Science Friday - Great Indoors, Science Museums, Who Owns The Sky. July 10, 2020, Part 2

Episode Date: July 10, 2020

A whole lot of folks’ summer plans have been cut short this season. Maybe you were planning a family road trip to visit a national park. Or your local science museum. Now, you can watch from home, as Emily Graslie, executive producer, host, and writer for the PBS series “Prehistoric Road Trip,” takes us along for the ride to some of the big geologic sites across the country. She talks about the future of museums and science communication. “Prehistoric Road Trip” is currently streaming on pbs.org.  There’s a whole thriving, diverse microbiome that lives in your home. One 2010 study of North Carolina homes found an average of 2,000 types of microbes per house. And there’s likely a menagerie of arthropods living with you, too. Another study found that homes contain an average population of about a hundred invertebrate species, including spiders, mites, earwigs, cockroaches, and moths. There’s no need to panic: These thriving ecosystems are doing us more good than we give them credit for. Children who grow up exposed to an abundance of microbes are less sensitive to allergens, and appear to have better developed immune systems throughout their lives. Science journalist Emily Anthes talks about the indoor microbiome in her new book, The Great Indoors: The Surprising Science of How Buildings Shape Our Behavior, Health, and Happiness. She joins Ira to discuss what she learned about the unique microbiome of her own home while writing the book, and the vast biodiversity of the indoors. In the last year, Elon Musk’s SpaceX company has launched more than 500 small satellites, the beginning of a project that Musk says will create a worldwide network of internet access for those who currently lack it. But there’s a problem: The reflective objects in their low-earth orbit shine brighter than actual stars in the 90 minutes after sunset. In astronomical images taken during these times, the ‘constellations’ of closely grouped satellites show up as bright streaks of light that distort images of far-away galaxies. With SpaceX planning to launch up to 12,000 satellites, and other companies contemplating thousands more, the entire night sky might change—and not just at twilight. Astronomers have voiced concerns that these satellites will disrupt sensitive data collection needed to study exoplanets, near-earth asteroids, dark matter, and more. And there’s another question on the minds of scientists, photographers, Indigenous communities, and everyone else who places high value on the darkness of the night sky: Who gets to decide to put all these objects in space in the first place?  Astronomers Aparna Venkatesan and James Lowenthal discuss the risks of too many satellites, both to science and culture, and why it may be time to update the laws that govern space to include more voices. Plus, astronomer Annette Lee of the Lakota tribe sends a message about her cultural relationship with the night sky. Plus, NASA is asking amateur astronomers and photography enthusiasts to take as many pictures as they can of the Starlink “streaks.” You can help NASA document the night sky—and the changes happening there—by uploading your sky photos to the Satellite Streak Watcher research project. All you need to get started is a digital camera or smartphone, a tripod, and a long exposure on a clear evening. Click here to participate! 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 Plato. As you spend lots of time indoors now, do you find yourself incessantly cleaning? I know I have it. It's amazing, which it can turn up, right? What's even more amazing is this stuff you can't see, tiny stuff, like a whole microbiome that lives in your home. One study of North Carolina homes found an average of 2,000 types of microbes per house, and the dust we find all over surfaces. And in our carpets, well, the dust contains DNA from tens of thousands of bacteria and fungi. But there is no need to become germophobic. This is completely normal and probably beneficial to our health. Author Emily Anthis talks about the indoor microbiome in her new book,

The Great Indoors, The Surprising Science of How Building Shape Our Behavior, Health and Happiness. And she joins us today from Brooklyn, New York, as we do. used to say it when I live in Brooklyn. Thank you for joining us today. Of course. Thanks so much for having me. Set the scene for us. What makes up the indoor microbiome? So it is largely bacteria and a little bit of fungi. And it comes from a few different sources. So in terms of bacteria, we ourselves are really the dominant sources of bacteria in our homes. So listeners may know that we all have our own microbiomes, these are bacteria that live in and on our bodies and are really critical to our health. But as we move throughout the world, we're constantly shedding these bacteria and releasing them

into the air, and they then settle, you know, in the corners of our homes, on our pillowcases, on our kitchen counters. So that's a big source of microbes in our home. Our pets also introduce microbes, the dogs especially. They bring in soil microbes from outside, and then they shed their own microbes into the space. Then there are microbes that just drift in from outside. So soil and leaves might come in through an open door or window. And then there's another class of microbes that really live in and on our homes. So mold is a big one. You know, you might see on your shower curtain from time to time, black splotches. Scientists have also found unique microbes in some of the extreme environments in our home. So when I say extreme, I'm thinking of, like,

like dishwashers, which get really hot and wet and soapy. And it turns out there's some unique forms of life, some kinds of black yeasts that live in our dishwashers. Wow, that's cool. I mean, I see you like to really geek out about this, which I really like, because I understand that in geeking out, you were looking at your showerhead and you found some interesting, really interesting, geeky stuff there. I was. And so I, some of the researchers I interviewed were in the midst of a project to survey the microbes that lived in showerheads all around the world. So I was excited to participate. And I found a couple of things, or I should say the researchers found a couple of things. Some were not very surprising. So there were bacteria

living in there that are commonly found in soil and tap water, which is what you might expect. But there were also some more mysterious things. One of the organisms they found is called, it's not a very evocative name right now, it's just called RB4-1. And it's not a well-understood microbe, but it has been found previously in both dog noses and in Paleolithic cave paintings. And so it's kind of amazing to me that this mysterious microbe that's been found in such disparate places is also just hanging out in my showerhead. Yeah, it's kind of cool that you could share that kind of history with them. Yeah, it is, you know, you mentioned geeking out. And I think what's interesting is the idea of our spaces and our homes, which are so familiar

to us as being these sort of rich ecosystems is really kind of cool. Yeah. And microbes aren't the only things that make up indoor biodiversity because in your book, you talk about how many bugs can be found in your home. Yeah. And again, here I don't mean to freak readers out. Most of the bugs and arthropods in our homes are totally benign. And some, might be even beneficial, but researchers in one study found that on average, each home has about a hundred different species of arthropods. And that might seem improbable. You know, you're probably not seeing a hundred different kinds of insects scurrying around your home. But a lot of them are hidden or they're nocturnal and they're only coming out at night or they're

very tiny and you might not normally see them. And they can live everywhere from, you know, the soil of of your house plants to your plumbing. You know, when people hear that there are so many bugs, many times their first reaction is going to be to get the bug spray. But you say, don't do that because so much biodiversity in our home is a good thing, right? Yeah. But some of these bugs, especially when you start thinking about things like spiders, are actually doing you a favor.

And they're a natural form of pest control. And there are some cultures around the world that sort of deliver. deliberately introduce spiders into their home because they help control populations of maybe mosquitoes that could carry disease. So a lot of these bugs are really nothing to be worried about, even though they might seem creepy. Yeah, your book isn't just about the microbiome indoors. It's titled The Surprising Science of How Buildings Shape Our Behavior, Health and Happiness. It's more broadly about how buildings can be designed to influence how we feel. I found that part very fascinating. Yeah, almost everything about our indoor environments from how spaces are laid out

to the ventilation to even the indoor air temperature affects us in ways that we might not really appreciate. And it can affect our mood, our stress level. It can affect how quickly patients recover when they're in the hospital, how well students do on standardized tests. So it really plays a hidden but profound role in our lives. Do architects take that into account? Do they specifically shape buildings and indoors because they know it's going to be a mood changer? Increasingly, yes. So there's a field which much of my book is about, known as evidence-based design, which really was sort of founded in the mid-1980s, but has really gained steam since then. And so there is an increasing attention that architects are paying to creating buildings that make us feel good or are healthier. There are now, you know, listeners may have heard of lead certification, which a building can get, you know, if it's sustainable.

But there's also now a well certification that a building can get if it incorporates enough design features that are good for occupants. I didn't know that. That's kind of interesting. There's this fascinating Japanese building you talk about in the introduction of the book where the creators believe that the residents could cheat death by this special kind of architecture. Yeah, so this was a couple. They were married artists, Arakawa and Gins, and they devoted their careers to this concept that they called reversible destiny. And they really believed that death did not have to be inevitable and that the best way to fight death was through architecture, through creating buildings they believed that really challenged us. So their buildings are really wild. They have floors that are bumpy and misshapen. You know, they might have 30 or 40 different. interior paint colors, rooms of different shapes. And their idea, at least, was that these kinds of environments would keep us on our toes and strengthen our immune systems and really keep us vigorous and vibrant throughout our lives. Are there buildings like that still in existence?

Their buildings do still exist. They, you know, I say in the book, if they discovered the secret of immortality, they did not take advantage of it themselves because they have both passed away. But their building stand and one of their homes is actually out on Long Island. Well, obviously, since they've passed away, it's not working for a lot of people. Right. Well, and so, you know, I think the idea of immortality is obviously a bit far-fetched, but I think they are onto something a little bit, because scientists have known for a long time about what they sometimes call environmental enrichment, and that's that living in sort of engaging, stimulating environments is good for our physical and mental health. So in that way, they were onto something. So are we missing that, that engagement while we're

staying at home? I know that you say in your book, you call yourself unapologetically indoorsy. I am. Yeah, I'm the kid that would like bring a book to sleepovers. And I, you know, I enjoy being outside, but really inside in my home is, is my safe place. But I do think that now that we're all confined to our homes, there are some things we're missing. And, you know, obviously it's not complete sensory deprivation, but there is sort of a sameness to our lives in our environments right now, some boredom that may be creeping in. And there's research that shows that, you know, this kind of sensory sameness can be stressful and can actually cause our cortisol levels to rise. So it's not great to not have stimulating environments. You also make the point that modern humans are basically,

an indoor species now. Yeah, I mean, in North America and in Europe, I think the statistic that you often hear is that we spend about 90% of our lives indoors. And I would guess that in the last few months, it might be more like 95 or 98%. And of course, your book really is especially timely right now with all of us staying inside more than usual. Do you think people will pay more attention to their indoor environments now? Well, I hope so. And I would say that I think in certain ways that's already beginning to happen. You know, I'm hearing a lot more interest in and concern about indoor air quality, which is something that scientists have been sort of trying to sound the alarm about for the last few years, but now is something that people are thinking a lot more about.

And I would imagine being a plant person, I'd love to bring plants indoors or keep my house plants indoors. And I find that they actually change my mood also. That is one of the most well-validated findings in all of the literature is that plants and nature are good for us in almost every way you can think about. They boost our mood. They reduce stress. They can boost our attention and cognitive performance. And one thing that might be reassuring for people is, you know, real plants are great. If you can bring house plants in, that's wonderful. But if that's not your thing or you're worried about a black thumb, that even sort of quote unquote fake nature has.

some of the same benefits. So a big photo of nature on the wall or even nature sounds can have some of the same stress relieving effects. Yeah. Well, I'm trying to do some of that in my home. And it's a learning experience, but being a geek, I love this stuff. Yeah. All right, Emily, thank you for taking time to be with us today. Fascinating book, Emily Anthis, author of The Great Endors, The Surprising Science of How Buildings Shape Our Behavior, Health and Happiness. And a great read. Thanks for taking time, as I say, for joining us today. It was a pleasure to be here. We're going to take a break, and when we come back,

we're going to talk with Emily Grassley from the Field Museum in Chicago. She'll take us on a prehistoric road trip and talk about the future of museums. All coming up after the short break, so stay with us. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. A whole lot of folks' summer plans have been cut short this season. Maybe you were planning a family road trip to visit an National Park or your local science museum, you probably won't be able to go in person for a while,

but my next guest is here to help out. Emily Grassley is the executive producer, host, and writer for the PBS series Prehistoric Road Trip. She's also chief curiosity correspondent. Get that, at the Field Museum in Chicago, she's here to take us along for the ride to some of the big geologic sites around the country and talk about the future of museums and science communication. Welcome to Science Friday. Hi, thank you so much for having me. Nice to have a fellow communicator on the show. Yes, yes. Let's talk about this, especially since the pandemic. You can't go into a museum and view the exhibits for yourself, but your work is about bringing the collections to people through YouTube and online. Tell us how you do that. Yeah. Well,

I mean, there's this amazing statistic that we love to share at the Field Museum, which is that, you know, we have over a million square feet of exhibition space. And yet, out of everything that you can see on display, it still only represents about 1% of our entire holdings as a collection. So we've got 99% more artifacts, specimens, dinosaurs, you know, everything else behind the scenes, so to speak. How do you provide access to all of that additional amazing material and information? in collections. And it turns out that, you know, grabbing a camera and making a YouTube video about some of the stories that can be found in the research collections of natural history museums is a pretty effective way of getting the information out there.

And so that's what I started doing about seven years ago and been making YouTube videos about natural history museums ever since. Do you think after the pandemic is over that we're going to see museums working in a different way, perhaps doing more like what you're doing now, bringing it out to the people instead of just going to the museum? Oh, absolutely. I mean, honestly, I've been doing this for a while, like I said, seven years. And ever since the pandemic, there hasn't been a day that's gone by where I haven't been approached by a museum director or an arts board council or some other consultancy group who are all eager to learn more about how to

participate and get involved in this digital landscape because it is becoming so apparent that, you know, it's a need for these cultural and scientific organizations. to reach out online to widen their communities and to increase engagement, especially during times of physical closure. Let's talk a bit about your prehistoric road trip. What were you trying to find out? Well, I was approached by WTTW, Chicago's public broadcast station back in 2017 with this question of whether or not I'd ever thought about making a broadcast show about anything. Most of our YouTube videos are like, you know, seven to ten minutes long. And they were like,

what about an hour? Could you feel an hour? And the first thing that came to mind was an exploration of Western South Dakota, which is where I'm from originally. But it's an area that's known by geologists and paleontologists for being, you know, some of the most dynamic and amazing fossil sites and geological sites in the whole country. And so we wanted to start there and essentially do a drive through deep time. When we pitched this idea to PBS, they got so excited about it. They said, well, you know, expand outside of just South Dakota and, you know, maybe you can fill three hours. And so those were sort of our parameters, which is that we want to bring viewers on a road trip with us and drive through deep time visiting as many different sites representing as many different periods of geologic history as possible.

And the result is a three hour long series that takes you through about two billion years of Earth's history. Prehistoric Road Trip was an opportunity for me to rediscover the area that I left when I went to. to college and then moved to Chicago. And it really helped to me gain a whole new appreciation for an area that I thought wasn't terribly unique or interesting. And the complete opposite is true. There's so much more we don't know about certain parts of the world and there's so much more to find. And you actually get to work along Sue, the T-Rex, right? Yeah. So the amazing thing about Sue, the T-Rex, it's the Field Museum's Tyrannosaurus Rex, and it's the largest and most complete T-Rex fossil ever excavated.

And Sue was initially discovered outside the tiny town of Faith, South Dakota in the early 1990s. And what's funny about Faith is that that's where my family's from. My dad's a lifelong farmer and rancher. We've known my whole life that there are dinosaurs out in this landscape. And then for one of the best ever found to be from the same part of the country really made me reevaluate. you know, what does it mean to be a part, you know, of this part of the country or from here, especially when not a lot of people are from that part of the country? Do you think your dad may have stumbled across a bone once and just say, oh, what's this

dog bone doing here when it was really a dinosaur or something? Oh, I'm 100%. I just inherited some remnants of my grandfather's fossil collection, which are really, yeah, really just like random, like huge, like, you know, 20 pound chunks of weathered bone that he would find while he was tilling his farm fields. And he would find them throughout working the pastures, you know, checking on cattle. And he would pick them up and just put them in a shed. He didn't really know what they were or what the animal they belonged to, but he knew that they were prehistoric. And when he passed away, that collection went to my father and he just recently gave it to me.

No kidding. Well, to be honest, a lot of it is not really scientifically valuable at this point because we don't actually know exactly where it came from, just like a certain kind of area. And most of it is unidentifiable. It's like an admonosaurus is a huge dinosaur. It's like a broken up admonosaurus limb bone. That said, they're still like they have a lot of value for us personally. So probably keep it. Wow.

So tell me then in all of your travels, what is your most exciting find? Yeah, there are exciting finds that I think what makes them so exciting is that they're not that interesting at first, maybe. One of the sites that really blew my mind was we were in Hell Creek State Park in Montana, north of Jordan, and we were out there. We had spent the last day on this Triceratops skull site where we were literally excavating the skull of a Triceratops. It's been buried for 66 million years. We're the first people who have seen the face of this animal. And the next day, we went out to a fossil clam site. And to be honest with you, like the triceratops was amazing.

The clams were exciting. Because when you start to learn about the information that can be pulled out of a fossil clam, you learn things that like, because of the accretion layers and the way in which a clam grows throughout its lifetime, it can pull certain chemicals and elements out of the water that it's growing in, and that's recorded once this animal dies and becomes fossilized. So there are researchers who study the clams that were living in the rivers that the dinosaurs were drinking out of, and it's because of the clams that we can know things like the temperature of the water, the chemistry of the water the animal was living in, and it just provides

so many additional contextual bits of information about this, like, this triscipline, saratops that we were also looking at. So I think some of the most exciting things to me were finding, you know, the smaller details of a prehistoric landscape and looking at what scientists are able to extrapolate from that information, from unassuming places like clams. Yeah, you know, that's really exciting. And knowing you, you're the first person to stumble on something that's 60 million years old. Yeah, it's thrilling. And science isn't just about the scientist. There's an entire community that is involved. I know you talk to indigenous communities and landowners, too. Yeah, that was a big part of what we wanted to do with the show was, again, to show just all the

different intersections of people with science and paleontology specifically. And a big part of that is acknowledging that people been living in North America for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years. And, you know, it's, you just understand that there are deep histories and, and, and cultural meanings, interpretations assigned to a lot of the fossils that indigenous people would have been coming across for hundreds of years. And there are a couple of different communities, one in Standing Rock at the Standing Rock Institute of Natural History in North and South Dakota, and then the Oglala Lakota College in Pine Ridge in South Dakota. Both, we shared stories from both of these places about the history of fossil collecting

and Western paleontology and how it intersects with Native American tribal communities in that part of the region, just to kind of show the new areas where this field can be expanded and the new exciting work that's being done in collaboration with Native scholars in the area. And to me, that is one of the other really exciting parts of this, not just this program, but the field of paleontology in general is understanding that, you know, the people who live in standing rock, in some of the most fossil-rich part of the country, they're deeply interested in understanding these prehistoric landscapes from a cultural context is, to me, really exciting. One of the researchers

who we interviewed down at the Aguwala Lakota College is somebody whose work I started looking into months before we were filming and just figuring out, you know, what the narrative is, what is the angle here, what are we seeking to accomplish by sharing these stories? And to earn the trust of those community members was, you know, that's relationship building that I take incredibly seriously. And I don't ever assume that it's going to be granted to me. I mean, it was a privilege to share those stories as a filmmaker and a documentary film producer. I'm honored that they were willing to work with us. You know, I was thinking the other day, with all of the science that we have now with the pandemic and with climate change, do you think

people are becoming more science literate and more eager to learn about new things? 100%. I have seen such a shift in how scientists are portrayed in the media in the last, you know, seven years that I've been heavily working in this space. I think there's been a certain normalization of scientists as like everyday people, right? Like we're starting to see, You know, you see these, mostly on movements on social media and a lot of these other celebrations of the many diverse people who make meaningful contributions to these fields. We're seeing a heightened celebration and awareness of them. And I mean, that's only positive. It's only good.

And that to me is really exciting. Your title at the Field Museum is Chief Curiosity correspondent. You have a background in art and you do film. How did your science curiosity come about? about? That's an interesting question. And I don't really know. I've always kind of been a curious person, but curious with limitations on, you know, self-imposed limitations on where my curiosity was going to take me. I studied landscape painting at the University of Montana and really thought that I wasn't very good at science because I didn't do well in my science classes in school.

And I honestly thought science was pretty unimaginative and pretty uncreative as a field. And as a creative person, I wanted to do something that fostered my creativity. So I went with the fine arts. But it wasn't until I started working in museums that I realized, you know, the skills you learn as an artist, your observational skills, your interpretive skills, your communication skills, those are hugely valuable to scientific fields. And so when I started making videos about the curious things I would find in museum collections, I realized that there's a real role for artists in science museums, too.

And from there, it's just the more that I started speaking out about museums, the bigger the community grew for me in terms of other people who wanted to learn about this stuff. And we've just been growing ever since then. I'm Ira Flato, and this is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. When it comes to communicating science, either for yourself or your working, with the scientists to explain their work? What's your biggest challenge to getting someone else to understand what you know? Is it in the presentation?

Is it in the artwork? Is it in the writing or all of those or getting the scientists to speak? A lot of the challenge is in helping to develop what is the narrative here? Any bit of science can be woven into a science story. And sometimes it's just a process of identifying. the elements of this story. And so when I work with a scientist, usually they become sort of the main character. And one of the first questions I'll ask a scientist before we start, you know, working on a project together is what do they wish people knew about their work? What is a misconception

about their field of expertise? I always want a scientist, or I always want to use an opportunity working with scientists to provide them with a platform to, you know, share with the world what got them first interested in this, you know, what excites them about their work. And so once you get scientists to open up from that regard, and that can be really hard too because oftentimes scientists think, like, you know, people are only looking to me for the facts. They want the data. And in my experience, viewers typically want to see scientists more as regular people, quote unquote. They want to know, you know, they want to feel like scientists are relatable. And so that's a challenge is getting scientists to feel comfortable with with their own humanity oftentimes, especially on camera when,

you know, it's pretty invasive. You've got, you know, crew of six people all staring at you. And so getting people to feel comfortable on camera can be a challenge, but it's one of my favorite parts of the job. And did you have to learn how to do that? Is it a craft that you develop over time, get better at? It's a craft that you develop in reverse. And I mean that by like, Once I realized that that was really my goal, which is to make people feel comfortable on camera in order to get them to tell this story, I realize that I have to limit the amount of time I spend with somebody before we start recording. Because it's my innate talent, I guess, to just want to talk with people and ask them all the questions that I have. And when you do that before the camera's rolling, it turns out you blow the interview.

And so the challenge was really teaching myself to hold back before we start getting it. getting into those conversations. So I kind of have to walk away. So I mean, you must understand. Like, that's hard to do. When you're a curious person, you just want to get rolling. You got so many questions. I call that talking yourself out before the interview.

I have tried that myself. I say, wait a minute, just hold on, you know, don't tell me everything. Because you'll think you have said it already to me when you really haven't said it to anybody yet. I know. Where can we see the stuff that you've done now? I mean, the prehistoric road trip series is just wrapped up. How can we watch it?

Yeah, so prehistoric road trip three-part series. You can watch it on pbs.org or WTTW.com slash prehistoric road trip, where we have a bunch of extra behind-the-scenes footage and extra web content, and you can plan your own prehistoric road trip on the website. And you can find it on the PBS app. And the other videos that I make for the Field Museum are on our YouTube channel, which is called the Brain Scoop. Well, Emily, I see that you are excited by your work.

We're excited to have you, and we wish you all the best in your career. And thank you for taking time to be with us today. Thank you so much for having me. Emily Grassley, executive producer, host, and writer for the PBS series Prehistoric Road Trip. She's also Chief Curiosity Correspondent. I love that name at the Field Museum in Chicago. We're going to take a break, and afterwards we come back and talk about who

owns the night sky, who gets to decide what satellites to put up in these new bright objects that we're seeing thousands of them at a time now. So stay with us. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Plato. Summer nights are a good time to look up. Maybe you can see and name every constellation. I can't do that yet. Or maybe you're still hoping to get a glimpse of the full majesty of a dark sky far away from human light sources. On the darkest night, we can see 8,000 stars with our naked eye. But what if one day you looked up and you saw something unusual? Maybe thousands of bright satellites speeding across the night?

Well, that's one possible outcome as companies like SpaceX begin to launch new communications satellites into low Earth orbit. The Starling Project with James to offer affordable Internet to people who don't have access is just the... first of a coming wave of projects that might fill the sky above us with thousands of new satellites. And if that happens, astronomers and others are worrying. Something important about the sky could be lost, something we as a species have loved for thousands of years. Here to discuss are my guests. Dr. Aparna, Venkatasin, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of San Francisco.

Dr. James Lowenthal, Professor and Chair of Astronomy, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts. Thank you both for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. James, what makes the Starlink satellite different from all the other satellites we have up there in the sky already? They're big and they're bright. There were, before Starlink, maybe 20,000 objects orbiting the Earth, that were tracked by the U.S. government. About 2,000 of those were operating satellites.

Only about 200 of those were visible to the naked eye. But all of the star lengths that have been launched, which is now 480 and counting, are visible to the naked eye. It's because they're in low orbit and they're big and they reflect a lot of sunlight. Many people have seen the starlink satellites just after launch when they've sent one rocket up with 60 satellites and they look like a string of pearls across the sky. All of them bright enough to see easily with the naked eye before they spread out in their orbit and then their orbit gets raised to the higher operating orbit. And by then they look a little fainter but still visible to the naked eye. And they're going to be a lot more than we have now.

There are going to be a lot more. 480 and counting. Every time they launch, they release another 60. This first phase will include 1,600 satellites. From what I understand, these particular satellites are only visible right after twilight when they're still in range of the sun. Does this make it any less of a problem for astronomers and people who are looking to see a clear, bright evening sky? Yes and no. The twilight hours are not the hours when all astronomy is done, but even astronomy projects that need dark midnight sky often use the twilight hours to do calibrations. and there are many astronomy projects that actually need the twilight hours, such as ones that look for killer asteroids. And furthermore, many of the satellites that are only posed now tops 100,000 new satellites coming in the next 10 years.

And those satellites will be visible all night long, even in midnight, from many parts of the world during many parts of the year. I fear almost every branch of astronomy is vulnerable to this new threat. When telescopes point towards the large Magellanic cloud and take deep image after image to try to unlock the mystery of how stars form, how planets are made, how the large Magellanic cloud interacts gravitationally with the Milky Way in ways that will let us understand more about galaxy formation, they are sensitive to a streak passing across the field of view from a passing satellite. The current planned constellations of satellites could include so many bright satellites that every single image will have a satellite streak in it, making some of that

science absolutely impossible. We are at risk of losing the projects that are protecting the Earth from potential killer asteroids. Space rocks that are big enough that if they collided with the Earth, they would cause a catastrophic explosion. The very nature of the universe, dark energy, dark matter, our understanding of those things depends on results from ground-based observations that are now threatened by the satellite constellations. Unbelievable. Aparna, what's your take on this? It's very complicated. The goal of these satellite constellations is laudable to bring internet and connectivity to the globe. I think it's especially important when you consider

minorized populations around the world, and particularly in this country, the digital divide is very real and needs solving. However, I think that process matters as much, if not more than where we end up, and who are the stakeholders here? And very importantly, who is not at the decision-making table because there's a wealth of issues in addition to science, the sky traditions of people around the world, cultural practices, and just a whole host of issues. We talked to Lakota astronomer Annette Lee about the importance of the night sky to her indigenous communities and what they stand to lose if we change the sky. So in indigenous astronomy, the stars are our oldest living relatives.

The stars are the place where we come from. Where you can understand we're made of the four parts, the mind, the body, the heart, and the spirit. Our spirit is really star and comes from the stars and goes back to the stars. So I like to think of it like we are just here temporarily on our human journey. and we go back to that spirit form. We go back to the stars. This is temporary. So, like, having that connection with the night sky

is having that connection with where we come from, where we're going, and the reason why we're here on our journey on Earth. So in that sense, it's a lifeline. That's exactly what you were talking about, and how important the sky is to, indigenous peoples. I think that there's so much rich dialogue that's possible here. I'm a cosmologist, and I would say there's a wonderful common ground amongst all perspectives when we think of space

as an ancestral global commons. As a cosmologist, I know that we are all star stuff. We have all been deep within stars multiple times at this point. And that's the cosmologist's perspective, but I'm very grateful to hear the view of the sky and the cosmos as our ancestors as well through the indigenous perspective. Going a little bit beyond that, I think the time is now, and arguably was a decade ago, about who space belongs to. Is it a shared resource that we hold in community trust? Is it a basic human right like food, air, water?

And I would say dark skies are a basic human right. The sky is something that has connected us around the world and across the millennia, as you noted, Ira. And it's essential for science and for cultural practices. It's what makes us human all of these different traditions. on scientific, cultural, and personal. James, how do astronomers look at this? Do they consider what social impacts they may have?

And I remember just a few months ago, we were talking about trying to cite a telescope on a Hawaiian mountain top, and there was pushback from the indigenous people there. Thanks, Ira, that history of astronomers building telescopes on mountaintops, many of them sacred to indigenous people is certainly complicated and fraught one. And I think it is worth considering it now in the current situation.

In many ways, you might say the shoe was on the other foot. Astronomers used to think our work is the most important thing, and science must go on. And we were not very good about listening to the valid and serious concerns of indigenous people. And you might say we were part of a colonial enterprise that science, was wrapped up in. And now we're suffering from that same colonization, only this time it's the colonization of space. Space is now essentially unregulated. The constellations of low-earth orbit satellites that have been launched and are proposed for launched over 100,000 in the next 10 years

are legal. Most of them got the permission they need already from the relevant governing bodies like the Federal Communication Commission. And they're even consistent with the United Nations a treaty on outer space. It seems now possible. SpaceX has devoted significant resources in the last year to making the satellites darker. It looks as if they've been able to do that. If other satellite companies could follow suit and follow a few recommendations, then perhaps we could save the sky for naked eye star gazers. But that is not going to solve the problem for research astronomy. It is literally an existential threat for astronomy. Aparna, if they do darken the satellites with some kinds of shading, is research astronomy

still threatened by the satellites just being there? Yes, there's multiple considerations. One is the contribution, as James well put it, both at a, you know, research astronomy level, is this spoiling my galaxy exposure? Is this affecting my science? to space debris is a big one, and collisions between satellites. Also, interference at other band passes. As I've educated myself on this issue, I've been really surprised at the lack of consistent international regulation and transparent protocols on how we are literally occupying space. I know we have the Outer Space Treaty from 1967, but at the time,

there was a race to literally occupy space to be the first there. And that strategy is still driving even our policy with the moon, like a rush to claim, kind of a first come first claim approach. But I would advocate there's a huge opportunity right now, 60 years later. We're entering this with very different preexisting conditions than the 1960s because our planet and our species and really all species are at an existential crossroads. We're very vulnerable. And I think we should move away from a scarcity mindset and a defensive reactive strategy to a more proactive strategy, one that begins in intentionality and respect. And we need to develop ethical and transparent protocols ahead of the science.

And I know it'll be slow and messy, but we're really at a crossroads. And now is the time to revisit the process. I want to bring back Dr. Annette Lee again with their hopes for what comes next. I think that we're too far along this path to hold the flood back. What we absolutely and urgently need to do is find a way to do both for the benefit of all. The question is how do we do that now? Where are the policies? Where are the leaders?

Where are the voices? Who's going to make that happen? Just a reminder, I'm Ira Plato, and this is Science Friday. from WNYC Studios? A good question. That is the missing piece. Who are the leaders? Arpani, you can answer first.

I think what we need is more representation at the decision-making table, both of international communities and all the groups advocating for dark skies. There's so much sliding by that we are not able to pay attention to. And the first step is to have an advocacy group in our federal agencies. I personally think NASA should have a cultural ethics or a cultural protocol office that can partner with all the other aspects of what we as astronomers do. The White House issued an executive order on April 6th, asserting a right to recover and use space resources. And there's a quote here that I'll read out,

Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law. Outer space is a legally and physically unique domain of human activity, and I'll draw your attention to this end of the quote. The United States does not view it as a global commons. So that's very alarming to me, and the key word for me is applicable law. The laws need to change right now. a couple of regulatory bodies, then bring more historically minorized voices to the decision-making table. And one final question for you, James.

How do we get this as part of the discussion to begin with? I want to point attention to the United Nations Treaty on the use of outer space, which includes the phrases that the exploration and use of outer space should be carried on for the benefit of all peoples, irrespective of the degree of. of their economic or scientific development, and also that such cooperation will contribute to the development of mutual understanding and to the strengthening of friendly relations

between states and peoples. These are lofty goals enshrined in the United Nations. And I'm happy to say that there is currently an international conference being planned for October that will result in a white paper to the United Nations about light pollution, including from satellites, with the hope that we will be able to provide some more teeth to those treaties.

It also needs to happen, as Aparnas said, updating of federal United States laws and other countries' laws. Right now, the National Environmental Protection Act does not include protection of the sky. The sky is not considered the environment that needs protecting. Now we can see it desperately does need that protection. I think we're out of time. So much to talk about. We have begun the discussion.

I'd like to thank my guest, Dr. Aparna, Venka Tason, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University University of San Francisco, Dr. James Lowenthal, Professor and Chair of Astronomy, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts. As I say, thank you both for taking time to be with us today. Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you. It was a pleasure. One last thing before we go, we've been talking about who makes the decisions about the night sky, and one thing that sure is that SpaceX is continuing to put their Starlink satellites up, and NASA wants you to photograph them. So if you have a smartphone or digital camera, a tripod, and can take some long exposures, you can help astronomers document these changes to our night sky.

Here's how to do it. Go to our website at ScienceFriday.com slash satellites to learn more about the Satellite Streakwatcher project and get started. NASA's Stan Odenwald, Director of Citizen Science for NASA's Space Science Education Consortium, is here to motivate you. I need lots of people from a variety of vantage points around the world to take a photograph of the sky during the transit times. Over the next five to ten years, we can document just how bad things are getting. It would be a unique archive that will probably stimulate a lot of research once we build up enough of these images.

NASA wants to track the growing footprint of these satellites over the next few years, so grab your camera, get out to. and check out our website for more details, science friday.com slash satellites. Just a reminder of the Science Friday Voxpop app, something for parents, students, and educators of all age groups, schools and universities are making their plans for the fall semester. How do you want to see K-12 and college education happen in this pandemic? What do you worry about?

What do you need? Talking about education and the pandemic on the Science Friday Voxpop app wherever you get your apps. Have a great weekend. We'll see you next week. I'm Ira Flato.