima.

What's more, the NOAA article says, after an explosive's initial high-pressure shock moves outward (which happens faster than the speed of sound), the surrounding air pressure in a hurricane would return to the same low-pressure state it was in before.

So unless we were able to detonate nuclear explosives in the eye of the hurricane on a continuous basis, we wouldn't be able to dissipate the low-pressure air that keeps the storm going.

Hurricanes are hard to predict

Attacking tropical storms - which pack less energy than hurricanes do - with nuclear bombs before they become hurricanes "isn't promising either," the NOAA article says.

All hurricanes in the Atlantic begin as tropical depressions, in which low-pressure areas are accompanied by thunderstorms and circular winds under 39 mph.

But very few of these depressions turn into major hurricanes, and "there is no way to tell in advance which ones will develop," the NOAA article says. An average hurricane season has 12 named storms, six of which are hurricanes, and three of which are major hurricanes (category 3 or above).

So if the US attempted to nuke a developing tropical depression, it wouldn't know whether the weather event needed intervention in the first place.

Nuking hurricanes would be extremely expensive

The sheer number of bombs needed to continuously disrupt a hurricane, of course, also means doing so would be extraordinarily expensive.

According to the Brookings Institution, the cost of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima would be $8.18 billion in 2019 dollars, adjusted for inflation.

In 2018, the base budget for the US Department of Defense was $576 billion. So the 666 "Little Boy"-sized bombs needed to match the power a hurricane emits in 20 minutes would cost far more than the entire defense budget.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A proposed bill would prohibit President Trump from nuking hurricanes. These illustrations show why even a bomb can't disrupt a storm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rep. Sylvia Garcia introduced a bill to Congress on June 1 that would prohibit the president or any federal agency from nuking hurricanes. The bill, she said, was drafted in response to a question Trump reportedly posed last August, when he asked advisors during a briefing about hurricanes: "Why don't we nuke them?"

# data[].attributes.headline
How Many Gallons Does it Take to Produce ______?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Many Gallons Does it Take to Produce ______?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lettuce (1 cup)

3 gallons

Tomato Ketchup (1oz)

3 gallons

White Sugar (1 tbsp)

7 gallons

Whole Wheat Bread (1 slice)

7 gallons

Tomatoes (4.3 oz)

8 gallons

White Bread (1 slice)

11 gallons

Fresh Broccoli (2.7 oz)

11 gallons

Tomato Paste (2 oz)

12 gallons

Tomato Sauce (4 oz)

13 gallons

Oranges (4.6 oz)

14 gallons

Brown Rice (1 oz)

16 gallons

White Rice (1 oz)

25 gallons

Pasta (2 oz)

36 gallons

Cantaloupe (8 oz)

40 gallons

Butter (0.36 oz)

46 gallons

Milk (8 fl. Oz)

48 gallons

Orange Juice (1 cup)

49 gallons

Cheese (1 oz)

56 gallons

Tofu (1/2 cup)

61 gallons

Egg (1)

63 gallons

Almonds (1 oz)

80 gallons

Plain Yogurt (1 cup)

88 gallons

Chicken (8 oz)

330 gallons

Hamburger (4 oz)

616 gallons

Steak (8 oz)

1,232 gallons

Where did the figures come from?

In September 1991, the Water Education Foundation published a special report called "Water Inputs in California Food Production" by Marcia Kreith at UC Davis. The study updated numbers issued in 1978 by the UC Cooperative Extension. It examined the amount of water required to produce selected dairy, beef, poultry, grains, soy, fruit and vegetable products from the beginning of planting or growth cycle up to the time of cooking. Step by step calculations used to figure the water requirements are included for each food in the 162-page report.

The report analyzed water used in California food production per serving for 27 tabletop items and for per pound for 34 items. The committee overseeing the study established a number of criteria: the study counted all water - whether naturally available or applied as irrigation water to grow and process food products. No distinction was made between precipitation, surface reservoir water or groundwater. Among several research parameters, an irrigation efficiency of 70% was assumed to be average.

For more information, contact the Foundation at 916-444-6240.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Food Facts: How Much Water Does It Take to Produce ... ? - Water Education Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lettuce (1 cup) 3 gallons Tomato Ketchup (1oz) 3 gallons White Sugar (1 tbsp) 7 gallons Whole Wheat Bread (1 slice) 7 gallons Tomatoes (4.3 oz) 8 gallons White Bread (1 slice) 11 gallons Fresh Broccoli (2.7 oz) 11 gallons Tomato Paste (2 oz) 12 gallons Tomato Sauce (4 oz) 13 gallons Oranges (4.6 oz) 14 gallons Brown Rice (1 oz) 16 gallons White Rice (1 oz) 25 gallons Pasta (2 oz) 36 gallons Cantaloupe (8 oz) 40 gallons Butter (0.36 oz) 46 gallons Milk (8 fl.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feeding 326 Million Americans

The meat and poultry industry is the largest segment of U.S. agriculture. U.S. meat production totaled 52 billion pounds in 2017 and U.S. poultry production totaled 48 billion pounds in 2017.

In 2017, the meat and poultry industry processed:

9 billion chickens

32.2 million cattle and calves

241.7 million turkeys

2.2 million sheep and lambs

121 million hogs

In 2017, American meat companies produced:

26.3 billion pounds of beef

25.6 billion pounds of pork

5.9 billion pounds of turkey

80.2 million pounds of veal

150.2 million pounds lamb and mutton

42.2 billion pounds of chicken

Top Livestock and Poultry Slaughtering States

Cattle - Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, California, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania

Hog - Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania

Chicken - Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama

Turkey - Minnesota, North Carolina, Arkansas

In Fiscal Year 2018, there were 835 federally inspected, livestock slaughter plants in the U.S. An additional 3,773 plants process red meat, but do not slaughter. There were 2,979 federally inspected poultry slaughter and processing plants in the U.S.

Feeding Us Essential Nutrients

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommend eating 5.7 ounces of meat per day as part of a healthy, balanced diet.

There are at least:

29 cuts of beef

6 cuts of pork

And numerous poultry cuts that are leaner and have less calories than a 3 oz. serving of salmon

A 3-oz. serving of lean meat provides about 160-200 calories plus significant amounts of many key nutrients such as protein. These proteins contain all 9 essential amino acids needed for growth and good overall health, making meat a "complete" protein.

Meat is also a great source for iron, magnesium, zinc, niacin, selenium, riboflavin and B-vitamins that help your body turn food into energy.

New studies show meat can aid in weight loss by providing a sense of satisfaction that helps to control appetite and metabolize food more efficiently.

Feeding our Economy

In 2017, employees working in meat packing and processing plants on average earned $14.98 per hour plus benefits, while employees in poultry processing plants earned $13.58 per hour, plus benefits.

According to a 2016 analysis by John Dunham & Associates, the U.S. meat and poultry industry accounts for $1.02 trillion in total economic output or 5.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)

The meat and poultry industry broadly is responsible for 5.4 million jobs and $257 billion in wages, the report found. An estimated 527,019 people have jobs in production and packing, importing operations, sales, packaging and direct distribution of meat and poultry products.

Feeding the World

CHECK: The U.S. 1.26 million metric tons (MT*) of beef and beef variety meat in 2017. Export value of beef and beef variety meat exports reached a record $7.27 billion in 2017.

On a volume and value basis, the top four markets for U.S. beef in 2017 were Japan, South Korea, Mexico and Hong Kong.

The U.S. exported 2.45 million MT of pork and pork variety meat in 2017, breaking the 2016 record by 6 percent. Annual total pork shipments were valued at $6.49 billion, up 9% from 2016.

The top markets for U.S. pork in terms of volume and value in 2017 were Mexico, Japan and South Korea.

The U.S. exported 3.7 million MT of poultry and poultry variety meats in 2017. The value was estimated at $4.5 billion.

Exports in 2017 accounted for 26.6 percent of U.S. pork production and 12.9 percent of beef production.

*1 MT=2204.6 lbs

Fast Facts

Average Meat Consumption in the U.S.

American men on average eat 4.8 ounces of meat per day and women eat 3.13 ounces of meat per day. (Source: What We Eat in America, NHANES 2015-2016).

Americans spend less than any other developed nation in the world on food broadly and on meat and poultry specifically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The meat and poultry industry is the largest segment of U.S. agriculture. U.S. meat production totaled 52 billion pounds in 2017 and U.S. poultry production totaled 48 billion pounds in 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Water Facts - Worldwide Water Supply

Water covers about 71% of the earth's surface.

326 million cubic miles of water on the planet

97% of the earth's water is found in the oceans (too salty for drinking, growing crops, and most industrial uses except cooling).

320 million cubic miles of water in the oceans

3% of the earth's water is fresh.

2.5% of the earth's fresh water is unavailable: locked up in glaciers, polar ice caps, atmosphere, and soil; highly polluted; or lies too far under the earth's surface to be extracted at an affordable cost.

0.5% of the earth's water is available fresh water.

If the world's water supply were only 100 liters (26 gallons), our usable water supply of fresh water would be only about 0.003 liter (one-half teaspoon).

In actuality, that amounts to an average of 8.4 million liters (2.2 million gallons) for each person on earth.

This supply is continually collected, purified, and distributed in the natural hydrologic (water) cycle.

If the Earth Were a Globe 28 Inches in Diameter:

All of the water on the planet would fill less than one cup.

Only 0.03% of one cup is in rivers and fresh water lakes.

Slightly more than one drop of water would fill all the rivers and lakes.

*Some of this lies too far under the earth's surface to be extracted at an affordable cost

Sources of Fresh Water

Groundwater - water which infiltrates into the ground through porous materials deeper into the earth. It fills pores and fractures in layers of underground rock called aquifers. Some of this water lies too far under the earth's surface to be extracted at an affordable cost.

Surface-water runoff - precipitation that does not infiltrate into the ground or return to the atmosphere: streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and reservoirs.

Snow that is 4 inches (10cm) deep contains about the same amount of water as 1/3 inch (1 cm) of rain.

Water Use in the U.S.

8% domestic use

33% agriculture

59% industry

Over 600 gallons per day per person in the U.S. is being diverted for farm irrigation and livestock use from natural aquatic sources.

More than half the people in the U.S. get their water from groundwater.

Measures of Water Use

Water withdrawal - taking water from groundwater or surface-water source and transporting it to a place of use.

Water consumption - water that has been withdrawn and is not available for reuse in the area from which it is withdrawn.

In the U.S. about three-fourths of the fresh water withdrawn each year comes from rivers, lakes and reservoirs; one-fourth comes from groundwater aquifers.

80% of water withdrawn in the U.S. is used for cooling electric power plants and for irrigation.

A leak that fills up a coffee cup in 10 minutes will waste over 3,000 gallons of water in a year. That's 65 glasses of water every day for a year.

A leaky toilet can waste over 22,000 gallons of water in one year; enough to take three baths every day

Garden Water Use

Americans use about 1/3 more water in the summer than they do the rest of the year because they're watering their lawns.

There are about 10 million acres of lawn in the U.S., which requires 270 billion gallons of water every week. That's enough to give every person in the world a shower for four days in a row.

Most lawns only need an inch of water each week.

Water in the Body

Eye - 95% water

Total body weight - 75% water

Water Pollution

A gallon of paint or a quart of motor oil can seep into the earth and pollute 250,000 gallons of drinking water.

A spilled gallon of gasoline can pollute 750,000 gallons of water.

Sources

Aquatic Project WILD; Western Regional Environmental Education Council

Flying Start Science-Water; Kim Taylor

Folsom Dam Fact Sheets; Bureau of Reclamation

Layperson's Guide to The American River; Water Education Foundation

Living in the Environment, An Introduction to Environmental Science; G. Tyler Miller Jr.

Water Facts; Water Education Foundation

50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save The Earth; The EarthWorks Group

Last Updated: 11/4/20

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
california-great basin - bureau of reclamation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
California-Great Basin, Bureau of Reclamation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water Facts - Worldwide Water Supply | ARWEC| CCAO | Area Offices | California-Great Basin | Bureau of Reclamation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Water covers about 71% of the earth's surface. 326 million cubic miles of water on the planet 97% of the earth's water is found in the oceans (too salty for drinking, growing crops, and most industrial uses except cooling). 320 million cubic miles of water in the oceans 3% of the earth's water is fresh.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Renewable internal freshwater resources per capita (cubic meters)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Renewable internal freshwater resources per capita (cubic meters) from The World Bank: Data

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Billion(!) Might Not Have Water in 25 Years

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Billion(!) Might Not Have Water in 25 Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Five billion people, or around two-thirds of the world's population, will face at least one month of water shortages by 2050, according to the first in a series of United Nations reports on how climate change is affecting the world's water resources.

The assessment from the World Meteorological Organization, released Tuesday, includes projections about river flows, floods and droughts on every continent. It offered a mixed bag of findings, but warned that water security would become increasingly uneven across the world. Some places, such as Brazil's Rio São Francisco basin, face a challenging future; others, including the Great Lakes region of the United States, are in better shape.

"The impacts of climate change are often felt through water-more intense and frequent droughts, more extreme flooding, more erratic seasonal rainfall and accelerated melting of glaciers-with cascading effects on economies, ecosystems and all aspects of our daily lives," WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said in a release. "And yet, there is insufficient understanding of changes in the distribution, quantity, and quality of freshwater resources."

The 36-page report "aims to fill that knowledge gap and provide a concise overview of water availability in different parts of the world," he added.

The findings also will help guide climate adaptation and mitigation investments and inform the United Nations' campaign to provide universal access to early hazard warning systems for climate disasters such as flood and drought.

As with other climate change phenomena, there will be losers and winners, the authors wrote, though, "Overall, the negative trends are stronger than the positive ones."

In the United States, for example, persistent drought is projected to take an even larger toll on water security in the West. But the Great Lakes region will see relatively high water security due to the region's proximity to five of the world's largest freshwater lakes.

Other regions projected to have above-average water storage capacity in 2050 include the Niger basin in West Africa, the East African Rift and the northern Amazon basin, scientists said.

Conversely, the report identified several global "hotspots with negative trends" on water storage, including Brazil's Rio São Francisco basin, Patagonia in the southern reaches of South America, the Ganges River headwaters in the Himalaya Mountains of northern India and the Indus River flowing from Tibet to the Arabian Sea.

Researchers said rapid snow and ice melt in high-elevation regions is having "a significant impact" on global water security, as does heavy use of groundwater for irrigation, a problem compounded by drought and the shrinking surface reservoirs.

Another key finding was that the global area with below-average stream flow in 2021 was roughly double the size of the global area with above-average stream flows, based on 30-year hydrological averages. Scientists attributed the 2021 conditions to both climate change and a La Niña event, an atmospheric oscillation pattern characterized by wide water temperature variation in the Pacific Ocean.

Between 2001 and 2018, the United Nations reported that 74 percent of all natural disasters were water-related-prompting participants at the recent U.N. climate conference in Egypt to further integrate water into adaptation efforts. Officials said it is the first time water has been referenced in a COP document recognizing its critical importance.
Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2022. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Billion People Will Face Water Shortages by 2050, U.N. Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Five billion people, or around two-thirds of the world's population, will face at least one month of water shortages by 2050, according to the first in a series of United Nations reports on how climate change is affecting the world's water resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

BEST ENJOYED ICE COLD, the beers of Mexico are red-hot in the United States. Between 2013 and 2017, sales of brews from south of the border surged 44 percent, even as domestic beer sales dipped 3.5 percent. A single company benefits most from this cerveza boom: New York-based beverage giant Constellation Brands, which bought the US rights to Mexican megabrands Corona, Modelo, Victoria, and Pacifico as part of a $4.8 billion deal back in 2013.

Constellation's properties now account for about I in 11 brews sold in the United States. For investors, this fact has gone down like a frosty Corona on a broiling beach: Since June 2012, when Constellation first signaled it would take over US distribution, the company's stock has risen seven times over, driven largely by the explosive growth of its beer division.

But Constellation's Mexican beer assets are complicated. The company can only sell the products in the United States (the Belgian-Brazilian behemoth AB InBev owns the Mexican rights), but the beer must be made in Mexico. To minimize hauling costs, the Constellation megabreweries are situated along the border. The company touts its flagship facility in Nava, Coahuila, less than 30 miles south of Eagle Pass, Texas, as "one of the world's largest and most automated breweries," churning out one case of beer for every drinking-age US adult a year, as a promotional video puts it.

As US demand for Constellation's beer grows, the company plans to invest $1.8 billion in expansion over the next three years. A big chunk of that will go toward a massive new beer factory in Mexicali, a midsize city at the northeastern corner of Baja California. Mexicali sits in a blistering-hot desert that gets an average of three inches of rain per year and relies on the overtaxed Colorado River for its water needs. That's not a great situation, given that the once-mighty waterway's average annual flow between 2000 and 2014 was nearly 20 percent less than it was in the 20th century, a trend that will likely continue over the next decades as the climate changes. And some of Mexico's portion of that water goes to Tijuana (pop. 1.8 million), as well as one of the country's more productive farming regions. According to Mexico's federal water agency, the Mexicali Valley water table is overstressed, with annual withdrawals far exceeding recharge.

Once it's up and running in about two years, the Constellation brewery in Mexicali plans to make more than 132 million gallons of beer each year. A Constellation spokesman says the company's breweries typically require about three gallons of water for every gallon of finished product. That's at least 396 million gallons of water per year-the same amount it would take to supply more than 14,000 people with running water, at a time when about 200,000 Baja Californians already lack access to this basic necessity.

The company insists water shortages aren't likely--the spokesman said the new brewery will draw from Mexicali's municipal waterworks and require at most 2 percent of the water supply annually. But in its yearly report, Constellation acknowledged that "there is no guarantee" there will be sufficient water for beer production. Indeed, back in 2016, the mayor of a town near Constellation's Nava plant accused the brewery of taking so much water that his residents' taps went dry. (Constellation says the water problems in the area were the result of poor infrastructure.)

Meanwhile, Constellation hails the economic impact of the new project, claiming it will create more than 500 permanent jobs. But the brewery will also use some US-grown hops and barley, meaning limited benefit for the local farm economy. In short, our Mexican beer is brewed under a maquiladora model that has thrived along the border for decades: Factories import many of the components of manufacturing, slap them together with low-wage Mexican labor, and send them north, providing little long-term economic development--and in this case, potential ecological trouble.

In early 2017, a group called Mexicali Resiste began to oppose construction of the brewery, accusing local government officials of giving Constellation a sweetheart deal on water access. Several confrontations this year between protesters and police at the construction site have turned violent. No one can deny the appeal of a cold Corona on a long, hot summer day. But water-stressed Baja Californians are wondering what's in it for them.

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TAPPED OUT: How US thirst for cerveza could worsen water shortages in Mexico

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BEST ENJOYED ICE COLD, the beers of Mexico are red-hot in the United States. Between 2013 and 2017, sales of brews from south of the border surged 44 percent, even as domestic beer sales dipped 3.5 percent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2017, people in South Africa began to predict that "Day Zero" was on its way. This was the day when Cape Town's water supply would be so depleted that water would stop running out of taps. Homes and businesses would be left completely dry. Hospitals would continue to receive water, but everyone else would have to line up at communal water distribution points to receive their daily ration. Day Zero was expected to happen sometime between March and May of 2018, autumn in Cape Town, which is in the southern hemisphere. People took drastic measures to curb water usage. In the event, Day Zero did not materialize that autumn, but the crisis called the world's attention to water use and shortages and possible trends to come as the human population grows and the climate changes.

Cape Town is located on the southern coast of South Africa, at the southern tip of the entire African continent. Every year it has a winter wet season, when storms blow in from the Atlantic to the west. The rest of the year is warm and dry. The wet season replenishes the city's water supplies each year. The winter rainfall fills reservoirs contained by dams in the mountains above the city. These reservoirs supply the water needed for agriculture and home and business use.

A drought began in 2015. Much less rain fell than usual, thought to be the result of a combination of El Niño and climate change disrupting the patterns that produced heavy winter rains. For three winters in a row, much less rain fell than was typical. The levels in the reservoirs fell precipitously.

The failure of rains to replenish supplies was amplified by the fact that water use has increased rapidly over the past decades. Cape Town's population grew by nearly two million people between 1995 and 2018, while water storage capacity increased at a much slower rate. By early 2017, Cape Town's dams held only 20 percent of their capacity.

In May of 2017, city officials began sounding the alarm, suggesting that, without drastic measures, municipal water would run out the following May. The government introduced an "Avoiding Day Zero" plan. It began with Level 4 restrictions. The city was to reduce its water usage to 132 million gallons (500 million liters) a day. This meant that each person was limited to 26 gallons (100 liters) of water per day. (An average American uses about 90 gallons, or 340 liters, of water a day for showering, brushing teeth, drinking, etc.) Irrigation of plants with drinking water was prohibited, as was recreational uses of water. By July the city had moved to Level 4b, with individual use limited to 23 gallons (87 liters) per day. This meant showering with a bucket to catch rinse water, and using shower water to flush toilets. Showers were to be no more than two minutes, and simple sponge baths were preferable.

By September, the city had moved on to Level 5 restrictions. Households that exceeded the imposed limits would be fined, and people were encouraged to install water conservation devices on their fixtures. Level 6 restrictions came in January, 2018. Individuals now had to restrict their water use to 13 gallons (50 liters) a day. Agricultural use was severely slashed. The city continued to encourage residents to install water conservation devices. Hand sanitizer in public restrooms replaced handwashing with soap and water. People would flush their toilets once a day. Some residents installed dry toilets that would compost waste.

The city further encouraged water conservation by papering the city with posters and fliers. On reason this was necessary was that residents had failed to comply completely with the earlier restrictions. Only half of residents actually met the stipulated goals. Officials visited heavy users at home to tell them to cut back. Houses that used too much were installed with meters that would cut off their water at a certain point. Residents were even encouraged to inform on neighbors who used excessive water. Families stockpiled bottles of drinking water against the day when they might not have any. People with pools kept them full as an emergency supply; some of them paid for tanker trucks to deliver water from lakes or rivers out of town to keep their pools full. Others bought large tanks and filled them up.

The water restrictions and social policies angered many Cape Town residents, who compared the strictures to the rules from the apartheid era. A group called the Cape Town Water Crisis coalition formed to protest the restrictions. Members claimed that the water crisis had been invented by the government to cover for its poor management over the years and to keep water from black people. There were angry protests and violent confrontations between individuals and city government. The African National Congress (ANC), the political party that has long promoted black independence, joined in the protests. The water crisis sparked a political crisis between the ANC and the ruling Democratic Alliance (DA).

In May, 2018, the city proposed new water tariffs. Protests immediately erupted, with critics claiming that the water restrictions would be harshest on the poorest households. The Level 6b reductions in usage actually worked; officials kept postponing Day Zero as water supplies remained adequate.

When winter arrived, the rains did as well. The reservoirs began to fill again. By September, dams were at 70 percent of capacity. The city backed its water restrictions from Level 6b to Level 5. By November, the dams were up to 76 percent. The city dialed water restrictions all the way back to Level 3, 28 gallons (105 liters) per person per day. Cape Town residents could once again water plants with watering cans and even keep swimming pools filled, as long as they covered them when not in use.

The economic consequences of the water crisis were severe. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost. Golf courses and parks went dry. Restaurants stopped handing out free glasses of water. Farmers lost crops. The crisis pushed them to revise their farming practices to use much less water through either improved irrigation methods, mulch, night water, or switching crops that need less water. Landscapers are looking at replacing ornamental plants with native species that are adapted to the local climate; removing non-native plants alone could save up to seven percent of annual water use.

Cape Town may experience future water crises. The city wants to ensure that people to not return to their previous levels of water us. The city is also addressing some things that made the situation worse, such as old infrastructure that was in disrepair. The city is drilling wells to access groundwater and exploring the construction of desalination plants to remove salt from seawater. Experts around the world cite the Cape Town water crisis as a warning of the type of crises cities around the world are likely to face as populations grow and climate change limits essential resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2017, people in South Africa began to predict that "Day Zero" was on its way. This was the day when Cape Town's water supply would be so depleted that water would stop running out of taps. Homes and businesses would be left completely dry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mexico’s Cruel Drought: ‘Here You Have to Chase the Water’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly two-thirds of the country’s municipalities are facing a water shortage. In Monterrey, a major economic hub, the government delivers water daily to 400 neighborhoods.

# data[].attributes.headline
Have We Gotten Better at Defending Against Hurricanes?

# data[].attributes.subject
Have We Gotten Better at Defending Against Hurricanes?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Storm-surge fatalities

Storm surges following windstorms or cyclones are responsible for an average of 8000 deaths every year. New research shows that storm surges have become less deadly over time but will this trend continue as rates of coastal urbanization increase, tropical cyclones intensify and sea level rises?

In 1970 a devastating tropical cyclone struck present day Bangladesh and India's West Bengal. The storm, and its resulting storm surge, cost more than 300,000 people their lives, and made the Bhola cyclone the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded. Today the population living in that region is greater, so how many casualties should we expect if a storm equivalent to Bhola were to strike tomorrow?

To investigate the change in risk, Laurens Bouwer from independent Dutch research institute Deltares and Bas Jonkman from Delft University of Technology, also in The Netherlands, analysed the impact of coastal storm surge events occurring between 1900 and 2015, based on a compilation of events and data on loss of life.

For the 121 events that occurred during this time, Bouwer and Jonkman showed that the occurrence of very substantial loss of life - more than 10,000 people - from a single event has decreased over time. And although population in coastal areas has increased rapidly in most regions (world population has increased six-fold since 1900), there was a striking drop in total number of fatalities over time, suggesting that populations have become better prepared and protected.

"In 1900 coastal protection was still absent in many places, and little or no monitoring, forecasting and early warning of surge events was in place," said Bouwer. "In many developed countries, since the 1950s, monitoring and early warning has become common practice. And in recent decades cyclones are being monitored and tracked in all large ocean basins using observations (satellite, airplanes), and forecasted using models."

What's more, many investments have been made in coastal protection, Bouwer added. "We take these developments to be explanations of better protection of lives around the world."

However, South East Asia bucked this trend and showed no decrease in mortality. This was the only region of the world to continue having high mortality storm surges after 1992, with events such as Cyclone Nargis in 2008, which killed more than 138,000 people in Myanmar.

"The high mortality in Myanmar can be explained by the absence of sufficient protection, forecasting and early warning systems in this country," write Bouwer and Jonkman in Environmental Research Letters (ERL) .

By contrast similarly large storm surges in Bangladesh - from Cyclone Sidr in 2007 - and the Philippines - from 2013's Cyclone Haiyan - were very serious, but better early warning and evacuation procedures meant that they did not kill as high a proportion of the exposed population. As many as 10,000 people lost their lives from Cyclone Sidr, but as Bangladesh's Bhola cyclone in 1970 demonstrated, it could have been far, far worse.

Looking ahead Bouwer and Jonkman expect the mortality rate from storm surges to fall further as warning and evacuation strategies are improved in developing countries. However, this gain in lives saved could be offset by the impacts of climate change. "Flood hazard may increase, because of sea-level rise, leading to lowered protection levels from coastal defences and potentially higher inundation levels," said Bouwer. "Also, if cyclones become more intense, they can produce higher waves and surge levels."

Locations where warning and evacuation procedures continue to be poor, such as Myanmar, will continue to be highly vulnerable to storm surge events, but in addition low-lying countries with few flood defences, such as the Philippines, Bangladesh and small Pacific Ocean islands, are likely to become more vulnerable as sea-level rises and cyclones intensify.

"Further investments must be made to sufficiently protect lives and assets," said Bouwer. "Also plans need to be made to keep up with projected sea-level rise, in order to guarantee protection in the future."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deaths from storm surges have dropped - Physics World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Storm surges following windstorms or cyclones are responsible for an average of 8000 deaths every year. New research shows that storm surges have become less deadly over time but will this trend continue as rates of coastal urbanization increase, tropical cyclones intensify and sea level rises?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To listen to this broadcast, click here:

From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block.

It's hurricane season again, a time when the government get a lot of unsolicited advice on how to defeat nature's most powerful storms. Recent suggestions have included attacking hurricanes with icebergs, diaper gel and nuclear weapons. Would any of these work?

Well, NPR's Jon Hamilton put that question to a couple of hurricane experts.

Let's start with the nuclear option. Couldn't you just wait for the next Katrina and use a big nuke to blow it out of the water?

Dr. KERRY EMANUEL (MIT): Oh, I don't think so. It's not likely that it would do the right thing, and I think at the end of the day you'd simply have a radioactive hurricane.

HAMILTON: That's Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT. He's equally pessimistic about trying to tow icebergs in front of a storm or trying to dry them up with planeloads of super absorbent diaper gel. Yes, those are real suggestions the public has sent to the National Hurricane Center in Miami.

Emanuel says the major problem is that hurricanes are so much bigger and more powerful than anything people are likely to throw at them. Weather experts say a typical hurricane releases as much heat as a ten megaton nuclear bomb - every 20 minutes. Emanuel describes a hurricane's power in terms of electricity.

Dr. EMANUEL: If you could tame an average Atlantic hurricane, if you could somehow magically use the energy that it's generating, you could power the entire world electrically.

HAMILTON: As long as the storm lasts. Emanuel says it's hard to stop hurricanes, not just because they're so big, but because they're so simple. He says a hurricane is what scientists call a heat engine. It generates its power by extracting heat from the ocean.

Dr. EMANUEL: Everybody has the experience of getting out of a swimming pool, even on a hot day, feeling cold because water's evaporating from your skin and drawing heat from your body. That's exactly the process that transfers the heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.

HAMILTON: Usually that evaporation happens pretty slowly. The heat engine is barely turning over. But hurricanes turbo charge the process by adding strong winds. Think about how much heat you lose when you get out of a swimming pool on a windy day. Now imagine that wind is blowing 150 miles an hour.

You can actually see this heat engine rev up in satellite images of Hurricane Katrina. Scott Brown keeps copies of those pictures on his laptop. He's a meteorologist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington, D.C.

Dr. SCOTT BROWN (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center): This is showing Katrina right as it's approaching the east coast of Florida.

HAMILTON: Katrina was barely a hurricane at that point. On the screen, it's just a disorganized blob of white clouds. Then Brown pulls up an image of water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, where Katrina's headed. Red is hot and the Gulf is very red.

Dr. BROWN: Ahead of the storm you'd just see very warm ocean temperatures and that just means there's plenty of energy available to it from the ocean.

HAMILTON: For the next couple of days, Katrina sucked that energy out of the water. The engine was speeding up. It was pushing water vapor miles up into the sky, where it condensed into rain. Brown points to a three-dimensional image of Katrina. Mountain-like peaks represent intense rain.

Dr. BROWN: This is right about the time that the rainfall really gets going. It starts dumping rain like mad and that's an indication that there's a lot of energy being released within the clouds and that helps, then, to spin out the circulation.

HAMILTON: When Brown says a lot of energy, he means enough to power a trillion 100-watt light bulbs. Katrina was also producing enough rain to supply everyone on earth with drinking water.

And that brings us back to diaper gel and icebergs. You could have stopped Katrina in its tracks if you could have absorbed all its water vapor. Another option would have been to cool down the Gulf of Mexico by dropping in a giant ice cube.

The problem is you'll never find a diaper or an ice cube big enough. Kerry Emanuel says one reason people keep suggesting unlikely ways to stop hurricanes is that they just can't see how powerful a storm really is.

Dr. EMANUEL: Over land, it's knocking down trees and buildings and that sort of thing. And over the ocean, of course, it's creating enormous waves that break and also causing ocean currents and storm surges.

HAMILTON: What they don't see is what's happening high overhead. The vast majority of a hurricane's energy is being released in the form of turbulent winds miles above the carnage. And up there, even a nuclear blast would be just one more big gust.

Jon Hamilton, NPR News.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Icebergs, A-Bombs and Other Hurricane Cure-Alls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To listen to this broadcast, click here: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block. It's hurricane season again, a time when the government get a lot of unsolicited advice on how to defeat nature's most powerful storms. Recent suggestions have included attacking hurricanes with icebergs, diaper gel and nuclear weapons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Document controls

Main content

Hurricanes, the most intense form of tropical cyclone, are massive spinning thunderstorms with strong winds. Hurricanes cause serious destruction every year. Hurricanes form over warm ocean water, and the warmer the water, the stronger the storm can be. It is now well known that the climate is warmer than it used to be, and is likely to get warmer still. In 2018, the International Panel on Climate Change reported that global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees between 2030 and 2052 if it continues at the current rate. This warming trend means warmer oceans, and hence bigger hurricanes. Though climate change is not necessarily causing more hurricanes to form, it is causing the ones that do form to have greater impacts. The 21st century has already seen a much larger number of strong hurricanes than the 20th, and many more are predicted over the upcoming years.

Hurricanes

A hurricane is a storm with a well-defined pattern of rotating winds with maximum sustained winds greater than 74 miles (119 kilometers) per hour. These winds blow inwards toward, and rotate around, an area of low pressure. This center is the eye of the storm, an almost totally calm region in the center of tightly coiled bands of thunderstorm clouds.

Hurricanes form over warm ocean water. In order for the air to be sufficiently warm and moist to form a hurricane, the ocean water must be at least 80°F (27°C) to a depth of about 200 feet (61 meters). The higher the temperature of the ocean water, the more water evaporates and the more humid the air becomes. The warm surface air cools as it rises and the moisture within it condenses, or turns into water. When moisture condenses, it releases latent heat, the heat removed from a quantity of water vapor to cause it to turn into a liquid, and that heat provides additional energy to the storm system.

Hurricanes generally form only within specific areas in the tropics, between 5 degrees and 20 degrees North and South, although they occasionally form as far north and south as 30 degrees. The annual hurricane season, for any given location, occurs when ocean temperatures are highest. This period lags behind the year's warmest months on land, since it takes the oceans longer than the land to both warm up and cool down. In the Northern Hemisphere, hurricane season is roughly June through November. In the Southern Hemisphere, hurricanes occur most frequently between December and May. Hurricanes rotate counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. The storms that form in the Atlantic and in some parts of the Pacific are commonly called hurricanes. Other Pacific storms are called typhoons. Hurricanes in the Indian Ocean are known as cyclones.

Destructive Energy

Hurricanes are ranked according to their strength and estimated potential damage. Each hurricane is placed into one of five categories under the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Damage Potential Scale. Category 1 is for the weakest storms. Category 5 is the strongest. The factors that determine a hurricane's strength include air pressure at the eye of the storm, range of wind speeds, potential height of the storm surge, and the potential damage caused. A hurricane's ranking is upgraded or downgraded as it goes through its stages of development.

Wind speeds are the key distinction between categories. A category 1 storm has wind speeds between 74 and 95 mph, and causes minor damage. Category 3, where serious damage begins, has wind speeds of at least 111 mph. The strongest, category 5, have wind speeds 157 mph or higher. There is no category 6, though strong storms such as Dorian in the 2010s led to speculation that there might be.

Over the ocean, a hurricane generates waves 50 feet (15 meters) or greater in height. When a hurricane reaches land, it may pound the shore with a wall of water up to 20 feet (6 meters) high. This wall can produce severe flooding across 100 miles (160 kilometers) of coastline. Hurricanes also bring fierce winds and intense downpours of rain. A hurricane may have within it hundreds of strong thunderstorms, which form from very tall cumulonimbus clouds that produce rain along with thunder and lightning. The diameter of an average hurricane is about 350 miles (560 kilometers), but the largest hurricanes can have diameters of 900 miles (1500 kilometers). Coastal and inland communities to receive 6 to 12 inches (15 to 30 centimeters) of rain when a hurricane comes onshore. Tornadoes form on its periphery and as it dissipates.

Unleashing this much energy can cause tremendous damage. Strong winds can knock down buildings. Torrential rains are destructive to plants and property. Floods cause a large number of deaths. The extra tornadoes that hurricanes spawn cause their own share of damage, knocking over or picking up and dropping many objects. Areas that have been struck by hurricanes can appear swept clean. Recovery from a serious hurricane can take years.

Increasing Destruction

Hurricanes certainly appear to be getting stronger. Of the 126 tropical storms or hurricanes that hit the United States between the years 1949 and 1990, only 25 were Category 3 or higher. During the 20th century, only four category 5 hurricanes struck the United States.

The 2000s opened with a larger number of strong storms, several of which alternated between Category 4 and Category 5. Hurricane Katrina, which devastated Mississippi and New Orleans in 2005, grew to a Category 5 storm over water but was only at Category 4 when it made landfall in the U.S. As of the end of the 2019 season, four category 5 storms had already struck the U.S. since 2000. Every year between 2016 and 2019 saw a category 5 storm form somewhere in the world.

Increasing global temperatures can strengthen hurricanes and increase their impact in several ways. For a hurricane, heat equals energy. The hotter the ocean water and the air, the bigger the storm can grow and the faster the winds will blow. Scientists think that warmer oceans are increasing the top wind speeds of hurricanes. The hot ocean water is getting deeper, which allows storms to intensify rapidly. Hurricane Dorian in 2019 had sustained winds of 186 mph, which is extremely strong.

Storm surge causes much of the damage done by hurricanes. Storm surge is ocean water that is pushed onshore by high winds and low pressure and that can flood coastal areas. It can resemble a tsunami, with deep water rushing into inhabited areas. Sea levels have already risen measurably, which puts the water that much closer to structures and allow storm surge to reach more property. In a flat area, this water can travel quite far inland. 2019 Hurricane Dorian's storm surge cause significant damage to the low-lying Bahamas.

Heavy rainfall also cause serious damage. Warmer weather is making rainfall stronger and increasing the overall amount produced by storms.

As hurricane winds blow faster, the storms themselves seem to move more slowly. A 2018 study found that storms moved 10 percent more slowly in 2016 than in 1949. Storms in the north Pacific have slowed down 20 percent from earlier years. The slower the storm moves, the more time it has to cause damage. Dorian was one of the slowest-moving storms ever recorded, giving it ample time to devastate the Bahamas.

The islands of the Caribbean are especially vulnerable to hurricanes, both because of their location, which is in the path of many Atlantic storms, and because many of them are quite flat. In addition, as islands, they all have significant amounts of coastline. Coastal areas in the mainland are also at risk. Hurricanes force people to evacuate in large numbers, and can prevent them from returning home for months while their houses are rebuilt.

Source Citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hurricanes, the most intense form of tropical cyclone, are massive spinning thunderstorms with strong winds. Hurricanes cause serious destruction every year. Hurricanes form over warm ocean water, and the warmer the water, the stronger the storm can be. It is now well known that the climate is warmer than it used to be, and is likely to get warmer still.