At the edge of the ocean, a dazzling ecosystem is changing fast

is a senior producer and reporter on Unexplainable, Vox's science podcast. She covers everything scientists don't yet know but are trying to figure out, so her work explores everything from the inner workings of the human body to the distant edges of the universe
In just a few hours, the world I'm walking into will disappear beneath the waves.
I'm at Pillar Point Harbor, a 40-minute drive from San Francisco, near low tide. And because this is one of the lowest tides this August, the water has drawn back like a curtain to expose an ecosystem that's normally hidden away — a place called the rocky intertidal, or, because the receding water leaves little pools behind in the rocks, 'the tidepools.'
Dawn has just broken, pods of pelicans fly overhead, and sea lions bark from the nearby harbor. But I'm more focused on following my guide, a zoologist named Rebecca Johnson, as she picks her way out into these seaweed-covered rocks, pointing out species as she goes. These smooth green strands are surfgrass. Those fat bladders of air that look kind of like puffed-up gloves are called 'seasack.' This dark brown frond Johnson is draping over her shoulders is the aptly named 'feather boa kelp.'
' They're like wildflowers,' Johnson says, 'But it's seaweed.'
Rebecca Johnson wears a feather boa kelp like a feather boa. Byrd Pinkerton/Vox
As we make our way deeper, she points out odd creatures that only the ocean could dream up. A boring clam (which is far from boring, but does bore into rock) puffs itself up like a fierce fleshy ball before squirting a jet of water directly into the air to fend off our threatening vibes. A pale white brittle star, like a flexible daddy longlegs, dances for us across some algae. And rows of fat green anemones wear bits of shells like tiny hats.
' The theory is that…they're protecting themselves from the sun, like a sunscreen,' Johnson tells me.
We crouch together at the edge of a deep pool and see first one, then two — then three, four, five, six! — species of nudibranchs, the sea slugs that Johnson specializes in. One is hot pink and spiky. Another is an aggressive shade of orange. There's a pale lemon one, a ghostly white one. Johnson even finds one covered in orange polka dots, like a marine clown. Some of these species, she tells me, bubbling with enthusiasm, eat anemones and steal their stinging cells, repurposing them as their own defenses.
An orange polka-dotted nudibranch, known as a 'sea clown.' Byrd Pinkerton/Vox
This kind of diversity is wild to witness, but it isn't unusual for these tidepools.
'It's one of the places in the world that you can see species of invertebrates all really, really concentrated,' Johnson told me.
We wander further out, exploring this alien landscape together, until the tide begins to come back in and cover it over, bit by bit, hiding this weird world away again in a slow disappearing act.
' It's extra magical that you can only see it at certain times,' Johnson told me before we came out here, 'You get this little peek, this little window. And that's one of the things I love the most about it.'
Johnson has been coming to this exact spot off Pillar Point for almost three decades now, and in her role as director for the Center for Biodiversity and Community Science for the California Academy of Sciences, she spends time with volunteers monitoring tidepools up and down the California coasts. But she's still enchanted with them.
I'm not surprised. I fell in love with tidepools myself 20 years ago, when I first got to explore them as a kid at a summer camp in Mendocino. The odd, colorful creatures in them made me feel like magic was a little bit real, that science could feel like fantasy. It's part of the reason I'm a science reporter today.
But Johnson is worried about the future of these tidepools she loves so much. She's worried that, like so many ecosystems around the world, they may be heading toward a much more dramatic, much more permanent disappearing act.
So she, along with many, many collaborators all across the state of California and beyond, is doing what many scientists are trying to do for the ecosystems they study: to figure out — first, what's actually happening to them, and second, what, if anything, we can do to save them.
The sun rises over tide pools in Fort Bragg, California. Byrd Pinkerton/Vox
How did we get here?
For Rebecca Johnson, the troubles really began around the arrival of 'The Blob': a marine heatwave. By 2014, it had warmed waters significantly along the West Coast of the United States. Johnson was hearing concerning things from participants in the programs she organized through Cal Academy to get people to go into the tidepools and make observations.
'They started seeing an increase in this really beautiful pink nudibranch called the Hopkins Rose nudibranch,' she says.
Ruby Ash for Vox
Historically, the Hopkins Rose nudibranch has lived in Southern California — and ventured up to Johnson's more northern tidepools mostly during El Niño years. But as the temperatures shifted for the Blob, the spiky pink balls were showing up in huge numbers.
'It became the most common thing,' Johnson remembers.
She was also hearing disturbing reports about another animal — the sea star, known more colloquially as the starfish.
As early as 2013, before The Blob really hit, divers and researchers had started noticing that sea stars were, quite literally, wasting away.
'They were seeing white lesions on starfishes. And they were seeing the starfish kind of disintegrate in front of them,' she says, '[They would] see it one day with these lesions. They'd come back the next day and it was like almost dissolved and then almost gone.'
Sea star wasting also isn't unheard of, but in this instance, the wasting hit species after species of sea stars — at least 20 species in all. Also, as an evolutionary ecologist who studied this outbreak, Lauren Schiebelhut, told me, wasting normally happens on a more local scale — isolated to a single bay, for example.
'For it to spread across the entire West Coast here, that was something we had not seen before,' Schiebelhut says.
'[The Blob] certainly seemed to exacerbate it,' Schiebelhut says.
At one point, Johnson went down to her favorite tidepooling spot, Pillar Point, with a colleague, just to 'see what they could see,' and they saw almost no sea stars.
'It was just like the most bizarre feeling,' she remembers, 'I was still at this place that was spectacularly beautiful, covered with algae. All these other invertebrates are there. But there's just something kind of off about it.'
Byrd Pinkerton/Vox
It was like, she says, going into your room, only to realize that someone has moved all your stuff very slightly.
'And you're like, 'What's wrong with this room?' It had that disconcerting, unsettling feeling.'
This place Johnson knew so well — had been documenting and sharing with people for decades — suddenly felt unfamiliar. And at that moment, she felt a deep, deep uncertainty about its future.
'Like, there might not be starfish, like ever,' she remembers thinking, 'What does that mean?'
What it would mean to lose so many sea stars
The reason that Johnson was so worried about sea stars was not just that the tidepools at Pillar Point looked different. She was worried about the role sea stars play in the tidepools ecosystem. To us, they might seem like pretty creatures that come in a fun shape, but to many of the ocean animals they interact with, they are voracious predators that help keep their ecosystems in balance — chowing down on everything from mussels and barnacles to snails.
To understand why this is so important, let's journey a little beyond the tidepools, a little further offshore, into the California kelp forests. These are underwater forests of algae that are home to a huge diversity of animals, from fish and octopi to abalone. Kelp forests also provide a buffer for the coast against erosion, and they absorb and store large amounts of carbon dioxide, which benefits all of us as we try to stave off climate change. So they're amazing ecosystems.
But, like any forest, California's coastal kelp forest has grazers — basically the marine equivalent of deer. In this case, these are animals like the purple sea urchin, a spiky purple pincushion that chows down enthusiastically on kelp.
Ruby Ash for Vox
Normally, Peter Roopnarine, a paleontologist at the California Academy of Sciences who has studied kelp forests tells me, sea urchins are content to eat the bits of detritus that the kelp shed naturally. But if there isn't enough kelp detritus to go around, urchins can start feeding on the living kelp itself.
' That will happen if, for example, there are not enough predators around to keep their population in control, to keep them hiding,' Roopnarine says, ' Pretty soon they kill the kelp, and what you're left with is what we call an urchin barren, which are these stretches of seafloor that are covered with urchins. And nothing else.'
Sea otters are one of the predators — one of the wolves, to continue the metaphor, to our urchin deer — keeping urchins in check along some parts of the coast. Sea otters were hunted aggressively by European settlers, and have not returned along the northern part of the coast, but have made a comeback in central California.
Another important wolf for these kelp forests, though, is a sea star known as Pycnopodia helianthoides, or the 'sunflower sea star.' Sunflower sea stars are beautiful, often purple or pink, and kind of squishy. But they are also, at least as sea stars go, big. They can have twenty arms, and grow to the size of a dinner plate or larger. (As a kid, when we found them in the tidepools, we used to have to hold them in two hands.) And researchers have increasingly found that they, too, did a lot of work to keep urchins in check.
This is why it was such a big deal when the sea star wasting syndrome hit and wiped out so many sea stars, sunflower sea stars very much included.
After the sickness, a lot of sea star species did start to come back. You can find sea stars like ochre stars, leather stars, and bat stars in California tidepools, for example. But while sunflower sea stars can still be found in the wild further north, in places like Washington state, they have not bounced back along the coast of California. And that, scientists suggest, may have contributed to the issues they're now seeing in kelp forests.
Satellite surveys from a few years ago showed that the kelp forests off of Northern California have shrunk by 95%. Once again, this is probably due to a combination of factors. High water temperatures may have weakened the kelp, for example. But another factor was the explosion of urchin populations.
'This lack of the sunflower star in the kelp forest, especially in Northern California,' Johnson says, 'led to the increase of urchins. And the urchins then ate all the kelp.'
What does this mean for the future of these tidepools?
The tidepools haven't been hit as hard as the kelp forests. Clearly, as our visit last August showed, a place like Pillar Point has not turned into the equivalent of an urchin barren and is instead still home to a diversity of creatures.
Still, Johnson says, they have been affected. She has, anecdotally, noticed grazing species like abalone that normally spend more of their time in the kelp forests moving over to tidepools, probably in search of kelp to eat. And as temperatures continue warming over time, tidepool ecosystems are changing in other ways. A recent paper showed that a species of nudibranch range has moved northward. Another study showed that a whole bunch of different marine species, including nudibranchs, but also species of snail, lobster, and crab were spotted further north than their usual range during a heat wave. Some of these species are predators that might shake up the dynamics and the ecosystems they're coming into.
'We don't actually know what happens when they move north,' Johnson says, ' We don't really know the impact.'
And then, as Lauren Schiebelhut, the geneticist who studies sea stars, told me, there are other stressors like pollution and runoff from wildfires. This January, more than 57,000 acres burned from a series of wildfires in the greater Los Angeles area — a disaster whose scope of damage on intertidal ecosystems is not yet clear, researchers told me.
'The disturbances are becoming more frequent, more intense,' says Schiebelhut, 'It is a challenge to the system.'
Johnson admits that it's hard to know exactly how to interpret all these changes and stressors and use them to predict the future of the tidepools. After all, the California coastal ecosystems have survived the loss of important species before, and survived big natural disasters too.
A brittle star dances across the algae. Byrd Pinkerton
Byrd Pinkerton
My favorite sea slug: an opalescent nudibranch. Byrd Pinkerton/Vox
So I turned to Peter Roopnarine, the paleontologist. He studies how ancient ecosystems weathered — or didn't weather — things like climate change, and what we might learn from them to apply to ecosystems facing challenges today. I hoped he would have a sense of how the current moment fits into the bigger patterns of history.
'If you look in the fossil record,' he told me, 'one of the things that's really remarkable is that ecosystems can last a very long time. Millions of years. Species will come and go in those ecosystems, but what they do, who they do it to, and so on? That doesn't change.'
Ecosystems are a little like, say, a baseball team. You'll always need certain players in certain roles — pitchers and catchers and shortstops and outfielders. Different players can retire and be replaced by other players — if one predator disappears, another predator might be able to take over some of the role that it plays, for example.
But Roopnarine's research into the fossil record also shows that no ecosystem baseball team is endlessly flexible.
'They do eventually come to an end,' he says. Usually, that's when really extreme changes occur. And when he looks at the moments in the past when the climate changed dramatically, and he looks at forecasts for our future, he's very worried.
'We have to be realistic that if we do nothing, the future is extremely grim,' he tells me, 'There is no sugarcoating it.'
What can we do?
When it comes to safeguarding the future health of California's coastal ecosystems, there are lots of people doing lots of things.
Johnson is working with colleagues on a system that uses the community science app iNaturalist to better monitor the health of coastal tidepools.
The Steinhart Aquarium is one of several institutions where researchers are raising and studying baby sunflower stars. This tiny star has two new arms growing. Byrd Pinkerton
Anyone who goes to the tide pools can upload photos of all the species that they see. Those photos, geotagged with locations and timestamps, will hopefully help researchers figure out how populations are changing, to model the future of this ecosystem. They could also potentially serve as a warning system if there are big die-offs again, so scientists can try and intervene earlier.
Lauren Schiebelhut has studied the genomes of sea stars that did recover, to see what can be learned about what made them so resilient to wasting.
The California state government has partnered with nonprofits and commercial fishermen to clear urchins and restore kelp.
And then there's the consortium of institutions up and down the coast, all working on an initiative to try to breed sunflower sea stars in captivity so that they might, eventually, be released back into the wild and resume their role as key predators.
' There is no one person that can do all the things,' says Ashley Kidd, a project manager at the Sunflower Star Lab, one of the many groups working together to bring sunflower sea stars back. What gives her hope is that so many different people, from so many institutions, are working together toward solutions.
' You can't have all the knowledge of disease ecology, behavioral ecology, aquaculture by yourself,' Kidd says, 'It is a much bigger, wonderful group of people that you get to work with and then be connected with. … You're not alone.'
When I first heard that these tidepools might be in trouble, I felt an overwhelming sense of loss.
This ecosystem made me believe that the real world had its own magic — because sure, fairies might not be real, but opalescent nudibranchs come pretty close. It hurts to think that that magic might dim, or even disappear. But walking through these pools with Johnson and watching her walk over to a mother and her daughter to show them nudibranchs, eagerly sharing this world with strangers, I felt delight, and a wonderful sense of present-ness. I felt part of that community. A sense that, whatever the future of these tidepools might look like, they were here, now, and as magical as ever.
'In the midst of climate change and a future that is going to be hotter and harder and more difficult for people, you have to have joy,' Johnson told me, 'I struggle with it. I feel like marine systems especially are pretty complicated to think about restoring. What do you actually do out here? How do you protect things? … But you can't stop doing it, because then you've kind of lost everything.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Vox

2 days ago

• Vox

We're producing more food than ever before — but not for long

is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. An aerial view shows floodwaters covering farm fields and a rural road near Poplar Bluff, Missouri. In April, thunderstorms, heavy rains, high winds, and tornadoes plagued the regions for several days causing widespread humanity is producing more food than ever, but that harvest is concentrated in just a handful of breadbaskets. More than one-third of the world's wheat and barley exports come from Ukraine and Russia, for example. Some of these highly productive farmlands, including major crop-growing regions in the United States, are on track to see the sharpest drops in harvests due to climate change. That's bad news not just for farmers, but also for everyone who eats — especially as it becomes harder and more expensive to feed a more crowded, hungrier world, according to a new study published in the journal Nature. Under a moderate greenhouse gas emissions scenario, six key staple crops will see an 11.2 percent decline by the end of the century compared to a world without warming, even as farmers try to adapt. And the largest drops aren't occurring in the poorer, more marginal farmlands, but in places that are already major food producers. These are regions like the US Midwest that have been blessed with good soil and ideal weather for raising staples like maize and soy. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But when that weather is less than ideal, it can drastically reduce agricultural productivity. Extreme weather has already begun to eat into harvests this year: Flooding has destroyed rice in Tajikistan, cucumbers in Spain, and bananas in Australia. Severe storms in the US this spring caused millions of dollars in damages to crops. In past years, severe heat has led to big declines in blueberries, olives, and grapes. And as the climate changes, rising average temperatures and changing rainfall patterns are poised to diminish yields, while weather events like droughts and floods reaching greater extremes could wipe out harvests more often. 'It's not a mystery that climate change will affect our food production,' said Andrew Hultgren, an agriculture researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 'That's the most weather exposed sector in the economy.' The question is whether these adaptations can continue to keep pace with warming. To figure this out, Hultgren and his team looked at crop and weather data from 54 countries around the world dating back to the 1940s. They specifically looked at how farmers have adapted to changes in the climate that have already occurred, focusing on maize, wheat, rice, cassava, sorghum, and soybean. Combined, these crops provide two-thirds of humanity's calories. In the Nature paper, Hultgren and his team reported that in general, adaptation can slow some crop losses due to climate change, but not all of them. And the decrease in our food production could be devastating: For every degree Celsius of warming, global food production is likely to decline by 120 calories per person per day. That's even taking into account how climate change can make growing seasons longer and how more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can encourage plant growth. In the moderate greenhouse gas emissions scenario — leading to between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100 — rising incomes and adaptations would only offset one-third of crop losses around the world. 'Looking at that 3 degrees centigrade warmer [than the year 2000] future corresponds to about a 13 percent loss in daily recommended per capita caloric consumption,' Hultgren said. 'That's like everyone giving up breakfast … about 360 calories for each person, for each day.' The researchers also mapped out where the biggest crop declines — and increases — are likely to occur as the climate warms. As the world's most productive farmlands get hit hard, cooler countries like Russia and Canada are on track for larger harvests. The map below shows in red where crop yields are poised to shrink and in blue where they may expand: Some of the biggest crop-growing regions in the world are likely to experience the largest declines in yield as the climate changes. Nature The results complicate the assumption that poor countries will directly bear the largest losses in food production due to climate change. The wealthy, large-scale food-growers may see the biggest dropoffs, according to the study. However, poor countries will still be affected since many crops are internationally traded commodities, and the biggest producers are exporters. A smaller harvest means higher food prices around the world. Less wealthy regions are also facing their own crop declines from disasters and climate change, though at smaller scales. All the while, the global population is rising, albeit much more slowly than in the past. It's a recipe for more food insecurity for more people. Rice is an exception to this trend. Its overall yields are actually likely to increase in a warmer world: Rice is a versatile crop and unlike the other staples, it benefits from higher nighttime temperatures. 'Rice turns out to be the most flexibly adapted crop and largely through adaptations protected from large losses under even a high warming future,' Hultgren said. That's a boon for regions like South and Southeast Asia. Related This is how much meat and dairy hurt the climate Decreasing the available calories isn't the only way climate change is altering food, however. The nutrition content can change with shifts in rainfall and temperature too, though Hultgren and his colleagues didn't account for this in their study. Scientists have previously documented how higher levels of carbon dioxide can cause crops like rice to have lower levels of iron, zinc, and B vitamins. So the food we will be eating in the future may be more scarce and less nutritious as well. And while climate change can impair our food supply, the way we make food in turn harms the climate. About one-third of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions stem from food production, just under half of that from meat and dairy. That's why food production has to be a major front in how we adapt to climate change, and reduce rising temperatures overall.

Vox

3 days ago

• Vox

This veteran health official watched Americans lose trust in science. How do we get it back?

is the host and senior producer of Unexplainable , Vox's science podcast about everything we don't know. He co-created the show and also composes the music. 'We often had to change recommendations because we learned more about the virus, and people began to wonder, do these guys know what they're talking about?' Former NIH director Francis Collins on people losing trust in science. Sarah Silbiger/POOL/AFP via Getty Images Francis Collins has overseen some of the most revolutionary science of the last few decades. He led the Human Genome Project that sequenced the entire human genome by 2003, and then in 2009, he became director of the National Institutes of Health, where he served under three presidents and led the agency's research on a Covid-19 vaccine. But nothing in his years leading biomedical research for the US government could have prepared him for the disruption at NIH over the past few months. Over 1,000 employees at the NIH were suddenly fired at the beginning of April. (Those firings are still being challenged in the courts, but as of now, the employees remain out of work.) Trump administration officials have barred researchers from studying certain topics like vaccine hesitancy or the health effects of wildfires. 'I had experienced transitions before, and those were bumpy sometimes,' Collins told me in a recent interview. 'But I didn't expect science to be under this kind of full-bore attack, which is really what happened almost immediately after inauguration day.' In the past few months, Collins saw scientists placed under communications gag orders, restrained from speaking freely even when no media were present. 'You were effectively muzzled,' he says. Collins, who had stepped down as NIH director in 2021 and had taken over a lab studying diabetes, soon felt he could no longer do his job as a scientist should. He started to worry he might be pushed out. 'So I pulled my folks together in a conference room. They didn't know what was coming. And I told them, 'By tomorrow night, I'm no longer gonna be here.' And we all cried. I never thought it would end this way. My wife came to pick me up on that last Friday, and I just walked out of the building and got in the car and said, 'I guess this is it. That's how it ends?'' Just four years ago, Collins was President Donald Trump's NIH director. Now, in Trump's second term, he's resigning under pressure. How did we get from a world where the NIH was universally recognized as a jewel of scientific research to a world where the government is essentially tearing it down from the inside? I spoke to Collins on Vox's Unexplainable podcast about how so many Americans lost trust in science and how we might be able to get it back. Our interview has been edited for clarity and length. I'm constantly hearing that Americans have lost trust in science. Is that fair to say? I think it's totally fair. You can look at all the surveys about trust. Americans have lost trust in almost every institution. But I think it was more than that. I think Covid did a lot of harm to people's trust in science because, first of all, it was a huge, disastrous experience for the world. There were days where thousands of Americans were dying. As one of those people who was communicating with the public about what we knew about the virus and what they might do to protect themselves, we were doing the best we could with the information we had, but the information was incomplete. So we often had to change recommendations over time because we learned more about the virus and about the pandemic, and people began to wonder, do these guys know what they're talking about? So suddenly this has become such a target for an attack: whether science is something that's good for our country or not. Your most recent book, The Road to Wisdom, is all about trust. If you were telling the story of the loss of trust and everything going on in the science agencies today, how far back would you start? It depends on the particular demographic you're talking about. I'm a person of faith, and certainly people of faith have tended to be among the most skeptical of science, and that goes back 150 years or more — the sense that maybe science is trying to do damage to our Christian faith. That was there certainly well before Covid. But what group was most resistant to accepting the vaccines? It was white evangelical Christians. I'm a white evangelical Christian, so those are my people, but it broke my heart to see how that happened. And I think Covid did something, took what had been a tendency for science to be political and turned it into a really big deal. If you were a Democrat, you're much more likely to get vaccinated than if you were a Republican. Does that make sense? Not in the slightest, but that's how it was. When it's becoming clear that more than 50 million Americans aren't getting the vaccine, one of the most remarkable scientific achievements in human history, did that tell you anything about the pursuit of science and how it works? It certainly woke me up to the fact that we apparently had not done a very good job in explaining to people that when science is tackling some really hard problems and occasionally gets the wrong answer, it's going to get self-corrected because science is about truth. Science is not just a bunch of people who are coming up with answers that they like. These are answers that aren't gonna be sustainable unless they're actually true. And maybe here's also where I began to realize That's another problem that society has that I was unaware of in terms of its severity: the importance of truth, the fact that there is such a thing as objective truth. Not everybody shared that: 'That might be true for you, but it's not true for me.' I would hear people say that about things that were established facts, and that's a road to destruction of a society if it becomes widespread. Unfortunately, it seems to be doing so right now. It seems like you believed that all you had to do was develop the vaccine, get to the thing that worked, and then people would take it? Then there's this whole other piece of convincing people that you and the scientific community at large didn't do. Yep. I was naive about science communication and how it works. And I was, without knowing to call it this, an adherent to the knowledge deficit model. What does that mean? That means that if you're trying to communicate science to get somebody to make a decision, it's because they're missing knowledge, and you're gonna provide that. You're gonna fill their deficit, and then everything will be fine. You just tell them: Here's a fact. And now they believe the fact? I'm an expert, here's the fact, and then they'll make the right decision. But no, it doesn't work that way, especially when there's already skepticism and distrust. You're seen as an elitist who maybe has an ax to grind or something you're trying to put over on them, and you may even do more harm than good by going after somebody's misunderstandings head-on. They're just gonna dig their heels in more thoroughly. I guess what I've learned is we need to do a lot more listening and really understand where people are coming from, and also be prepared to tell stories instead of going down the road with statistics. But that's challenging: For a scientist, that sounds like an anecdote and I would never get away with that in the seminar room. But this is not the seminar room, people. We need to actually find better ways to help people understand what we do. You were in charge of the NIH during Covid. You were often the one communicating to the public. Are there things that you would do differently if you could do it over again? I wish every time that myself or anybody who was putting forward a public health message would have started off saying, 'Look, this is an evolving situation. We still don't know answers to a lot of things we need to know about this pandemic. So what I'm gonna tell you today is the data we've got, but we might have to change that later when we get more information.' We almost never said that. The other thing is our one-size-fits-all approach just didn't feel like it made any sense to the public. People in rural communities, who were far away from the carnage that was happening in New York City or Washington, DC, as the virus was running wild, were left wondering: 'Why do I have to close my business? I haven't even seen any cases here yet.' I think we lost a lot of people in states that didn't necessarily have heavy academic research centers, who couldn't quite imagine how they should believe us because we didn't seem like we understood what life was like on a small farm in Nebraska. During Covid, my number one goal was to save lives. I'm a physician. I took the Hippocratic Oath. I assumed there were other people worrying about the economic effects of this and the effects on children's learning when they were kept out of school. It didn't feel like that was my thing. My thing was to try to keep people from dying. But it became clear to me that that may have been something I was a little bit wearing blinders about. Maybe those other factors about economic harms and harms to children's learning should have been a bit more front and center to the conversations that I was part of. So I understand looking back on it and saying, 'Okay, it would've been more accurate to communicate the level of uncertainty.' To say to people, 'This is evolving. We don't know.' Do you think that would've led to a different outcome? I don't know. I wish we could do the experiment, and maybe we could figure out a way to do it in some controlled space. But I would say 20 percent of the problem was the less-than-perfect communication of the science, and 80 percent of it was the deluge of misinformation and disinformation that contaminated the conversation to the point where a lot of people stopped listening to the actual facts. There didn't seem to be any penalty for stating something that's absolutely false, though, and I haven't heard anybody apologize for that. When I think about your willingness to have difficult conversations, to accept responsibility for mistakes, it seems like this is something that most people are not doing. I've heard you mention maybe we could have something like a truth and reconciliation commission. Or a pandemic amnesty on a larger level, where people could really be open about their mistakes. Do you think that could have any effect? You know, I proposed the idea of amnesty at an event and the audience blew up. They were not there. People are too angry. On both sides? On both sides. They're feeling too hurt, too much harm has been done to them. So amnesty, I don't think we're there. Truth and reconciliation, people were okay with that. Because they can imagine that other people are gonna have to ask for forgiveness for what they did. But right now, we're so dug in. I hope that this truth and reconciliation option is out there right now. It doesn't quite feel like people are ready to go there. It seems to me like what we need is more people embracing uncertainty, more people talking about their mistakes. Whether it's people with their friends who they disagree with, or whether it's the highest scientists in our scientific agencies. How do we get there? We're a long way from there. When you're in this circumstance where there seems to be a real pitch battle between the various tribes, it makes it hard for anybody to say, 'I might be wrong.' The fact that I've been willing to say that has resulted in a lot of attacks, even from people who I thought were my friends. They said, 'Oh no, you can't show weakness like that.' Well, yeah, we really do need to do that, but we need to all do it and not just expect a few people who are then gonna get whacked for it. It's hard right now, and you don't see a lot of that in our country. If I were a young scientist and I wasn't sure whether I should stay in the field, what would you say to me? I would say you're at a really paradoxical time because this is the most incredibly exciting moment for biomedical research. So many things are becoming possible that I would not have dreamed would happen in my lifetime. We're on this exponential curve of gathering insights. So if that's your dream to be part of, don't give it up. Now, the paradox is right at the moment, there's a lot of negative things happening in the United States that seem to be threats. But the case here is so compelling that I don't believe those facts can be suppressed for very long. You can already look at polls in which the American public says, 'I don't think they should be harming medical research.' That's right there. Seventy-seven percent of Americans raise that point in one poll.

Yahoo

4 days ago

• Yahoo

J&J reports results from antibody combo trial for MM patients

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has reported new outcomes from the Phase II RedirecTT-1 trial of bispecific antibodies, Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs) and Tecvayli (teclistamab-cqyv) for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (r/r MM). The data showed a high overall response rate (ORR) with durability in those who have triple-class-exposed (TCE) RRMM with true extramedullary disease (EMD). In the trial, which enrolled 90 subjects, the investigational combo resulted in an ORR of 78.9%, with over half of the subjects achieving a complete response or better, representing a significant improvement over the average ORR of less than 40% for this patient group. Notably, responses were also found to be high among those previously treated with B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR-T or anti-FcRH5 bispecific antibodies. According to the company, subjects in the trial showed deep and durable responses, with 66.2% remaining in response at the data cutoff and a median follow-up of 13.4 months. At one year, 61% of subjects were progression-free and alive, and 74.5% were alive, with median overall survival not yet reached. The combo was found to be consistent with prior reports of them as single agents. Subjects had the option to switch to once-a-month dosing, which might have contributed to better tolerability. The reports of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were found to be mostly low grade. The study's findings were featured at the 2025 European Hematology Association Congress. EMD represents a severe form of MM, where myeloma cells form tumours in soft tissues and organs. Johnson & Johnson innovative medicine multiple myeloma disease area leader and vice-president Jordan Schecter said: 'Patients with extramedullary myeloma, especially those who have exhausted prior therapies, need more effective treatment options. 'Our first-in-class bispecific antibodies, Talvey and Tecvayli, have transformed treatment for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.' Recently, J&J reported that Tremfya decreased the symptoms and signs of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at 24 weeks in individuals against a placebo in the Phase IIIb APEX trial. "J&J reports results from antibody combo trial for MM patients" was originally created and published by Clinical Trials Arena, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.