Exposure in the womb to a drug used to prevent miscarriage appears to raise the offspring’s cancer risk decades later, especially for colorectal and prostate cancers, researchers have found. They will present the results of their new study Tuesday at ENDO 2021, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting.
Fooling the brain — Science News, March 20, 1971
Chronic pain can be treated surgically by severing nerves or by destroying a small part of the brain that perceives pain, but these methods are destructive. Doctors … are now treating selected cases of chronic pain … by using electrical impulses [on the spinal cord] to fool the brain.
In 1971, the idea to treat chronic pain by sending electrical impulses to the spinal cord was not brand-new. Researchers tested the first implantable device in patients in the United States in 1967. Such implants gained momentum as a pain treatment in the 1970s, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the technique in 1989.
Technological advances in the decades since have led to more effective and precise devices. One stimulator interacts with cells in the spinal cord to adjust the amount of electricity based on a patient’s needs, researchers reported in 2020. But spinal cord stimulation can do more than relieve pain: Sending impulses to specific nerve cells at precise times has been shown to help people paralyzed by severe injuries walk again (SN: 11/24/18, p. 6).
If everything in the world had to be divided into two bins — one for living things and one for nonliving — the task might seem easy. Trees, bacteria and humans are alive; rocks, smartphones and rainfall are not.
But in some cases, the distinction is murky. Where might the coronavirus responsible for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic belong? Viruses have their own genetic material and can evolve. But without a host cell to infect, a virus can’t make more copies of itself. And a virus doesn’t eat food for energy, instead stealing energy from its host. So is a virus a form of life? What makes something alive?
Two new books tackle that last question. What Is Life? by geneticist Paul Nurse and Life’s Edge by science journalist Carl Zimmer explore how scientists have come to understand life and probe some of the entities that push its limits.
“Asking biologists about what it means for something to be alive makes for an awkward conversation,” Zimmer writes. While scientists have spent centuries contemplating the question, there is still no universally accepted definition.
In What Is Life? Nurse guides readers through five big scientific ideas that he argues help define living things: cells, genes, evolution, life as chemistry and life as information. He also examines how studying these aspects of life has helped us take better care of human life, such as developing heart surgery or genetically modified crops that make food more widely available. As might be expected for someone who won a Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 2001 for discovering how cells control growth and division (SN: 10/10/01), Nurse’s ideas are rooted in the nuances of life as seen within a cell.
What Is Life?
Paul Nurse
W.W. Norton & Co, $20
Alongside personal accounts of the discoveries that inspired and guided his own career, Nurse chronicles how researchers initially revealed the cell, “biology’s atom,” and uncovered that strings of genetic molecules hold the instructions to make cells work.
For readers familiar with this history, the book’s first few chapters might feel a little slow. Still, it’s spectacular to see the concepts come together as Nurse describes the chemistry of life and how organisms manage information within their cells and from the outside world. He brings cells to life in a way that a textbook drawing can’t. If one could peek inside a cell, for instance, “your senses would be assaulted by a boiling tumult of chemical activities,” he writes. Some of this activity comes from a cell’s enzymes, which can complete thousands to millions of precise chemical reactions per second.
Nurse shares his wonder as he contemplates evolution and our “deep relatedness to other living things,” something that struck him while coming face-to-face with a gorilla — a species that shares about 96 percent of its DNA with humans — while on a trip in Uganda. “As his intelligent, deep brown eyes locked my gaze, I saw many aspects of my humanity reflected back at me,” Nurse writes.
Life’s Edge covers similar territory, but goes beyond the inner workings of cells. From the struggle to define when life begins and ends to the hunt for how life got started, the book offers an engaging, in-depth look at some of biology’s toughest questions.
Zimmer assesses the common hallmarks of living things — reproduction, intelligence, maintaining consistent body conditions, evolution and metabolism — and what those look like using extreme examples from nature. Though the multiheaded slime mold (Physarum polycephalum) lacks a brain, for example, the organism can make decisions that help it navigate mazes to find food. After a python swallows a meal, the snake’s metabolic rate spikes, rising to 45 times as high as its resting metabolic rate to break down the prey. A person’s metabolism, on the other hand, increases to only about 0.5 times its resting rate after eating.
Life’s Edge
Carl Zimmer
Dutton, $28
Once he sets the stage with these hallmarks, Zimmer delves into some scientific missteps researchers have taken while exploring the intricacies of life. A gelatinous substance found in the Atlantic Ocean in the late 1800s and thought to be a simple life-form actually turned out to be inorganic material.
Readers also get introduced to intriguing exceptions to the rules, entities lurking at the edge of life. Red blood cells don’t carry their own genetic material like other cells do. Since they therefore can’t make proteins or divide into new cells, red blood cells might not be considered alive.
The coronavirus is another one of those lurkers. Nurse and Zimmer both leave unanswered whether viruses should be considered alive. Nurse argues that perhaps viruses straddle the line, living when inside a cell but otherwise nonliving. Regardless of how we classify viruses, Zimmer argues, they have an enormous impact on the living world, not just by causing disease in people but also by killing bacteria and keeping their populations in check or carrying genes to new hosts. “If viruses are lifeless,” he writes, “then lifelessness is stitched into our being.”
Buy Life’s Edge and What Is Life? from Bookshop.org. Science News is a Bookshop.org affiliate and will earn a commission on purchases made from links in this article.
Researchers at Penn Medicine used machine learning-aided analysis to uncover top positive and negative themes in patient Yelp reviews of substance use treatment facilities
Four Lost Cities
Annalee Newitz
W.W. Norton & Co., $26.95
It’s a familiar trope in movies and books: A bright-eyed protagonist moves to the big city in search of fame and fortune. Amid the bustle and lights, all hopes and dreams come true. But why do we cling to this cliché? In Four Lost Cities: A Secret History of the Urban Age, author Annalee Newitz explores ancient settlements to find out why people flock to big cities — and why they leave.
The book is divided into four enjoyable, snack-sized sections, one for each city. Each section is accompanied by a handy map, drawn by artist Jason Thompson with engaging, cartoon-style flair.
Rather than dry history, Newitz makes a special effort to highlight the oddities and innovations that made these cities unique. Take Çatalhöyük, the oldest city they feature, which thrived from 7500 to 5700 B.C. in what is now Turkey. This ancient city persisted for nearly 2,000 years despite lacking things that we might consider necessary to a city, such as roads, dedicated public spaces or shopping areas.
Newitz’s also explores Pompeii (700 B.C to A.D. 79 in modern-day Italy). When paired with Çatalhöyük, it offers insights into how humans developed the distinction between public and private spaces and activities — ideas that would not have made sense before humans began living in large settled groups. The section on Cahokia (A.D. 1050 to 1350) — located in what is now Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis — offers an unexpected reason for a city’s emergence. Many people link cities with capitalism and trade. Cahokia’s 30-meter-tall pyramids, 20-hectare plazas and a population (at the time) bigger than Paris suggest that spiritual revival can also build a major metropolis. Cahokia and Angkor, which reached its peak from A.D. 800 to 1431 in what is now Cambodia, also show how cities can form when power gets concentrated in a few influential people.
Through touring such diverse cities, Newitz shows that the move to urban life isn’t just a setup for a hero of a story. It’s a common setup for many ancient cultures.
Each city, of course, eventually fell. Çatalhöyük and Angkor suffered from droughts and flooding (SN: 10/17/18). Pompeii felt the fury of a volcano (SN: 1/23/20). But Newitz also reveals something else: Collapsing infrastructure provided the final push that kept people away. Here we glimpse our potential future, as climate crises and political instability threaten our own urban networks. But Newitz’s vivid imaginings, bright prose and boundless enthusiasm manage to keep the tone optimistic. These cities did end, yes. Yet the people who built them and resided in them lived on. Even in Pompeii, many inhabitants made it out. Collectively, they went to new places and spurred new growth.
Four Lost Cities is about how cities collapse. But it’s also about what makes a city succeed. It’s not glamour or Wall Street. It’s not good restaurants or big factories. It’s people and their infrastructure. It’s clean water, public spaces, decent roads and opportunities for residents to live with dignity and improve their lot, Newitz explains. And when infrastructure crumbles beyond repair, people inevitably move on. “Our forebears’ eroded palaces and villas warn us about how communities can go wrong,” they write. “But their streets and plazas testify to all the times we built something meaningful together.”
Buy Four Lost Cities from Bookshop.org. Science News is a Bookshop.org affiliate and will earn a comission on purchases made from links in this article.
Single-celled archaea microbes pack their DNA into flexible coils that expand and stretch much like a Slinky does. This kind of molecular gymnastics had never been seen before in other organisms and may represent a way for archaea to get easy access to their genetic material, researchers report March 2 in eLife.
Some of the observed structures “really look like you take a Slinky and force it open, like a book,” says Karolin Luger, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of Colorado Boulder. “You would think that this would really contort the DNA in an awful shape, but it actually flows very naturally.”
Similar to the cassette tapes she grew up listening to, DNA stores information in a very thin and fragile filament of nucleic acids, says Luger. But unlike the tapes, which often tangled and tore, rendering them useless, the genetic material can be read, split into two like a zipper and replicated without tangles and breaks –– all while remaining confined in an incredibly small compartment.
In 2017, Luger and her colleagues discovered that archaea — microbes that resemble bacteria under the microscope but are quite distinct — can spool their DNA around small proteins called histones (SN: 8/10/17). This process is strikingly similar to how plants, animals and fungi bend and fold their own genomes into compact, disk-shaped units known as nucleosomes.
But nobody knew what these structures looked like in archaea, or how the microbes gained access to their spooled DNA. Using computer simulations and electron microscopy experiments on the genetic material of Methanothermus fervidus, a heat-loving archaeal species, the researchers found the Slinky-like shapes opened and closed in a clamshell motion.
“My gut reaction was: ‘Wow! So pretty!’” says Luger. “My second reaction was: ‘Of course! This makes so much sense!’”
Complex organisms such as humans, palm trees or mushrooms depend on a sophisticated machinery to loosen their highly compacted nucleosomes and gain access to specific genes. Archaea microbes might instead simply be contorting their DNA to turn genes on and off –– allowing proteins to “read” the genes when the Slinkies open, and cutting off access when they close.
Luger now wishes to look at other strange archaea that live in extreme environments to confirm whether these bendable DNA Slinkies are “a general phenomenon, or whether other solutions have been invented for this DNA packaging problem.”
One year ago, Science News published the first of our Coronavirus Update newsletters. The goal was to provide readers with a quick glimpse into the latest research and news on the novel coronavirus amidst an ever-rising tide of questions and fears.
We are now revisiting the topics we tackled in that first March 10, 2020 newsletter. What have we learned since? One thing is clear: Even as scientists across the globe have collaborated to find answers, many questions remain.
See what we reported a year ago and how the science has evolved.
March 10, 2020: “Even as the U.S. State Department warns people to avoid cruises, the Diamond Princess, the cruise ship that was quarantined off the coast of Japan in February, is providing new insight into the virus that causes COVID-19. Only about 17 percent of people onboard contracted the virus and many of them were asymptomatic. … Of all infected, 1.2 percent died; of those sick enough to need hospital care, 2.3 percent died.”
Now: Estimating just how deadly the coronavirus is has been challenging. Simple division — 2,612,644 deaths as of this morning, when divided by 117,690,020 confirmed infections — suggests a fatality rate of 2.2 percent. But that doesn’t account for the vast numbers of undetected infections as well as untallied deaths from COVID-19.
Outbreaks like the one on the Diamond Princess presented scientists with a unique opportunity to study the virus in a contained space where everyone can be tested. Taking data from cruises can’t happen now because they’ve been canceled, at least in the United States. A broad look at many studies in December estimated that infections resulted in death on average 0.68 percent of the time. But that single number obscures the role that age, quality of health care, social distancing measures and other factors play in influencing risk of death. For example, other estimates show that 0.002 percent of 10-year-olds die after infection, while 1.4 percent of 65-year-olds and 27 percent of those 85 and older die.
New virus variants are complicating estimates too. The B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the United Kingdom late last year, for example, may be around 64 percent more deadly than older variants, according to a March 10 study published in BMJ. — Jonathan Lambert
March 10, 2020: “Some scientists think that the coronavirus may end up coming back every winter like the flu. Simulated virus transmission … found that the seasonal patterns of any future outbreaks depend on when, or if, people’s immunity against the virus wanes. If immunity wanes every year, similar to what happens with the coronaviruses that cause common colds, then we may get annual outbreaks.”
Now: The chorus of researchers who think SARS-CoV-2 isn’t going away is large, but how often we could face outbreaks after the pandemic ends is up for debate. A recent simulation proposed that SARS-CoV-2 will join the viruses we encounter year-round and will primarily cause mild illness in children going forward. Other researchers argue that we need to prepare for COVID-19 to become a recurrent seasonal disease. It will be difficult to reach herd immunity through vaccination, they say, and increasing spread of variants raises the risk of reinfection. It’s possible people will need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 annually or need booster shots that better tackle variants. — Aimee Cunningham
March 10, 2020: “Scientists examined hospital rooms in Singapore to find out where the virus hangs out. The good news is that … no virus was found in air samples. The bad news is that before cleaning, the virus was all over a patient’s room. … The coronavirus was also found in the toilet bowl. … That might be evidence that stool is a route of transmission.”
Now: The good news is that contaminated surfaces don’t seem to be a major source of transmission. Stool is also not how people usually get COVID-19, but monitoring viral RNA in sewage has become a tool for detecting how much virus is circulating in communities. The bad news is that scientists have isolated SARS-CoV-2 particles capable of causing infections from air in a hospital room. That’s one piece of growing amounts of evidence that people mostly catch the coronavirus by inhaling it. — Tina Hesman Saey
March 10, 2020: A reader asked, “Why are people in such a tizzy about it? … With regard to numbers killed, influenza in the U.S. alone far surpasses it. It just seems like the level of concern is disproportionate to the actual threat. Am I missing something?”
We answered: “Scientists are worried that the new coronavirus could take hold in the United States, causing yearly epidemics like the flu… Because it’s new, no one has immunity against the virus… so it can spread rapidly and widely.”
Now: A year in, it’s abundantly clear that concern was warranted. To date, COVID-19 has killed 2.6 million people globally, with more than half a million deaths in the United States. Even with vaccines available, the threat is not gone. Experts are concerned that another surge in cases may be on the horizon, as more contagious coronavirus variants spread across the country and some states begin to lift mask mandates and other public health restrictions.
Social distancing, mask wearing and other efforts to reduce the spread of the coronavirus have also sent cases of the flu and other respiratory diseases plummeting. But those may spike once people get together more frequently. — Erin Garcia de Jesus
March 10, 2020: We quoted World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus saying “the threat of a pandemic has become very real. But it would be the first pandemic in history that could be controlled. The bottom line is: We are not at the mercy of this virus.”
Now: One year later, more than 100 million people worldwide have been infected with coronavirus and millions have died. Many countries, such as Taiwan, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand, kept coronavirus transmission low by implementing widespread testing, contact tracing and quarantines.
But other countries have not been as successful in containing the virus. COVID-19 cases in the United States, for instance, soared to record highs during the winter. In December and January, U.S. officials logged more than 200,000 new cases per day. They’re still logging at least 40,000 a day now. — Erin Garcia de Jesus
March 10, 2020: Our number to know was 1.3 percent.
“That’s how much global gross domestic product is expected to decline as a result of the outbreak, according to a March 6, 2020 report from the WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. About $280 billion may be lost globally in the first quarter of 2020, with China sustaining $62 billion of that loss.”
Now: Economic losses in 2020 were much larger — about $4 trillion in total — according to a January report from the International Monetary Fund’s world economic outlook update. Contrary to dire predictions, China saw its GDP rise in 2020, one of few countries to do so. The country’s GDP was projected to rise to $15.2 trillion in 2020 from $14.2 trillion in 2019. The United States was expected to lose more than $675 billion — more than 3 percent of its GDP.
Prospects are looking up for 2021 thanks to vaccines, therapies and virus containment measures, the IMF says. The global gross domestic product was $83.845 trillion in 2020 and is expected to grow 5.5 percent in 2021 and 4.2 percent in 2022. — Tina Hesman Saey
It’s sobering to look back at where we started — uncertain of what was to come, where we are now and where we’re headed. We’ll continue to cover the latest developments and bring those stories to you here in our newsletter and on our website, where you can find all of our stories about the pandemic on our coronavirus page.
Someday it may be possible for people to tackle their food allergies simply by brushing their teeth. A New York City–based company has launched a trial to start testing this concept in a small group of peanut-allergy sufferers. The idea is to expose users to small doses of an allergen daily, in order to build and maintain tolerance to it.
Tying this treatment to a daily routine should help allergy sufferers keep up with regular treatment, say researchers at Intrommune Therapeutics, which developed the toothpaste. The product may also do a better job than existing therapies at delivering the active ingredients in those treatments to immune cells throughout the mouth, they say.
About 32 million Americans have food allergies. One existing treatment, oral immunotherapy, also exposes patients to small amounts of their allergen through daily doses swallowed as food. However, the treatment can trigger allergic reactions, and the hard-earned tolerance often wanes without continued maintenance dosing.
A gentler treatment, known as sublingual immunotherapy — which instead delivers smaller doses through under-the-tongue liquid drops — offers decent protection while causing fewer side effects (SN: 9/4/19). And it may be especially effective with allergies that are caught early. The mouth drops produce even stronger, more durable benefits in toddlers than in older children, researchers reported February 27 at a virtual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.
Still, it can be hard for patients to keep up with this daily therapy. Plus, the immune cells thought to be the best target are actually densest inside the cheeks and elsewhere in the mouth — not just under the tongue.
Several years ago, William Reisacher, an allergist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, was puzzling over these concepts while standing in front of a mirror brushing his teeth. “I saw all the foam in my mouth going into all the areas I wanted it to go,” he says. If food proteins could be delivered as a toothpaste, that would get the treatment to the right cells and embed it in a routine daily habit, he thought.
“Bill told me this crazy idea he had, and I thought it was genius,” says Michael Nelson, an attorney trained in biology and health care. Nelson cofounded Intrommune to develop the product. The newly launched clinical trial of the toothpaste designed to treat peanut allergy will enroll 32 peanut-allergic adults to test how well they tolerate escalating doses. Future trials may test toothpastes that contain several allergens, Nelson says.
Other allergists support the toothpaste concept, though some worry about dose control and safety. When a patient’s gums are sore and inflamed — for example, after dental work or losing a tooth — allergens may have direct access to the bloodstream, which increases the risk of systemic allergic reactions, says allergist Sakina Bajowala. She offers oral and sublingual immunotherapies for food and environmental allergies at Kaneland Allergy & Asthma Center in North Aurora, Ill. “Safety is something I’m going to be watching closely,” she says. But “if they found something they think they can commercialize and make accessible, and if they can prove it’s safe and effective, then fantastic.”
Beloved Beasts
Michelle Nijhuis
W.W. Norton & Co., $27.95
On October 29, 1929, a date best remembered for the infamous Black Tuesday stock market crash, socialite and amateur bird watcher Rosalie Edge attended a meeting of the National Association of Audubon Societies. She was there to ask whether it was true, as a pamphlet had claimed, that the organization supported bounties on bald eagles in Alaska and turning wildlife refuges into shooting grounds.
The men who led the organization were outraged that she brought up the issue. But the pamphlet revealed a truth about conservation at the time: The movement was not as much about saving species as it was about saving only certain species that people liked. And sometimes people only liked those species because they liked to kill them.
The idea of conservation has evolved a lot over the last two centuries, as Michelle Nijhuis documents in her new book, Beloved Beasts: Fighting for Life in an Age of Extinction. It was only in the mid-1700s that Carl Linnaeus began formalizing the idea of species. The recognition that a species could actually go extinct followed soon after. The push to prevent extinctions from happening came in the 1800s, with the realization that species such as the dodo had disappeared forever. Now we know that humans are driving such losses at a rate not seen for millions of years.
Edge is just one of the many people who Nijhuis highlights in her excellent history. She includes famous names, such as Aldo Leopold, who in the early 20th century shaped the field of wildlife biology and whose writings have influenced generations, and Rachel Carson, whose 1962 book Silent Spring inspired huge changes to U.S. environmental laws and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. But it’s Nijhuis’ tales of lesser-known people, such as Edge and Michael Soulé, who is considered the father of conservation biology, that prove most fascinating. Their stories show how a single person can spark big changes, creating organizations and efforts that last for decades and grow to span the globe.
The book truly shines, though, when Nijhuis is brutally honest about how the conservation movement gained a reputation for being antihuman. Prominent conservationists in the 19th and 20th centuries at times endorsed abhorrent practices, such as eugenics. But more often and more subtly, the movement has advocated for actions such as removing Indigenous communities from areas set aside for wildlife.
Nijhuis also recognizes the need to move beyond worrying about saving eagles or any other single species. We must save whole ecosystems, all while balancing human needs, she writes.
One example of such a holistic approach comes from Namibia, home to iconic animals like rhinos and giraffes, where conservation is not a top-down effort guided by governments or organizations with offices on the other side of the planet. It’s carried out by dozens of local conservancies that consider the needs of both their local animals and their local people. Through detailed scrutiny, Nijhuis shows that Namibia’s model is proving successful.
Past methods of saving species, such as focusing solely on charismatic animals, won’t halt what is now recognized by many as Earth’s sixth mass extinction. But the book’s focus on paths forward provides a bit of hope. That hope springs from collective action: We all must step up to save our planet’s beloved beasts.
Buy Beloved Beasts from Bookshop.org. Science News is a Bookshop.org affiliate and will earn a commission on purchases made from links in this article.
To find her mate amidst a cacophony of frog croaks, groans, squeaks and trills, a female green tree frog just needs to take a deep breath.
During mating season, ponds resound with the sounds of hundreds of males from many different species crying out to potential mates. Homing in on eligible males against all this crooning presents a significant challenge for females, akin to straining to understand a friend at a raucous party. But by simply inflating her lungs, an American green tree frog (Hyla cinerea) can make her eardrums less sensitive to the sounds of other species, researchers report March 4 in Current Biology.
“We think the lungs are working a bit like some noise-canceling headphones,” says Norman Lee, a neuroethologist at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minn., allowing females to filter out environmental noise at the eardrum itself.
An eardrum is just taut tissue that vibrates when sound waves hit it, ultimately translating the bleating and buzzing of the natural world into signals that get processed in the brain. To mammals like us, eardrums and lungs seem completely unrelated. But there’s a direct connection, via an open space, between the body parts in frogs that runs through the throat and into the frogs’ head. That lets frog eardrums pick up sound from outside the ear and also register vibrations from the lungs.
Earlier research hinted that this lung-to-ear connection might boost a frog’s ability to pinpoint the call of a potential mate by providing an extra input of sound, but that hypothesis didn’t pan out when Lee, who conducted the research at the University of Minnesota, and his colleagues tested it. Instead, they found something even more unusual when they aimed a laser vibrometer, which measures vibrations from a distance, at frogs bombarded with sound waves in the lab.
When the researchers played females a suite of sounds, something strange happened between 1,400 and 2,200 hertz. Within that range, the frogs’ inflated lungs resonated with extra vibrations and the movement of the eardrum quieted, by the equivalent of four to six decibels, on average.
“That’s a difference that would be noticeable by a frog,” Lee says. Somehow, the extra vibrations of the lungs cancel out sounds of the same frequency at the eardrum, reducing sensitivity in this range.
This dip in sensitivity falls just between the two most prominent frequencies of a male green tree frog’s croak, suggesting that inflated lungs don’t affect a female’s ability to hear her own species. But the dip does coincide with the dominant frequency of five species that are often found calling at the same ponds, such as bullfrogs and barking tree frogs. How precisely the lungs quiet these sounds at the eardrum remains unclear, but the net effect is a significant reduction in environmental noise that allows females to focus on the calls that matter, the researchers say.
“I was almost overwhelmed by this paper,” says Mike Ryan, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas at Austin. “It shows that the function of the eardrum isn’t static, but can be dynamically changed by the lungs in a way that reduces sensitivity to frequencies that aren’t important to the frog.”
These frogs are in really noisy environments, Ryan says, and sifting through all that noise to find relevant signals requires a lot of processing power by the brain. “This lung trick really cleans up the sounds” before they even reach the brain, Ryan says. “We don’t think of the lungs playing a role in hearing, but the way this is working is just really, really cool.”
