Cancer experts predict the end of chemotherapy in 20 years .


Our brains are able to judge the trustworthiness of a face even when we cannot consciously see it, a team of scientists has found. Their findings, which appear in the Journal of Neuroscience, shed new light on how we form snap judgments of others.

“Our findings suggest that the brain automatically responds to a face’s trustworthiness before it is even consciously perceived,” explains Jonathan Freeman, an assistant professor in New York University’s Department of Psychology and the study’s senior author.

“The results are consistent with an extensive body of research suggesting that we form spontaneous judgments of other people that can be largely outside awareness,” adds Freeman, who conducted the study as a faculty member at Dartmouth College.

The study’s other authors included Ryan Stolier, an NYU doctoral candidate, Zachary Ingbretsen, a research scientist who previously worked with Freeman and is now at Harvard University, and Eric Hehman, a post-doctoral researcher at NYU.

The researchers focused on the workings of the brain’s , a structure that is important for humans’ social and emotional behavior. Previous studies have shown this structure to be active in judging the trustworthiness of . However, it had not been known if the amygdala is capable of responding to a complex social signal like a face’s trustworthiness without that signal reaching perceptual awareness.

To gauge this part of the brain’s role in making such assessments, the study’s authors conducted a pair of experiments in which they monitored the activity of ‘ amygdala while the subjects were exposed to a series of facial images.

These images included both standardized photographs of actual strangers’ faces as well as artificially generated faces whose trustworthiness cues could be manipulated while all other facial cues were controlled. The artificially generated faces were computer synthesized based on previous research showing that cues such as higher inner eyebrows and pronounced cheekbones are seen as trustworthy and lower inner eyebrows and shallower cheekbones are seen as untrustworthy.

Prior to the start of these experiments, a separate group of subjects examined all the real and computer-generated faces and rated how trustworthy or untrustworthy they appeared. As previous studies have shown, subjects strongly agreed on the level of trustworthiness conveyed by each given face.

In the experiments, a new set of subjects viewed these same faces inside a brain scanner, but were exposed to the faces very briefly—for only a matter of milliseconds. This rapid exposure, together with another feature known as “backward masking,” prevented subjects from consciously seeing the faces. Backward masking works by presenting subjects with an irrelevant “mask” image that immediately follows an extremely brief exposure to a face, which is thought to terminate the brain’s ability to further process the face and prevent it from reaching awareness. In the first experiment, the researchers examined amygdala activity in response to three levels of a face’s trustworthiness: low, medium, and high. In the second experiment, they assessed amygdala activity in response to a fully continuous spectrum of trustworthiness.

Across the two experiments, the researchers found that specific regions inside the amygdala exhibited activity tracking how untrustworthy a face appeared, and other regions inside the amygdala exhibited activity tracking the overall strength of the signal (whether untrustworthy or trustworthy)—even though subjects could not consciously see any of the faces.

“These findings provide evidence that the amygdala’s processing of social cues in the absence of awareness may be more extensive than previously understood,” observes Freeman. “The amygdala is able to assess how trustworthy another person’s face appears without it being consciously perceived.”

Why Hasn’t This Strain of Ebola Been Stopped?


As the number of known infections climbs above 1,400, many questions about the virus and how it’s spreading in West Africa remain.

On Saturday, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza wrote about the ongoing Ebola epidemic in three West African countries, and attempts by the World Health Organization and other health care agencies to stop it. She’ll be updating that story with new information throughout the week.

The good news is very good: Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports for CNN that an experimental anti-Ebola treatment derived from mouse antibodies may work. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) arranged for Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol to receive doses while still in Liberia.

Brantly improved dramatically after one dose; Writebol, after two. The “secret serum,” called ZMapp, is credited with helping to stabilize the pair for transfer to the United States, according to CNN. Brantly is currently at Emory University Hospital while Writebol is expected to arrive early Tuesday.

The bad news is that there’s little other good news. The World Health Organization has confirmed more than 60 fatalities among health care workers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the total number of known infections exceeds 1,400, as overall suspected Ebola fatalities climbs above 800. A recent false alarm at London’s Gatwick Airport highlights the threat of intercontinental spread.

“The management of the response in Liberia that I have been able to observe has been very disorganized and incompetent.” In Liberia, there was a “chance to wipe this out in April/May.”

Just as many open questions about the virus and how it’s spreading remain.

John Berestecky, a visiting professor at the University of Liberia whom a friend says has returned to the United States, followed up with me on Sunday. “I don’t think this strain is any more virulent or contagious than the others,” he adds in an after-thought. The reason for the scale of this outbreak, he suggests, lies not with the nature of this Ebola strain but human error.

“The management of the response in Liberia that I have been able to observe has been very disorganized and incompetent,” Berestecky says. In Liberia, there was a “chance to wipe this out in April/May.” “They almost did,” he writes, “but then they got lax and careless and they allowed it to resurge.”

But can we really argue that governmental responses were somehow more organized during prior outbreaks—especially in the two outbreaks in 1976, when Ebola was totally unknown?

I asked Berestecky what it is he thinks is new about the way this virus strain could be being transmitted. (He’d initially said he had “serious questions … about the official mantra that only visibly ill patients and dead bodies are significant sources of contagion.”) He’s not sure, but tells me, “if there is airborne transmission it seems it plays a very minor role.”

One reader tweeted at me to share a post about airborne transmission he seemed to think resolved the question. The post’s author asserts that airborne transmission between pigs and monkeys has less to do with the virus than the way pigs breathe: “So, unless you’re sitting next to an Ebola-infected pig, seriously, airborne transmission of Ebola viruses isn’t a big concern.” She doesn’t appear to be drawing on any information specific to this outbreak.

No one’s saying this strain of Ebola is airborne among humans, or that it can be transmitted before patients are symptomatic. Rather, a few of us are pointing out that this strain has thwarted measures and established protocols to prevent transmission that have worked in previous outbreaks. If the assumptions about transmission guiding efforts to end the outbreak need to be adapted to this particular strain, better to revisit them now.

The thing is, even the most limited incidence of airborne transmission among humans would be “a big concern.” Why? More than 1,400 cases are suspected or confirmed now. Imagine that among the thousands more who have been in contact with those infected, just a few people have been exposed via aerosolized particles. Because they never touched an infected person or fluids, they aren’t monitored or quarantined and don’t take precautions not to pass the virus along.

Making assumptions about the newest outbreak of a virus notorious for mutating may be ill-advised, WHO head Margaret Chan warned in a speech planned for delivery to the Presidents of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, “Constant mutation and adaptation are the survival mechanisms of viruses and other microbe,” Chan said. “We must not give this virus opportunities to deliver more surprises.”

On Saturday, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza wrote about the ongoing Ebola epidemic in three West African countries, and attempts by the World Health Organization and other health care agencies to stop it. She’ll be updating that story with new information throughout the week.

The good news is very good: Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports for CNN that an experimental anti-Ebola treatment derived from mouse antibodies may work. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) arranged for Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol to receive doses while still in Liberia.

Brantly improved dramatically after one dose; Writebol, after two. The “secret serum,” called ZMapp, is credited with helping to stabilize the pair for transfer to the United States, according to CNN. Brantly is currently at Emory University Hospital while Writebol is expected to arrive early Tuesday.

The bad news is that there’s little other good news. The World Health Organization has confirmed more than 60 fatalities among health care workers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the total number of known infections exceeds 1,400, as overall suspected Ebola fatalities climbs above 800. A recent false alarm at London’s Gatwick Airport highlights the threat of intercontinental spread.

“The management of the response in Liberia that I have been able to observe has been very disorganized and incompetent.” In Liberia, there was a “chance to wipe this out in April/May.”

Just as many open questions about the virus and how it’s spreading remain.

John Berestecky, a visiting professor at the University of Liberia whom a friend says has returned to the United States, followed up with me on Sunday. “I don’t think this strain is any more virulent or contagious than the others,” he adds in an after-thought. The reason for the scale of this outbreak, he suggests, lies not with the nature of this Ebola strain but human error.

“The management of the response in Liberia that I have been able to observe has been very disorganized and incompetent,” Berestecky says. In Liberia, there was a “chance to wipe this out in April/May.” “They almost did,” he writes, “but then they got lax and careless and they allowed it to resurge.”

But can we really argue that governmental responses were somehow more organized during prior outbreaks—especially in the two outbreaks in 1976, when Ebola was totally unknown?

I asked Berestecky what it is he thinks is new about the way this virus strain could be being transmitted. (He’d initially said he had “serious questions … about the official mantra that only visibly ill patients and dead bodies are significant sources of contagion.”) He’s not sure, but tells me, “if there is airborne transmission it seems it plays a very minor role.”

One reader tweeted at me to share a post about airborne transmission he seemed to think resolved the question. The post’s author asserts that airborne transmission between pigs and monkeys has less to do with the virus than the way pigs breathe: “So, unless you’re sitting next to an Ebola-infected pig, seriously, airborne transmission of Ebola viruses isn’t a big concern.” She doesn’t appear to be drawing on any information specific to this outbreak.

No one’s saying this strain of Ebola is airborne among humans, or that it can be transmitted before patients are symptomatic. Rather, a few of us are pointing out that this strain has thwarted measures and established protocols to prevent transmission that have worked in previous outbreaks. If the assumptions about transmission guiding efforts to end the outbreak need to be adapted to this particular strain, better to revisit them now.

The thing is, even the most limited incidence of airborne transmission among humans would be “a big concern.” Why? More than 1,400 cases are suspected or confirmed now. Imagine that among the thousands more who have been in contact with those infected, just a few people have been exposed via aerosolized particles. Because they never touched an infected person or fluids, they aren’t monitored or quarantined and don’t take precautions not to pass the virus along.

Making assumptions about the newest outbreak of a virus notorious for mutating may be ill-advised, WHO head Margaret Chan warned in a speech planned for delivery to the Presidents of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, “Constant mutation and adaptation are the survival mechanisms of viruses and other microbe,” Chan said. “We must not give this virus opportunities to deliver more surprises.”

How Do People Survive Ebola?


Ebola is a frightening, highly lethal virus — in the current outbreak in West Africa, about 60 percent of people infected with the pathogen have died. Although in the minority, some people do recover from infection.

Doctors don’t know for certain who will survive Ebola, and there is no specific treatment or cure for the disease. But studies suggest there are some biological markers linked with a higher chance of surviving Ebola, experts say.

 

When a person becomes infected with Ebola, the virus depletes the body’s immune cells, which defend against infection, said Derek Gatherer, a bioinformatics researcher at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom, who studies viral genetics and evolution. In particular, the Ebola virus depletes immune cells called CD4 and CD8 T lymphocytes, which are crucial to the function of the immune system, Gatherer said.

 

But if a person’s immune system can stand up to this initial attack — meaning their immune cells are not as depleted in the first stages of infection — then studies suggest they are more likely to survive the disease.

“The patients that survive it best are the ones who don’t get such a bad [immune] deficiency,” Gatherer told Live Science.

But if the body is not able to fend off this attack, then the immune system becomes less able to regulate itself, Gatherer said. This means the immune system is more likely to run out of control and release a “storm” of inflammatory molecules, which cause tiny blood vessels to burst, leading in turn to a drop in blood pressure, multi-organ failure and eventually death.

The current Ebola outbreak — which is in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia — has infected at least 1,603 people, including 887 who have died, according to the World Health Organization, making it the largest outbreak in history.

Another marker linked with people’s ability to survive Ebola is a gene called human leukocyte antigen-B, which makes a protein that is important in the immune system. A 2007 study found that people with certain versions of this gene, called B*07 and B*14, were more likely to survive Ebola, while people with other versions, called B*67 and B*15, were more likely to die.

Finally, some people may be resistant to Ebola infection entirely, if they have a mutation in a gene called NPC1. Studies show that, when researchers take cells from people with the NPC1 mutation and try to infect them with Ebola in a laboratory dish, these cells are resistant to the virus.

In European populations, about 1 in 300 to 1 in 400 people have this mutation, Gatherer said. But in some populations, this mutation is more common: in Nova Scotia, between 10 and 26 percent of people have this mutation, Gatherer said. But the frequency of this mutation in African populations is not known, he said.

However, because these studies on Ebola resistance were done in a lab, it’s not known for certain if carriers of the NPC1 are truly resistant to Ebola.

Gatherer said that, hopefully, samples are being collected in the current outbreak so that researchers can conduct studies to better understand the virus and how to survive it.

 

Scientists develop nasal test for human prion disease


A nasal brush test can rapidly and accurately diagnose Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), an incurable and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disorder, according to a study by National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists and their Italian colleagues.

Up to now, a definitive CJD diagnosis requires testing brain tissue obtained after death or by biopsy in living patients. The study describing the less invasive nasal test appears in the Aug. 7 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

https://i0.wp.com/phys.org/newman/gfx/news/2014/nihanditalia.jpg

CJD is a . These diseases originate when, for reasons not fully understood, normally harmless prion protein molecules become abnormal and gather in clusters. Prion diseases affect animals and people. Human prion diseases include variant, familial and sporadic CJD. The most common form, sporadic CJD, affects an estimated 1 in one million people annually worldwide. Other prion diseases include scrapie in sheep; chronic wasting disease in deer, elk and moose; and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, in cattle. Scientists have associated the accumulation of these clusters with tissue damage that leaves sponge-like holes in the brain.

“This exciting advance, the culmination of decades of studies on prion diseases, markedly improves on available diagnostic tests for CJD that are less reliable, more difficult for patients to tolerate, and require more time to obtain results,” said Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a component of NIH. “With additional validation, this test has potential for use in clinical and agricultural settings.”

An easy-to-use diagnostic test would let doctors clearly differentiate prion diseases from other brain diseases, according to Byron Caughey, Ph.D., the lead NIAID scientist involved in the study. Although specific CJD treatments are not available, prospects for their development and effectiveness could be enhanced by early and accurate diagnoses. Further, a test that identifies people with various forms of prion diseases could help to prevent the spread of prion diseases among and between species. For instance, it is known that can be transmitted via medical procedures such as blood transfusions, transplants and the contamination of surgical instruments. People also have contracted variant CJD after exposure to BSE-infected cattle.

The NIAID study involved 31 nasal samples from patients with CJD and 43 nasal samples from patients who had other neurologic diseases or no neurologic disease at all. These samples were collected primarily by Gianluigi Zanusso, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues at the University of Verona in Italy, who developed the technique of brushing the inside of the nose to collect olfactory neurons connected to the brain. Testing in Dr. Caughey’s lab in Montana then correctly identified 30 of the 31 CJD patients (97 percent sensitivity) and correctly showed negative results for all 43 of the non-CJD patients (100 percent specificity). By comparison, tests using cerebral spinal fluid—currently used to detect sporadic CJD—were 77 percent sensitive and 100 percent specific, and the results took twice as long to obtain.

The Shape Of Your Face May Affect How Much Money You Make


Let’s face it, being pretty pays. While most people are aware of the correlation between good looks and success in life, new research has found that men’s face shape may play a part in their business success.

A new study from researchers at the University of California, Riverside, London Business School and Columbia University found that men with wider faces — those that have a higher ratio of face width to face height — negotiated signing bonuses that were approximately $2,200 larger than their narrow-faced peers. The researchers also found that wide-faced men were much better at negotiating business deals for themselves.

For the study, which was published online in The Leadership Quarterly, researchers paired 60 male students and had them negotiate for a hypothetical signing bonus, with one student acting as a mock recruiter and the other as the newly signed employee. The study found that wide-faced men negotiated bonuses that were $2,200 larger on average. The researchers also had 46 MBA students negotiate the sale of a hypothetical piece of real estate. Those with wider faces negotiated significantly higher sale prices when on the seller’s side and significantly lower prices when acting as the buyer.

For good measure, here are a few famous faces that fall into both the wide and narrow categories. (Story continues below.)

actor faces

Actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Ryan Reynolds

reagan paul

Politicians Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul

dell paulson

Business leaders Mike Dell and Henry Paulson

capone lennon

Cultural icons Al Capone and John Lennon

Perhaps surprisingly, this isn’t the first time scientists have studied the way success correlates with how wide a person’s face is. In 2011, the UC Riverside researchers looked at the width-to-height ratio of the faces of Fortune 500 CEOs and found that CEOs with wider faces generally oversaw stronger financial performance at companies.

In that study, the researchers identified wide-faced General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt as an assertive leader who went against his team to implement sustainability reforms in the mid-2000s, ultimately benefitting both the environment and GE shareholders.

jeffrey immelt

General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt

The researchers also pointed to Herb Kelleher, another wide-faced leader, who oversaw strong financial performance at Southwest Airlines.

herb kelleher

Southwest Airlines co-founder and former CEO Herb Kelleher

Larger facial width-to-height ratios are generally associated with increased levels of testosterone in men, according to Michael Haselhuhn, an assistant professor of management at UC Riverside and a coauthor of the facial-width studies. Men with higher testosterone levels can feel more powerful and dominant, Haselhuhn said.

But having a wide face isn’t a golden ticket to success. The researchers found that while the wide-faced men negotiated well individually, they performed worse than narrow-faced men when collaboration with others or compromise were key to closing a deal.

And in another 2011 study from the same UC Riverside team, the researchers found that men with wider faces were more likely act to immorally at work, were more likely to “explicitly deceive their counterparts in a negotiation” and were “more willing to cheat in order to increase their financial gain.”

face grid

Researchers assess facial width by measuring the distance between a man’s cheeks against the distance between his brow and upper lip. This man has a wide face.

Haselhuhn said that while you can’t do anything to change the ratio of your face, you can succeed at work by shifting your behavior.

“Wider-faced men should be aware that others may view them as more competitive, and should therefore make an effort to establish a cooperative environment when they negotiate (if they do, in fact, wish to cooperate with their counterpart),” Haselhuhn told The Huffington Post in an email. “Similarly, narrower-faced negotiators should be aware that they may be viewed as relative ‘push-overs’ and should be on guard against counterparts who may attempt to take advantage of them.”

Regardless of what shape face you have, you may still be influenced by your wide-faced coworkers. According to a different 2013 study from the same researchers, people are less likely to trust their male coworkers with wider faces. In fact, everyone acts more selfishly when they’re interacting with wide-faced men, the researchers found in that analysis.

Researchers say these findings don’t apply to women. This is because men with wider faces had an evolutionary advantage, making it easier for them to reproduce and be “successful in securing scarce resources from other men in order to support themselves and their offspring,” according to Haselhuhn.

Cheese too salty and a risk to public health, study finds.


Research published in British Medical Journal says halloumi and blue cheese such as Roquefort are among the worst offenders
Stilton

Blue cheeses were among some of the saltiest and branded products tend to contain more salt than supermarket own-brands. Photograph: Alamy

Many popular cheeses on sale in UK supermarkets contain high levels of salt, despite meeting government reduction targets as part of the drive to improve public health, campaigners have warned.

Halloumi and imported blue cheese such as Roquefort contained the most salt – more than sea water – while cottage cheese contained the least, according to a major new research study carried out by Cash (Consensus Action on Salt & Health) and published in the British Medical Journal.

The average salt content of cheddar – the UK’s favourite – tends to be higher in branded products including Cathedral City than in supermarket own-label cheddar, while supermarkets are also better than manufacturers at reducing salt levels, the study found. Many large producers – including Dairy Crest and Kerry Foods – have not signed up to the Department of Health’s 2012 and new 2017 salt reduction pledge.

Cheese is one of the major contributors of salt to the UK diet and is widely consumed: an average person consumes nine kilos a year. But the study found that high salt intake raises blood pressure and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (ie strokes, heart attacks and heart failure) and kidney disease.

The study – published in the online journal BMJ Open – is based on an extensive survey of 612 British and imported cheese products sold in UK supermarkets in 2012, using data on the labels to analyse the salt content (g/100g). It looked at the salt reduction targets for ten popular cheeses set by the Food Standards Agency watchdog and implemented by the Department of Health, to be achieved by 2012. While 85% (333 of the 394) of cheeses have already met their targets, 81% (318 of 394) would still get a red (which means ‘high’) colour rating under the so-called ‘traffic light’ labelling scheme.

Cash called on the government to introduce much more challenging targets on salt reduction in cheese as a “cost-effective” way to improve public health and to follow the much tougher lead set by the US.

At the recent World Health Assembly it was agreed that all countries should aim to cut their salt intake by 30% – aiming for a target of five grams per person per day by 2025 – while the UK recommended daily allowance is currently six grams a day. In general, salt content was high, averaging 1.7g/100g of cheese.

Professor Graham MacGregor, chairman of Cash, said: “Reducing salt is one of the most cost-effective measures to reduce the number of people suffering and dying from strokes, heart attacks and heart failure. Cheese is a big contributor of salt to the UK diet and it’s vital the Department of Health forces the cheese industry to implement the new targets immediately – and to set more challenging targets for the future.”

In New York City the target for cheddar cheese has been set to 1.5g/100g by the end of 2014 which is already 14% lower than the new 2017 UK target (1.75g/100g).

But Dr Judith Bryans, chief executive of Dairy UK, which represents the industry, said: “Salt is in an integral part of the cheesemaking process for technical and safety reasons. In an effort to provide British consumers with nutritious, safe and wholesome cheeses, the industry has made significant steps forward to reduce the salt content of dairy products over the last few years and cheese manufacturers have worked very hard to overcome technical barriers to salt reduction.”

Five saltiest cheeses (grams salt per 100g)

Halloumi 2.71

Imported blue cheese 2.71

Feta 2.51

Other processed (eg string cheese) 2.31

Edam 2.29

Five least salty

Wensleydale 1.13

Emmental 1.07

Mozzarella 0.75

Cream cheese 0.73

Cottage cheese 0.55

How Playing An Instrument Might Actually Make You Smarter


It lights up your brain like fireworks on the Fourth of July, spurring on complicated processes and making connections like crazy. Your synapses fire. Your neurons are in hyperdrive.

This is your brain on music.

We’re still learning more about how our brains work, but thanks to neuroimaging technology we do know that playing music requires some pretty unique mental acrobatics.

Many things we do are associated with activity in singular part of the brain. Playing an instrument, in contrast, engages almost every part of the brain simultaneously, according to a recent Ted-Ed lesson from educator Anita Collins. The parts each process different information, relating and interrelating it with incredible speed.

And all that violin and oboe practice adds up, meaning that as you get better at playing tricky concertos, your brain gets better at processing all the information that made it possible. That newfound strength can then be applied to other, non-musical activities.

We’re not saying that you should give up your SAT flashcards for a quick tutorial on maracas, but if that’s just one way that playing music benefits your brain, it sounds like musicians might be on the right track.

WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R0JKCYZ8hng

Hubble spots a ‘zombie star’: What it is and why it matters.


With the help of the Hubble Space Telescope, a team of researchers has spotted a “zombie star” lurking in deep space. What is this astronomical equivalent of the walking dead, and how did it get there?

The story involves a rare type of cosmic explosion, detective work and a NASA first.

Zombie star after mini-supernova

A mountain of dust and gas rise in the Carina Nebula. The top of a 3-light-year-tall pillar of cool hydrogen is being worn away by the radiation of nearby stars, while stars within the pillar unleash jets of gas that stream from the peaks.

Radiation from hot stars off the top of the picture illuminates and erodes this giant, gaseous pillar. Additional ultraviolet radiation causes the gas to glow, giving the pillar its red halo of light.

It began 110 million years ago in a double star system in the depths of space. A burned-out white dwarf star was sucking energy from its healthy blue companion star, feeding off of it until — boom!  Supernova.  Often, this explosion of the dwarf star is a cataclysm, reducing it to smithereens.

But not always. There’s a less common and less destructive type of supernova whose discovery was announced only last year. In this cosmic event, the dwarf star survives, albeit “battered and bruised,” a shadow of its former self — or, as NASA puts it, a zombie star.

This mini-supernova, known as SN 2012Z, lies in galaxy NGC 1309. It was discovered in January 2012 in the Lick Observatory Supernova Search. A team of researchers, including Rutgers scientist Saurabh Jha, Rutgers grad student Curtis McCully and Ryan Foley of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, studied this faint star. Members inspected archival data from Hubble and found the telescope had looked at this galaxy years before, between 2005 and 2010.

They focused in on these pre-explosion images and “were able to pinpoint the actual star system that later exploded,” Anton Koekemoer, a Hubble astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute, told the Los Angeles Times. “This is the first time that this has been done for this important class of supernova.”

Why are these supernovae so important? Dubbed Type Iax, they are closely related to Type Ia, the type that reduce a dying dwarf star to smithereens.

Type Ia supernovae are used as a tool for measuring immense distances in space. They also help astrophysicists determine the expansion of the universe.

But despite decades of searching, astronomers have never actually seen a Type Ia star before it exploded, because they’re too faint.

That makes the discovery of this zombie star even more special.

“Since both the Iax and Ia types involve white dwarfs,” Koekemoer said, “and since no Ia has yet been imaged directly before its explosion, this makes this particular Iax discovery very interesting.”

Although Iax supernovae are less common, astronomers have located the aftermath of another blast. In January 2013, NASA says, Hubble took images of supernova 2008ha, 69 million light-years away in galaxy UGC 12682. Images show an object that could be the surviving dwarf star or its companion. Now they’ll go looking for an image from its past.

Astronomers, in fact, have identified more than 30 mini-supernovae, according to NASA.

That’s a lot of potential space zombies.

 

Ebola Outbreaks And The Link To Fruit Bats: Charting The History Of The Virus Over 40 Years


With the tragic spread of disease in Africa, Ebola is on everyone’s mind. However, the history of this admittedly dangerous virus reveals a pattern of ebbs and flows. Now you see it, now you don’t. Ebola’s first appearance in 1976 was dramatic as an outbreak occurred simultaneously in two places: Nzara, Sudan and in Yambuku, Democratic Republic of Congo. After these outbreaks were quelled, less than 50 cases of infection with the virus occurred three years later, but then the disease went into hiding for about 15 years. Since then, in an unpredictable manner, distinct strains of the virus have popped up in different areas of Africa every few years. As you can see in the graph, the 2014 outbreak is the largest in history.

Ebola outbreaks over the past 40 years (chart courtesy of Imgur) Ebola outbreaks over the past 40 years (chart courtesy of Imgur)

What happens to cause this pattern of quiet and storm? Essentially, that’s the question no one can answer. It seems that once an outbreak has occurred, health workers educate many in the area of outbreak, teaching them to avoid contact with infected others and this contains the spread and prevents future outbreaks, to a certain extent. Yet, when the Ebola virus goes into hiding, it continues to lurk in what is known as a natural reservoir, in this case, the fruit bat. In fact, recent studies have shown three species of fruit bats carried the infection in their bodies without symptoms. Since fruit bats are commonly eaten by people in central Africa, where protein is scarce, scientists believe this may be the root cause of the illness. In fact, the virus causing Marburg — a form of hemorrhagic fever similar to Ebola — commonly hides within bats.

Quit Smoking With These 5 Research-Backed Ways To Overcome Addiction


Quitting smoking is a long and difficult road, one that is often peppered with setbacks and relapses. But many past addicts have paved the way for current smokers to meet their goals of smoking cessation.

stopping smoking

Thousands of research articles have examined the best ways to quit smoking. While nicotine patches might be the most common form of quitting, research has shown that a combination of several actions ultimately gives you the best results. Dr. Michael Fiore, a professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, told Time that a thorough review of scientific literature on quitting showed that there were “three core components to successfully quitting.”

“The first is counseling,” Fiore said, while the second is “systematically identifying smokers when they present to health clinics in America, having a system in place in those clinics to help them quit, and having it brought up every time they visit.” Fiore lists medications, like pills or nicotine patches, as a third scientifically proven way to quit smoking. But while these three proven ways are effective on their own, “when you combine them it really boosts quit rates,” Fiore told Time.

Below are five scientifically proven ways to quit smoking. While different methods work for different people, the best way to approach your battle to quit might involve a combination of a few or all of these.

Counseling

Counseling is a wide term — it can encompass different forms of therapy, like cognitive-behavioral therapy or other forms of therapy. Partaking in a counseling program can be a consistent guiding factor in getting you closer to your goal of smoking cessation. According to the National Institutes of Health, smokers have a higher chance of quitting if they’re using a support program offered by a hospital, health department, or community center. Because cognitive behavioral therapy can help rewire your thinking process and reduce stress levels, it can lessen smoking cravings, which often occur when people are stressed out and need a “fix.”

One study found that people who used cognitive behavioral therapy were more likely to quit smoking than people who didn’t: 17.2 percent of 122 participants who underwent therapy were abstinent and reduced cigarette consumption by 25 percent. Of the people who didn’t undergo therapy, however, only 5.6 percent of 107 participants were abstinent, and none had reduced cigarette consumption.

Medication And Nicotine Replacement Therapy

The most popular way to stop smoking is through nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), which can involve anything from nicotine gum to nasal sprays, inhalers, patches, and lozenges. Providing patients with nicotine, sans the harmful tobacco smoke and chemicals, can help them wean themselves off cigarettes. Research has shown that NRT raises smoking quit rates by 50 to 70 percent, regardless of setting.

“Cigarettes contain 4,000 chemicals, of which about 40 are carcinogens, which can cause cancer,” Fiore told Time. “Nicotine is only one of 4,000. It happens to be the addictive one, but it’s only one of 4,000. What the idea is in designing these medications is that you get rid of your cigarettes with those 4,000 chemicals, you use nicotine as a bridge to then get to a point where you’re using no nicotine and no cigarettes. That is the goal.” Other medications, like pills, are also available to help smokers — Bupropion or Zyban, as well as Varenicline, have shown to improve cessation rates among patients.

Intervention And Prevention By Primary Care Doctors

Something that’s not often discussed is the importance of the role of primary care doctors, and preventive medicine, in smoking cessation. As Fiore says, primary care doctors who repeatedly remind patients of the importance of quitting can increase cessation rates. Primary care physicians, in fact, have the most access to smokers, as seven out of 10 smokers visit their primary care doctor every year. “Primary care clinicians are in a strategic position to help their patients quit smoking,” the authors of one study wrote. “[S]mokers cite a physician’s advice to quit as an important motivating factor for attempting to quit; brief advice from a physician leads to a spontaneous quit rate of 2 to 4 percent.” In addition, according to the National Cancer Institute, if 100,000 doctors were to help 10 percent of their smoker patients quit each year, the number of smokers in the U.S. would decrease by two million people each year.

E-cigarettes?

While this may be a controversial topic, research has shown that e-cigarettes do assist people in curbing their tobacco habit. Some researchers even claim that e-cigarettes are more effective than nicotine patches in helping smokers quit, but more research is needed to back this up. Some doctors are even recommending them to patients to help them quit, according to a recent survey. But talk to your physician first before turning to vaping devices to help you quit.

Nutrition And Diet

Tobacco dependency and cravings can be the result of many things, but one of them may be a lack of neurotransmitters — so people seek nicotine to overcome these deficiencies. This is why people crave that head buzz that a cigarette puff will give you. But at the same time, nicotine prevents brain cells from producing enough neurotransmitters, so it’s a vicious cycle. In order to keep your neurotransmitters balanced, proper nutrition and diet is essential. Some foods that should be included in your diet are citrus fruits, vitamin B, C, and E-rich foods, and foods that contain magnesium and omega-3 fish oils. This way, you’ll be less likely to crave that cigarette.