National

The Trump administration released a report Wednesday touting its tech-focused work across government in areas like artificial intelligence and biotech.

Why it matters: The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy is trying to show results despite tensions between the administration and both the tech industry and the science community.

The details: Officials mentioned efforts like the Department of Transportations updated policy on self-driving cars and the Commerce Department’s continued support of a key privacy agreement with the European Union. “These highlights represent only a fraction of the tremendous scientific and technological work conducted across the Federal Government,” the report says.

Yes, but: Many of the scientific accomplishments touted in the report were set in motion long before the Trump administration began. For example, while NSF-funded research won Nobel Prizes in 2017, those awards were for research conducted years previously, and although ground broke on the DUNE facility in July, plans for the international facility were drawn during the Obama administration. Science is a process that builds over generations, so it's difficult for  any one president to take credit for scientific discoveries.

The bottom line: Trump requested drastic cuts to scientific organizations in both of his budget proposals, and the Office of Science and Technology still lacks a director to lead it or a CTO to head up its tech work, and has so many empty desks it's been described as a ghost town.

This story has been updated to reflect that OSTP's director, not the U.S. Chief Technology Officer, leads the office.

White House highlights tech and science work

But some of its accomplishments started under Obama.

The president examines a drone at a tech-focused event last year. Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Technology

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

Science

The Trump administration released a <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="report" data-vars-click-url="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Science-and-Technology-Highlights-Report-from-the-1st-Year-of-the-Trump-Administration.pdf" data-vars-content-id="19f36874-1b07-477a-996d-dbc29ca853df" data-vars-headline="White House highlights tech and science work" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Science-and-Technology-Highlights-Report-from-the-1st-Year-of-the-Trump-Administration.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> Wednesday touting its tech-focused work across government in areas like artificial intelligence and biotech.Why it matters: The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy is trying to show results despite tensions between the administration and both the tech industry and the science community.

The Gulf of Maine is getting warm  — quick. From 2004–2013, sea temperatures there rose faster than almost any other location on Earth. 

Why it matters: The Gulf is home to a number of endangered species, and the fisheries there bring in several billion dollars per year to the U.S. and Canada, but the Gulf’s future hangs in the balance. Researchers are scrambling to understand what the warming water means for the people and animals who rely on the ecosystem, particularly as the changes there provide a glimpse into the future of coastlines around the world.

The Gulf of Maine lies at the intersection of several major ocean currents, including the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which moves dense, cold water down and toward the equator. Fresh water from melting sea ice seems to be weakening this current, which could be causing the Gulf to warm faster than other regions.

A combination of cold winters, warm summers, and dramatic tides make the Gulf one of the most productive ecosystems in the ocean. It's a critical habitat for right whales, seabirds like puffins, humpback whales, bluefin tuna and other species. 

“If it changes, it will have effects on all of those animals. But it’s also a human place. There are important social and cultural connections people have with this water. If a town loses its identity as a fishing community, it loses part of its history in addition to the economic losses.”

Andrew Pershing, chief science officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute

Lobster: On the surface, lobster populations appear to be doing well. Sustainable fishing practices and colder temperatures in the northern part of the Gulf have brought in record hauls since 2010. But in Southern New England, the fishery has crashed, with populations declining and the remaining lobsters moving north.

Cod: Climate change and overfishing caused population numbers to fall well beyond sustainable levels. Although there’s active debate over just how many cod remain, everyone agrees numbers are much lower than they used to be. 

And because of how New England fishing quotas work, low cod populations mean some fishermen are forced to stop fishing for other species that live in the same area, like pollock and halibut.

Herring & Puffins: Climate change has caused herring populations to shift — with consequences for the shorebirds that rely on them. Without herring, puffin parents resort to bringing their babies butterfish. Unlike herring, which are perfectly shaped for young puffin-mouths, butterfish are round. The baby puffins are choking and starving. 

Sea turtles: Records of sea turtles in the Gulf of Maine go back hundreds of years, and as their populations have increased, so have sightings. But sea turtle strandings, caused when turtles get caught by the hook of Cape Cod and freeze in cooling winter waters, have been increasing at rates faster than the population is rising.

Scientists suspect Gulf warming might be drawing more turtles in, or making them stay longer, putting them at risk once winter comes.

Go deeper: We travelled to the National Aquarium in Baltimore, where some of these turtles were being rehabilitated. 

Plankton: Calanus, a planktonic animal the size of a grain of rice, is the preferred food of right whales and at the center of the Gulf of Maine food chain. “If you asked an oceanographer to pick one species that would represent the North Atlantic, it would be calanus,” Pershing says. 

Starting in the 1960s and until 2013, the National Marine Fisheries Service tracked calanus distribution and found a decline. But funding for the research halted, so current distributions are unknown. However, many studies project further declines in calanus abundance as waters warm.

Right whales: Last year, critically endangered right whale populations moved northward, out of the Gulf of Maine and into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, presumably to search for food. But it’s unclear if they found it — this year, for the first time in decades, there were no calves born, which can happen when food is scarce.

Numerous protections had been put into place to prevent whales from being struck by ships or entangled in fishing lines, but the shifting feeding grounds have put them in danger of ship strikes and entanglement in lobster fishing lines.

At least 17 of the roughly 450 remaining whales died last year — and with no calves born, the whales may once again be facing extinction.

Distant visitors: Fish that are not normally found north of Cape Cod have been entering the area, in record numbers. Fishermen report catching sailfish, black seabass, squid, and blue crab, all of which are native to much warmer climates.

The bottom line: When we talk about warming waters, we often talk about shifting populations. Questions revolve around whether or not species will move north fast enough to survive rapidly warming waters. But the recent warming in the Gulf reveals something dramatic: even if animals like right whales follow the cold water north, the habitats they’re entering may not be able to support them.

“You’re not just sliding game pieces north on the map,” Pershing says. “The Gulf of Maine is really special.”

have been increasing at rates faster than the population is rising

further declines in calanus abundance as waters warm

17 of the roughly 450 remaining whales died last year

Climate change threatens coastal life as we know it

Rapidly warming waters in Gulf of Maine provide a glimpse into the future

An endangered right whale breaches on a sunny day off the coast of Georgia

Right whales are endangered again as their feeding grounds are threatened. Photo: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Permit # 15488

Climate change

Energy

The Gulf of Maine is getting warm — quick. From 2004–2013, sea temperatures there rose faster than almost any other location on Earth. Why it matters: The Gulf is home to a number of endangered species, and the fisheries there bring in several billion dollars per year to the U.S. and Canada, but the Gulf’s future hangs in the balance. Researchers are scrambling to understand what the warming water means for the people and animals who rely on the ecosystem, particularly as the changes there provide a glimpse into the future of coastlines around the world.

Ominous forecasts about the impact of climate change serve as the backdrop for the world — led by U.S. lawmakers and companies — to debate big action on the problem, which could upend energy systems and our way of life.

Energy & Environment

Scientists have spent their entire careers trying to understand why some trout no longer survive in Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes. Now, they've returned and researchers don’t know why.

Why it matters: Around the world, large lakes ecosystems, which drive the economies of cities that border them, are being threatened. “One thing [this return] demonstrates is that these lakes have enormous recuperative powers,” says Dave Fielder, fisheries research biologist at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. “If we can provide relief from some of the stressors, the lake will respond. Sometimes, very quickly.” 

What they're studying: Lake Champlain serves as a microcosm for the Great Lakes, which are extremely hard to study in their entirety, explains Ellen Marsden, a professor at the University of Vermont who has spent decades studying Champlain’s ecosystem. In the years since the trout first became locally extinct, the lake has been through a lot.

The history: Pollution and overfishing are what initially drove the lake trout to local extinction by the early 1900s. In the years since, a number of invasive species fundamentally altered the lake's ecosystem, including:

1800-1900:  Invasive sea lamprey enter the lake. Lamprey “rasp a hole in the trout and suck out the blood and juices,” Fielder says. Lamprey populations don't come under control until 2008.

1993: Zebra mussels invade. The mussels compete for nutrients with mysis shrimp, which young trout eat.

2003: Invasive alewife, thought to compete with trout in the Great Lakes, are introduced to Champlain.

The return: Fisheries departments have stocked these lakes with trout since the 70s. They would reproduce, but the juvenile fish would die. In 2014, Marsden began to see them survive. She says cleaner water played a big role in the trout’s return. But it’s not the only thing. The best way to figure out why fish are suddenly surviving, is to look at what they’re dying from.

“If you’re going to die, it’s because you starve, something eats you, or you get a disease,” Marsden says.

Diet: “The little guys, their stomachs are packed full of mysis shrimp! It’s nutritious and just what they should be eating,” Marsden says. But it’s not clear where these tiny shrimp are coming from: “They haven’t rebounded."

Somebody's eating them: Lamprey predation was long thought to be a barrier to lake trout survival, and may still be in the Great Lakes. But Marsden’s research shows lamprey have a smaller impact on trout than previously thought. 

Disease: “We can shelve disease,” Marsden says, “nothing unusual ever showed up.” 

Great Lakes vs. Champlain: There are several theories as to why trout returned to the Great Lakes, and they’re complicated. Fielder suggests — noting that it’s just an idea —that the mysterious decline of invasive alewife in the Great Lakes brought the trout back. It’s not clear why the alewife went away: maybe invasive zebra mussels ate the alewife’s food. (But Marsden says that’s not what happened in Champlain, “We didn’t get alewife until 2003, so I think we can to put that theory to bed.”) Maybe it was the equally mysterious decline in introduced chinook salmon or efforts to control lamprey. 

The bottom line: Regardless of why the trout came back, the biggest ecosystem changes in the last several years had to do with invasive species.  “We’re at a point where we’ve endured so many invasive species in the Great Lakes ecosystem, they’re starting to interact and affect each other,” Fielder says. Those interactions may have opened up a niche — allowing the native fish back in.

In 2014, Marsden began to see them survive.

Lake trout are making a comeback, and no one knows why

An extinct fish is breeding again, and no one knows why.

Trout in a bucket. Photo: Joshua Brown / University of Vermont

Conservation

Scientists have spent their entire careers trying to understand why some trout no longer survive in Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes. Now, they&#x27;ve returned and researchers don’t know why.Why it matters: <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="Around the world" data-vars-click-url="http://greatlakesecho.org/2017/01/05/scientists-raise-alarm-over-invasive-species-decline-in-east-african-great-lake/" data-vars-content-id="6c49645d-4dd6-4453-b8d4-d24029c1c38a" data-vars-headline="Lake trout are making a comeback, and no one knows why" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="http://greatlakesecho.org/2017/01/05/scientists-raise-alarm-over-invasive-species-decline-in-east-african-great-lake/" target="_blank">Around the world</a>, <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="large lakes ecosystems" data-vars-click-url="https://www.iucn.org/content/meeting-review-invasive-species-and-risks-lake-tanganyika-basin" data-vars-content-id="6c49645d-4dd6-4453-b8d4-d24029c1c38a" data-vars-headline="Lake trout are making a comeback, and no one knows why" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.iucn.org/content/meeting-review-invasive-species-and-risks-lake-tanganyika-basin" target="_blank">large lakes ecosystems</a>, which drive the economies of cities that border them, <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="are being threatened" data-vars-click-url="https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russias-baikal-biggest-lake-in-the-world-becoming-a-swamp-39165" data-vars-content-id="6c49645d-4dd6-4453-b8d4-d24029c1c38a" data-vars-headline="Lake trout are making a comeback, and no one knows why" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russias-baikal-biggest-lake-in-the-world-becoming-a-swamp-39165" target="_blank">are being threatened</a>. “One thing [this return] demonstrates is that these lakes have enormous recuperative powers,” says Dave Fielder, fisheries research biologist at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. “If we can provide relief from some of the stressors, the lake will respond. Sometimes, very quickly.”

In the United States and around the globe, people have mixed views on science, according to a new survey commissioned by 3M. 

A small but vocal group aren’t sure science has any impact on their day-to-day lives and are skeptical of basic scientific claims. 

But many are optimistic about science, and believe that a number of problems —from teleportation to cancer —will be solved in their lifetimes.

The takeaway: ““At the surface everything seems great, but then you find dichotomies that are hard to reconcile,” says Jayshree Seth, 3M’s Chief Science Advocate and a corporate scientist at the company. “It’s very clear that around the globe, people were definitely confused about how much impact science has on their everyday lives.” 

A majority of people—87%—are fascinated by science.

36% of people around the world think that science can only be done by geniuses. 

Most people think their country is falling behind in science compared to the rest of the world, including those in the U.S.

86% of people globally say they know “little to nothing” about science. And, only 68% of those people say they themselves want to learn more about science. 

But, a majority of parents want their children to know more about science and pursue a career in science.

22% say their lives wouldn’t be that much worse without science, but 69% said science’s best days are ahead of us.

“Science fiction is a source of knowledge about science, and the lines between them are being blurred.”   

Jayshree Seth, Chief Science Advocate, 3M 

Many people believe that we’ll live on Mars, cure cancer, or achieve teleportation within their lifetimes. They see science as something that will have impacts on the future, but don’t see impacts on the present.

Not alone: These results are supported in other surveys of attitudes towards science, like a 2016 PEW survey, which found that a small proportion of people in the U.S. were very actively engaged in science and sought out science news. But a majority of people only encountered science news on occasion, and while they trusted scientists, they were unlikely to trust journalists. A Wellcome Trust survey found the same attitudes towards science media in the U.K., even though the country's citizens support funding science research.

The bottom line: “We have to make science more relatable and visible,” says Seth, and show how scientific advances improve daily life.

Go deeper: We spoke with Captain Scott Kelly, an astronaut who spent a year aboard the International Space Station, about the results of the survey and how they compare to his experiences as a NASA astronaut.

according to a new survey commissioned by 3M

Mixed attitudes toward science around the globe

22% of people think their lives wouldn't be worse without science.

In the United States and around the globe, people have mixed views on science, <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="according to a new survey commissioned by 3M" data-vars-click-url="https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/about-3m/state-of-science-index-survey/?utm_medium=redirect&amp;utm_source=vanity-url&amp;utm_campaign=3M.com/scienceindex" data-vars-content-id="81323c32-1419-4861-a076-61ff6283acc5" data-vars-headline="Mixed attitudes toward science around the globe" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/about-3m/state-of-science-index-survey/?utm_medium=redirect&amp;utm_source=vanity-url&amp;utm_campaign=3M.com/scienceindex" target="_blank">according to a new survey commissioned by 3M</a>. <ul><li>A small but vocal group aren’t sure science has any impact on their day-to-day lives and are skeptical of basic scientific claims. </li><li>But many are optimistic about science, and believe that a number of problems —from teleportation to cancer —will be solved in their lifetimes.</li></ul>The takeaway: ““At the surface everything seems great, but then you find dichotomies that are hard to reconcile,” says Jayshree Seth, 3M’s Chief Science Advocate and a corporate scientist at the company. “It’s very clear that around the globe, people were definitely confused about how much impact science has on their everyday lives.”

Captain Scott Kelly, an astronaut who spent a year on the International Space Station, talked with Axios about the results of a new survey that found the public has mixed views on science, his path to space, and the disconnect some people perceive between science and their daily lives. 

Why science matters, per Kelly: “As time goes on, and our population grows on this planet, there are going to be problems with climate change, food, and water availability. These issues and problems are only going to be solved by science."

On the belief that you have to be a genius to be a scientist: 

“I wasn’t a good student, I never thought that I could be a part of science or a scientist growing up. And I think, you know, I perhaps would have answered questions in this survey like a lot of people answered them. But it turns out, if you find inspiration somewhere or you work hard, most people tend to be successful.”

How the public views astronauts and the International Space Station:

"As an astronaut, especially coming back from a mission that got a lot of attention, I was exposed to the public. I’m always pleasantly surprised and reminded how interested people are in the space program. I’m not sure how much that interest translates into science in general, but I’m hopeful that this kind of enthusiasm translates over.”

On building enthusiasm outside of high-profile research:

"I think that big research and machines in space get people excited about science and math, but that’s not all of it. Science is something that you can do with your kids on an everyday basis. You can talk about it and encourage your kids to read books about science."

"It’s critical that we have a very diverse wide ranging availability of people to go into these fields. I think it’s important for me, especially as a parent, I have two young kids, that’ll live throughout this century. The quality of the world that we live in, or don’t, will be based on the talent and ability of scientists to solve the problems."

Why we should always have humans in space: 

"I think we should make a commitment to never have all humans on Earth at one time. We’ve had people in space [non-stop] since 2000. It should continue somehow, whether on the ISS or elsewhere. We’re naturally explorers, it’s part of our DNA. I think that for us to thrive we need to continue to explore and push our boundaries, whether it’s going to Mars someday or elsewhere. 

"The space program is expensive, but the benefits we get through the development of technology are worth the investment. And I think that if it inspires kids to become involved in science or math, then it’s worth every penny. If you have an 18 year old kid, that kid’s whole life, there have been people in space. I’ve never really thought of that before."

Q&A: Astronaut Scott Kelly on science's PR problem

NASA astronaut Scott Kelly is seen inside the International Space Station on July 12, 2015. 

NASA astronaut Scott Kelly is seen inside the International Space Station on July 12, 2015. Photo: NASA via Getty Images

Captain Scott Kelly, an astronaut who spent a year on the International Space Station, talked with Axios about the<a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text=" results of a new survey" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/mixed-attitudes-toward-science-1520435950-81323c32-1419-4861-a076-61ff6283acc5.html" data-vars-content-id="9b623a43-e752-459a-9229-e08f5702c013" data-vars-headline="Q&amp;A: Astronaut Scott Kelly on science&#x27;s PR problem" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/mixed-attitudes-toward-science-1520435950-81323c32-1419-4861-a076-61ff6283acc5.html" target="_self"> results of a new survey</a> that found the public has mixed views on science, his path to space, and the disconnect some people perceive between science and their daily lives. Why science matters, per Kelly: “As time goes on, and our population grows on this planet, there are going to be problems with climate change, food, and water availability. These issues and problems are only going to be solved by science.&quot;

Erin Ross

Stories

Climate change threatens coastal life as we know it

White House highlights tech and science work

Q&A: Astronaut Scott Kelly on science's PR problem

Mixed attitudes toward science around the globe

Lake trout are making a comeback, and no one knows why