Science Friday - 2019 Year In Review. Dec 27 2019, Part 1

Episode Date: December 27, 2019

 In 2019 we experienced some painful and heartbreaking moments—like the burning of the Amazon rainforest, a worldwide resurgence of measles cases, and the first ever deaths linked to vaping.  Ira talks with this year’s panel of science news experts, Wendy Zukerman, Rachel Feltman, and Umair Irfan, live on stage at Caveat in New York City.  Plus, as we turn the corner into 2020, Science Friday listeners weigh in with their picks for the best science moment of the decade.  Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato, coming to you from the caveat theater in New York City. And tonight we're celebrating, critiquing, and reflecting on all that 2019 brought us in science. This year, we experienced some painful and heartbreaking moments, like the burning of the Amazon rainforest, a worldwide resurgence of measles cases, and the first-ever deaths linked to vaping. But it wasn't all tragedy and loss. Just recently, Time Magazine named Youth Climate Activists, Greta Tunberg, Person of the Year. A powerful reminder of just how much climate change

became part of the conversation in 2019. And the inspiring generation of youth drawing attention to it. And let's not forget all the major scientific milestones we witnessed this year. We had the first image of a black hole, the first time we used CRISPR to edit the genes of a living person. So we'll be talking about all that and more this hour.

But first, let me introduce our esteemed panelists. Sitting right to my left is Rachel Feldman, science editor at Popular Science. Welcome to Science Friday. Thanks for having me, Ira. Next to her is Wendy Zuckerman, science journalist, and host of Gimlet's Media's Science Verses. Nice to have you. And Omerifan, staff rider at Vox. Good to have you back, Omer. Thank you. All right, Amel, let me begin. Let me kick things off with you. We had these wildfires in the Amazon this year, right? That really caught the world's attention. Right. fires are natural in many ecosystems, but the Amazon rainforest, you know, the one with all the rain, doesn't typically catch on fire. In fact, scientists say that almost all the fires we see there are caused by humans.

And that's particularly alarming now because we saw a more than 80% increase in the number of fires this year compared to last year and more than 80% increase in the rate of deforestation in that area. You know, we know that climate change predicts that wildfire is going to become more frequent, right? So my question is, why did this one seem to move people so much? Well, one, because it is something that is kind of unexpected that, you know, the rainforest burning is highly unusual, but also because the rainforest is actually kind of a global asset. It plays a vital role in both the region and international climate, like it influences rainfall patterns as far here in the United States. Now, one of the more alarming things is we know that the rainforest is being lost at a very rapid clip. Right now we've seen about 17% deforestation since the 70s. And the concern is if it reaches 25%, it'll cross a tipping point where the rainforest won't be able to move enough moisture through the Amazon, and it will enter sort of a self-destruct cycle.

So where do we stand now with this? Are we headed down that pathway? Well, yeah, that's what some scientists are deeply concerned about. I was in the Amazon this year, and the scientists there were deeply worried about some of the trends that they're picking up. I went to a remote research station that's in the middle of the jungle, and they're saying that we're saying that we, can detect signs of combustion, of fuel, of vehicles that they previously used to not be able to detect in that part of the jungle, just showing how much the indications of human life are moving into areas where they weren't before. The lungs of the Earth, right?

That's what they call Amazon. Well, that's a bit of a misnomer. I mean, like, there's been the calculation that Amazon, you know, generates 20% of the world's oxygen, but it also consumes that oxygen. So we're not really in danger of running out of that. But rather, it's the largest reservoir of biodiversity on the planet. There's so much we still don't know about it, and it would be a shame to lose it before we learn about it. Let's move on to a little bit of technology news.

And Wendy, I want to ask you in the world of technology and mobile networks, we started to hear the term 5G. This was the year of the 5G. What is the difference between 5G and what we have now? Right. So 5G, ask the tech fluences, and they'll tell you it's going to be, you know, it's going to revolutionize our world. Downloads are going to get so much faster. upload's going to get so much faster. You know, this is supposed to be the technology

that's going to bring us the Internet of Things. You know how for like years people have been talking about, like, the smart toaster, like, that's like the quintessential. Right? It's like, as if we've all been waiting for our, like, bread to get smarter. Like, that's the thing. But obviously, the Internet of Things, people are very excited about it.

It's the technology that will connect all of the things in our world. And what has been really interesting to watch with 5G is that it is just like the natural progression of we had 2G and 3G and 4G and no one was really that like no one was really up in arms when we went from 3G to 4G but there was something about 5G. Like it became a political issue so in terms of you know there was talks about not wanting Huawei who's you know one of the leaders in the in sort of creating 5G technology not wanting that in America it became like a technological arms race about who was going to get 5G fastest and wanting to roll this out in cities then at the same time we started to

having like fake news coming out about how scary 5G was. All of a sudden there were protests around the world around 5G. So I really think it kind of encapsulates so much of 2019. And I think people think that once 5G is here, there's going to be no 4G, but 4G will still be around, won't it? That's right, for a little bit. Because the way, so one of the sort of technological differences between 4G and 5G, so 5G is defined by the speed, defined by a couple of things, but one of them is the speed at which you can do things. So it's currently not defined by the actual technology they're using to get to those speeds.

It's all about just getting to the speeds. But one of the ways that they're going to do that is by trying to use like, so currently we use electromagnetic waves, so that's how 4G works. And the waves are kind of long, so like maybe 15 inches long. And with 5G, they're going to be using shorter wavelengths that are millimeter waves. And the great thing about this technology

is that no one's used it before. So it means it's going to, mean that we have like way more bandwidth. But the problem is that these waves, because they're so short, as they travel, they kind of get tuck it out quite quickly. And so they don't travel very far. And as a consequence, it means that we're going to need a lot more. We kind of think about them as base stations around our cities because we're going to need

that sort of that signal to like bounce around different stations. And so I think that's a lot of what the concern has been kind of growing around is that people are seeing these base stations in their neighborhoods. So size does. matter in this sort of thing. Oh, to then answer your actual question, because of these, because these waves are shorter, one thing that is a problem, because they get tucked out, and also because they can't, they can't move through things, like through walls, it means that if you might have this, a great download going really fast, and then you'll walk past a tree,

and the signal will just go, p'em, and so to kind of compensate for that, one thing they're doing, there's more base stations. The other thing will be, you'll also have 4G. So you'll be, like, alternating between 5G and 4G. Yeah. So we don't know if it's going to deliver yet. We just have to, it's just being rolled out in selected cities, as they say. Yeah, I think it will eventually deliver. But, you know, for those who are in love with 4G, it's not going anywhere for a little while.

There you go. Do not worry for the immediate future. Okay, Rachel, I know you were paying close attention to the record-breaking measles outbreak. Measles outbreaks, right? Yes, absolutely. Tell us about that. And so many people in New York were. So we've seen measles cropping up in the news more and more over the last few years.

And particularly in Europe, it does seem to be kind of like a linear trend. Measles is getting worse and worse. Vaccination rates are getting lower. And this year in the U.S., so the kind of 2018-2019 measles season was very bad. It was a record-breaking year. And in fact, we came extremely close to losing our status as being a country without measles. because to be a country without measles just means that you don't have,

it's not endemic, you don't have a constant flow of cases. Whenever we get measles in the U.S., it's because it's come in from another country. Usually people from the U.S. traveling internationally coming back, you know, sometimes international travelers coming here, and then it hits a pocket of unvaccinated people. There are a lot of those in the U.S. We've seen an increase in non-religious vaccine exemptions,

meaning people just saying, I don't want to get my kid vaccinated. I don't feel like it. And they live in states where that's okay. And so we have measles case every year, but the question is, are we measles free? And this year we came within like weeks of the deadline because it comes down to whether you have one outbreak, like traceable to one source going on for, I think it's 10 months. But if you reach that, then you officially have endemic measles. And we, like, came extremely close with the outbreaks that were in New York State. And the really troubling thing is that measles is so incredibly contagious that it's really considered like a canary in the coal mine when it comes to these diseases that we have vaccinations for and that we've considered eliminated.

So after measles, you know, there's mumps and rebella. And God forbid, polio, much less contagious. But, like, it's not a problem that ends with measles. Measles is just the one that is easiest to start spreading once our vaccination rates get too low. I'll have to watch to see what happens next year. Um, I mentioned in the intro that Time magazine made the Greta Toonberg, this person of the year. What does that say about the year 2019 and climate change? I mean, it shows that it's moved to become a front burner issue.

This is something that's been sidelined in presidential debates and policy discussions. And now, Greta Thunberg is a rock star. I was at the international climate meeting a couple weeks ago in Madrid, and, you know, she had more security and press following her than some of the delegates there. And it's just an indication that, you know, this is not something that we can ignore now. Almost every presidential candidate now has a plan to deal with climate change, at least on the Democratic side, and a couple of Republicans. But I mean, it's changed in a way that I don't think a lot of people have expected. And I don't think you can attribute it all to Greta, but she's certainly been instrumental in this and creating a worldwide youth-led movement to, you know, address climate change.

Well, that's what I was going to say, her being just a teenager, does that mean that the youth are taking the lead in trying to bring about this change? In a sense, yes, because they have the highest stakes. I mean, they're the ones that are going to be around in 2050 and 2100. That's the world that they're going to be raising their children in or retiring into. And whether that's one or two or three degrees warmer, that has real meaningful stakes for them. And I think they're seeing that, you know, the grownups aren't taking those risks very seriously. That there's a big mismatch between what the science tells us we need to do and what we're actually doing. And that's why, you know, when Greta Thunberg testified before Congress, her opening statement was her just entering the intergovernmental panel on climate change. changes report on reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius into the congressional record. Do you think, Omer, that this is going to catch fire later next year? Is this going to grow? I mean, I am so surprised we have done programs from 2016. We could not get anybody to even admit that there was something going on here. Two years later, three years later, it's just the top, as you say, the top of the news. Is this something that is going to continue? Or is it just a flash in the pan, so to speak? I mean, it's hard to say at this point, but the momentum seems very robust.

I think it's not just that the youth are mobilized. I think they're also extremely disappointed with the global movement on climate change. We had the Climate Action Summit in September. That was sort of a dud. And now this UN climate meeting that ended without agreeing on some of the most critical issues. That had to be very disappointing.

Oh, yeah. This last one that just ended, right? Right. And I mean, the activists there were deeply alarmed. They were chanting. There were about 200 people that were ejected from the venue because they were just so disappointed with results and how little action they were seeing on the ground.

We'll be right back with more from our guest, Wendy Zuckerman, Rachel Feldman, and Omer Irfan. Stay with us. We'll be right back after this break. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato, summing up the year's best stories with my guest, Wendy Zuckerman, Rachel Feldman, and Omer Erfahn. Another really major story that I'd like to talk about now is vaping. And we had the first deaths associated with vaping. I want all three of you to weigh in on this because I know you.

You all covered it. Wendy, let me start with you. What's your take on the vaping issue? It wasn't a surprise. That's right, because in your series, you worked on this before when it was called e-cigarettes years ago, right? We called it something else. That's right.

So when our show started, so I guess like four years ago now, we did an episode called e-cigarettes, and I interviewed someone, and I was like, they're from the biggest e-cigarette company in the world. And it was not Jewel. I have no idea. I don't remember the name of the company. Things have shifted so much, but even back then, scientists were saying,

we're not sure about this, you're inhaling all this stuff, all these chemicals, your lungs aren't meant for this. Watch out. I think what was a surprise, though, was the fact that the black market industry really boomed. I didn't see that coming, the fact that we were going to start seeing like weed vapes and now the culprit, or one of the culprits, vitamin E acetate being sort of popped in, quite a lot of e-cigarettes. I didn't see that coming. Rachel, what did you see coming? Yeah, I mean, I have to agree that it was not a surprise

at all because, again, I remember covering e-cigarettes a few years ago when it was kind of like a new novelty thing, and it was just becoming a parent that kids were going to really like them. Anyone in the medical or public health sphere you talk to will say, inhaling things other than air is bad for you. Surprise, surprise. Of course. Bubblegum play, that is fine. Of course there's a spectrum, but like there is no reality where inhaling a nicotine oil is not going to have negative consequences.

And of course, like, it's, you know, the latest study that came out did still find that the relative risk is lower than with traditional cigarette products. And again, not surprising because they're really bad. But it's such a low bar for them to be better. But it's difficult because, you know, there are people who see them as a really useful cessation aid. But the question is, how do we keep them available in that respect while addressing the fact that they are wildly popular with young people and that it's not just the fun flavors, right? There was a huge study recently finding that mint is one of the most popular flavors among teens, which was largely left out of the discussions about. about dangerous flavors. We talk about bubble gum and mango,

but mint is supposed to be a boring grown-up flavor. And apparently the teens love that. So. Amare, you're nodding through all this. Well, yeah. And I think, as Rachel said, there is sort of a spectrum here. And like from public health standpoint, you want to get people off of cigarettes,

but you don't want them to start vaping. And that's like sort of a really difficult needle to thread. And we're seeing different countries taking different approaches. In the UK, you know, vaping is actively being promoted as a smoking cessation aid. And here in the US, it's basically, don't start under any circumstances. There's no positive way you can, you know, promote vaping.

And, you know, these bands on certain kinds of flavors, I mean, they can be counterproductive as well, because if you're trying to quit smoking, the last thing you want is another thing that takes like a cigarette. And so using these tobacco imitating flavors for vaping is kind of counterproductive. I think the mint and bubble gum stuff might help you if you're trying to quit. I want to stick with our health theme for a little bit longer because I want to, let me start with you, Wendy, to talk about something that has really caught wildfire, so to speak, and that's Medicare for all as a political discussion.

You want to talk about that? Because I know you have followed that. Yeah, we really went down the rabbit hole on this one. It's obviously been a huge talking point of the democratic debate. And just generally just questioning America's healthcare system, there's been lots of gripes for a long time, but it was really put on the front page these questions around, you know, how many people are uninsured or underinsured?

Are there solutions that can make it better? And then, you know, I think from a science perspective, it's really been asking, like, how can the data that we currently have help us work out what is the best way forward for America? Because we're seeing on both sides of the debate, I think, a little bit of playing fast and loose. So we have on one side, you know, we have some politicians saying, Medicare for all, it's going to be absolutely amazing. If you love your healthcare system now, like, if you love your healthcare plan now,

do not worry, it's going to be fine. How are going to pay for it? Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. And then on the other side, you have these scary stories about in the UK where the wait times are forever. And we were talking to an academic who said, I think people in America imagine that the UK healthcare system is like what it was after World War II. And so, you know, from a science perspective,

you really can interrogate these ideas and say, you know, what is the wait time? So there have been surveys that have been done, asking, you know, how long have you had to wait for a specialist, say, in the UK versus the US? And here you actually do find a difference. Do you think they're going to define these as we get closer to the election? There'll be greater definition and changing of positions.

You know, I think, for example, Elizabeth Warren, who was talking about Medicare for All, she sort of said, well, maybe that's in the third year that we get it, you know? Yeah, I mean, I think the interesting thing when going down the rabbit hole of all the different healthcare systems around the world is that no one does Medicare for All the way that Bernie envisions it. even the UK has a private model. And you know, you think like Queen whatever goes to like Derby Hospital or whatnot. You know, Queen Elizabeth is going to some fancy place which is paying her money for it.

So even when you look at the most left system, so to speak, they have a private model. And so I think what we're going to start seeing is a discussion around what are the things that we can actually do. How can we move the needle forward? How can we expand the Medicare that we have now to meet? that there's less uninsured or underinsured people? What are the ways that we can tamp down on costs? And there are ways you can do that without going completely to a Medicare for all model. And I think to your point of like, will it take three years? A lot of the people that the researchers that we spoke to were like, well, how about we just like expand Medicare a little? And then we

see if we like it. And then we can expand it a little more and a little more. And maybe in 20 years, it'll be Medicare for all. But it's not going to be next year. Well, one of the things I think we can all agree on is that the American medical system is broken. It's so broken. I mean, anyone who's received an explanation of benefits letter knows how broken it is. Yeah, I've been near myself. Okay, turning now to something else, and I mean one of my favorite topics, a topic of a lot of people, is space. You know, what's going on in outer space? Rachel, you had a couple of moments that made 2019 a banner year for space science. Let's talk about those. Yeah, well, a fun one is that we literally rang in the new year with a fun space moment where the New Horizons Mission visited a new target, MU69, which I was recently relieved

to see get a new name. It had a nickname that had some historical baggage that a lot of us thought was just unnecessary. Now it is Erykoth, which is from an Algonquian word, I believe. And so that's great. Love that. You know, we know so little about the objects out in this, like, these cold reaches of the Kuiper belt. You know, this is so much farther than even Pluto was. And this is basically like the cold storage from the early days of our solar system so far from the sun that they are largely unchanged from when they got, you know, hurled out there. And then the other big, probably more significant space moment this year was, of course, the event. Horizon Telescope imaging a black hole for the first time, which was so cool. That surprised a lot of people. It did. A lot of people were surprised that it was a blob. It's interesting because we've seen so many artists' impressions of black holes that

look nicer. So I think a lot of people, first of all, were surprised that we'd never directly imaged a black hole. That was like news to them. Because, you know, the question of like, yes, we've like detected stuff. from black holes. We've sort of studied them before, but this was the first time we directly imaged one. So that was a distinction that surprised some people.

And then seeing it, being like, that's it, that fuzzy orange donut. But it's a beautiful orange donut. And it was a real groundbreaking moment in human history. So we're proud of that fuzzy donut. You know, Wendy, it didn't look like the movie version. It didn't know. It was enjoyable, but also it made me hate the media that there was all this, like, such joy when the photo came out. And then I was just like, when do the hot takes come?

And then they arrived, you know, black hole photo. So what? I was like, oh, goodness. I know, Mary, were you equally impressed with the black hole? Oh, absolutely. I mean, I had no mental image of a black hole other than the movie Interstellar. And so I wanted to see what the science showed. And it was, it's always interesting to see what something looks like in the real world.

And I think that's the closest we'll get. Do you think it could have been a letdown from the giant buildup from gravity waves we had before? And they were super duper and they caused all kinds of. And then suddenly we have a nice little red donut, you know? I think a problem we have in general in space news now is that NASA and to a lesser extent that the European space, agency, they, like, figured out how to get people's attention, and now they, like, they love getting people's attention. And so, as somebody who's been covering space for several years in the media, I've watched, like, the NASA hype machine, like, powers up for another season, and

people are often, like, let down by the results, which is a shame because it's really cool work, and it's really exciting. And the issue of, like, how to get people excited without, like, like making people disappointed every time it's not an announcement that there are aliens is a tricky one. Are we going through that a little bit now about going to the moon, getting people excited? We're talking about a schedule perhaps, you know, setting up a space station, something orbiting possibly? It's so hard to get excited because it's just disappointing because we already did it. And the fact that we then lost the technology to do it, it's only sad. And when we eventually get there, I'll be like, great, now we're on target.

Can we now stop progressing? But if there's anybody who could hype it better than NASA, it's going to be Elon Musk, right, getting us to the moon in one of his spaceships. So we'll have to wait for that. I can't wait for the demonstration. I think a truck will be in one of those. Let me move on to another topic. And that's about air pollution.

Omer, it seems like in 2019 there were some classic environmental issues that came back to haunt us like air pollution, right? Which you wrote about us. Right. Air pollution is still a persistent issue in many parts of the world. And unfortunately, in the United States, we've actually made a pretty significant regression. There was a study that came out earlier this year that found that after more than a decade of improvement in air quality in the U.S., we started to reverse that. And now over the past two years, we've seen an additional 9,700 deaths per year in addition due to this excess air pollution.

And the researchers who did that study, they found that, you know, even if you control for things like pollution from wildfires and other kinds of natural events, they say that that increase is still there, which leads them to believe that this is due to policy. And a lot of air pollution researchers will often tell you that, you know, air pollution is a problem of governance. It is a problem of policy, and we're seeing that reflected here, but also in other parts of the world, like in New Delhi, where we saw, you know, some of the most epically bad air pollution in the world this year that spiked so high that, you know, the air was like smoking 50 cigarettes. Wow. I'm still inhaling that idea. Right, exactly. And in India, just like here, like, I mean, there are significant policy decisions

there. Like, one of the big contributors is that they're burning crops outside of Delhi in the November season as one farm season ends and another one begins. And the reason they can't get them to stop is that they belong to different political constituencies. The farmers are their own lobby. The people that live in Delhi are their own lobby. And because India is a democracy, they all have a seat at the table and they really can't come to an agreement on how to govern that kind of pollution. But you'd have to even look closer to home. How many air pollution regulations have been weakened by our own government here. Right, and it's not just being weakened,

it's just often a lack of enforcement that, you know, there are still rules on the books, but there aren't, you know, inspectors out there measuring the air quality and then doing something about it. Yeah. I'm Ira Flato, and this is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. I want to move ahead now

and do something we haven't done in a while, and that's a, I'm going to call it the lightning round. And it's where each of you are going to share with me a story that you feel went underreported, Under the radar, we should have talked more about this in 2019, something we did not hear enough about. Let me move down this way at this time. Rachel, you want to go first? Sure.

You have a favorite? Yeah, I think my favorite story that we need to talk more about is congenital syphilis. So the U.S. had a record year for sexually transmitted infections for like the fifth year in a row. And it's not that this wasn't talked about, but it's always talked about in the same, like, ah, those teens on Grindr with their crazy sexually transmitted infections, when will it end? And the truth is that the research really directly ties this rise in STIs to the broken health care system, poverty, lack of education and awareness, high stigma. So there are all of these really concrete problems that we can fix to keep the STI rates from continuing to rise.

And this year was particularly troubling because, as I said, there was a sharp rise in congenital syphilis, which is when a person gets syphilis while they're pregnant or is not treated for it while they're pregnant. And that can be fatal for a newborn. And so the CDC was, you know, freaked out rightfully. And hopefully we will start paying more attention to things like that in 2020. Interesting story. I'm glad you brought that up. Wendy, what's underreported for you? I feel like a bit of a chump, what I'm about to say after Rachel was so earnest.

And lovely about it. Well, so my favorite and underreported story of the year was that a bunch of ants were discovered after they'd fallen into a nuclear bunker. Also a really good one. No need to apologize for that one. And it was they literally... It's a great story, right? It was a great story. Tell everybody what happened.

So some ants chose to, some ants in Poland built their nest on top of a pipe that was dropping into a Soviet-era nuclear bunker. And so as the workers were going about their work, they would just fall into the bunker. And scientists discovered this huge mound of ants who had somehow survived in this cold environment with no food because they ate each other. And one of the most beautiful... Rod Serling was listening to this one. But one of the most, I think, sort of beautiful things about the story is we spoke to one of the researchers who found them. And they, because the ants were trapped there, they couldn't find their way back to the pipe. So they put a little stick of wood so that their ants could find their way.

And then we asked, well, did you block the pipe? So they don't keep falling down. And then he said, no, we wanted to give them the choice. Don't want to interfere with the experiment. Right, after they'd already interviewed the experiment. Right. Interesting. Mary, do you have a favorite one?

Well, not a favorite one, and I hate to end on such a down note, but I think it's really important. But research this year found that there's been an alarming rise in suicide in the U.S. across all age demographics, but particularly among teenagers and particularly among teenage girls. Between 2010 and 2017, there was a 268% increase in suicide for girls between the ages of 10 and 12. Now, we don't know why this is happening, but scientists say that you can still intervene in a way that is. helpful. One is to, you know, remove items that they could potentially use to harm themselves. And the other is talking to them about, you know, concerns.

There's this myth out there that, you know, if you talk to somebody about suicide, that you create suicidal ideation. And that's not true. The evidence doesn't bear that out. And there's a lot of bystander intervention techniques that you can use. Now, the, I'll try to end on a slightly up note, but the Federal Communications Commission recently unanimously voted to create a nationwide suicide hotline with a three-digit number, 988. It's going to go for a public comment in the next couple months, and they're hoping to roll that out in the next couple years. Yeah, that's an interesting and timely story. Glad you brought that one up.

After the break, the biggest stories of the past 10 years as we head into a new decade. Stay with us. Hey there, Ira here, coming at you with some great news about how you, yes, you, can make a big impact right now. Science Friday has a dollar for dollar donation match in effect, which means that if you make a donation right now, it will be doubled. Yes, I said doubled. You heard me say this before. Any size donation makes a difference, and that's never been more true than now.

I know you care about Science Friday, so don't wait on this opportunity. Go to ScienceFriiday.com slash give and double your impact. Thanks. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato, summing up the year's best stories with my guest, Wendy Zuckerman, Rachel Feldman, and Omer Irfan. You know, 2019 is not only the end of the year, but it is the end of a decade, right? So we asked our listeners what they thought the best science stories of the 2010s were, and here's what they had to say. Hands down, my favorite science moment from the last decade was the discovery of gravitational

waves. My kids will tell you that I might have cried just a little bit. It would definitely have to be Voyager 1, leaving our cosmic bubble in 2012 and flying into interstellar space at 48,000 miles an hour faster than a bullet. The papers published in 2012 and early 2013 that described how an RNA directed nucleus, better known as CRISPR, could simplify genomic engineering. Five or six years ago, there was a satellite that landed on a comet core. That was so amazing. that I talked about it with opposing counsel in the middle of trial. My biggest moment in science in the past decade was the great American eclipse of August 21st, 2017. Few things were as exciting as the 2018 eruption of Kilauea in Hawaii.

Not only was it the largest eruption in the United States in almost 40 years, but it completely changed the character of the volcano. I have to admit, it's SpaceX landing two rockets on their tails at the same time. That finally brought the future we were promised into our living rooms. And that was Lynette from Edouin from Brooklyn, Brian from Boston, Dan from Oakland, Michael from Colorado, and Eric from Granville, Randall from Oregon. And those listener picks are up on our website, along with other year-end highlights for you to check out at ScienceFriday.com slash 2019. Now I want to turn to my panel now to get their thoughts on this. What do you think? Let me start on that end. What do you think of our listener's suggestions? Do you think they got the best ones right or would you add your own? I would add one. I think not a moment, but more of a trend in the past decade is we saw, we heard a lot about the replication crisis that, you know, a lot of science findings that we thought were canonical could not be reproduced. And, you know, some people thought

that that's a thing that's going to have us throw out a lot of research. But really, it created this whole new field of meta research where scientists are doing research on the research. But it also created new guidelines for how we conduct research going forward, things like, registering clinical trials and also like, you know, just basically having a more thorough assessment of research and findings. And I think that's something that's going to improve science. We saw that happen in the past decade and going forward, I think is a pretty good development. Because scientists shy away from replicating someone else's work. There's not a lot of money available. Right. You don't get points for telling everybody what they already know. But now there are even

journals that you can publish, you know, negative results. We did an experiment and found nothing. That's still worth reporting. I mean, it tells you what the dead ends are. Yeah, we do need to hear that. Rachel, we already mentioned CRISPR once tonight, and it's hard to remember a time where we weren't talking about CRISPR, but it is a very young technology. It is, yeah. No, it's really new, and it's interesting how quickly it's become synonymous with gene editing. I mean, even just talking about that CRISPR story that we mentioned, you know, making sure people understand that we're just talking about the first use of the CRISPR technique and not any kind of gene editing is. is important, but again, like, CRISPR just means gene editing people now.

It's really, really just, like, covered the whole field. I would also say that this decade has just been such a fun one for space exploration. You know, in terms of missions that, like, peaked or ended or began, you know, we have, like, New Horizons, Cassini, Juno, Parker Solar Probe, Rosetta, Cheongy, Four, other ones I'm forgetting. There was a lot going on. And Wendy, what would you say some of the top 10?

Did they cover some of yours? Yeah, I mean, the gravitational waves was huge. I did not cry upon discovery, but it was great. I think for me, and we've talked a lot about it tonight, which is great, but climate change has really been the thread of the decade.

I mean, I guess I started being a science journalist just a decade ago, and that has been the constant threat. I mean, I think a decade ago, it was really about the models and, like, predicting we think this is going to get bad. And it's just been quite horrifying and depressing to see, oh, all the models were right. Everything they predicted basically has come to be, if not worse. And your native country, you were born in Australia, has been hit really hard. It's currently hit.

It's just unbelievable. Yeah, I wasn't born there, but I was American citizen. I'm sorry. I hear the Australian accent. Oh, yeah. I was there when I was six months old. Just fact-checking you on the stuff. No, I mean, literally the state that Sydney is in is burning, is literally burning.

You were talking about sort of smoking cigarettes. In Australia, in Sydney particularly, the pollution was so bad. They had what was called a siggy index that was like when you go outside, how many cigarettes are you smoking at the moment? Yeah, and I was reading about the average temperature in Australia was 1007. 7 degrees across the whole continent. I mean, in the last few years, they had to make a new category for how hot it was. You know how there's usually, you know, whatever red is the hottest?

They made purple because the average got that hot. And yet our government is the only government that has introduced a carbon tax and then taken it away. Your government? The Australian government. I'm switching science. I don't know why. Just fact checking.

Just fact checking what's going on here. And I think that's also, Ameri, that how fast the polar regions are melting is also quite shocking, isn't it? Right. I mean, I think the general estimate is twice as fast as the rest of the planet in the Arctic and the Antarctic region. But in some areas, it's even faster than that. And a lot of more recent studies are finding out that the previous estimates kind of underestimated the rate of melt that we've now experienced. And they're a concern now is that there might be some sort of like, you know, feedback cycles that cause. an irreversible cycle of collapse, that even if we were to halt warming, there are some losses that are baked in that we cannot avoid. Okay.

Earlier I mentioned putting our panel to the test. Well, get ready to play the 52 Fridays of Science. And helping us with our quiz tonight is Science Friday event producer Diana Montana. What are our contestants playing for? Ira, they are playing for this beautiful 2020 calendar that features the moon and it glows in the dark. So stay sharp out there. Before we get going, our panelists will need a way to ring in to answer the questions. And we don't have a buzzer, a handmade bell or anything.

So I'm going to let each one of you come up with your own buzzer sound. Right? So let me ask you first. Let me go down the aisle here. What's your buzzer sound? You want to practice that again? Okay. I got it.

I'm on. And yours? Oi. Oh, that's a good one. Say it again? Omer. Beep, beep. What a roadrunner action there.

Okay. Those are great. Let's get started. The first round of this game is called What Are They Talking About? That's what we're going to call it. In this round, I'm going to read a quote from an interview conducted this year about something science-related on our show.

And if you think you know the answer, give us your buzzer sound. And I will call on the person who rings in first to answer. but if you're ringing first and you aren't correct, someone else will get the chance to get the point. You got it? Okay. Here we go. Question number one. In an Ocean X video filmed after a recent exciting development,

Noah scientist Nathan Robinson said, quote, this is one of the largest animals on this planet, and we've only seen it live in the wild twice, so we don't really know much about their behavior or their habitats or how they eat. Was that you? Yeah. Okay. What is he talking?

Was it a giant squid? Yes, it was a giant squid. Wow. Wow, that was an early buzz in or spit in or something. I was ready. Let me just remind everybody. It was June 2019. Noah scientists caught a giant squid on camera trying to steal a part of their submersible.

And that's because that piece of metal was hanging off the side, and it was designed to look like the warm. morning lights of a bioluminescent jellyfish in distress. Let's move on to question number two and see if we can get another ring in. Here we go. In an interview with science news, anatomy researcher Dr. Adam Hartstone Rose said of this primate's tiny pseudo-thumbs, quote, it's more than just a nub.

It actually has a lot of function to it. Maybe they know in the audience. What kind of lemur native to Madagascar is he talking about? I'll give you a hint. Here's a hint. The name of this species sounds like they're saying optical spheres twice.

Opticals. We have to clean the mic. An I-I. That's right, an I-I. A small lemur from Madagascar. Congratulations. Go in a row. This recently discovered

Sixth digit is made of bone and cartilage. It can move in three directions. And it may even help the lemur grip branches or other objects. All right, that was pretty good. Let's check the scores. How are we doing, Diana? Rachel is pulling ahead, and so Umer and

Wendy have a lot of work to do. So good luck, I'm round too. Let's give them a chance for the next round. Into round two. We're staying classic in this round. It's called This year in trivia. Maybe you have a trivial mind. This time I'm going to read you a series

have trivia questions about big science news stories from 2019. Here's question number one. The Chinese lunar lander Changi-4 landed on the moon this past January. It carried with it a sealed mini-biosphere with a few species of plant seeds as well as the eggs from what animal? What animal did Changi-4 carry with it besides the few species of plant seeds? Oi? Yes? It's a very un...

It was a very question. Chicken? No. Anybody? I'll give you a hint now. I know what it is. I was trying to not answer again. Do I have to...

You have to ring in. He may ring in before you. Bebeep. Did he get to... I don't know. It might have been a tie. Okay. What?

Where? Bees? No. It was hard of grades. No. No? No. No. No. It was fruit flies. Oh my gosh. Well then. Fruit flies, along with cotton, potato, and yeast seeds, the fruit fly eggs were part of an experiment to see if life could sustain itself in a sealed environment on the moon. And a tiny sprout of cotton did poke up. However, no flies nor other plants seem to have survived the trip.

Let's go on to question number two. In 1973, Congress passed an act which makes it illegal to, quote, to harass, harm, pursue hunt, school, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect certain species. Ironically, the act itself came under attack this year by the current administration. What is the name of the act? Beep, the Endangered Species Act. That's right, the Endangered Species Act. Let's hear it for you.

Ah, Omer. Beginning last September, lots of changes to the Endangered Species Act have occurred. For instance, regulators will now be. be able to conduct economic assessments to decide whether a species should be protected or not. Well, that won't help the species very much. Let me just interrupt to remind everybody that I'm Ira Flato, and this is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. But that's the end for round two.

Let's check in with Diana. What are the scores? Have we made some progress? Well, we have Rachel with two, Amer, with one. And so it's still anyone's game, Ira. Okay. Now starting to sweat, final round. No pressure.

Here we go. This one is called the complete, complete the headline. That's the name of the round. I'm going to read a headline with a keyword or phrase missing, and it's up to you to fill in the blank. And you know the drill, use your buzzer sound to ring in, and if you get wrong, your fellow reporters have a chance to go for the right answer. Are you all ready?

Here we go. NASA's insight detects, first likely what on the Mars, on Mars. NASA's insight detects first likely what on Marsquakes? Marsquakes? Yes. You got it right. It's good that you did not say an earthquake.

Because I would have had to get you wrong on that one. You got to be right. Correct. Who's on second? Insight which landed on Mars in 2018 was sent to study the deep interior of the planet and in order to learn more about the planet it brought a seismic

seismometer, which they correctly called size. The size recorded its first Mars quake this April and has sent back information about more than 20 quakes so far. That's kind of interesting. For our second headline, instead of ringing in, everyone will answer with a number, and the person whose answer is closest without going over wins the prize. Yeah, I feel like Don Pardo or somebody. Okay. Everybody got it? Here's the headline. 86% of teachers say kids should learn about climate change only blank percent teach it. 86% of teachers say kids should learn about climate change, only blank percent teach it. All right.

Do you want some more time to think about it? Time's up. Rachel, what percentage teach it? Price is right rules. Price is right rules. I'm going to say, 46%. 46%.

Wendy's thinking carefully. It's probably too high. I hear everyone saying that, and I don't disagree. Optimist. 15%. 15? Well, that's a big gulf between 46 and 15. Omer?

32. 32. The correct answer is 42. Close. Close. Close. You actually, you, but, you, you, You actually wrote about this one, right?

Yeah. And I completely forgot it. It's been a long year in my defense. I'm glad the Gulf was so wide that anybody could have jumped in that spot. I wouldn't feel like we gave me away. I would have felt horrible if I got that wrong. Well, you did get it, Rod. Price is right rules.

Price is right rule. A poll released this Earth Day shows that less than half of the teachers who said kids should learn about climate change are actually teaching it. So we'd like to remind everyone, especially the dedicated teachers across the country, that there are so many science organizations that can help you. And the National Education Association offers teaching guides, the National Wildlife Federation has put together climate change lesson plans. And as always, we are there too for you.

You can visit sciencefriety.com slash educate for free STEM activities, lessons, and resources for all. learners. And that's it for a quiz show, the 52 Fridays of Science, Diana. Who's leaving here with our amazing prize? Well, right at the buzzer, Umer got three questions right, and so that's enough to win. Congratulations. Thank you. Let's give them all a round of applause for playing this game. Wendy Zuckerman, Science Journalist, and host of Gimlet Media's Science versus Omerer Fon, science writer at Vox and Rachel Feldman's Science Editor at Popular Science. Thank you all. Thanks for coming out.

Thanks for having us. That's about all the time we have. Our heartfelt thanks to all of the people who have joined me on stage here tonight. Rachel, Umar, Wendy, Ariel, Sarah, and Ariel, we could not have done it without all of you. And to all the great folks at the caveat theater for hosting us. And thanks to all of our Science Friday staff, you've seen them running around in their Science Friday t-shirts. It does take a lot of people behind the scenes to run this ship. In New York, I'm Ira Flato.

Drive safely and have a good night. Thank you.