Science is the best way to dig out the truth of the natural world, but that doesn’t prevent many people from denying truths that are inconvenient or contrary to their preconceptions or faith.

ENLARGE

U.S. 30, east of Blair, Neb. June, 2011, Iowa DOT

The stunning floods, tornadoes, droughts and heat waves in 2011 caused more Americans to accept global warming — even if climate whizzes are chary of attributing individual weather events to the warming trend.

In the last month, denial of global warming has subsided in the wake of a string of floods, droughts and heat waves, culminating in the “summer in March,” 2012. Although Americans’ attitudes toward warming ebb and flow, on April 17, a Yale University poll reported that 69 percent think global warming is affecting the weather in the United States.

In the same month, however, a Discovery Channel series called “Frozen Planet” attracted ire when scientists noted that it documented massive melting at the poles, but ignored the “why?” question. Scientists have said for decades that polar warming would be an early sign of global warming.

In the recent past, this phenomenon of “denialism” has also appeared in doubts about issues that have long been settled in the scientific community, such as whether:

An April conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison delved into the origin and development of denialism. Is a refusal to face facts growing more common? Are there better ways to explain how the world works?

Denial in the brain

Scientists, by training, are professional skeptics, but if after decades of debate 97 percent of them accept the link between greenhouse gases and global warming, why are so many unconvinced? “The theory is that if we tell people what we know, they will change,” says Arthur Lupia, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, but that ignores how people really listen and make decisions.

Speaking to a high-level gathering of science journalists in Madison, Lupia said the problem does not reside with the audience. “The problem is us. Our expectations aren’t consistent with how humans react to information, what they will listen to, or what they will remember. People don’t pay attention, or they don’t remember what we said or what we intend them to remember.”

To change an opinion, you must first attract and then hold the audience’s attention, but attention wanders all the time. No matter how important you think your message is, Lupia says, “Biology does not change its rules … about when people will think about things that challenge them. … If I am saying something abstract, that does not connect to your core aspirations,” you may be more interested in counting tiles on the ceiling.

Can you hear me now?

To communicate with a general audience, Lupia says, “You have to make it close, concrete, immediate. I understand the joy of telling the whole story about climate, but there are some audiences that can’t handle it; in their reality, it’s not the most immediate thing. They might be more receptive if you make the conversation about pollution, energy security or energy costs.”

Information is filtered by attention and ideology, Lupia concludes. “Learning is always an away game. All the real action occurs in the audience’s heads,” he says.

Reasoning: Logical or “motivated”?

Ideally, science adheres to logical reasoning: the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

But psychologists say it’s common to see “motivated reasoning,” the tendency to fit new information into existing attitudes.

Making a judgment or decision can often involve a “fundamental tension between believing what you want and believing what you have to believe based on the information in front of you,” says Peter Ditto, professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California-Irvine.

“There is overwhelming evidence” that hopes, fears and social connections affect our judgments, Ditto adds, “but it’s not just that we believe whatever we want. I want to be taller, but I don’t believe that because the data won’t let me.”

Since processing information and making judgments have major emotional components, the standards for evidence are skewed in favor of reinforcing our preconceptions. We are more skeptical about ideas that are new, or that conflict with our thoughts and opinions, Ditto contends.

Over the course of evolution, bad events — but not beneficial ones — forced our ancestors to focus on whether to fight or flee. “People are the same way about information,” says Ditto.

The social element in motivated reasoning surfaced in a 1950s experiment, when six people convinced a seventh, the only real subject, that two lines were equally long. One line was clearly shorter than the other, Ditto says, “But six of them are confederates, and a substantial number of [subjects] go with the obviously wrong answer. That’s the power of having other people who believe as you do. It’s much easier to believe something that does not comport with reality if a whole bunch of others” hold the same erroneous belief.

History of denialism

Although denial of global warming and the erroneous link between vaccines and autism both originated in the 1990s, the organized rejection of evolution dates to the 1920s, when some American Christian fundamentalists promoted creationism — a Biblical explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

In a 2009 survey, 87 percent of scientists, but only 32 percent of all Americans, agreed that organisms have evolved over time through natural processes. Thirty-one percent of Americans thought humans and other living things “have existed in the present form since the beginning of time.”

Scientists and other Americans certainly have a different understanding of how organisms change through time!

Scientist data and general public data from Pew Research Center for the People & the Press surveys, May-June 2009. For question wording, see survey toplines. Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Reprinted from Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Much of the attention to the issue comes from battles over teaching of evolution or creationism in public schools, but there is “a lot of misunderstanding,” about the anti-evolution movement in the United States, says Ronald Numbers, a professor of the history of science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and longtime student of the movement.

Although creationism is commonly considered a backlash against science, “Virtually nobody in the movement [in the 1920s] thought of themselves as anti-scientific,” Numbers says. “They were denying the scientific status of evolution.”

The dictionary defines science as “organized, certain knowledge about nature, and they said, ‘Nothing is certain about evolution, nobody has seen it.’”

During the 1970s, primarily in response to court decisions, creationism morphed into “creation science” or “scientific creationism,” Numbers says. “The anti-evolutionists realized that evolution had a great deal of scientific support … so their approach was that they, too, were scientific.”

Unlike most anti-evolutionists in the 1920s, the new creationists used a literal interpretation of the Bible to date creation to less than 10,000 years ago. But this created a problem, Numbers says, since according to the Bible, on the sixth day, “God created the animals and Adam named them all.”

No way Adam could rattle off the more than 1 million names of the modern species so quickly, but Numbers notes that the Bible refers to “kinds,” not “species.” If those “kinds” — created in Eden and saved on Noah’s ark — were equivalent to taxonomic families, they could have evolved into the profusion modern species.

“So creationists can accept evolution within the family, and all the evidence for speciation is welcome, because in only about 4,300 years since the flood, they have to have evolution of all the species,” says Numbers. “It’s evolution in fast-forward,” but only among closely related species.”

Even if “kind” equals family, anti-evolutionists exempt humans from this reasoning, allowing them to reject human descent from apes — our fellow hominids.

“It’s strange, I know,” says Numbers. “They are anti-evolution, but most of the evidence evolutionists use against them, they are happy to embrace! One thing that has not been true for 50 years, but lingers in the popular mind, is that creationists deny all forms of evolution.”

The manual of denialism?

Evolutionary biologists regard evolution through natural selection as the organizing principle of biology. Yet for 30 or 40 years, surveys have shown a substantial fraction of Americans, even a majority, who do not “believe in” evolution, Sean Carroll, vice-president for science education at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, told the denial conference.

Carroll, who like many biologists is aghast at the effort to squeeze evolution into a biblical straitjacket, says, “The denial of evolution was my introduction to denialism.”

ENLARGE

American Museum of National History

In 1954, children got a “Polio Pioneer” card, and a piece of candy after getting a jab of polio vaccine.

Typically, biologists have approached the evolution debate by amassing evidence, but “it’s never been about the data,” maintains Carroll, who is also a professor of genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “And if it’s not about the data, what are we talking about?”

An earlier example of denialism occurred in the 1950s, after Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, a breakthrough that halted a dreaded, paralyzing disease.

Many chiropractors, Carroll found, opposed vaccines since they negated the central premise of chiropractic — that all disease results from misalignment of the vertebrae. “It shocked me. They actively opposed, disputed the efficacy of the polio vaccine. The opposed the March of Dimes, and federal and state efforts to get everybody vaccinated.”

Five hallmarks of denialism

The opposition continued — even after the polio epidemic tapered off as a result of the mass vaccination that started in 1955, says Carroll. And he identifies the tactics used then as a “playbook” of science denial that is echoed in more recent struggles over evolution, vaccines and global warming:

We just don’t agree!

Add it up, and the theme is this: The science must not be allowed to endanger a key philosophy, Carroll says.

But the cost of denialism is high, Carroll maintains. “It’s difficult, as an evolutionary biologist, to realize that half the county is deaf to anything you have to say, especially if the story you have to tell is about a magnificent achievement, understanding the complex relationship of living things on the planet, the deep history of our species.”

To reach young people, Howard Hughes has begun producing and giving away a series of videos on evolution called The making of the fittest.

Go to links for videos

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

To bring science to the masses, Hughes has produced videos on evolution; this one describes how cold-water fish evolved “anti-freeze” genes.

The idea is to engage in storytelling — to help people understand and remember facts by putting them into a narrative framework, Carroll says. As a professor, he’s seen the power of a story. “When I got lost, off-topic, and students see me years later, they say they still remember some of those stories, and I know they don’t remember any of the genetics. Stories count.”

Time (dis)honored tactics

Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California at San Diego, has written about the “merchants of doubt.”

The message, she says, is simple: The facts are not all in. We need to hold judgment until the scientists agree.

This kind of corrosive doubt — in the face of scientific certainty — is “very depressing” if you “believe that knowledge is power,” Oreskes says. “Knowledge is not powerful enough — an ideology is more powerful still. It’s about ideas, not facts.”

During the last half-century, she says, “Political powers are willing to attack rational truths, and those who deliver them.”

There is also money at stake in many of the issues, especially in the case of climate change, which threatens the fossil-fuel industry.

Car exhaust from eutrophication&hypoxia; smoky butt from Raul Lieberwirth

What do these have in common? Many companies in the oil and tobacco industries have sown seeds of doubt about the long-term effects of their products.

The model for such campaigns, Oreskes said, came from the tobacco industry in the 1960s. Facing growing evidence linking their profitable product to lung cancer, the industry settled on a strategy of promoting “Questions, manifested in a memorable maxim: “Doubt is our product.”

And for decades, doubt helped big tobacco deride and deny a tidal wave of evidence that cigarettes cause lung and heart disease.

December, 2011, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

After the crazy weather of the past year, pollsters have seen a bump in the number of Americans seeing “solid evidence” for global warming.

The same strategy, Oreskes says, was adapted to undermine “nuclear winter” (the discovery that huge clouds of ash and dust released during nuclear war could freeze and starve the planet), the dangers of the insecticide DDT, acid rain caused by power-plant pollution, the ozone hole, and global warming.

The tactics were to “challenge the evidence, claim the science is not settled, cherry-pick the data, to demand balance from journalists and threaten to sue if they don’t,” says Oreskes.

Changing the climate change story

The basic physics of global warming have been known for 100 years, Oreskes said. Scientists started exploring the subject with early computerized climate models in the 1980s.

In 1992, Oreskes said, the first President George Bush, “Called for concrete action to protect the planet. We had political leadership that committed us to doing something, yet we never did take the concrete steps that Bush called for. It’s a story about political challenges, selling uncertainty, about science in the age of denial.”

The doubters, funded by the oil industry, included some prominent Cold-War physicists who had been advocates for Ronald Reagan’s anti-missile defense system. “They said the science was unsettled, that it would be premature to act,” says Oreskes, who was intrigued to find that one of those physicists, Frederick Seitz, had been a consultant to the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company.

In 1998, Seitz organized a petition against the Kyoto Protocol, the first international agreement to control greenhouse gases.

Seitz and his fellow doubters, Oreskes says, “Found a new enemy: environmental extremism. You see anxiety about environmentalists as socialists, using climate change as a lever to effect social or economic change.”

What began with a handful of people with roots in the Cold War has since spread to “a range of free-market think tanks, including the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute,” Oreskes says.

The arguments against the settled scientific debate over warming, she adds, “are not just different interpretation of the data; that’s a normal part of scientific life. This is not about normal scientific claims. These are the scientific equivalent of saying Belgium invaded Germany during World War I.”

Why deny? Because it works, Oreskes implies. Almost 25 years after the scorching summer of 1988 brought global warming into the public sphere, the United States has yet to get serious about controlling greenhouse gases.

“We ignore the facts of nature at our peril,” says Oreskes. “Ignoring them is not going to make them go away.”

On March 10, atmospheric chemist “Sherry” Rowland of the University of California-Irvine died in the company of his son and his wife of almost 60 years. Rowland became prominent in the 1970s after warning that common chemicals would destroy ozone 10 kilometers above Earth, exposing life to a shower of harmful radiation.

While exploring how chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) degrade after being released into the atmosphere, Rowland and graduate student Mario Molina realized the CFCs would float to the upper atmosphere, be cleaved by sunlight, and release chlorine that would destroy ozone through a chain reaction.

(Ozone contain three oxygen atoms; most oxygen molecules contain two oxygens.)

By intercepting cancer-causing UV radiation, ozone in the stratosphere allows life to exist on Earth. Significant damage to this ozone would cause an epidemic of human and animal cancer, and likely damage plants as well.

This alarming prospect was not popular in industries that relied on CFCs, but it sparked a long and largely successful effort to restrict and then ban production of the chemicals.

And although Rowland never retreated from his findings, his calm, charismatic personality helped his cause. Ralph Cicerone, now the president of the National Academy of Sciences, recalls collaborating with Rowland on CFCs. “We talked on the phone nearly every day. I considered Sherry to be my best friend, and over time I learned that many people considered him to be their best friend, too. In the midst of the debates over CFCs, he never exaggerated the dangers, always cited the science, and treated other people with dignity and respect.”

What must a scientist do?

According to the University of California-Irvine’s press service, Rowland knew his results mattered far beyond the lab: “Mario and I realized this was not just a scientific question, but a potentially grave environmental problem involving substantial depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Entire biological systems, including humans, would be at danger from ultraviolet rays.”

At the time, scientists were studying the health implications of ozone-bearing smog in the lower atmosphere, but few people knew or cared about “good” ozone in the stratosphere.

The sudden notoriety of CFCs had a certain irony: The chemicals were invented in the 1920s at General Motors, maker of Frigidaire brand refrigerators, as a stable, non-toxic alternative to the ammonia and explosive propane used in air-conditioning and refrigeration.

CFCs later were used to expand plastic foam, clean electronic parts, and propel paint and deodorant in the mushrooming aerosol-spray business.

Antarctic ozone hole, 2011

   

Video: NASA

Chlorine and bromine in the upper atmosphere cause rapid ozone destruction in the super-chilled polar winter. Although the ozone “hole” (blue) is declining with the phase-out of CFCs, it still recurs.

They publish lest we perish!

Rowland’s 1974 study¹ ignited a long squabble over CFC production. Aerosol Age, the spray-can industry’s trade journal, implied that Rowland was a member of the Soviet KGB who wanted to destroy capitalism!

CFCs remained a back-burner issue, however, until the British Antarctic Survey discovered an alarming absence of ozone in 1985. The “Antarctic ozone hole” gave the theoretical worry sudden significance, and as the industry gradually found substitutes for CFCs, the ozone hole stopped expanding.

Today, as we watch the faltering response to global warming, it’s comforting to recall that the ozone threat prompted prompt collective action: The Montreal Protocol, a treaty to restrict CFC production, became effective in 1989 and has since been tightened after further alarm over ozone destruction, and 196 nations — essentially all of them — have signed the original Protocol. Production of ozone-depleting substances has fallen by more than 95 percent.

“CFCs were extremely useful compounds and their use was pervasive,” says Rudy Baum, editor in chief of C&EN (Chemical and Engineering News). “Although manufacturers maintained that there would be dire consequences if the use of CFCs were restricted or banned, it became clear pretty quickly that alternatives could be found in most cases.”

And yet ozone is still a problem, as shown by a 40 percent drop in Arctic ozone in the winter of 2010-2011. Continuing destruction is blamed on the stability of CFCs and the fact that the replacements, while less damaging, still destroy ozone. “Ozone can be thought of as a patient in remission, but it’s too early to declare recovery,” said Susan Solomon of the University of Colorado.

Not bounded by the lab walls

Nonetheless, the Montreal protocols are considered an epochal case of planetary preventive medicine, and Rowland, Molina and Paul Crutzen, who also worked on CFCs, were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

But for 10 or 15 years, Rowland had played the role of maverick — speaking outside the laboratory about the importance of what he had found inside it. It’s not a comfortable role for many scientists; many find it safer to stay in the lab and let others figure out what to do with their results.

Jonathan Fink, vice-president of research at Portland State University, says “The culture of science is pretty deep in terms of how we are trained. Most science grad students are taught to focus on being the best at something, rather than thinking about the application of what they do to society.”

All along, Rowland explained the science and gently reminded us of our stake in an intact ozone layer. He continued to study atmospheric chemistry, mentor younger scientists, and show by example how scientists could speak responsibly about what their results mean for the rest of us.

Somehow, Rowland managed to fight his battles without making enemies, at least outside the industries that had inadvertently begun calamitous destruction of ozone.

Why do scientists like Rowland speak out? “Because they’re scientists and scientists are addicted to facts and what facts tell them,” says Baum. “I knew Sherry Rowland pretty well — I was the West Coast correspondent for C&EN from 1991 to 2004 … he was a gracious, dignified, reserved individual, certainly not a rabble-rouser. But he knew that his science was solid and that it told him that humans were doing something that would have catastrophic consequences if they didn’t stop. So he spoke out. Simple as that.”

A new disaster unfolds

Even before the Montreal Protocol was signed, climate scientists were starting to warn that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would enhance the greenhouse effect and trigger global warming. In testimony to the U.S. Senate in the torrid summer of 1988, NASA climatologist James Hansen linked rising temperatures to rising levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.

The debate over global warming and climate change had begun, and going public put Hansen in much the same position as Rowland had occupied 15 years before. Via email, Hansen credited Rowland and atmospheric scientist Don Hunten as “role models… . They showed that it was possible to do first-rate science and also uphold our responsibility to make clear the implications of our research for society.”

Rowland redux?

Until then, Hansen had been a well-regarded but faintly visible NASA expert in planetary atmospheres. He had studied Venus, where an atmosphere choked with carbon dioxide produces a “runaway greenhouse effect” that raises the surface temperature to 460° C.

After making news in 1988, Hansen retreated from the public discussion of warming, but in the early 2000s, as temperatures continued to rise, he began to speak up again. In 2005, after the Bush White House tried to muzzle him, he went public with a vengeance.

Why? Journalist Mark Hertsgaard, who has written extensively about global warming and repeatedly interviewed Hansen, says he “thinks like a scientist, believes if you find the information, and present it properly, the truth should carry the day. I think he came out of hibernation in 2005 only because he felt he had to. He looked around and saw that the information alone was not carrying the day.”

Hansen’s regular emails combine climate facts with political opinions for a broad audience. For example, a recent commentary argued that “Scientists attempt to communicate, but are flummoxed by the ability of the profiteers to manipulate democracies. The scientific method (objective analysis of all facts) is pitted against the talk-show method (selective citation of anecdotal bits supporting a predetermined position).”

On Aug. 29, 2011, Hansen was arrested at the White House with hundreds of others protesting the Keystone XL tar-sand oil pipeline. Tapping such a vast reservoir of carbon, Hansen believes, will bring us that much closer to a “tipping point” on greenhouse warming. “Now we’ve got the spectacle of one of the world’s foremost climate scientists getting arrested and urging others to get arrested,” says Hertsgaard. “This is way beyond speaking out.”

Hertsgaard, a native of Minnesota, says it’s “very hard for [Iowa native] Jim Hansen the person to speak out.” In the Midwest, Hertsgaard says, “it is just not seemly to draw attention to yourself or bring up a topic that is likely to discomfort others. … but it’s not corny to talk without irony about the importance of doing the right thing.”

The scientific culture

A fully indoctrinated scientist is chary of talking much beyond the lab, Hertsgaard says. “Many scientists very much frown on taking the public agitator role, and that’s another tribute to Hansen’s courage. He was prepared not only to take brickbats from the Exxon-Mobil front groups, but to endure the judgment of his own peers, who said ‘That’s not what scientists do.’ He remembers that he’s not just a scientist, he’s a human being too.”

Despite the successful example of the Montreal Protocol, the global warming problem is vastly harder to solve, says Baum of C&E News. “The scale of fossil fuel use is several orders of magnitude larger …. Humans consume between 80 million and 90 million barrels of petroleum every day, and that represents only about a third of the fossil fuel that is consumed.”

Finally, while the specter of cancer caused by increased UV radiation is unsettling, “people actually like the warmer conditions, at least for now,” Baum wrote. “We didn’t have a winter in Washington, D.C., this year … and people loved it.”

So will the environmental victory over CFCs that started with Rowland and Molina be mirrored by serious action over global warming? Maybe not, says Spencer Weart, a long-time chronicler of warming. Comparing the ozone battle to the fight over global warming “is like comparing a single battle to a world war. Ozone depletion (once the ozone hole was detected) was clearly an urgent problem, with a straightforward solution. But with global warming, it’s hard for people to worry much about something that seems remote in space and time — isn’t it just a problem for polar bears and our grandchildren?”

Slowing warming “will require wholesale changes in our entire world economy,” Weart says. “And that must begin with government regulation of the fossil fuels industry, the largest concentration of economic power the world has ever seen. The pushback has been fierce, beginning with industries that suspected their profits would be restricted, and extending to people who fear governmental threats to their freedom.”

Rowland was once libeled as a Soviet spy, but “Scientists who have put themselves into politics like Jim Hansen … have been subject to ad hominem attacks: crude vilification and direct threats far beyond anything that Rowland experienced.”

Hansen and his colleagues, says Weart, “have persisted nevertheless. For the logic of their scientific understanding forbids them from keeping silent about the dangers they foresee.”

If you drop a worker ant from an Amazonian treetop, what happens? In the species Cephalotes atratus, 87 percent of the time, that ant will wind up back where it started — a few meters lower down the same tree. Drop things that drift down at random, and only 5 percent of them will hit the tree.

In other words, these ants are controlling their flight — even though they don’t have wings.

That finding, which Stephen Yanoviak, Robert Dudley and Michael Kaspari¹ reported in 2005, provides a great starting point for untangling one of the mysteries of biology:

When and how did so animals take to the air?

Fly high

Flight is pretty common — among critters with wings, or something that resembles them, like a stretched membrane of skin. Birds, bats, moths and butterflies can fly. Even some lizards, snakes, fish and squirrels can glide under control toward the ground, which is not the same thing as falling.

Studies of ants in South America provide good data on “controlled aerial descent,” says Dudley, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California at Berkeley. In the course of some rather entertaining research, he and his colleagues have found that Cephalotes atratus ants:

During the controlled descent, at speeds above 4 meters per second, the ants perform “rapid postural adjustments,” Dudley says. “The limbs are moving, it’s not like a paper airplane.”

Dudley, an expert in the biomechanics of flight, says hundreds of species of tree-living ants in tropical Amazonian forests have evolved controlled gliding. Dropping to the forest floor can make them a meal for a mean and hungry ground-dwelling ant.

Looking at evolution

Perhaps the coolest part of the story is its evolutionary angle. Previously, scientists intrigued by the origin of flight have looked for evidence of wings and feathers, which appear more than 100 million years back in the fossil record.

But if flight really originated in arthropods that could not survive a fall from a tree or a cliff, that could wind the evolutionary clock back a good deal further. (Arthropods are animals with external skeletons and jointed legs, including spiders, insects and crustaceans like the horseshoe crab.)

Gliding under control is neither rare nor constrained to ants, Dudley says. “There are wingless aphids and flat spiders that live under the bark that can glide at a 45° angle. Controlled aerial descent has hundreds or thousands of independent origins in terrestrial arthropods.”

As old as the hills?

Over all, Dudley says, directed descent probably originated about 280 million years. If jumping like a flea or grasshopper is also deemed a form of flight, the origin could date back more than 400 million years.

The gliding hypothesis would not only help explain the origin of a common and cool behavior, but could take wind out of the sails for a favorite anti-evolutionary argument. Creationists, Dudley notes, have long demanded to know how wings evolved by asking, “What good is half a wing?” But according to the gliding hypothesis, wings unable to hold an animal airborne could still have evolved to help control a descending behavior that had long been in existence.

Flight of the control freaks?

Controlled gliding, Dudley says, “preceded the origin of wings, and so the evolution of flight is more about control than about the formation of wings.”

The new analysis “addresses qualms about the [supposed] lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record,” Dudley says. “Here is a viable intermediate form. There are lots of behavioral and ecological contexts where stubby, partial airfoils are useful.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

UPDATE 27 APRIL 2012: The retired space shuttle Enterprise will fly over New York City today, aboard a jumbo jet, as part of the move to its final resting place at the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum on the Hudson River. END UPDATE

For advocates of space travel, the news is grim. In July, 2011, the last U.S. space shuttle was parked, as planned. Over 30 years, the shuttles helped build the International Space, but two explosions killed 14 astronauts, and each flight cost nearly half a billion dollars.

On August 24, 2011, a clogged pipe caused the crash of a Russian Soyuz rocket. Soyuz is a reliable space-truck whose ancestor launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in 1957.

With the shuttles in the old-age home, any delay of a Soyuz launch to resupply the space station, planned for Nov. 14, 2012, could force the station’s evacuation.

Abandoning the space station after a decade of continuous occupation might have limited scientific impact, as the station is not proving to be a scientific bonanza as promised. (However, on Sept. 21, NASA reported that a Japanese astronaut did perform “bubbling experiments” on green tea before staging a “traditional Japanese tea ceremony.”)

The growing problem of getting into space got more attention on Aug. 24, when a sub-orbital space taxi built by Blue Origin, a company funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, crashed in West Texas, setting back the nascent space-tourism industry.

People have been going into space for 40 years, but the process is neither cheap nor routine. For comparison, 40 years after the first automobiles, millions of cars were changing the U.S. economy and landscape. And 40 years after Kitty Hawk (1903), airplanes had circled the globe and become a dominant force in World War II.

So, 40 years after Yuri Gargarin became the first space-farer, why is it so hard to get people into space?

It’s the gravity, stupid!

The first clue to the difficulty of reaching orbit is evident in the controlled explosion needed to launch anything: reaching orbit requires a speed of almost 18,000 miles per hour and overcoming gravity.

And gravity is a stern customer.

Although gravity is fixed, a changing political backdrop has deprived the space program of its historic justification, says Howard McCurdy, a professor of public administration and policy at American University, and student of the space program. “The key problem, as a political scientist, was the end of the Cold War. Now the rationale for a lot of human space program is jobs, but in the absence of Cold War competition, we get these anomalies,” like thumbing a ride to space from your former enemy.

Faced with the prospect of being stuck on Earth, on Sept. 14, NASA administrator Charles Bolden announced the Space Launch System (SLS), a heavy-lift rocket and space capsule designed to reach earth orbit and beyond. “American leadership in space will continue for at least next half century,” Bolden said. “We have laid the foundation for success.”

Better than nothing?

The reaction to SLS was a bit ho-hum. The proposal “has been controversial because some say it’s just the same old technology, a combination of Apollo, Saturn V, and the shuttle, and we really should be advancing the technology, doing something new that will get us to deep space more quickly,” says astrophysicist Jack Burns, who has served on the NASA Advisory Council science committee, and is vice-president emeritus for academic affairs and research at the University of Colorado System.

But what else is there? Burns asks. “I look at SLS as a practical vehicle that will get a lot of mass into orbit, and then to the moon, the asteroids. Having a heavy lift vehicle, for the first time since the mid ’70s, when we did away with Saturn V, should be an important part of U.S. space architecture.”

The shuttle, whose demise has forced the current concern over space launching, was hatched in 1972, by Pres. Richard Nixon, who proposed a reusable, flying bus to reach low orbit and “take the astronomical costs out of astronautics.”

Getting to orbit didn’t turn out to be cheap: NASA chalks up the average price tag on 135 shuttle launches at $450 million.

Consternation over Constellation

In 2005, faced with mission failures and an aging shuttle fleet, Pres. George W Bush called for the shuttle program to end after the space station was constructed. As a replacement, Bush proposed Constellation, a new rocket, and Ares, a new spaceship, which would visit the moon and then Mars.

However much the Mars mission was beloved by space-travel enthusiasts, it carries certain health hazards…

Cost estimates for Constellation and Ares rose faster than a rocket and by 2010, the projects had black-holed $9 billion, and the guesstimated price of launching a single Ares-1 had reached $1 billion. So Pres. Obama trash-binned the twin projects and directed NASA to come up with something cheaper and faster – which turned out to be the poetically-branded “Space Launch System.”

The proposal has, as we’ve said, met grudging acceptance at best. “This is a turning point for all kinds of reasons,” says Michael G. Smith, a space historian at Purdue University. “The shuttle program is finished after 30 years — it was too expensive, too old — and the Bush program to take us to the moon is finished.”

Although NASA has another job — the SLS — the manned space program needs goals with more focus, Smith says. Because Obama has failed to set a clear challenge before NASA, “they have nothing to prove, no short-term mission.”

In a sense, Smith adds, the Obama plan conforms to American desires. “There’s a paradox. A Gallup poll says the American public wants a space program, and is proud of it, but does not want to pay for it, and that’s the Obama Administration approach: ‘We want something, we have announced something, without a clear-cut commitment to what it is.’”

Take the money and … design?

In an era that is short of cash and jobs, however, NASA has an immense constituency in its legion of employees, contractors and their employees, Smith says. “Lawmakers with NASA investment in their districts are challenging the administration’s lack of clarity.”

But viewing a space program as a jobs program is unlikely to maximize either cost savings or scientific breakthroughs. “NASA has half-lost the ability to innovate,” says McCurdy. “People are hunkering down like turtles, protecting what they have, playing defense to hang onto the field stations [such as Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama], and Congress is pushing them in ways that are inefficient for cost reduction. Most members want to know if contracts are still going to their districts.”

Space is inherently expensive, and McCurdy questions whether the current NASA budget will accomplish much space travel, or mainly rocket design and construction. “A big issue for NASA is whether the budget for exploration is going to be sufficient to actually develop, build and test the rocketry,” he says. “It looks like it will be sufficient to provide aerospace jobs, but they need a little bit more money to bend metal.”

Confronting costs

It’s odd, McCurdy says, that developing a new rocket and space vehicle are expected to cost $100 billion, considering that Saturn V, which launched Skylab and the moon shots, cost about $10 billion in 1960 dollars. “Multiply that by five to get today’s price — $50 billion — and that included the production line, a test vehicle and the actual rocket.”

Much engineering has been done for Constellation and previous rockets, and McCurdy, who acknowledges that the engineering and manufacturing expertise and the Saturn assembly line have long disappeared, wonders why NASA cannot produce a heavy-lift rocket for $50-billion.

Cutting the budget to the bone can be penny wise and pound foolish, McCurdy adds. “Once they got the assembly line going for Saturn V, it was very efficient, but if they build only one rocket every two years, it becomes more of a craft rocket.”

What are the other options for launching people into space?

Government rocket, private rocket

International rockets such as Ariane have gotten into the satellite-launch business, but most of them are not powerful enough to take people into orbit, or to leave earth orbit and reach the moon.

China, with one satellite orbiting the moon, and an imminent launch of an 8.5 ton component for its first space station, definitely has the lift capacity, but we’ve not heard about any discussions about launching U.S. space equipment.

Government is not the only game in town, however, and many hope that the genius of private enterprise will fill the gap, even if some of the efforts are watered with buckets of federal funds. If you place a challenge before rocket manufacturers, “both the startups and old horses, somebody may come up with a breakthrough,” says McCurdy. Even so, he adds, NASA must still “pick a winner before knowing whether it is a working design, and they are no better at that than I am at picking stocks.”

So how is the private sector faring in the human space travel biz?

the private role

Corporations are contending for two roles in space. Many are interested in space tourism, a business that began in 2001 with a seven-day visit to the International Space Station but today is focused on sub-orbital flights – spending a few minutes in micro-gravity beyond the edge of the atmosphere:

Photo: Jim Campbell/Aero-News Network

SpaceShipOne, built by Scaled Composites, slung beneath White Knight, the mother ship that lifts it toward the edge of space.

Blue Origin, a secretive operation funded by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com billionaire, is working on “New Shepard,” a sub-orbital vehicle. According to the website, “We’re working, patiently and step-by-step, to lower the cost of spaceflight so that many people can afford to go and so that we humans can better continue exploring the solar system. Accomplishing this mission will take a long time, and … we do not kid ourselves into thinking this will get easier as we go along.” Blue Origin has a NASA contract to develop a taxi for hauling astronauts to orbit, but recently lost a spaceship at 45,000 feet.

Scaled Composites, an advanced aircraft maker, won the $10-million X-prize in 2004 for attaining 328,000 feet twice within 10 days. The firm is working with Virgin Galactic to enhance its a sub-orbital spaceship-mother-ship combination. Virgin says 430 private-nauts are already put down a deposit for flights that will cost $200,000.

Xcor Aerospace is also selling seats on an unfinished spaceship, for a suborbital flight priced at $95,000, starting with a spare-change deposit of $20,000. Buy now, and your seat-mate could be a Victoria’s Secret model… Honest!

Let’s really go to space!

Above the sub-orbital realm, however, comes the real high-technology interest: resupplying the space station, or reaching the moon or an asteroid. In this realm, one company has grabbed most of the headlines: SpaceX, founded by PayPal founder Elon Musk.

SpaceX is developing two types of “Falcon” rockets, and has a $1.6 billion NASA contract to launch 12 loads of cargo to the space station (the first flight is scheduled for Nov. 30), in NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program. (Orbital Science Corp. is the other contractor in the program.)

In December, 2010, SpaceX became the first private company to launch and recover a spaceship. “The technology has advanced,” says Burns, “but so far SpaceX only has a couple of launches of the Falcon 9. It’s a long way from that all the way to orbit, with real live astronauts. It’s a risky venture.”

SpaceX says it emphasizes reliability, and the business end of Falcon 9 houses nine individual rocket engines. The rocket is supposed to reach space even if one engine goes kaplooey.

A human role remains

When President Ronald Reagan proposed and promoted what is now called the International Space Station, a howl went up among scientists who called it a diversion of resources from the more productive unmanned spacecraft. Carting people around raises the price and the stakes at every stage of design, production and operation, and these scientists accurately forecast a fruitful program of robotic exploration — everything from the Hubble Space Telescope, to the Opportunity and Sojourner rovers on Mars to the Galileo spaceship that explored Jupiter.

Those robots were awesome and inspiring, says Burns. “Opportunity is U.S. technology, it’s something we all should be proud of it, it has well exceeded its lifetime, the engineers were very clever in the design and operation. That good old-fashioned American ingenuity ought to get kids excited about going into science, engineering, math, whether that gets directed to space or something else.”

The manned vs. robot argument had merit in its time, given that the space station alone has cost NASA north of $50 billion (with other countries contributing about the same amount), and NASA never has enough money for all the scientists who write grants, which leads some critics to question whether the money is well spent, or would have been more productive if spent on funding conventional science.

But the manned vs. robot dichotomy may be fading, says Steven Collicott, a professor of aeronautics and astronautics at Purdue University, who placed an experiment about the fluid flow in micro-gravity on the space station. “There is a great benefit to doing both. The astronauts who have operated space station experiments I have been involved in have been incredibly creative thinkers, problem solvers.”

The flow experiment cannot be performed on Earth, Collicott says. “We do everything we can to test on earth, or on short-duration, low-gravity [aircraft] flights, but there are times when … the camera position needs to be changed, or a liquid gets trapped. An astronaut can unbolt and shake the experiment … or act on their observations to explore a new phenomenon immediately, without reprogramming, relaunching or rebuilding, which involves years and millions of dollars.”

Human hands, eyes and brains are irreplaceable, Collicott says. “If people were not needed for research of this type, why would we be spending money to send people to Antarctica each year?”

human vs. robot — the dichotomy wanes

“I never felt comfortable with the manned versus unmanned argument,” says Purdue’s Smith. “We have always pursued both [approaches]. Satellite, probes and telescopes… There is no ICBM [inter-continental ballistic missile] system without satellites, there is no exploration of the moon or Mars without the [robotic] probes we have sent there.”

More on the manned vs. robot issue…

Yet despite the phenomenal allure of space-telescope photos, manned exploration plays a critical motivational role, Smith adds. “Without an orbital station, and the public interest and international cooperation that revolve around it, NASA can’t do anything. Satellites and probes just don’t drive that public interest.”

What Smith calls “fierce debates” between astronomers, who favor robotic exploration, and engineers who favor manned exploration are “not about policy or philosophy, they center on funding; those seem to me very parochial questions.”

Burns offers one suggestion for merging people and robots: sending astronauts to a low-gravity point above the far side of the moon (which never faces Earth), where they could control a moon rover. “Astronauts who are familiar with geological exploration could operate the rover in real time, there’s much less delay [in the radio signals]. They could visit the oldest [known] impact basin in the solar system, and it would not require a human lander, would be cheap, and would give you the kind of experience that is going to be needed” for further exploration of the solar system.

The quest to populate the solar system would entail a search for signs of life – and for water and useful minerals, Burns says. “This is going to require knowledge of geology, chemistry, astronomy and mechanical engineering; it will be very different than the first few flights to the moon that were just trying to get there. I argue that the difference between manned and unmanned travel is going to start to fade.”

Historic moment

Tele-operation, as remote-control is currently called, is being used every day by earthbound “pilots” in Nevada to fly drones in the Middle East, highlighting the firm link between space engineering and the military.

Rockets and satellites have military roots, and the space race was an early and intense focus of Cold-War competition, as the United States and Soviet Union both relied on German rocketeers who had helped the Third Reich try to conquer Europe. Now the United States and Russia, World-War II allies, then Cold-War enemies, have become allies once again, at least in terms of space cooperation.

Dating back to the late 1950s, Smith says, “Space policy has always been as much about perception as reality. It goes all the way back to the first ballistic missiles, the space race, the missile gap.”

John F. Kennedy warned about a “missile gap” while running for president, and even though it proved illusory, the fear of Soviet supremacy — Sputnik was in orbit while American rockets were exploding in front of TV cameras — supported the development of missiles that could be used for global nuclear war or putting men on the moon.

The result was lavish budgets for rockets and space.

But the easy goals have been reached, and visiting the moon is so last-century. Visiting an asteroid will answer important scientific questions, but will never have the sex appeal of visiting the man on the moon. As Smith says, today, “We are in another gap; an ambition gap.”

David J. Tenenbaum

We approach the Cave of the Mounds, a landmark (so to speak) in Southwest Wisconsin, along a walkway painted with fossils and markings that start at the Ordovician era (450 million years ago), when the limestone beneath our feet was deposited as a rain of sea shells on an ocean floor. Finally, at the cave’s entry, the asphalt calendar enters the last million years, when the cave started to be excavated by flows of acidic water.

The geological markings under our feet are one indication that the cave-men and -women who operate this site are intent on linking past and present, above- and below-ground.

Cave of the Mounds was discovered in 1939 by workers blasting in a limestone quarry on one of the highest spots in southern Wisconsin. Today, it is a tourist destination with a message — a cool, underground mecca, strategically illuminated, where tour guides leave the nettlesome lectures above ground, and offer easy-to-digest science along the cave’s alleyways.

The above ground section of the site features resurrected prairies and oak savannas, but the main attraction is the stalactites hanging over stalagmites, flowstone, the fossils embedded in ancient limestone, and the rare opportunity to see geology at work as you observe the earth from the inside out.

Aftermath of a flood unparalleled

What caused the huge erosion features, ancient shorelines, and scoured potholes in the “channeled scablands” in Eastern Washington state? In 1923, J. Harlen Bretz coined that ominous moniker and proposed that the features had been created by a gigantic flood.

During this time, geology was ruled by a “uniformitarianism” dogma, which highlighted gradual processes like deposition and erosion, and discounted the power of sudden events like floods (and perhaps even earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes).

Skeptics demanded to know the source of all that water in an arid region, and Bretz had a reputation as a kook. Then, geologists gradually realized that the ice-age flood had originated to the east, in glacial Lake Missoula, which had been plugged by the lobe of a glacier emanating from Canada.

In the 1950s, the idea that this huge lake had eaten through an ice dam and then coursed downstream with phenomenal power started gaining acceptance, and in 1979, Bretz, age 96, received the highest award from Geological Society of American for solving this great Earth riddle. Today, scientists believe the floods may have recurred every few years or decades as the ice age was waning, around 14,000 years ago.

The evidence for the floods comes in all sizes. Alternating stacks of coarse gravel and fine sand show gravel left by flood currents under sand left by slower water when the floods receded. A dry river bed called the Grand Coulee, in Eastern Washington, was gouged by the astonishing flow of uncorked glacial melt water. The periodic cascades that shaped Dry Falls, now in Sun Lakes State Park are considered the largest known waterfalls in Earth’s history.

The unbearable whiteness of being

The world’s largest field of gypsum dunes, at White Sands National Monument in south-central New Mexico, could arouse anybody’s inner drywaller, as gypsum is the mineral basis for both drywall and plaster. But here, where 275 square miles of gypsum dunes have built a hot, severe and scorchingly beautiful landscape, there’s not a sheet of drywall in sight.

Set aside as a national monument by President Herbert Hoover in 1933, the dunes trace their origin to vast deposits of hydrated calcium sulfate — gypsum — that were laid down on an ancient lake a quarter-billion years ago. After a geological uplift, they were exposed roughly 10 million years ago, and eventually moved to the present site in a geologic eye-blink — the last 7,000 years.

Mammoth tracks have been seen in the dunes, but they could get buried with time: Some dunes are moving 30 feet a year, as the wind piles them up on the windward side and gravity avalanches them down the lee.

The gypsum dunes are said to be the largest in the world, but what’s most amazing is not the geology, but the evolutionary adaptations life has used to survive these harsh conditions. At least seven species of animals, including three lizards, that are closely related to darker varieties living in the surrounding desert have turned white for camouflage in this bleached world. (The drywalling lizard or the plastering mouse must be here somewhere!)

Visiting the Sands? Ponder a trip to Trinity, the site of the first test of the atomic bomb.

Science museums: Try the trifecta!

The Windy City boasts not just one, but three cool science destinations, all next door to each other on the Museum Campus along the shore of Lake Michigan.

To explore some of the world’s biological and cultural wonders, spend the day at the Field Museum of Natural History, a collision of anthropology, botany, geology, paleontology and zoology. The permanent exhibits include the DNA Discovery Center, a journey through four billion years of earthly life, and Sue, the largest (and most expensive?) complete skeleton of the ferocious T. rex. Among the temporary exhibits was a recent one on the horse and its deep relationship with humans (an exhibit that particularly excited one horse-crazy Why Filer).

If your palate is whetted for a wetter world, walk to the Shedd Aquarium to explore underwater life from the Amazon, the Caribbean and both poles. Green sea turtles, beluga whales, moray eels, piranhas and penguins will be among your hosts.

If otherworldly science is more your thing, visit the Adler Planetarium. Chat about the stars with real space scientists at their Space Visualization Laboratory, or just sit back and watch the star show. Adler’s centerpiece is the Doane Observatory, the largest publicly accessible telescope in the Chicago vicinity. While you can only peer through the lens after dark, this could make for a great conclusion to your trip.

Discover a life aquatic

An Australian freshwater crocodile grows in Baltimore. Seriously. The National Aquarium Baltimore boasts more than 660 species of fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, totaling around 16,500 marine creatures.

In addition to its rich marine menagerie, the aquarium has a collection of special exhibits and interactive oceanic enjoyment. See the world through a dolphin’s eyes at Our Ocean Planet, a show that teaches visitors about dolphins and the connections between people and their seafaring friends. Or soak in ocean sensations with a movie at the 4-D Immersion Theater, where you can experience sea life in multiple dimensions, including the smell and feel of (simulated) mist and wind. Or take an expert-led tour, including behind-the-scenes peek of the sharks’ quarters.

The aquarium is also a center for conservation. For example, its Marine Animal Rescue Program tracks the progress of rescued animals after release. Other conservation projects include restoring wetlands and investigating the impacts of mercury on the marine food chain. After all, protecting the life that sustains the ocean ecosystem benefits everyone—not just aquarium visitors.

An excursion exotic to Melville

What’s more breathtaking than seeing the world’s largest animals in the wild? Whale watching puts you up close and personal with these magnificent marine mammals. Since the 1950s, in a 180° turnaround from Herman Melville’s day, people have been flocking by the boatloads to glimpse whales doing what they do rather than to kill them.

Both the U.S. east and west coasts have whales to watch, though you must catch them in the right season during their migration. There’s no guarantee, but on the western seaboard, you could spot orcas and gray whales. The east is home to the right, fin and sei whales. Humpbacks, minkes, and blue whales troll both coastlines.

Several cetaceans (a scientific category including whales, dolphins and porpoises) are endangered, including the North Atlantic right, blue, fin, sei and gray whales. In any case, marine mammals are heavily protected by law, so whale watching should be done with professionals who obey the rules.

Celebrating, protecting southern nature

With more than 500 full-time employees and an annual budget exceeding $30-million, Audubon Nature Institute sounds more like a business than a private, non-profit organization dedicated to explaining and preserving the wonders of nature with a Cajun flavor. The group operates a zoo, aquarium and assorted parks in and around New Orleans. The Aquarium of the Americas focuses on the Caribbean, Amazon, Gulf of Mexico (complete with oil-drilling replica) and Mississippi River.

A primate exhibit in the Audubon Zoo shows dozens of our opposable-thumbed relatives. Its 360 species of animals include a jaguar shown in a replica Amazon jungle. The “Embraceable Zoo” is devoted to full-contact animal admiration, and you can also eyeball, if not pet, a prickly Indian crested porcupine. Audubon maintains two locations that focus on captive breeding and survival of endangered species; these are closed to the public, but we expect to see you at the new insectarium, located in the old Federal customs house, for the beetle races on Sept. 3.

North Carolina: decapitation capitol

Every summer, vacationers flock to North Carolina’s coast for a beach getaway. But beach vacations would have been a hard sell early in the 18th century, as the coast was the stomping grounds of the South’s most feared pirate, Edward Teach, otherwise known as Blackbeard.

Nowadays, the area is proud of its sordid past, attracting pirate-curious tourists and archaeologists alike. In 1996, Blackbeard’s biggest and final ship, Queen Anne’s Revenge, was found off the coast of Beaufort, where it had been hiding for more than 270 years. While the dives did not uncover much treasure, archaeologists estimate the wreckage holds up to 750,000 artifacts, some of which are displayed at Beaufort’s North Carolina Maritime Museum.

Blackbeard is a primary local industry. Ocracoke Island, a favored Blackbeard anchorage, was where he met his fate at the hands of what he mocked as a rabble of “cowardly puppies.” Bath has the legendary ball of light, presumed to be Blackbeard’s ghostly severed head.

So why watch Johnny Depp impersonate a pirate at the multiplex when you can check out the history of this famous scoundrel? Like we said, this old, dead, head-free pirate is a godsend for small business…

Tar is my name. Fossils are my fame

If you’re stuck for a scientific sojourn in Southern California, head for the pits. Since long before there was a Los Angeles, the La Brea Tar Pits have been an oozing, 3-D flypaper for animals, now with that all-too-trendy urban accent. Asphalt, we learn, is not just good for roads, but also for trapping live animals and preserving their fossils. Since their first description in a scientific publication in 1875, the pits have produced prodigious prizes for paleontology. The onsite Page Museum houses more than 650 species of plants and animals, all removed from the black goo, and dating back 11,000 to 50,000 years.

The tar pits were a graveyard for thousands of carnivores, including the dire wolf, coyote and saber-toothed cat, and a smaller number of herbivores, including mammoth and bison. In an effort to transcend the “heroic” era of paleontology and flesh out (if we can put it that way) a comprehensive picture of life in the era of ice, researchers have recently shifted their focus to fossils of plants and smaller animals, including millipedes, 31 species of mollusks, and 25 species of beetles.

Listen hard: Hear the galaxies?

Love big? Dig distant, mysterious and unfathomably old? At the Very Large Array, in western New Mexico, you can gawk at 27 giant antennas used by astronomers to “listen” to radio signals from the universe. When you’re done rubber-necking the hardware, check out exhibits at the visitor center.

Then climb an observation tower to get another view of the world’s premier radio telescope zoo. Notice how every single antenna has silently and inexorably changed its orientation, and is now pointing to another invisible spot in the heavens? You are looking at visual proof of our planet’s normally insensible rotation.

It takes a lot of work, and some hefty equipment, to pry loose the secrets of the universe, and here, the scale of the operation is written across the desert. Since 1980, the VLA has, alone or in tandem with other telescopes, been collecting the astrophysical evidence for the formation and destruction of stars and galaxies. The new “enhanced VLA” can “hear” three times as many radio bandwidths as the VLA and is 10 times more sensitive. How sensitive is that? They say it could hear a cellphone calling from Jupiter…

Go under cover in the capital city

Explore life under cover (and the technology that allows a spy to hide in plain sight) at the International Spy Museum, the only public museum of its kind in the United States. With the largest public collection of international espionage artifacts, the museum provides a unique global perspective of this covert profession — said to be the second oldest — and how it has shaped the past and present.

Before you start your mission, you are challenged to adopt a secret identity. As you snoop about, you’ll discover the Secret History of History, which highlights the influence of spies through the ages; gadgets and stories of espionage during the American Civil War, World War II, and Cold War; and a gallery of spy technology. You can even see if you have what it takes to be an agent in the Operation Spy interactive experience, in which you must find a missing nuclear trigger before it ends up in the wrong hands. Just don’t blow your cover!

Visit the “Boneyard”

Warplanes go to the desert to die, and there, for a fee, you can tour thousands of mothballed fighters, bombers and helicopters at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center. Bus tours run from the Pima Air and Space Museum, on the outskirts of Tucson, Ariz. With more than 4,200 planes, the “boneyard” is the ultimate in aerial combat nostalgia.

Some of these planes will be scrapped, others may be sold or salvaged for parts, or pressed back into service during future wars. Seldom celebrated, but perhaps more important from a technological point of view, the site also stores 350,000 tools used to make these machines, including, we presume, the one-of-a-kind tools and dies used to shape jet engines, wings and fuselages.

Ogling killing machines may seem macabre, but then, if you are a U.S. taxpayer, you’ve already paid for this stuff… might as well check it out, and witness how the technology of aerial warfare has changed over the decades!

Edison’s Garden of Invention

In 1887, after he had patented the first practical electric light bulb, mega-inventor Thomas Edison invented an inventor’s playground in West Orange, N.J., just outside Manhattan. Edison stocked the lab with every resource needed to crank out movie cameras and projectors, teletypes, recording and playback devices, batteries and countless other electric gadgets for the fast-modernizing nation.

With labs focusing on chemistry and physics, and with shops devoted to woodworking and metal-working, Edison could concentrate on his strong points: cranking out ideas and masterminding publicity stunts that helped ensure his commercial success. During World War I, 10,000 people cranked out electrical devices for the military at the factories clustered around the lab. Edison worked at the West Orange lab until his death in 1931.

Think of Edison as primarily an inventor? Then you have to wonder how his name wound up on the companies selling electricity to New York and Chicago. God may have made the Garden of Eden, but Thomas Edison made the garden of invention in north Jersey, and it awaits your visit.

– David J. Tenenbaum & Jenny Seifert

Fish in the Gulf of Mexico: How safe?

The fire and deadly explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20, 2010 spewed a gusher of crude oil — about 4.4 million barrels — into the Gulf of Mexico.

The blowout flooded all levels of the Gulf with oil. And that oil, combined with millions of gallons of an oil-degrading chemical, raised questions about the health of Gulf seafood, both shellfish and finfish.

Fishing is major in the Gulf of Mexico, which in 2008 produced 15 percent of total weight of U.S. commercial fishing, and which has more sport fishers than any other American region.

Within two weeks, as a precaution to prevent the sale of contaminated fish, the government began closing parts of the Gulf to commercial fishing.

A report published today in Environmental Health Perspectives reviews the aftermath: How big was the threat? Did the closures harm the fishing industry by giving, in effect, official endorsement to the idea that the fish were contaminated? Were there any gaps in protection?

Not very filthy

The report came to an optimistic conclusion: government-sponsored studies of Gulf fish since the blowout found no significant contamination with heavy, persistent compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. “I don’t know that we have any evidence that the fish were contaminated, ever,” says study first author Julia Gohlke, an assistant professor of environmental health science at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

PAHs can cause cancer and are often used as a measure of hydrocarbon contamination. According to the new study, “Federal seafood testing results released to date” show PAH levels at roughly 1 percent of the “level of concern” that the Food and Drug Administration established for assessing food safety after the Deepwater blowout.

Other results, she says, have focused on total hydrocarbons derived from oil, rather than PAHs. “My analysis looked at what the government has done,” she says. “There are independent reports of contamination that I tried to include, but they did not measure PAHs, only total petroleum hydrocarbons.”

Large oil spills are so ominous that people can overreact, says Gohlke. “People see an oil spill and fisheries closures and assume everything must be contaminated, and nobody wants to eat anything. There is a misunderstanding of what is considered contamination. There is now a large dataset, at this point, to show there hasn’t been significant hydrocarbon contamination to date.”

Gohlke and colleagues looked at data on the BP blowout, and previous oil spills from around the world, to compare toxicity levels and evaluate the procedures used to close and open fisheries. The project was funded by a grant from the Walton Family Foundation to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Looking at samples taken during and after the blowout, no results suggested that eating fish – whether with shells or fins – would contain elevated levels of PAHs, says Gohlke, who cautions that monitoring should continue for years because buried oil may re-enter the water and contaminate fish.

After the BP spill, fishing was banned in as much as 37 percent of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast. These bans were precautionary, since they were made in advance of contamination tests, says Gohlke.

Although “safe, not sorry” can be justified, closures can also have unintended consequences, or even backfire, she says. “Part of me thinks the precautionary approach is appropriate, but I don’t know how it has contributed to consumer confidence. Without sufficient risk communication, precautionary closures may create an expectation that the fish is contaminated. The last survey I saw, from February, suggested people were still considering Gulf seafood to be contaminated.”

“I think they make some pretty good recommendations to continue monitoring for PAHs,” says Ron Kendall, director of the Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech University. “There is a lot of debate about underwater oil mats that are still floating, and how much oil may still be on the seafloor or in coastal marshes. With hurricane season approaching, we don’t know what kind of remobilizing of suspended oil and the mats will take place.”

To date, Kendall says, the data show that seafood has safe levels of PAHs, but “You’ve got to understand that all this oil is not gone. This story is still unfolding.”

Trust Charles Darwin to be his own severest critic. Having expounded a revolutionary evolutionary theory of natural selection, he realized that the past gives birth to the present. Darwin knew about fossils, including the famous, three-section trilobites, that dated to the Cambrian period, now known to have begun about 540 million years ago.

Never one to duck logic, Darwin wrote:

Indeed, according to J. William Schopf, professor and director of the Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life at UCLA, what came before was totally mysterious when Darwin wrote “Origin of Species” in the 1850s. “Darwin knew about the Cambrian era, and the big extinctions after that were known, but he knew nothing about the earlier fossil record. This was the case for about 100 years.”

And then, starting in 1953, University of Wisconsin-Madison geologist Stanley Tyler noticed ring-like structures in rocks in Minnesota and Ontario’s Gunflint formation.

The rock — a fine-grained quartz relative called chert — was 1.9 billion years old – almost four times as old as the earliest Cambrian fossils.

Tyler, collaborating with Elso Barghorn at Harvard, recognized the circular structures as stromatolites, mushroom-shaped rocks formed by layers of microorganisms called cyanobacteria. In 1965, the two reported that stromatolites were the oldest fossils ever seen.¹

I can see you now!

Why did it take so long for Precambrian life to be recognized? “They had assumed that it would be like younger life, there would be coral, snails and trilobites,” said Schopf, an expert on the oldest life. “The basic problem was that a wrong assumption had been made. Life in the Precambrian turned out to be substantively different in organization and size.”

By exploring the interior of rocks using an increasing array of scientific techniques, Schopf and a growing group of colleagues have found life as early as 3.5 billion years ago.

Not bad for a planet with an estimated age of 4.7 billion years.

Double-not-bad, considering the exceeding scarcity of truly ancient rocks, hidden through the constant tectonic churning of the crust. The oldest rocks yet located are 3.8 billion years old, but any fossils they contain have been distorted by severe heat and pressure.

Still, Schopf said, four lines of evidence show the ancient roots of life on our planet: microfossils, molecular biomarkers, proportions of carbon isotopes and stromatolites. Stromatolites are layered rock formed by layers of microorganisms called cyanobacteria (formerly blue-green algae), which produce oxygen in sunlight.

While some of the fossilized microorganisms found in ancient rock apparently have gone extinct, the cyanobacteria closely resemble living organisms, Schopf told an audience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on April 26. “Cyanobacteria do the same sort of photosynthesis as a blade of grass today. These are the guys that invented this process, probably 3-plus billion years ago.”

As testimony to nature’s predilection for retaining stuff that works, other fossil microorganisms resemble modern counterparts that require oxygen, cannot tolerate oxygen, or use it when convenient. “We’ve found 12 to 15 major families of cyanobacteria, the same ones that are important today, the same ones that are seen throughout the geological record,” Schopf says.

Tyler did not live to see the publication of his 1965 article, but it revolutionized paleontology, and has been cited by scientists at least six times since 2010.

“Stanley Tyler was a hero for this world,” says Schopf. “As [microbiologist Louis] Pasteur said, chance favors a prepared mind. Here was an economic geologist [concerned with finding minerals and mines] … and yet he saw these scrubbly things, and thought, ‘I bet they are fossils,’ even though they were almost two billion years old. This is the guy who made the discovery.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

The prospect of peak coffee raises the menace of massive caffeine withdrawal, with hordes of headachy addicts rendered into grouchy slackers. Could a cut in coffee production also cost us the many health benefits that coffee seems to provide?

For ages, the bitter black brew has been scorned as jet fuel for jittery insomniacs, providing nothing more than a momentary surge of focus and energy.

But recently, some researchers are starting to see java as the juice of the gods: In some studies, coffee appears to be protective against dementia, type 2 diabetes and even several types of cancer.

Coffee, it turns out, is loaded with polyphenols, anti-oxidant chemicals that fight damaging free radicals, which are implicated in many of the diseases of aging.

Caveat quaffer

Before we fill our cup with a discussion of the health benefits of coffee, remember these cautions:

For all these reasons, we are not prescribing coffee as medicine. But then, do we drink coffee for medicine, or for the taste, the excuse to talk things over with a friend, the acceleration physical and mental energy?

So bottoms up, and let’s check some recent studies showing how coffee affects dementia, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer

Coffee: Good for your brain?

Many studies over the past decade have suggested that coffee can partly block Parkinson’s disease, a movement disorder that afflicts millions of elders. In 2006, ² researchers reported on a 22-year study of Finns – who boast Earth’s highest average coffee consumption – and found that people who drank more than 10 cups a day had about one-quarter the risk of Parkinson’s as non-drinkers. (Do Finns ever finish guzzling? While only 5 percent of the sample abstained, about 10 percent drank at least 10 cups a day!)

The researchers suggested that since Parkinson’s may be caused by oxidative attack on neurons, coffee’s protection may arise from its anti-oxidants.

Several studies – the results are inconsistent but suggestive – have linked caffeine and coffee with a reduction in Alzheimer’s disease. In 2010, after a 21-year study, researchers from Finland and Sweden³ reported that “coffee drinking of three to five cups per day at midlife was associated with a decreased risk of dementia/Alzheimer’s disease by about 65 percent at late-life.”

Research using mice with a genetic tendency to Alzheimer’s shows that coffee and caffeine improve learning and memory while reducing the beta amyloid plaques that mark Alzheimer’s. In 2011, when Gary Arendash and Chuanhai Cao of the University of South Florida compared coffee, caffeine and decaf,⁴ coffee was most effective at stimulating chemicals that apparently defend against Alzheimer’s. The researchers wrote that “coffee may be the best source of caffeine to protect against [Alzheimer's disease]” because another coffee chemical acts with caffeine to enhance protection.

Arendash did not respond to our email but said in 2009 that he’s seen “evidence that caffeine could be a viable ‘treatment’ for established Alzheimer’s disease, and not simply a protective strategy. That’s important because caffeine is a safe drug for most people, it easily enters the brain, and it appears to directly affect the disease process.”

Coffee ‘n cancer

Can coffee help protect against cancer? Sometimes.

Photo Florida Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center

Caffeine removed harmful beta amyloid plaques from the brains of mice that simulate Alzheimer’s disease.

A study of coffee and liver cancer followed 60,323 Finns for a median of 19.3 years. After adjusting for factors like age, alcohol and smoking, the hazard ratio of those who drank four to five cups was 0.44.

Hazard ratio means the probability of an outcome, compared to the reference group (non-drinkers, in this case). All other things being equal, abstainers were three times as likely to get liver cancer as those who swilled eight cups a day.⁵

To decipher conflicting or inconclusive studies, scientists can pool data using meta-analysis, a technique that sets standards for acceptable studies and then statistically groups the results.

In 2010, Mia Hashibe, in the department of family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah re-analyzed⁶ nine studies and found a 39 percent reduction in mouth and throat cancers among people who drank at least four cups. “Since coffee is so widely used and there is a relatively high incidence and low survival rate of these forms of cancers, our results have important public health implications that need to be further addressed,” said Hashibe. With such a large sample, “We had more statistical power to detect associations between cancer and coffee.”

If we shift the focus to all cancers, a new meta-analysis⁷ of 59 studies showed that each additional cup of coffee reduced the incidence of cancer by 3 percent.

The results concerning breast cancer are less encouraging. A 2008 report⁸, based on data from 85,987 women, found no significant link to coffee, decaf or tea, except for a slight reduction in breast cancer among post-menopausal women who ingested a significant amount of caffeine.

Similarly, a 2009 study in the Netherlands ⁹ found no association between coffee and breast cancer.

Ironically, coffee contains a chemical that could stimulate the many breast cancers that respond to estrogen by growing, according to Clinton Allred, an assistant professor of nutrition at Texas A&M University. Allred, who has found large amounts of a plant estrogen called trigonelline in coffee, says, “This is one of the least studied compounds I have ever been around.”

In the lab, Allred showed that trigonelline can affect cells even when it is thousands of times more dilute than the effective concentration of isoflavone, a common plant estrogen found in soy.

Allred is not worried about trigonelline, since people have been guzzling coffee for a long time, and plant chemicals consumed in a whole food or beverage act differently than they do in isolation in the lab. “People with a healthy diet that is high in plant products are exposed to these kinds of compounds all the time.”

A diabetes connection?

Could coffee slow the epidemic of type 2 diabetes, which disrupts sugar metabolism, which raises blood sugar that harms small blood vessels in the kidney, eye and heart? A 2006 study¹⁰ of 88,259 American women showed that drinking at least four cups of coffee reduced the diabetes rate to 53 percent of the rate among non-drinkers. Although both coffee and decaf (but not tea), were beneficial, diabetes prevention was most closely linked to coffee intake rather than caffeine intake.

According to a meta-analysis¹¹ based on more than 450,000 people from Asia, North American and Europe, “Every additional cup of coffee consumed in a day was associated with a 7 percent reduction in the excess risk of diabetes type 2. … Drinking three to four cups of coffee per day was associated with an approximate 25 percent lower risk of diabetes… .”

If coffee reduces diabetes, could it deter cancers associated with diabetes? A 2007 exploration¹² of the soaring rate of cancer after World War II in Japan linked coffee to reductions in liver and pancreatic cancer in men, and liver, colon and endometrial cancer in women. The authors speculated that coffee could reduce resistance to insulin, “and may thereby reduce the risk of diabetes-related cancers such as colon, liver, pancreas and endometrium.”

A matter of the heart

A 2010 study¹³ of 37,514 Dutch people found a slight benefit for coffee in heart disease: People who drank two to three cups a day had only 79 percent the rate of heart disease as abstainers, but the reduction was not statistically significant. Above 4 cups per day, the rate returned close to the no-coffee rate. Coffee did not affect the rate of strokes.

However, Swedish researchers studied¹⁴ people after a heart attack, and found that drinking one to three cups of coffee reduced the odds of dying to 68 percent of the risk for abstainers.

We put down our coffee mug with a jittery hand, wondered whether swilling coffee could harm the heart, and phoned Richard Page, a professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Page, an expert in arrhythmias – the irregular heart rhythms that can cause deadly heart attacks – said, “It’s hard to demonstrate a relationship between caffeine consumption and arrhythmias, but there are case reports. I see a number of patients with arrhythmias, particularly atrial fibrillation, and occasionally we see some relationship with excessive consumption of caffeine.”

Although Page was not alarmed by coffee, he was not so sure about the mega-doses that were linked to health benefits in some studies. “I would be cautious; I have heard of a couple of adolescents developing atrial fibrillation (a hard-to-treat arrhythmia) after taking monster energy drinks; I don’t think such high doses of caffeine are good for people.”

The bottom line

If Captain C seems helpful against some cancers, dementia and diabetes, is it guaranteed to extend your life? No. A European study¹⁵, for example, found that “Neither coffee nor tea consumption was associated with stroke or all-cause mortality.”

A long American study, using data from 41,736 men (followed for 18 years), and 86, 214 women (24 years), found a slight, significant trend toward fewer deaths from all causes; those who drank at least six cups a day had a death rate just 80 percent (men) to 83 percent (women) of the non-drinkers. The main benefit was a reduction in cardiovascular disease.

However, coffee consumption did not affect cancer deaths, after adjusting for factors like obesity and smoking, and the authors concluded, ¹⁶ “The possibility of a modest benefit of coffee consumption on all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality needs to be further investigated.”

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but then, did we promise a simple answer?

Would you like your triple-espresso with soy milk?

For decades, one name has dominated discussion of the ancient New World: Clovis. Tools representing the characteristic Clovis technology, first found in Clovis, New Mexico, in 1929, have long been considered the product of the first inhabitants of the Americas. With a tool style that’s been found across much of North America, Clovis was the best-selling brand in “the first Americans” competition.

Clovis technology is apparently a home-grown phenomenon, as it’s never been found in Northeast Asia, the source of migrants into the New World.

The oldest solid date for Clovis people is 13,100 years ago, says Michael Waters, an archeologist at Texas A&M University. Now, in an article in Science on March 25, Waters and colleagues argue that tools have been found near Austin, Texas, that date to 15,500 years ago.

The researchers found 15,528 artifacts at a site called Buttermilk Creek. Most of their finds were flakes busted off while making stone tools, but the site also yielded 56 stone choppers, points and scrapers.

Using a technique that calculated when an object was last in direct sunlight, “We took the most conservative route to estimate the age,” says Waters, who directs the Center for the Study of the First Americans at A&M. The stone tools and flakes were probably made by a band of hunter-gatherers who paused at the creekside site.

Looking for a date

Because no organic remains were available for carbon-dating, the scientists relied for dating on optically stimulated luminescence, or OSL. “OSL has been around for a long time, has been employed in geology for 30-plus years” for dating windblown sand and silt, says Waters. “It’s been compared to radiocarbon dates, toe-to-toe, and in all cases, OSL ages have been determined to be comparable.”

The OSL dating, which essentially figures how long something has been buried, took place at the University of Illinois, in Chicago, under the direction of Steven Forman.

The find at Buttermilk Creek is the latest — and one of the better documented — archeological sites to break the Clovis barrier. Others pre-Clovis finds have been made in Oregon, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even Chile.

The news got WhyFilers wondering:

How convincing?

To get the skinny on the Texas discovery, we phoned Steve Shackley, a professor of anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley. “Proof does not exist in science,” he told us, “but Mike [Waters] has made good, defensible arguments.”

Much of the discussion about the Buttermilk Creek site concerns the vertical position — the stratigraphy — of stone artifacts, and the Waters team went to great lengths to show that older material was under younger stuff, as expected in an undisturbed site. Undetected dislocations can confuse archeologists, who tend to think deeper is older and shallower is younger.

Buttermilk Creek actually offers a three-fer: Clovis artifacts are sandwiched above those now identified as pre-Clovis, but below artifacts are in a more modern style. “This site has all these time periods, superimposed, in the correct order,” says Shackley. Because Waters is “one of the foremost” experts in analyzing the geology of archeological sites, “I think it’s going to be difficult to defeat his stratigraphic work. He’s been very careful about it.”

Douglas Bamforth, an archeologist at the University of Colorado, says the Waters team has avoided three errors that often destabilize ancient archeological claims:

“They have absolutely dated the site, they absolutely have artifacts, and the article talks in great detail about how intact the sediment was, they have really addressed whether the artifacts are in place,” says Bamforth. “They have refitted the [stone] flakes to the tools; I am totally convinced they have an intact site” and solid dates.

But that does not prove, to Bamforth, that the artifacts are pre-Clovis — they may be early Clovis. “The deep levels at the site are certainly older than the oldest carbon-14 date on Clovis-style projectile points, which Waters very emphatically argues is the beginning of the Clovis period. But the first problem with seeing the deep levels as different from Clovis is that there seems to be exactly nothing in those levels that differs from Clovis [as the site does not contain arrow- or spear-points that would prove or disprove the case]. … So I do not see why the site is not just early Clovis.”

Not so fast!

Aware that the latest find may be seen as final vindication for the “Clovis was not first” viewpoint, we phoned Thomas Dillehay, professor of anthropology at Vanderbilt University and the University of Southern Chile, who fought for decades to have Chile’s Monte Verde site recognized as pre-Clovis. Now that Monte Verde is finally accepted as one of the best-confirmed pre-Clovis sites, we figured the experience would make Dillehay receptive to the new find.

We were wrong. “I have a mixed opinion,” Dillehay told us, proceeding to list some shortcomings in the study. “It would be most convincing if there was standard radiocarbon dating, and even better if those dates were taken from features like hearths and food stains. OSL dating has become more reliable, but it’s still not as reliable as carbon-14, although the sequences do line up very nicely with sediment dating.”

Dillehay has questions about the three-layer sandwich of pre-Clovis, Clovis and post-Clovis material. “I’m not saying the materials are mixed. Geologists, to identify the strata, applied these excellent, meticulous sediment and particle analyses, but there was no clear visible stratigraphy to distinguish Clovis from pre-Clovis, and again this does not meet standard archeological criteria.”

Dillehay also points to the lack of “diagnostic, complete projectile points in either the Clovis and pre-Clovis material. In a discipline that has placed incredibly heavy emphasis on formal projectile points as the primary criteria for acceptance of a site, along with C-14 [radioactive carbon] dating, and geologic stratigraphy, I find this sort of acceptance, which seems to be uncritical, to be a major shift in the discipline.”

Still, Dillehay says “the interdisciplinary work is first rate, and I admire the multidisciplinary approach. But had there been C-14 dating and diagnostic projectile points, all this extraneous analysis would probably not be needed.”

It certainly would be nice to find arrow- or spear-points, says Waters, but “You can’t dictate what you will find. You have to roll with the punches.” Further excavation may or may not reveal a “smoking gun projectile point,” Waters adds. “We don’t know what kind of weaponry they used. In Siberia and Alaska, people were using a lot of bone, ivory and antler weaponry, and it might be that early folks in North America were using this as well.”

But due to heat and humidity, such organic material would not be preserved in the Texas site, he says.

Migration routes

The timing of human occupation of North America bears heavily on their migration route from Northeast Asia, which is accepted, for geographic and genetic reasons, as the source of the first Americans. The melting of the last ice age during the Clovis period, starting roughly 11,000 years ago, producing an ice-free corridor through Northwest Canada that would have allowed transit into the North American interior.

But the region was clogged with glaciers a few thousand years earlier, meaning that any early immigrants would have moved along the coast, either on foot, or via short hops in boats.

The possibility of coastal movement got a boost in a study¹ published March 4, which reported the discovery of stone tools dating from 11,400 to 12,200 years ago on the Channel Islands west of Los Angeles.

According to study leader Jon Erlandson, an archeologist at the University of Oregon, the ancient residents of these offshore islands made delicate stone tools to hunt in the ocean. “The points we are finding are extraordinary, the workmanship amazing. They are ultra thin, serrated and have incredible barbs on them. It’s a very sophisticated chipped-stone technology.”

The stone artifacts are quite different from the fluted points left throughout North America by Clovis and the later Folsom peoples, who hunted big game on land, said Erlandson. “This is among the earliest evidence of seafaring and maritime adaptations in the Americas, and another extension of the diversity of Paleoindian economies.”

The find is yet another reason to doubt that Clovis was first, says Shackley. “When you get dates to 11,000 or 12,000 years ago, out on islands, that makes it tough for the Clovis-firsters, who reject maritime entry. On the Channel Islands, they had get out there by boat,” and if they were already using boats, that means they could also have boated down the West Coast, he adds. “A lot of people accept that now.”

But even if people did move south along the coast rather than inland, Dillehay says they probably needed a long time to reach Chile. “There are hundreds if not thousands of rivers that descend the western slope of the mountain chain from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and every river, whether major or secondary, is a temptation to head upriver,” slowing the overall southward movement.

Photo: University of Oregon Northern Great Basin Field School

In Paisley caves in south-central Oregon, researchers uncovered pre-Clovis artifacts and the oldest human DNA discovered in the Americas. Radiocarbon dates show that people lived in the caves between 12,000 and 14,340 years ago.

And if Monte Verde was occupied by 14,500 years ago, this logic suggests that people reached North America much earlier than even the 15,500 pre-Clovis date in Texas.

Should we trademark the “pre-pre-Clovis” brand?

At any rate, the increasing number of solid pre-Clovis finds answers a riddle: How did Clovis artifacts appear in so many places at roughly the same time? According to the Waters report, “These data are evidence that by 15.5 ka [thousand years ago], human populations occupied the continental United States… . The sites of Cactus Hill, Virginia, and Miles Point, Maryland, hint that these [pre-Clovis] technologies may have been present a few millennia earlier. This early occupation of North America provides ample time for people to settle into the environments of North America, colonize South America by at least about 14.1 to 14.6 ka (Monte Verde, Chile), develop the Clovis tool kit, and create a base population through which Clovis technology could spread.” ²

When science gets ossified

Although we’ve covered the Texas discovery as a bit of gee-whiz archeology, it’s more accurate to say that the discipline proceeds by stacking study atop study, says Sissel Schroeder, a professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and expert on ancient peoples of the Americas. Although most of the signs left by people who lived in North America will never be found, if they even still exist, “We work with the best information we have. The very small samples of data can make some of our interpretations less robust. Archeology is a cumulative science, so future finds can potentially add confirmatory evidence, or can disconfirm earlier conclusions; you just have to be open to recognizing that your interpretations could change.”

But scientists, like other people, can get stuck, she adds. “It seems easy for certain interpretive frameworks to become quite entrenched, and repeated over and over again. Into the 1920s, it was hugely debated that there were even people in the Americas” at the end of the last ice age. “There were a number of very provocative finds that led scholars to suggest that people had been here at the end of the Pleistocene [about 12,000 years ago], but wasn’t until the find at Folsom, New Mexico [in 1926] that scholarly acceptance began to develop.”

The Folsom find, soon followed by the discovery of those distinctive fluted points near Clovis, New Mexico, sparked “a transformative intellectual step for archeologists,” says Schroeder. “This was a radical shift in thinking.”

“You build a reputation based on a particular perspective,” says Bamforth, “and it’s hard to see evidence that is in opposition; we all believe we are really good at what we do.” Those who gain fame for overturning the conventional wisdom can wind up in the opposite corner, defending their own views long after contradictory evidence arises.

Some early claims for pre-Clovis sites were based on faulty excavation or inaccurate dating, which left a tradition of doubt, Bamforth says. For example, erroneous radiocarbon dates arose after dig sites were contaminated with groundwater. And European-style artifacts unearthed in the Hudson River valley, once interpreted as evidence for ancient European immigration, actually came from ship’s ballast that was dumped into the river, Bamforth told us.

Once archeologists got used to refuting claims, that skeptical attitude itself became entrenched, says Bamforth. “Because people were making such poor claims, very powerful people in the field clamped down on any claims for antiquity, and often the rejected claims turned out to be correct. People at the Smithsonian famously had nothing to do with Folsom until finally the evidence carried the day. There’s a famous photo showing a Folsom spearpoint between the ribs of an extinct bison. That’s proof you can’t argue with.”

Clovis-first is dead, at long last!

After 40 years of assault, Clovis-first seems dead at last. The Texas find “anchors the fact that people were here in the 14,000 or 15,000 year range, there is no longer an argument with that,” says Bamforth.

As the technology of archeology improves, Waters expects some of the most interesting finds to emerge from South America. “We have this North American bias. I’ve heard a lot about early sites in South America of the same age [as the Texas site] or older that nobody hears about. If you think about the immensity of South America, there is no way Clovis was first. There are going to be some amazing finds in the next 10 years, given the South American evidence, the work with genetics and DNA. The story of the first Americans is going to stay exciting.”

– David J. Tenenbaum

When Deepwater Horizon blew up and melted down in April, the wound it tore in the Earth’s crust released a gusher of crude oil, estimated at 4.2 million barrels, into the Gulf of Mexico.

The massive microbial munching of methane during the BP spill may be the only good news from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The blowout also released about 160,000 tons of methane. If you counted molecules in BP’s blowout, methane (CH₄), the simple hydrocarbon that fuels stoves, furnaces and electric generators, was the single most abundant one.

But a report published in today’s Science shows that BP’s methane was totally devoured by microbes in the Gulf of Mexico, leaving less than .01 percent of the methane to enter the atmosphere. “We measured the sea-to-air flux of methane and found it was completely negligible,” says first author John Kessler, an assistant professor of oceanography at Texas A&M University.

Within four months of the April 20, 2010, blowout, a population explosion among methane-eating bacteria native to the Gulf decomposed virtually all of the methane, mainly in deep water, says Kessler.

Study author John Kessler extracts a water sample from a device that detects changes in water conductivity and temperature with depth.
NOAA Pisces.

The study offered three lines of evidence that bacteria were “eating” the released methane:

• Methane levels in the Gulf fell up to 10,000 times between June and October.
• Methane-munching microorganisms became extremely abundant downstream of the blowout. “Over the summer, the methane degraders were higher than we have ever seen at any other place in the world,” says Kessler.
• Dissolved oxygen in the water dropped as methane and oxygen reacted to form carbon dioxide and water, Kessler says. “Once we summed up all the lost oxygen in the area of the methane plume, we saw that it could only be explained by a complete [microbial] consumption of this methane.”

Although oxygen depletion is already a concern in the Gulf’s “Dead Zone,” the average loss was only 3 percent, Kessler says.

In a previous study, ethane and propane, two other natural gases that BP also released, decomposed even faster than methane, and were no higher than background levels by early fall. In both studies, Kessler collaborated with David Valentine of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Cool news for your atmosphere

In the short term, spilled methane is less environmentally dangerous than crude oil, but it can pose a global warming problem in the long term, since a molecule of methane stores much more heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide.
Methane seeps are frequently found at ocean floors, where methane from decomposition enters the ocean. And unfathomable quantities of frozen methane are stored beneath the seabed.

So inquiring minds want to know: If and when this methane enters the ocean, could it reach the atmosphere and accelerate global warming?

Pisces, a research ship of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was a floating laboratory to study Deepwater Horizon's aftershocks.
Photo: John D. Kessler/TAMU

The giant Deepwater spill contained too little methane to affect atmospheric levels, says Kessler, “but it does simulate a very energetic release from a seep or a methane hydrate, and so we were interested in using it as an analog for understanding how a massive submarine release of methane might behave.”

Although the microbes-eat-methane story provides a rare bright spot in BP’s ecological disaster, it’s not clear what would happen in shallow water, and in places lacking natural methane and a ready supply of methane eaters.

“The Gulf of Mexico has many natural methane seeps,” says Kessler, “that probably account for why Gulf waters are populated with these microorganisms, which are ready to degrade methane once there is a massive restocking of their ‘buffet.’ How this may play out at another place, without the natural seeps, I’m not sure.”

Within four months, bacteria had spawned enough offspring to devour essentially all of the added methane in the Gulf. “But if the bacteria are at lower abundance, would this take five months or two years? We don’t know.”

– David J. Tenenbaum