2,500 years ago, the philosopher Anaxagoras brought science’s spirit to Athens

It doesn’t appear that anybody has noticed yet, but 2021 marks a rather important anniversary in the history of science and western civilization. It was 2,500 years ago this year that a philosopher named Anaxagoras arrived in Athens, Greece.

Nobody held any celebrations at the time, either. But it was nonetheless an important historical and intellectual landmark. Before Anaxagoras, ancient Greek science (or to be less anachronistic, natural philosophy) hadn’t actually been practiced much in Greece itself. Natural philosophy originated early in the sixth century B.C. at the Greek settlement Miletus in Ionia, the western coast of modern-day Turkey. A second branch of primordial Greek science soon took root in southern Italy after one Ionian, a math fan named Pythagoras, moved there.

Anaxagoras, born in the Ionian town of Clazomenae, was the first natural philosopher to reside in Athens and promote the Ionian philosophical outlook there. As the science historian George Sarton wrote, Anaxagoras “introduced the scientific spirit into Athens.” Soon after, Athens became the western world’s center of philosophical inquiry, as the triumvirate of Socrates, Plato and then Aristotle established philosophy as an essential component of civilized intellectual discourse.

To be honest, there is some doubt about the exact date of Anaxagoras’ move to Athens. But the biographer of philosophers Diogenes Laertius wrote that Anaxagoras began to do philosophy in Athens at the age of 20, and says he was 20 years old when the Persian king Xerxes attacked Greece and that was 480 B.C., 2,500 years ago. (You might think that 2021 would make that 2,501 years ago, but only if you forgot that there was no year 0, so you have to subtract one year from the calculation.)

It’s possible that during his time in Athens, Anaxagoras met the young Socrates, but the direct link to Socrates and his philosophical descendants was through the philosopher Archelaus. Anaxagoras “was the first to stimulate Archelaus the Athenian to practice philosophy,” wrote the famous physician Galen. And Archelaus was the teacher of Socrates, who taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, whose influence dominated science for two millennia.

Anaxagoras came along about a century after the first Ionian philosophers, Thales of Miletus and his younger Milesian contemporary Anaximander. Along with a third Milesian, Anaximenes, they had established a new way of viewing the natural world. They sought explanations for phenomena in natural causes, rather than ascribing them to the behavior of mythological gods invented by poets to explain cosmic history. No longer was lightning a sign of an angry Zeus, declared Anaximander — rather it flashed when clouds were disrupted by the wind.

While the original Milesians did not agree on all issues, they did all insist that natural philosophy should be based on an underlying foundation (called the arche or arkhé), a principle from which all of reality could be derived. “The notions of beginning, origin, governing principle and cause were closely united in the single word arche,” wrote the philosopher-historian William Guthrie.

Thales thought that the fundamental principle was water; Anaximenes said air. Anaximander thought everything arose from a mysterious material called the apeiron, which means something like the unlimited or the boundless. Over in Italy, the Pythagoreans promoted the idea that the underlying foundation of everything was number.

For Anaxagoras, the arche was nous, or “mind” (sometimes translated as “intellect” or “intelligence”). His approach extended the scientific ideas of his Ionian predecessors to address issues posed by the Italian philosopher Parmenides. Everything had to always be as it is, Parmenides reasoned, because nothing could come to be out of nothing — nonexistence could not produce existence, because there is no such thing as nonexistence, by definition of existence. Reality consisted in an ever-present, unchanging, unmovable mass of undifferentiated sameness that filled all of space, Parmenides concluded. There was therefore no room for any motion, or any change — the world perceived by the senses was false, an illusion concealing the true nature of reality. Senses offered a “way of seeming”; only reason provided the “way of truth.”

Although it sounds whacko to modern ears, in those days it was a hard argument to refute. But Anaxagoras had a sophisticated and subtle mind; in responding to Parmenides, he introduced an entirely new idea about fundamental reality, contending that all the different sorts of matter are already present in any given piece of matter. No new thing has to “come into being,” because all possible things already exist to begin with and continue to exist in everything — even if in amounts too small for the senses to detect. A lump of supposedly pure gold, for instance, also contains tiny “seeds” of every other sort of matter. Our senses are just too coarse to notice the seeds. (For that matter, the seeds themselves contained smaller amounts of everything, also. Anaxagoras had conceived the notion of infinite divisibility, another novel thought.)

Any piece of matter could seem to change into something else by virtue of shifts in the relative amounts of its seeds. Eating vegetables, for instance, could produce flesh and bone in your body because the digestive process concentrated the flesh and bone seeds that were imperceptibly diffuse in the original food.

Initially, all matter was one big static mass. At some point in the past, nous, or mind, set that mass into whirling motion, concentrating heavy stuff (like earth) in the middle, creating the Earth. Chunks of earth whirled outward became stars and the sun and the moon.

Anaxagoras’ nous was the one distinctive ingredient in his system. Other stuff was all mixed with everything else. But mind was its own thing. “Mind is something infinite and independent and is mixed with nothing,” he wrote. But mind (while maintaining its purity) is present in many things, including all people, called by Anaxagoras “the wisest of animals.” (Guthrie recounts that when asked why some people don’t seem so wise, “Anaxagoras is said to have remarked that though all men have intellect they do not always use it.”)

Despite his own considerable intellect, Anaxagoras’ theory of matter was wrong. But his reputation rests on many other contributions to scientific thought. A century ago, Thomas Heath, the eminent scholar of Greek science and math, declared that Anaxagoras was “a great man of science” who “enriched astronomy by one epoch-making discovery”: that the light of the moon is not its own, but a reflection of light from the sun. (Some scholars say he got the idea from Parmenides, but in any case, it is still very deserving for a crater near the moon’s north pole to be named Anaxagoras.) 

Anaxagoras wrote a treatise covering many other scientific subjects, including meteorology and geology. He supposedly predicted that a rock could fall to Earth from the sky; in any case, he was awarded credit for such a prediction when a meteorite fell in Thrace (now Turkey) in 467 B.C. He argued that the Earth was flat, though. And that it was supported in space by the air beneath it, echoing his Ionian predecessor Anaximenes.

Anaxagoras’ scientific importance rests, however, not on the accuracy of his theories but rather on the insightfulness of his attitude. He expressed a scientific attitude renouncing the supernatural more clearly than his predecessors. Even Thales felt that “there were gods in all things,” Aristotle had written, and Thales and others had attributed souls to heavenly bodies. From his known writings there is no sign that Anaxagoras’ nous was in any sense religious — it was a natural component of the cosmos, giving it direction, just as the human mind induces a human body to move its limbs. “He nowhere in the extant material identifies mind with a divine principle or god,” as one scholar has noted.

Even more profoundly, Anaxagoras identified a key issue that has perplexed practitioners of science ever since — the relationship between reason and the senses. It was absolute devotion to reason — and absolute disregard for the senses — that led Parmenides to declare reason the way of truth and sensible phenomena illusory.

Anaxagoras fully agreed that the senses could be misleading, calling them “feeble” and unable “to distinguish what is true.” Human senses are simply not acute enough to perceive reality in full HD clarity. There is more to reality than what we can see. But — the key point — with senses complemented by intellect, we can infer much about the deeper, unseen reality from what we do see, Anaxagoras realized. “Appearances are vision of things that are invisible,” he wrote, or in another translation, “phenomena are a sight of the unseen.” Reality is richer than what it immediately appears, yet the human mind remains capable of exploring it, and finding out a lot about it. And with that realization, progress in the scientific understanding of reality became possible.

Naturally enough, Anaxagoras’ emphasis on natural explanations and his disdain for the gods got him in trouble. Athenian officials charged him with impiety, convicted him and sentenced him, by some accounts to death, by others just to prison. His friend the Athenian politician Pericles intervened to arrange banishment, and Anaxagoras spent his last years in Lampsacus, a city in what is now northwestern Turkey, where he was revered as a champion of mind, and truth.

Meet three moderators fighting disinformation on Reddit’s largest coronavirus forum

Combating misinformation online is an ongoing challenge for big tech, and it’s especially difficult when it’s on a discussion board with millions of people during a pandemic.

One such place is the r/Coronavirus community on the website Reddit. In January 2020, it had around 1,000 members. That number spiked to 1.5 million by March of 2020, partly due to Reddit highlighting it on their homepage over any of the other related subreddits. Today, the page has 2.4 million users, with around 10,000 new comments a day.

The forum has become a one-stop shop for up-to-date coronavirus information, offering up pandemic news, locations of vaccination sites and how to sign up for clinical trials. The community has also hosted Q&A discussions with the likes of Bill Gates and Tom Frieden, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as top researchers. Even Reddit CEO Steve Huffman reached out to the volunteers who moderate the forum to tell them that he starts his day by reading it and to thank them for their work.

But the work these moderators do isn’t easy, as the forum is also a breeding ground for misinformation. They work tirelessly to make sure the information on the subreddit is reliable, taking time away from their jobs as doctors, researchers and students.

Science News spoke to three of these moderators about what it’s like to combat misinformation online during a pandemic. Head moderator Patrick Doherty is a biotech research scientist; Jennifer Cole is a biological anthropologist at Royal Holloway University of London, who studies online communities related to health and became an infodemic manager, after receiving training from a World Health Organization initiative to fight misinformation; and Rohan — who requested not to use his full name due to the daily harassment he receives on Reddit — is a M.D./Ph.D. student in molecular biology.

Answers have been edited for clarity and length.

SN: How did you become a moderator?

Doherty: I actually was recruited by one of the other moderators. At the start of the pandemic, there was a lot of really bad preprint papers that were coming out. And one that came out was about how … the coronavirus could have potentially been manufactured in a lab using an HIV strain. A [Reddit] user had posted it. So I had written a detailed comment in response, explaining why the paper was bad and why the results didn’t mean anything. The paper eventually ended up getting retracted (SN: 3/26/20). The moderators saw my comment and liked how I expressed the science, so they invited me to a be a moderator.

Rohan: I started in September 2020, the day before [then-President Donald] Trump tested positive (SN: 10/5/20). Over the course of the previous six months of the pandemic, I had seen a lot of misinformation on the subreddit. I wanted to contribute to removing some of that stuff, and I also thought there was a lot of opportunity for the subreddit to run special projects, like motivate people to get vaccines or help them find vaccination locations. And I thought given my background, I would be able to give some help with that.

SN: Has there been anything that’s surprised you about moderating r/Coronavirus?

Cole: Honestly, largely no. Because I’ve done this before with Ebola. There’s been nothing different in this pandemic to what there was in Ebola, there’s just been more of it. The scale has been different, but the kind of conspiracy theories you see and the kind of things people say are no different.

SN: What is it like moderating every day? How often do you take breaks?

Doherty: It can be kind of soul crushing sometimes, especially when there wasn’t a lot of good news. Now there’s good news about vaccines (SN: 3/30/21; SN: 3/8/21) . But before, every day, I was opening up the sub, and every morning I would read the front page of our subreddit, and it was all just bad news. It can be a lot.

Rohan: There’s an ebb and flow to how much time it takes to moderate. For example, if there’s big news about a vaccine being approved, then we’ll all just be spending a significant portion of the day answering user questions and combating misinformation. But just general day-to-day management, it’s a pretty large team and we try to coordinate with each other. It does take a lot of collective time, and we try to make sure that if someone’s having a busy day or week, then we try to help them out.

SN: How do you distinguish between misinformation that should be taken down versus a genuine question?

Cole: At first, instead of just removing somebody, we engage with them. If their information is wrong, we explain why it’s wrong. And certainly the first time that users post something that is wrong, we will try and correct them and push them in the direction of the better information. If they keep coming back obviously trying to push a narrative, that’s when we will ban them. You do need to make a distinction between people who might have heard it somewhere and don’t understand it very well and need you to explain it to them a bit better, versus people who are trying to push a narrative. Sometimes we’ll check on users’ posting history and what else they’re posting elsewhere.

SN: What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned?

Doherty: Misinformation is really hard to combat, because someone can post two sentences of made-up stuff, which takes them only five seconds. But If I want to refute that, I have to find one source, then two sources, then three sources, and a breakdown scientifically of why that’s not true. I can’t just say “no, it doesn’t,” because then you’re just leaving it to the reader about who they trust more. Whereas you have to go and find sources and show why you’re right and that takes time. It’s really easy to share a meme and get 25,000 likes and people are convinced that it’s true, and it only took that person 10 seconds to make it.

SN: I’m sure banning people leads to harassment. Have you been harassed?

Doherty: I’ve never been doxed [that’s when someone publishes private personal information online]. I keep my name separate from my username. I never say who I am on the subreddit. But if you delete someone’s comment, I’ve had someone say “slit your throat” or just really awful death threat sort of stuff. You can report that to Reddit, and they’ll ban the user from the site for things like that, but we get a lot of stuff like that. You get used to it, but you don’t really get used to it.

Rohan: Most of the nasty direct messages are just vitriol or people being nasty. That’s essentially a daily occurrence. And not infrequently, but multiple times in a day. Beyond that, there’s more minor threats such as “Oh, I’ll report you” or “Oh, soon you will be revealed and exposed as a shill.” Those probably come a few times a week, more frequently if it’s a busy period or particularly sensitive topic. The serious threats, like the threats of actual harm to me, are fortunately significantly rarer. Usually, it’s someone saying they’ll dox me or that they’ll “find me” and that I should kill myself. Those are unpleasant, but significantly rarer, probably on the order of a month or more in between.

Cole: I’ve had attacks that I’d describe as pathetic. They’re not scary or frightening. But part of the ethics agreement with my university is that if I do research on these online communities, I do it under my own name so that it’s transparent. My university is aware that I do this. My campus security also knows. One thing that people online do is say things like “we know where you work.” But do they ever go as far as contacting the university? No, they don’t.

SN: How has r/Coronavirus changed over the past year?

Rohan: It’s shifted from being just a place to get news about the pandemic and its response, and more of a place to get information that’s actually more actionable for the users. So for example, one of our moderators put together a wonderful list of vaccine location resources from around the U.S., Canada and even around the world. And I run a piece that answers user questions on the vaccines, so I have a little write-up about what we know about vaccines. And in the comments, users can come ask questions, and I try my best within 24 hours to answer any of those questions or tell them to go talk to their doctor.

SN: Dealing with sad news and mad people every day sounds bad for mental health. Why do you keep at it?

Rohan: Being able to just sit down and methodically answer vaccine questions and address concerns is probably one of my favorite parts of doing this. There was one person who was talking about how their family has some history of medical conditions, and that they are scared and didn’t think they’d get the vaccine. They wanted someone to explain a couple of questions to them. I remember I went back and forth with this user probably five times over the course of several hours that day. At the end of it, they told me they were going to go get the vaccine as soon as they were eligible.

Doherty: I’ve really grown to like the community that I’ve helped build. We’ve learned a lot about what’s misinformation and what’s not misinformation. It’s sort of a learned skill. Not that we’re 100 percent perfect, but I just feel like we have a unique skillset at this point, and it’d feel wrong to stop. I’d feel guilty. Also, the team. The moderators have become good friends. We do Zoom hangouts and happy hours, and we joke about hanging out when this is all over. We’ve become a real group of friends.

When attacks on science threaten our survival

We’re living through an extraordinary triumph of science — the deployment of new vaccines that promise to stop a pandemic that just a year ago looked unstoppable. But just as governments and health organizations around the world are racing to protect billions of people, malevolent agents of death and despair are working just as hard to persuade anyone they can that these life-saving vaccines are dangerous, ineffective or part of a global mind-control conspiracy.

As we report in this special issue, misinformation and deliberate disinformation about vaccines is rampant — and nothing new. The introduction of smallpox vaccination in the late 18th century sparked decades of opposition, even though inoculation was a game changer — the virus had been killing up to 30 percent of those infected. As freelance writer Tara Haelle reports, anti-vaccination groups argued that requiring vaccination violated personal liberty and interfered with parents’ rights to “protect their children from disease.” Those intent on delegitimizing vaccines today — from shots that protect against COVID-19 to measles and more — use the same arguments.

Most people are eager to get a COVID-19 vaccine and return to something approaching normal life; in the United States, over half of people ages 18 and older had gotten at least one shot by mid-April. But about 20 percent of U.S. adults say they remain unwilling to get vaccinated, and partisanship is a big factor: Forty-three percent of Republicans say they will shun vaccination compared with 5 percent of Democrats, according to a Monmouth University poll.

Leading conservative media outlets including Fox News have relentlessly promoted unproven COVID-19 cures and attacked scientists for doing what scientists do — saying when they don’t yet know the answers, as in whether the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could be causing rare, serious blood clots. Scientists under attack include Anthony Fauci, a leader in both the Trump and Biden administrations’ COVID-19 response teams. Uncertainty is uncomfortable, but it’s intrinsic to the process of science.

The shift to social media as a primary source of news has turbocharged the spread of antiscience disinformation worldwide. But as contributing correspondent Alexandra Witze reports, studying that flood of messages has also given researchers a much better understanding of why false information is so compelling. Recent work is beginning to reveal ways that the general public, scientists and social media platforms can identify falsehoods. Senior writer Laura Sanders maps out the anatomy of misinformation, with real-world examples of the tricks that hook us. And earth and climate writer Carolyn Gramling talks with scientists about their work countering decades-long efforts to cast doubt on the realities of climate change. These are battles that won’t be easily won, but they must be fought if we are to ensure the health and safety of our families, our communities and our planet. We’re all susceptible to being manipulated by misinformation. But knowing how it works is the first step in beating back the tide. And, not surprisingly, science is here to help.

NASA’s Ingenuity helicopter’s mission with Perseverance has been extended

The Ingenuity helicopter proved it could fly on Mars. Now it has loftier goals. Having passed all its original engineering tests, the tiny spacecraft will now begin a new job, supporting the Perseverance rover in its science mission.

“It’s like Ingenuity is graduating,” said Ingenuity project manager MiMi Aung of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., in a news briefing on April 30.

The helicopter arrived at Mars with two main goals: demonstrate that flight was possible on the Red Planet and show that it could return critical flight data to Earth. Those were both achieved in Ingenuity’s first flight on April 19 and then surpassed as the helicopter flew farther, higher and faster on April 22 and April 25 (SN: 4/19/21).

The original plan was for Ingenuity to take up to six flights total, then ground itself forever as Perseverance drove away to do science. That was partly because the Perseverance team expected to drive far from the rover’s landing site in search of rocks that might preserve signs of past Martian life (SN: 2/22/21).

“We thought we would be doing an intensive drive campaign in which the helicopter would not be able to keep up,” said Perseverance project scientist Ken Farley of Caltech in the briefing. “But based on the rocks we have seen in the area, we really wish to spend a considerable amount of time where we are.”

Ingenuity has also been performing surprisingly well, Aung said. The rover and the helicopter might be able to communicate from more than a kilometer apart, giving them both more flexibility.

Ingenuity took its fourth flight on April 30 to scout for a new launch pad. The fifth flight, to be scheduled after the team has examined the data, will be a one-way journey to that new home.

After that, Ingenuity will switch into support mode. Up until now, the Perseverance team has generously supported the helicopter, Aung said. “The rover is primary going forward,” she said.

The helicopter will have future flights in support mode. The team says Ingenuity will scout potential scientific observations and rover routes from the sky, make 3-D digital elevation maps and take a look at places a rover can’t go. “The lessons learned from that exercise will benefit future missions with aerial platforms tremendously,” Aung said.

The team isn’t sure how the helicopter’s mission will end. Ingenuity was designed to last just 30 Martian days. The new support phase will extend its mission by another 30 days, unless something goes wrong before then. “We don’t know how many freeze and thaw cycles it can go through before something breaks,” said Ingenuity chief engineer Bob Balaram.

New Research Finds Rise of Frequent Cannabis Vaping Among U.S. High School Seniors

Original post: Newswise - Drug and Drug Abuse New Research Finds Rise of Frequent Cannabis Vaping Among U.S. High School Seniors

Frequent cannabis vaping, defined as vaping at least 10 times a month, more than doubled among high school seniors in the United States between 2018 and 2019, according to new research from NYU Grossman School of Medicine published online May 4 in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

Lightning may be an important source of air-cleaning chemicals

Lightning could play an important role in flushing pollutants out of the atmosphere.

Observations from a storm-chasing airplane reveal that lightning can forge lots of air-cleansing chemicals called oxidants, researchers report online April 29 in Science. Oxidants help clear the air by reacting with contaminants like methane to form molecules that are more water soluble or stickier, allowing them to more easily rain out of Earth’s atmosphere or stick to its surface.

Researchers knew lightning produces nitric oxide, which can lead to the formation of oxidants such as hydroxyl radicals. But no one had seen lightning directly create lots of these oxidants.

In May and June 2012, a NASA jet measured two oxidants in storm clouds over Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas. One was the hydroxyl radical, OH. The other was a similar oxidant called the hydroperoxyl radical, HO2. The combined concentration of OH and HO2 molecules, generated by lightning and other electrified regions of air, reached up to thousands of parts per trillion in some parts of these clouds. The highest concentration of OH previously observed in the atmosphere was a few parts per trillion. The most HO2 observed was about 150 parts per trillion.

“We didn’t expect to see any of this,” says William Brune, an atmospheric scientist at Penn State University. “We shelved the data … because it was just so extreme.” But lab experiments later showed that electricity really could generate such large quantities of OH and HO2, helping confirm these oxidant signals were real.

About 1,800 lightning storms are thought to be raging around the world at any given moment, so Brune and colleagues came up with a ballpark estimate that lightning could account for 2 percent to 16 percent of atmospheric OH. A more precise estimate would require observing more thunderclouds. Understanding how lightning affects atmospheric chemistry could become more important as climate change sparks more lightning (SN: 4/6/21).

Mantis shrimp start practicing their punches at just 9 days old

The fastest punches in the animal kingdom probably belong to mantis shrimp — and they may begin unleashing these attacks a little more than a week after hatching, when they have just started to hunt prey, a new study shows.

For the first time, researchers have peered through the transparent exoskeletons of these young mantis shrimp to see the inner mechanisms of their powerful weapons in motion, researchers report online April 29 in the Journal of Experimental Biology. The findings are letting scientists in on hidden details of how these speedy armaments work.

Mantis shrimp are equipped with special pairs of arms that can explode with bulletlike accelerations to strike at speeds of up to roughly 110 kilometers per hour. Previously, scientists deduced these weapons act much like crossbows. As a latch holds each arm in place, muscles within the arm contract, storing energy within the arm’s hinge. When the crustaceans release these latches, all this energy discharges at once (SN: 8/8/19).

But researchers didn’t know at what age mantis shrimp first begin launching these spring-loaded attacks. Computer simulations predicted that the armaments might be capable of greater accelerations the smaller they got, suggesting young mantis shrimp could actually have faster weapons than adults, says Jacob Harrison, a marine biologist at Duke University.

To solve this mystery, Harrison and his colleagues collected a host of microscopic creatures off boat docks in Oahu, Hawaii, sifting out larvae of Philippine mantis shrimp (Gonodactylaceus falcatus) roughly the size of rice grains. They then glued the larvae onto toothpicks to record their punches in high-speed video. The researchers also captured a clutch of eggs from the species and raised the hatchlings for 28 days to see how the anatomy of their weaponry developed over time.

A larval mantis shrimp (Gonodactylaceus falcatus) — filmed at 2,000 frames per second and played back at 3 percent speed — retracts and locks its attack arm to store energy before releasing a strike. New research shows these larvae begin unleashing their punches by the time they are 9 days old.

As soon as nine days after hatching, the larvae began striking rapidly. Their punches flew out at speeds of about 1.4 kilometers per hour. Given their tiny arms — up to about 100 times shorter than an adult’s — that’s comparable to the speed of an adult shrimp’s punch, Harrison says. More importantly, it’s up to 10 times the swimming speeds of crustaceans and fish roughly as big as the larvae, and more than 150 times those of young brine shrimp that the researchers fed them. These weapons emerged about when the mantis shrimp larvae first begin feeding on live prey, after exhausting the yolk sacs they were born with, Harrison says.

“Mantis shrimp larvae are capable of moving incredibly quickly for something so small,” Harrison says. “It is hard for small things to move quickly — their muscles and body are so tiny, there isn’t really the time or space to build up speed.”

black and white image of a mantis shrimp larva
At 11 days old, this mantis shrimp (Gonodactylaceus falcatus) larva has already developed an appendage (folded below the eye) capable of ultrafast punches previously seen only in adults.Jacob Harrison

Mantis shrimp may need these speedy limbs when they are young “because of the water they live in,” Harrison says. Water feels more viscous for tiny creatures than it does for larger ones, so moving through it can prove challenging for microscopic larvae. However, their powerful appendages may overcome this drag to capture prey, he notes.

Contrary to what the researchers expected, the larvae were not faster than the adults. For instance, during punches, the larvae swiveled their arms at speeds roughly a third to half those of adult peacock mantis shrimp. These findings suggest there may be some constraints on these weapons at these microscopic sizes that further research can uncover, Harrison says.

Alternatively, the larvae may simply not require weapons faster than those of adults — “they just need a crossbow that works, and don’t need it to be this crazy superpowerful thing,” says invertebrate neuroecologist Kate Feller at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y., who did not take part in this research.

The most amazing part of this work, Harrison says, was how he and his colleagues could peer inside the glassy bodies of the larvae to watch how the muscles behaved during a punch, something previously only imagined from surgical dissections and CT scans.

“The fact these larvae are transparent is a great opportunity to answer questions like how the latch works,” Feller says. “That’s very exciting.”

This praying mantis inflates a strange pheromone gland to lure mates

Praying mantises — with their angular features, huge eyes and centaur posture — often seem a bit alien. But researchers have recently found one mantis species that takes this otherworldly quality to the next level: Females of this species have an inflatable pheromone gland that protrudes from the back of the abdomen like a green, Y-shaped balloon. 

This odd organ is unlike anything seen in mantises before, researchers report online April 21 in the Journal of Orthoptera Research.

In October 2017, herpetologist Frank Glaw was moving through the nighttime rainforest in Amazonian Peru at the Panguana research station, searching for amphibians and reptiles. His flashlight passed over a brown, leaf-mimicking mantis (Stenophylla lobivertex) in the tangle of vegetation, and he saw “maggotlike” structures protruding from its back. Those structures were quickly sucked back inside the insect after the light hit it, says Glaw, of the Bavarian State Collection of Zoology in Munich, Germany.

Glaw was reminded of “parasites that eat the animal from the inside,” having seen such fatally parasitized insects before. With the help of Christian Schwarz, an entomologist at Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany, and observations of some female specimens in captivity, the team figured out that the mantis was no parasite-riddled vessel. 

close-up of a y-shaped gland on a mantis
The inflatable pheromone gland of Stenophylla lobivertex (shown) may be highly efficient at spreading chemical signals throughout the rainforest.Christian J. Schwarz (CC-BY 4.0)

When left undisturbed in total darkness, the female mantises extrude a pronged structure inflated with body fluids, roughly the hue and luster of polished jade. It appears to be a highly modified gland for producing pheromones — chemical signals that help female insects attract mates (SN: 5/13/15). 

Other mantises have simple, noninflatable glands that are located in the same section of abdomen as S. lobivertex’s bifurcated contraption.

This mantis species is rarely encountered by researchers and might be thinly spread throughout the rainforest, so locating receptive mates could be particularly challenging. The researchers think a large, protrusible pheromone gland with lots of surface area could be a workaround, more efficiently dispersing pheromones to be detected by the antennae of would-be suitors.

“It is a kind of chemical ‘dating app’ in the jungle,” says Glaw, noting that the observations “emphasize the importance of pheromones in [the mantises’] reproduction in a vivid manner.”

Females in some other mantis species are known to expose a pink, patchlike gland when doing their chemical call for mates, says Henrique Rodrigues, an entomologist at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History who was not involved with this research. 

“I can easily see something like that being the precursor of the protrusible gland,” says Rodrigues. He notes that since males have thin, hairlike antennae, “the other way to increase the odds of mate finding would be for females to increase the amount of pheromone released.”

Glaw thinks it’s likely that similar glands might exist in the other two species of Stenophylla, and possibly other mantises. “If this organ is really an important tool to improve the finding of mates,” he says, “it would be an advantage for many other mantis species as well and might be more widespread.”

NASA’s Perseverance rover split CO2 to make breathable air on Mars

NASA’s Perseverance rover just created a breath of fresh air on Mars. An experimental device on the rover split carbon dioxide molecules into their component parts, creating about 10 minutes’ worth of breathable oxygen. It was also enough oxygen to make tiny amounts of rocket fuel.

The instrument, called MOXIE (Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment), is about the size of a toaster (SN: 7/28/20). Its job is to break oxygen atoms off carbon dioxide, the primary component of Mars’ atmosphere. It’s like “an electrical tree,” says principal investigator Michael Hecht of MIT. “We breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen.”

MOXIE flew to Mars with Perseverance, which arrived on the Red Planet on February 18 (SN: 2/22/21). On April 20, the instrument warmed up to about 800° Celsius and ran for long enough to produce five grams of oxygen. That’s not enough to breathe for very long. But the main reason to make oxygen on Mars isn’t for breathing, Hecht says. It’s for making fuel for the return journey to Earth.

“When we burn anything, gas in the car or a log in the fireplace, most of what we’re burning is oxygen,” Hecht says. On Earth, we take all that oxygen for granted. “It’s free here. We don’t think about it.”

Future astronauts will have to either bring oxygen with them or make it on Mars. A rocket powerful enough to lift a few astronauts off the Red Planet’s surface would need about 25 metric tons of oxygen — too much to pack for the journey.

MOXIE is a prototype for the device astronauts could use to make rocket fuel in the future. When running at full power, the instrument can create about 10 grams of oxygen per hour. The instrument, powered by Perseverance, will run for about one Martian day at a time. A scaled-up version could run continuously for 26 months before astronauts arrive, Hecht says.

MOXIE can’t run continuously because Perseverance needs to divert its power back to its other instruments to continue its science mission of searching for signs of past life on Mars (SN: 1/10/18). MOXIE will get a chance to run at least nine more times over the next Martian year (about two Earth years).

The success of the technology could set the stage for a permanent research station on Mars, like the McMurdo station in Antarctica, something Hecht would like to someday see. “That’s not something I expect to see in my lifetime, but something I expect to see progress towards in my lifetime,” he says. “MOXIE brings it closer by a decade.”