And Yet It Moves

Science buffs will recognize the title as the (possibly apocryphal) quote Galileo muttered after he was forced by the Catholic Church to recant his assertion that the earth moved around the sun, contrary to church dogma. We’re in an era where it is the Trump Administration, not the church, forcing people and organizations to accede to things they don’t really believe in, whether they are law firms, universities, media companies, or big corporations, to name a few.  

Galileo at his Inquisition

That’s why I was so pleased when last week the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) not only didn’t take a knee about the Trump Administration’s dogma about climate change being a hoax, they also didn’t just mutter their objections. They issued a lengthy report outlining how climate change is very real, is largely due to human contributions, and is extremely bad for us and the planet.  

And yet it moves indeed.

The NAS was spurred into action by an EPA announcement proposing to rescind an Endangerment Finding issued in 2009 by the Obama EPA. “With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” EPA Administrator Zeldin said. “In our work so far, many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.” He was practically giddy.

Not so fast, the NAS report says. Its overarching conclusion: “EPA’s 2009 finding that the human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases threaten human health and welfare was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence.”

The report lists five key conclusions:

• Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities are increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere.
• Improved observations confirm unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions are warming Earth’s surface and changing Earth’s climate.
• Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change harm the health of people in the United States.
• Changes in climate resulting from human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases harm the welfare of people in the United States.
• Continued emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities will lead to more climate changes in the United States, with the severity of expected change increasing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted.

Pulling no punches, it says: 

In summary, the committee concludes that the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused GHGs is beyond scientific dispute. Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved and new threats have been identified. These new threats and the areas of remaining uncertainty are under intensive investigation by the scientific community. The United States faces a future in which climate-induced harm continues to worsen and today’s extremes become tomorrow’s norms.

I.e., “And yet we are endangering ourselves, and the planet.”

Shirley Tilghman, professor of molecular biology and public affairs, emeritus, and former president, Princeton University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report, was more diplomatic: “This study was undertaken with the ultimate aim of informing the EPA, following its call for public comments, as it considers the status of the endangerment finding. We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making.”

There was, of course, reaction. For example, Representative James Comer of Kentucky, the leading Republican on the House Oversight Committee wrote the NAS President to issue his concerns, calling the report “a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration.” Pretty much what I’d expect from him.

The current flap is very similar to the reaction to a “report” issued in July by a working group for the Department of Energy disputing climate change. That resulted in a scathing response by dozens of leading environmental scientists:

Our review reveals that the DOE report's key assertions—including claims of no trends in extreme weather and the supposed broad benefits of carbon dioxide—are either misleading or fundamentally incorrect. The authors reached these flawed conclusions through selective filtering of evidence ('cherry picking'), overemphasis of uncertainties, misquoting peer-reviewed research, and a general dismissal of the vast majority of decades of peer-reviewed research. 

Meanwhile, EPA is telling its scientists to stop publishing until/unless its political appointees approve of the research, similar to what has happened at NIH and NSF. Science isn’t supposed to be political, and suppression of convenient scientific findings can only last so long. Just ask the Catholic Church about Galileo’s theory.

If you’re still on the fence about climate change and think maybe the EPA has a point, I want to point out a couple of related studies issued recently:

Production Gap 2025 report: this report, issued by Stockholm Environment Institute, the Climate Analytics thinktank and the International Institute for Sustainable Development, points out that, although many countries have publicly pledged to reduce use of fossil fuels, they’re generally planning to increase production over the coming decades – more than doubling the amounts consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.  

Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: over 60 scientists from all over the world published this update, and as one of them said, “the news is grim.”

The report states: “The indicators show that human activities are increasing the Earth's energy imbalance and driving faster sea-level rise compared to the AR6 assessment.” Its indicators include greenhouse emissions, surface temperature changes, global land precipitation, and sea level rise. The authors warn: “This is a critical decade: human-induced global warming rates are at their highest historical level, and 1.5 °C global warming might be expected to be reached or exceeded in around 5 years in the absence of cooling from major volcanic eruptions.”

Health losses attributed to anthropogenic climate change: this meta-study summarizes a number of studies attributing climate change to impacts on human health, and concludes: “A clearer picture of the global burden of climate change could encourage policymakers to treat the climate crisis like a public health emergency.”

-----------

So, sure, you can believe climate change is a hoax and that what we’re seeing is just “weather,” just as you can believe in the Emperor’s new clothes. If so, I have a bridge n Brooklyn you can buy, or you can just invest in Trump crypto.

As for me, I’m standing up with the NAS and others who continue to speak up about inconvenient truths (so to speak).   

Synthetic Life Is Cool - But Scary

I know many people are worried about the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting happening later this week – I am too – but from a longer term perspective there’s another meeting happening this week that we should also be paying attention to: the Engineering and Safeguarding Synthetic Life conference, in Manchester (U.K.). It is aimed at bringing together “scientists, engineers, ethicists, policymakers, and other stakeholders to explore the challenges and opportunities of building and regulating synthetic life.”   

Mirror image synthetic life isn't going to be quite that easy. Credit: Ting Zhu Lab

The conference has four sessions:

• Session 1 – Synthetic Cells: Advances in the creation of minimal and fully synthetic cells, highlighting new technologies and design principles.
• Session 2 – Synthetic Genomes: Cutting-edge progress in genome synthesis and engineering, including applications and long-term visions.
• Session 3 – Safeguarding Synthetic Life: Addressing safety, ethics, and science diplomacy, with a focus on responsible innovation and governance, including for mirror cells.
• Session 4 – Recombining Emerging Technologies: Examining how synthetic biology converges with fields such as AI, robotics, and materials science to enable new capabilities.

These aren’t sessions speculating about long range futures; these are sessions led by leading scientists talking about current work, in hopes of creating informed discussion about what more of us should be thinking about. The future is almost here.

It has a companion program -- Japan-UK Engineering Biology Meeting -- that follows, and in December in the U.S. the National Academy of Science will host a workshop Mirror Image Biology: Pushing the Envelope in Designing Biological Systems, “focusing on the state of the science, trends in research and development, risks and benefits of this research, and considerations relating for future governance of relevant enabling technologies.”

Serious people are taking this seriously.

Devoted readers may recall that three months ago I wrote about the Synthetic Human Genome Project, the goal of which is “to provide proof of concept for large genome synthesis by creating a fully synthetic human chromosome.” Or they may remember when I wrote last December about a technical report warning about the potential benefits and risks of so-called “mirror life,” whose DNA has the opposite chirality of all existing DNA.

Then, just two months ago, researchers from MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology announced they had modified an E. Coli to have only 57 codons, versus the 64 that essentially all DNA organisms have.  They call it Syn57, and Wesley Robertson, one of the authors, told Carl Zimmer of The New York Times: “Life still works…This reveals that there is nothing fundamental about the universal genetic code.”

We’re tinkering with the basics of life itself. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Credit: MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology

Mirror life is one of the areas that continues to draw attention. Kate Adamala, a synthetic biologist at the University of Minnesota, warned Mark Peplow of Nature: “There is no benefit of mirror biology that couldn’t be achieved other ways with normal biology. That’s not a risk I think we should be taking.” Dr. Adamala is chairing Session 1 of this week’s conference.  She was also one of the scientists who issued the Technical Report n mirror life last December; she knows of which she speaks, and she’s worried.

Not everyone is as worried. “Given all of the other ways in which technology is upending society right now, it’s a little surprising that this has gotten as much attention as it has,” David Van Valen, a bioengineer at the California Institute of Technology, told Mr. Peplow. “I think most of the concerns that people are raising are overblown.”

One of the leaders in the field, Ting Zhu at Westlake University in Hangzhou, China, is not attending this week’s conference but did author a companion piece to Mr. Peplow’s, Mirror of the unknown: should research on mirror-image molecular biology be stopped? Dr. Zhu takes the high road: “But in the face of vast unknowns, the noble path of pre-emptively protecting humanity from potential risks in the distant future can be slippery. And we should tread cautiously.”

Still, he points out:

Research in mirror-image molecular biology is still in its infancy. But scientists working in this field have been humbled by the tremendous challenges of exploring this unknown world ^5–14. The creation of mirror-image organisms, if it ever became feasible, would face monumental conceptual and technical barriers.

He adds that it took his team almost four years to construct a mirror image protein fragment of about 470 amino acids – the longest yet but still just a fragment. They’ve been working on a mirror image ribosome for almost ten years, “and are still years away from achieving it.”

According:

In short, it is crucial to distinguish mirror-image molecular biology from the creation of mirror-image organisms. A self-replicating cell has molecular diversity, metabolic complexity and structural intricacy that are orders of magnitude greater than what’s found in any currently synthesizable biomolecular system. And the creation of a mirror-image organism lies well beyond the reach of present-day science.

Dr. Zhu does think there are “endless possibilities” with mirror image molecules, such as more effective drugs, enzymes that could degrade plastics, even more robust data storage capabilities than natural DNA. It is important, he argues, that we don’t put a moratorium on the field, but he does agree with the purpose of this week’s conference, “establishing ethical boundaries would be to comprehensively assess near-term challenges and long-term risks across multiple disciplines.”

If one is cynical about China following such ethical guidelines, Dr. Adamala is not, at least when it comes to Dr. Zhu, telling Mr. Peplow: “He’s said he’s not going to build a living mirror cell, and that’s good enough for me,”

Well, maybe.

I’d be remiss if I failed to note that DARPA has just announced a Smart-Red Blood Cells (Smart-RBC) initiative, aiming “to engineer red blood cells to contain novel biological features that can safely and reliably modify human physiology.” It wants to identify “the art of-the-possible to create SRBCs to enhance human performance in austere environments and maximize survival via hemostasis products,” but also “unlock future capabilities including, but not limited to, improving thermal regulation in extreme environments, creating universal blood, accelerating acclimation to high altitudes, generating more resilient blood products.”

And you were worried about mirror image organisms.

Credit: Darpa

In some ways, this is very much like what is happening with artificial intelligence, only with much less money and much less attention. Both synthetic biology and AI could revolutionize our society and bring untold benefits, or they could conceivably lead to destruction of all life on earth. The trouble is, nobody really knows which will actually happen.

That's More Like It

Do we really have to wait 75 years for some 22nd century healthcare? Credit: Microsoft Designer

I’m always on the lookout for advances in healthcare that seem more like 22^st century medicine than what we still experience in 2025. Way too much of it seems less advanced than we should be expecting in a world of AI, genetic engineering, nanobots, and the like. I often think of the scene in Star Trek IV where Dr. McCoy finds himself in a 20^th century hospital and is appalled:

 

So I’m pleased to report on a couple of developments that seem like the future.

Transcranial ultrasound stimulation (aka “ultrasound helmet): You may not have ever heard of deep brain stimulation, unless you know someone who has advanced Parkinson’s, dystonia, essential tremors, or epilepsy. It turns out that electrical impulses to certain parts of the brain can help reduce the involuntary motions these conditions can result in.

The drawback is that deep brain stimulation is delivered by electrodes implanted deep in the brain. While this may not be quite as daunting as it sounds, people are still, you know, drilling holes in your head and pushing electrodes into your brain. You can imagine Dr. McCloy’s reaction.

Enter transcranial ultrasound stimulation. A new paper in Nature from researchers at University College London (UCL) and Oxford describes using a 256 element helmet to precisely aim ultrasound waves to accomplish the same results.

Our findings reveal this system’s potential to non-invasively modulate deep brain circuits with unprecedented precision and specificity, offering new avenues for studying brain function and developing targeted therapies for neurological and psychiatric disorders, with transformative potential for both research and clinical applications.

Professor Bradley Treeby, senior author of the study from UCL Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, said:

Clinically, this new technology could transform treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders like Parkinson's disease, depression, and essential tremor, offering unprecedented precision in targeting specific brain circuits that play key roles in these conditions. 

The ability to precisely modulate deep brain structures without surgery represents a paradigm shift in neuroscience, offering a safe, reversible, and repeatable method for both understanding brain function and developing targeted therapies.

Moreover, Professor Treeby asserts: “For the first time, scientists can non-invasively study causal relationships in deep brain circuits that were previously only accessible through surgery.” Similarly, senior author Prof Charlotte Stagg of Oxford University said: “The waves reached their target with remarkable accuracy. That alone was extraordinary, and no one has done it before.”

Dr Ioana Grigoras, a first author of the study from the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, agrees: "This novel brain stimulation device represents a breakthrough in our ability to precisely target deep brain structures that were previously impossible to reach non-invasively. We are particularly excited about its potential clinical applications for neurological disorders like Parkinson's disease, where deep brain regions are especially affected."

The research was primarily a proof-of-concept, but the team is already on the way to test the system on brain areas linked with Parkinson’s, schizophrenia, stroke recovery, pain, depression and other conditions. They hope to have the first clinical applications in a few years.

The current helmet is used in conjunction with an fMRI, but the team hopes to eventually be able to use AI to not require the fMRI. They’ve founded NeuroHarmonics to develop a portable, wearable version of the system, aiming to allow patients to use at home. Its vision is “to build what could become the gold standard for non-invasive neuromodulation, potentially transforming the lives of millions affected by brain disorders while opening new frontiers in brain-computer interaction.”

That sounds like some 22nd century medicine.

Person wearing ultrasound helmet. Credit: Treeby, et. al.

Electromechanical reshaping (EMR): When Lasik surgery was introduced in the late 1980’s, it sure seemed like some 21^st medicine. Lasers! Surgery without scalpels, and with greater precision! It was, indeed, a great step forward. But we’re in 2025 now, and it must be admitted that Lasik is not without risks. Plus, as Michael Hill, a professor of chemistry at Occidental College, points out: “LASIK is just a fancy way of doing traditional surgery. It’s still carving tissue — it’s just carving with a laser.”

Professor Hill thinks there is a better way. He and his colleague Brian Wong, a surgeon-engineer at the University of California, Irvine, believe a process known as electromechanical reshaping (EMR) offers a better option. Basically, it uses electrical impulses to reshape the cornea. No surgery required.

The researchers applied a small electric potential to a lens. Without getting into all the chemistry involved, after about a minute, the cornea’s curvature conformed to the shape of the lens — which is, they point out, about the same amount of time LASIK takes, but with fewer steps, less expensive equipment and no incisions. In other experiments, the team demonstrated that their technique might be able to reverse some chemical-caused cloudiness to the cornea — a condition that is currently only treatable through a complete corneal transplant.

EMR at work. Credit: Hill & Wong

“The whole effect was discovered by accident,” explained Wong, a professor and surgeon at the University of California, Irvine. “I was looking at living tissues as moldable materials and discovered this whole process of chemical modification.”

Professors Hill and Wong coauthored a proof-of-concept paper in 2023. “That paper was really about asking, is it even possible? Can we change the shape of a cornea without gross damage?” Hill told IEEE Spectrum. “Now, after two more years of work, we’ve systematically gone through the parameters—and we can say yes, it is possible, and we can do it safely.”

The duo tested EMR on rabbit eyeballs, not live rabbits, which will be the next step.  “Nobody’s getting this at the optometrist next year,” Professor Hill cautions. “Now comes the hard work—refining parameters, confirming long-term viability, and making sure treated eyes don’t revert back.”

Still, Professor Hill believes: “There’s a long road between what we’ve done and the clinic. But, if we get there, this technique is widely applicable, vastly cheaper and potentially even reversible.”

I hope I never need Lasik surgery, much less any other kind of eye surgery, but if I do I sure hope I don’t have to wait until the 22^nd century to get something like EMR.

------------

Cool stuff, both of these. And, in this current environment of attacks on science, I can’t help but include something else Professor Hill points out:

You don’t always know where basic research will lead. We were looking at electroanalytical chemistry, not eye surgery. But those foundational insights are what made this possible. If you cut off that basic research, you don’t get these kinds of unexpected, transformative opportunities.

Amen to that. That’s how we get to the future.

Where Innovation Clusters

We all like to think of the genius innovators coming up with Eureka ideas on their own, but most innovations don’t work that way. The pandemic helped remind us of the importance of proximity, that being with other talented people helps spur creativity. Those hallway conversations often trigger unexpected ideas and synergies. Talented people like to have other talented people around them, whether that is within a company or in a geographic region.

Well, you may have missed it, but there is a UN agency, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), that looks at such things, and has been issuing a Global Innovation Index since 2017. It released the 2025 Index today.

The top ranked cluster was Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou (China), followed by Tokyo-Yokohama (Japan) and San Jose-San Francisco (United States). Last year, the top two positions were reversed, while San Jose-San Francisco was 6^th.

Part of the shake-up in the ratings was inclusion of venture capital investments in the ratings; previously, only patent filing and scientific publishing data were used. "Venture capital investment activity helps capture how scientific and technological knowledge translates into start-up creation and, ultimately, new goods and services in the marketplace," WIPO said. The change helped San Jose-Sam Francisco rise, as well as London (21^st to 8^th) and Bengaluru (56^th to 21^st). Indian clusters benefited generally.

Carsten Fink, chief economist of the WIPO’s department for economics and data analytics, said: “We don’t just want to track science and technology activity. We also want to see how clusters turn ideas into entrepreneurship and ultimately new products and services that emerge in the marketplace.”

"Innovation clusters form the backbone of strong national innovation ecosystems, helping to anchor and strengthen the journey from ideas to market. The inclusion of VC deal activity in this year's GII cluster methodology is recalibrating our understanding of innovation strength, and these new results highlight which clusters are turning scientific research into economic results," WIPO Director General Daren Tang said in the report.

For example, WIPO noted that the top two clusters account for nearly one-in-five patent applications globally, and the top ten clusters accounted for 40 per cent of the world’s patent applications and 35 per cent of its venture capital deals

If only looking at patent filing volume, the top three are the Tokyo-Yokohama, Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou, and Seoul clusters, contributing 10.3 percent, 9 percent, and 5.4 percent of the global total, respectively. In terms of scientific research output, the top three are Beijing, Shanghai-Suzhou, and Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou, with 4 percent of the global total, 2.5 percent, and 2.4 percent, respectively.

"VCs fund technology enterprises, integrate resources, and reduce risks, thereby driving the rapid development of the technology industry. In turn, the prosperity of the technology sector delivers substantial returns to VC investors, attracting more capital inflows and further fostering innovation and upgrading within the industry. This dynamic interplay serves as a crucial driving force for innovation-led development during China's economic transformation," Yang Delong, chief economist at Shenzhen-based First Seafront Fund, told the Global Times.

It’s a virtuous circle.

Here are the top 15 clusters:

1: Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou (China)

2: Tokyo-Yokohama (Japan)

3: San Jose-San Francisco (United States)

4: Beijing (China)

5: Seoul (South Korea)

6: Shanghai-Suzhou (China)

7: New York City (United States)

8: London (Britain)

9: Boston-Cambridge (United States)

10: Los Angeles (United States)

11: Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (Japan)

12: Paris (France)

13: Hangzhou (China)

14: San Diego (United States)

15: Nanjing (China)

If one accounts for population size, San Jose-San Francisco would come out on top, followed by Cambridge (U.K.).

Thirty-three economies have a cluster in the top 100. If you are someone who notices such things, the U.S. has 4 of the top ten, versus China’s 3, but in the top 15 each have 5. Among the top 100, China has 24 while the U.S. has 22. Germany is next, but only with 7. It is the third consecutive year China has had the most clusters in the top 100.

I think about this in light of the current war n science being waged by the Trump Administration, whether that is cutting NIH/NSF funding, firing federal scientists, attacking our top research universities, or using the phrase “gold-standard science” when what it really means is science that adheres to personal or political positions (I’m talking about you, RFK Jr.!). We’re losing a generation of young scientists, undermining out decades of research, imposing disastrous cuts on science agencies.  I mean, you cannot overstate the risk that American science is under, and that will have consequences to our innovation.

Talent is fluid. If the best scientific laboratories and research universities are no longer here, if the post WWII federal funding for funding for science and innovation dries up, then leading researchers will go elsewhere. Europe, Canada, Australia, and – you guessed it! – China are all rolling out the welcome mats for U.S. scientists.  

Venture capital is even more fluid. The U.S. has long had one of the most robust and forward-looking venture capital system in the world, which has been to our benefit, but the thing is, venture capital doesn’t respect borders. It seeks only returns. If there’s more innovations happening in clusters elsewhere in the world, VCs will put their money there.

It certainly doesn’t help that we’re discouraging international students from our universities, demonizing immigrants, even restricting H1-B visa for skilled workers. If we don’t want the smartest people from other countries studying and working here, there are plenty of other places where they can – and will – go.

It won’t be them who suffer the consequences.

The Global Innovation Index reminds is that innovation is truly global, and that the U.S.’s historical outsized footprint in innovation continues. But it also shows that it’s fair to say that China is by now at least our equal, and there are many other hotspots of innovation in the world eager to leapfrog ours should they falter.

I love science and innovation. I think it’s healthy that there are so many strong centers for them all around the world. I’ve long been proud of America’s preeminence in both, but I hate that we appear to be squandering it, letting China and others take the lead in inventing the future.  

I’ll be curious to see what trends the 2026 Global Innovation Index shows, but, I have to admit, I’m kind of scared about what the 2030 Index will show.