A Scientist Fighting Nuclear Armageddon Hid a 50-Year Secret

Enrico Fermi's battle with cancer was nearing its end in late 1954 when he received a visitor.
Fermi, a Nobel laureate in physics, had fled fascism in Europe and become a founder of the nuclear age, helping bring the world's first reactor and first atom bomb to life.
The visitor, Richard L. Garwin, had been Fermi's student at the University of Chicago, the laureate calling him 'the only true genius I have ever met.' Now, he had done something known at the time only by Fermi and a handful of other experts. Not even his family knew. Three years earlier, the boy wonder, then 23, had designed the world's first hydrogen bomb, which brought the fury of the stars to Earth.
In a test, it had exploded with a force nearly 1,000 times as powerful as the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima, its power greater than all the explosives used in World War II.
To his reverential student, Fermi confided a regret. He felt his life had involved too little participation in crucial issues of public policy. He died a few weeks later at 53.
After that visit, Dr. Garwin set out on a new path, seeing nuclear scientists as having a responsibility to speak out. His resolve, he later told a historian, came from a desire to honor the memory of the scientist he had known best and admired most.
'I modeled myself to whatever extent I could after Fermi,' he said.
Dr. Garwin, the designer of the world's deadliest weapon, died last Tuesday at age 97, leaving behind a legacy of nuclear horrors he devoted his life to countering. But he also left a strange puzzle.
Why for a half-century did he hide what Fermi and a dozen presidents knew? It was a topic I discussed with him this January in an interview, the last of many.
The riddle is especially odd because his central role in creating the H-bomb became the motivating force that drove him forward, that helped him turn Fermi's regrets into a life of political and social activism, that made him an inconspicuous giant of nuclear arms control.
'If I could wave a wand' to make the H-bomb vanish, he once told me, 'I would.'
In a blinding flash, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima by the Enola Gay killed at least 70,000 people. Deadly like no earlier weapon, it was still quite limited in contrast with Dr. Garwin's superweapon. One proposed version had the force of more than 600,000 Hiroshimas. The mind boggles at such numbers. Even so, Cold War analysts coolly judged that it could reduce a region the size of France to ashes. His weapon was a planet shaker. It could end civilization.
That bomb wasn't the only feat driven by Dr. Garwin's prodigious intellect. He made basic discoveries about the structure of the universe, laid the groundwork for wonders of health care and computers, and won many awards. He pushed back frontiers in astronomy, physics, superconductors, orbital reconnaissance and a multitude of other topics he investigated, often at the U.S. government's behest.
But what drove him, what made him eager to advise presidents, was not his gift for coming up with marvels of discovery and innovation but, courtesy of Fermi, a personal crusade to save the world from his own creation.
Henry A. Kissinger advised at least 12 American presidents in some capacity. Dr. Garwin never officially joined any president's cabinet, as Kissinger had. But in our last interview, the physicist looked over a list of presidents and one by one identified the commanders-in-chief he had counseled. There were 13.
While eager to counter his brainchild, Dr. Garwin took no personal or moral responsibility for bringing the H-bomb into existence. Its birth, he argued, was inevitable.
'Maybe I sped up its development by a year or two,' he said in 2021. 'That's all.' Historians of the age tend to agree. The Soviet Union quickly followed his pioneering lead, then a half-dozen other nations. Today, hydrogen bombs have replaced atom bombs in most arsenals, creating a world of uneasy standoffs among nuclear foes.
By all accounts, Dr. Garwin believed that he — and sometimes he alone — could peer into the chaos of the universe and discern its underlying order. Like J. Robert Oppenheimer, who during World War II led the making of the first atomic bomb, he could also be cruel and intolerant of those he saw as less gifted.
Even so, Dr. Garwin showed a knack for teamwork and generosity with peers he respected. Over decades, the physicist worked hard to advance the hunt for gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted. He supported the construction of costly detectors, which, in 2015, successfully observed the ripples, opening a new window on the universe. Dr. Garwin beamed with pride when the finding won a Nobel Prize.
So too, Dr. Garwin managed to walk a tricky path through the nation's military-industrial complex, which crushed Oppenheimer and coddled Edward Teller, an early proponent of hydrogen bomb research. For decades, he criticized the complex from within, promoting some ideas and undermining others, using his intellect and standing as a knowledgeable insider to shake things up — often anonymously.
'The most influential scientist you've never heard of' is how his biographer cast him. The physicist told newcomers to the federal apparatus that they could get something done or get credit, but not both. He was, in some respects, the antithesis of Kissinger, who carefully tended his public image.
The left loved Dr. Garwin's attacks on the American military establishment, but his own compass seemed to align less with politics than pragmatism. He received awards from President George W. Bush, a Republican, as well as President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
'He's never met a problem he didn't want to solve,' Mr. Obama said in 2016 when he presented Dr. Garwin with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. The two-term president described the physicist as advising White House occupants 'rather bluntly.'
Overall, Dr. Garwin's life can be seen as a tale of genius in which key manifestations were obscured by a wall of silence. Why, for instance, did he wait so long to tell his family about his H-bomb role? Was he trying to protect his loved ones from criticism and hateful bluster?
No. It turned out that, as can happen in lives of government service, he felt that sensitive issues of national security loomed over him.
In our last interview, Dr. Garwin said he worried that talkative family members might inadvertently bring him to the attention of foreign intelligence agencies eager to learn H-bomb secrets. That concern, he added, haunted him even after his role became known publicly.
'I still worry about that,' he said at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y., on a cloudy winter day. He glanced out the window.
'They could be listening now.'
Richard Lawrence Garwin was born in Cleveland on April 19, 1928. His father taught electronics at a technical high school.
As a child, Richard, called Dick, impressed adults with his language and math abilities. He loved to take apart and reassemble things, including a vacuum cleaner.
Despite his obvious talents and his early entry into high school, an English teacher there told his parents that Dick would never get into college. He defied that prediction, studying physics at the Case School of Applied Science, in Cleveland. The teen lived at home, took the bus to school and worked nights.
He graduated at 19 and Standard Oil offered him a full ride for graduate study at the University of Chicago, which had one of the nation's top physics departments.
Fermi became the young man's adviser. Two years later, in 1949, Dr. Garwin graduated from Chicago with a doctorate in physics and became an instructor at the school.
The 21-year-old had been too young to play a role in the Manhattan Project, but now found himself deeply involved in what followed.
Like many Americans, Dr. Garwin grew concerned when Moscow that summer detonated its first atom bomb. How would Washington respond? In early 1950, President Harry S. Truman announced that the nation would seek to make 'the so-called hydrogen or superbomb.'
Fermi invited Dr. Garwin to join him at Los Alamos, the base set amid the tall pines and deep canyons of New Mexico's backcountry where Oppenheimer's bomb was born. Now on the agenda for the sprawling lab: trying to make good on Truman's threat.
Deep inside every star, extraordinarily high heats and pressures fuse hydrogen atoms into helium, releasing bursts of energy. The Los Alamos idea was to mimic that fusion process. The experts called it thermonuclear — in part to distinguish its high-temperature reactions from those of atomic bombs, which start at room temperature.
The general plan was that an exploding atom bomb would act as a match to ignite the hydrogen fuel. The question was how. Early ideas had atomic and hydrogen fuels layered in alternating bands, similar to the insides of a baseball.
The breakthrough came in early 1951. Teller and Stanislaw Ulam, a Los Alamos colleague, envisioned two distinct stages set next to each other inside a cylindrical casing.
Moving at the speed of light, radiation from the exploding atom bomb would hit the casing's inner wall and, in a rebound, flood the interior with a colossal burst of rays that would compress and ignite the hydrogen fuel.
The new idea gave the bomb unlimited power. Because the hydrogen fuel was separate from the initial mayhem of atomic debris and shock waves, it could, in theory, be infinitely large.
Teller asked Dr. Garwin to draw up a detailed plan. He warned that it would have to address 'every conceivable doubt' of top scientists. 'Garwin's paper was criticized up and down,' Teller wrote in his memoirs, but the young man's plan 'remained unchanged.'
The prodigy turned the rough idea into a four-page plan that's still classified top secret. He attached a large schematic diagram.
On a coral atoll in the Western Pacific, the device grew slowly. Dr. Garwin never visited the test site where his finished creation stood two stories high and weighed 82 tons.
The test blast, code-named Ivy Mike, took place on Nov. 1, 1952. It vaporized a Pacific isle and produced a mushroom cloud 100 miles wide.
Dr. Garwin, then 24, kept his head down. No news accounts cited his name. No one condemned or praised him. He was an assistant professor of physics at the University of Chicago, not a high government official or a scientific celebrity.
A month after the blast, he joined the International Business Machines Corporation, which allowed him to hold a physics post at Columbia University. In the decades to come, he was granted 47 patents for his IBM work.
The unusual arrangement also gave him the freedom to repeatedly change the course of history. Dr. Garwin did so mainly by offering scientific counsel to presidents and their advisers — a continuum of White House consulting that ran from Eisenhower to Trump.
President John F. Kennedy used the nation's scientific and military feats to spook Moscow and showcase the West's technological edge. It was his top Cold War strategy.
Then disaster struck.
In a case of bad things having good outcomes, the repercussions of the disaster helped give birth to the first successful instance of nuclear arms control.
The crisis began on July 9, 1962, when the American military, seeking ways to destroy incoming Soviet warheads, detonated an H-bomb some 250 miles above the Pacific Ocean. The record height for a thermonuclear blast produced surprises both on the ground and in space. Streetlights in Hawaii went out. Satellites in orbit failed.
It turned out the blast had pumped up the radiation belts around Earth, making the doughnut-like rings of energetic particles more dangerous. The military was planning an even higher-altitude detonation that summer — more than 800 miles up.
Kennedy wanted to quickly assess the risks. Pressed by the Pentagon, he had already approved preparations for that extremely high blast, code-named Urraca. The president's urgent question was whether the detonation of U.S. nuclear arms in outer space could produce enough radiation to poison humans and ruin his announced plan to land astronauts on the moon.
On July 25, 1962, he sent Dr. Garwin a telegram, inviting him to join his White House science advisory team.
Weeks later, Kennedy met with Dr. Garwin and senior advisers in the Oval Office to discuss the radiation dangers. The physicist recalled the president fearing that the recent blast 'had killed the Apollo program,' which was working to put Americans on the moon. How long would the enhanced radiation last?
'A long time,' Dr. Garwin replied, adding that exactly how long was impossible to say. After some discussion of the risks and uncertainties, Dr. Garwin suggested that the danger zone might persist anywhere from two to 20 years.
That Oval Office meeting was, in all likelihood, a turning point.
On Sept. 5, 1962, Kennedy asked his national security and science advisers if the radiation hazard could 'make a lunar journey prohibitive.' They discussed the risks, the lineup of impending American nuclear tests and whether the military could live without the 800-mile-high Urraca detonation.
At a National Security Council meeting two days later, the high-altitude test was canceled.
The next year, Kennedy signed a treaty with the Soviet Union that banned nuclear tests in outer space, in the atmosphere and under water. The weapons could be tested only deep underground. Slowly, the heightened radiation levels in the planetary belts declined through the natural process of nuclear decay.
From 1968 through 1972, NASA sent two dozen Apollo astronauts hurtling through the danger zones. Afterward, experts studying the crews' exposures found that their doses were less than those of workers who held industrial jobs involving radiation. The astronauts suffered no debilitating health effects.
President Richard M. Nixon wanted Moscow and Washington to sign a historic pact to limit their nuclear arms.
Formal talks began in 1969, the year he took office. In parallel, the president and his advisers sought ways to better assess the size of the Soviet arsenal and thus verify compliance with any accord. The overall aim was to make the balance of nuclear terror — the threat of mutually assured destruction — more stable, and a stronger deterrent to war.
A new generation of spy satellites would be a central tool. High above the Earth, they would open a new lens on the secretive movements of Soviet bombers, submarines and missiles capable of hurling thermonuclear arms at the United States. Dr. Garwin, already one of President Nixon's science advisers, threw himself into the satellite effort.
The nation's early spy satellites, which relied on photographic film, were slow, clumsy and wasteful. It could take weeks for exposed film to get to photo analysts. And the costly orbiters, once out of film, went into the celestial junkyard.
Dr. Garwin led a team of experts who foresaw a more advanced type of spacecraft that would replace film with microelectronics and radio transmitters. Fresh images would flash to Earth. The team also called for powerful new telescopes. In effect, the spy craft were to be precursors to the Hubble Space Telescope, but aimed at the Earth.
Even by the usual standards of federal secrecy, the satellite project was extremely hush-hush. In July 1971, Dr. Garwin had drafts of the final report delivered by a special class of courier to members of his team. They were required to read them, return them and keep no copies.
The next month, Dr. Garwin and a colleague briefed Kissinger, who backed the new electrooptical approach. Remarkably, the innovation was decades ahead of the shift in consumer cameras from film to digital.
That September, President Nixon approved a plan to develop the new spy satellite, which became the archetype for all that followed. For East-West relations, the technology was seen as raising predictability and lessening surprise, thus lowering tensions between the superpowers.
The next year, Nixon met in Moscow with the Soviet leader Leonid I. Brezhnev to sign an accord that, for the first time, limited their nuclear arsenals.
Dr. Garwin received two awards for this work, one from the C.I.A. in 1996, and another in 2000 from the National Reconnaissance Office, which runs the satellite fleets.
That office's citation said the physicist had helped Kissinger 'understand the critical role' the spy technology would come to play in national security — in stabilizing the uneasy standoff between foes armed with the deadliest of weapons.
Simplicity made the Hiroshima bomb a sure thing. It had no test explosion. H-bombs were tricker. By definition, they needed multiple tests to uncover flaws and optimize results.
For decades, Dr. Garwin's push for a comprehensive ban on test detonations rested primarily on that fact — no testing, no H-bomb. Though he saw Kennedy's space ban as a good start, he wanted to head off not only new arms races, but also new states aspiring to the world's most destructive weapons.
The end of the Cold War seemed like the moment. In 1993, President Bill Clinton announced plans for a treaty in which all nations would forgo all nuclear blasts, as Washington was doing unilaterally. This meant banning tests even underground, the last permissible zone.
In 1993, Dr. Garwin became chair of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board in the State Department, which guided senior federal officials, including in the White House. It also helped build public support for a test-ban agreement.
Crucially, in August 1995, Dr. Garwin helped resolve a technical dispute that was threatening to become a deal-breaker in the treaty negotiations. It centered on whether a ban should allow minuscule blasts. He addressed it as a longtime member of the Jasons, a secretive group of independent federal science advisers. In a lengthy report, the group backed the comprehensive ban, saying the United States could sign a treaty even if it ruled out minute tests.
Days later, Mr. Clinton echoed that finding in announcing that he would seek what experts called a zero-yield treaty. 'I hope,' he said, 'it will lead to an early consensus' at the negotiating table.
Instead, the talks dragged on. And France and China rushed to do last-minute detonations before any ban took effect.
Finally, in September 1996, a solemn procession of world government representatives, including Mr. Clinton, signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Then things fell apart.
Mr. Clinton won re-election that November but now faced Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Worse, the president's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, an intern, came to light in early 1998, fueling a political firestorm that crippled the White House.
As Senate Republicans raced for a quick treaty vote, Dr. Garwin testified before the Foreign Relations Committee.
'We are better off,' he argued, 'with a test ban than without it.'
Six days later, on Oct. 13, 1999, the Senate rejected the treaty. Though eventually signed by 187 nations, the treaty never entered into force because the United States and a handful of other key players failed to ratify it.
Still, Dr. Garwin and his colleagues had created a new global norm. The long, hard process of hammering out a global consensus on the merits of a ban, embraced by thermonuclear states, led to a more stable new era. Gone were the shock waves that had radiated from underground test sites and ricocheted around the globe. Since then, the United States and other main nuclear powers have tested no weapons. Now there's a new kind of silence.
'You do these things,' Dr. Garwin told me shortly after the Senate rejected the treaty. 'And if you keep at it for a long time, sometimes you win.'
In 1979, Edward Teller suffered a heart attack and so discovered, as he told a friend, 'that I am not immortal.' While recovering, he shared his recollections on the making of the hydrogen bomb with that friend, who had brought along a tape recorder.
'So that first design,' Teller said, 'was made by Dick Garwin.' He repeated the tribute to avoid any misunderstanding.
For 22 years, that recording was lost to history. By chance, it also fit nicely with Dr. Garwin's own determination to hide his H-bomb role.
Myths spread. In 1995, 'Dark Sun,' a 700-page account of the hydrogen bomb's making, attributed its design to a committee of elder scientists. It made no mention of the Cleveland upstart.
That changed in April 2001. George A. Keyworth II, Teller's friend, who later served as President Ronald Reagan's science adviser, gave me a transcript of the tape recording and I wrote about it for The New York Times. It was noticed, including by Dr. Garwin and his family.
Though Teller had previously acknowledged the young physicist's role, those mentions were buried in specialist writings and meetings. Now, suddenly — a half-century after the fact — Dr. Garwin gained wide public recognition as the H-bomb's designer.
'That was when people really knew,' Lois, his wife, told a historian. 'And people who knew Dick very, very well, and had known him for a very long time, expressed real surprise.'
After that, as much as ever, he raced ahead. The polymath lectured and wrote papers on space weapons, land mines, terrorism, pandemics, submarines, science advising, food aid programs, automatic teller machines, Iran's nuclear ambitions, the nation's electrical grid, the disposal of radioactive waste, catastrophic risks and nuclear disarmament. The last entry in his comprehensive archive is dated early this year.
Around that time, I decided that the elder statesman of nuclear arms control, like Teller, was probably not going to live forever. He was 96. I had some questions.
During that interview, to my surprise, Dr. Garwin said Fermi had emphasized the wrong danger in once calling the H-bomb 'an evil thing' because of its unlimited destructiveness.
'That's not the threat,' he said. The great danger, he added, is 'so many nuclear weapons,' which raise the risk of theft, missteps, accidents, unauthorized use — and the world falling from mutual deterrence into a thermonuclear abyss.
To me, that last visit with Dr. Garwin was another glimpse of a bygone era in which he struggled inconspicuously to counter an existential threat to humankind.
I asked if he had ever considered a memoir.
'I tried,' said the man known for his blunt honesty. 'It's an impossible job.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

2 hours ago

• Forbes

White House Aims To Halt Fantastical NASA Missions Across Solar System

The New Horizons spacecraft sends back its sensational snapshots of Jupiter, and its volcanic moon ... More Io, before the mission's close encounter with Pluto (Photo by: Photo12/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) Universal Images Group via Getty Images The White House bid to terminate NASA's leading-edge flights of exploration 'across the solar system' threatens to explode American leadership in discoveries that have reshaped civilization since the rise of the first Space Age, says one of the world's top planetary scientists. As space powers across the continents vie to map and image planets and moons, comets and ice-worlds circling the sun, slashes to NASA's funding would represent a great leap backward, crippling it even as rivals race ahead, says Alan Stern, a one-time leader at NASA and a globally acclaimed space scientist. The president's new proposed budget drastically cuts appropriations for NASA, with outlays for its planetary science missions—the exploration of Pluto and other celestial worlds by space-borne rockets and robots, cameras and telescopes—axed almost in half. Now facing the guillotine—inexplicably—are constellations of technologically advanced space probes developed by NASA and spearheading scientists across America, including the Juno imager now orbiting Jupiter, the Mars Odyssey and Maven spacecraft gliding above Mars and the asteroid hunter OSIRIS-Apophis. NASA's Mars Odyssey spacecraft, in orbit around Mars, is one of the leading-edge explorers slated to ... More be terminated by the White House. Shown here is an artist's impression of the orbiter. (Photo) Getty Images 'Incredibly, this budget proposes to turn off 55 perfectly working, productive spacecraft across the solar system,' Dr. Stern, who once headed NASA's Science Mission Directorate, tells me in an interview. Stern took up that post after conceiving and designing one of the American space agency's most sensational missions ever - the New Horizons spacecraft that aced a close approach with Pluto while sending back fantastical images of the otherworldly orb and its moons - a miniature planetary system that generated billions of hits when it began beaming down across NASA's website. While New Horizons continues its super-speed flight through the outer solar system, charting the mysterious frozen reaches of the Kuiper belt, the president's plan calls for the spacecraft to be cast away. Abandoning the $900-million mission in order to recoup the minimal costs of its ongoing operation makes no sense economically or scientifically, Stern says. The robotic photographer New Horizons images Pluto as it speeds through the outer solar system ... More (Photo by NASA/APL/SwRI via Getty Images) Getty Images 'With New Horizons,' he says, 'there are a lot of important scientific objectives still ahead, things no other spacecraft can do.' 'Terminating this mission would also represent a tragic loss of soft power projection for the U.S.' The Horizons craft, and its array of next-generation cameras and spectrometers, is exploring a region beyond Pluto that no other human-created probe has ever entered, with a treasure trove of potential discoveries waiting. 'This would be like sending a message to [Christopher] Columbus to sink his ships while they were in North America,' Stern tells me, upending a new age of discovery. 'With New Horizons, we have the power and the fuel to run this mission for another 20 years … and we have more Kuiper belt objects to explore.' The White House, in issuing its slashed budget plan for NASA, never provided a logical rationale for torpedoing some of the agency's world-leading missions to survey and image the solar system. Its inscrutable sinking of some of these vanguard voyages was unveiled with the terseness of a telegram: 'Operating missions that have completed their prime missions (New Horizons and Juno) and the follow-on mission to OSIRIX-REx, OSIRIS-Apophis Explorer, are eliminated.' The asteroid-hunter OSIRIS spacecraft, shown here at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, is one of ... More the trailblazers set to be terminated by the White House. (Photo by Bruce Weaver / AFP) (Photo by BRUCE WEAVER/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images The OSIRIS spacecraft, which had been slated to rendezvous with the closely approaching Apophis asteroid ahead, is a precursor mission to defending the Earth's eight billion citizens against doomsday cosmic strikes by colossal comets or asteroids of the future. The robotic photographer Juno has snapped an endless kaleidoscope of imagery as it floats around Jupiter. Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab have posted raw impressions of the orb and its moons and invited 'citizen scientists' to Photoshop and launch them across the cybersphere. In the process, they are becoming part of the spacefaring civilization that is spreading out across the globe. Model of the $1-billion Juno spacecraft, which is now orbiting and photographing Jupiter (Photo by ... More) Getty Images During its own space odyssey, New Horizons has astounded stargazers, students and scholars worldwide with its technicolor panoramas of Pluto, covered in surreal ice-fields and cryo-volcanoes, and its age-old companion Charon. The twin netherworlds—named after the mythical Greek god of the underworld and the pilot who shuttled souls across the river Styx—circle more than five billion kilometers distant from the sun, along an orbit that Stern's Pluto expedition took nine years to reach. Now, even as it whizzes beyond all of the classical planets, New Horizons, and its future, has entered the purgatory of potential excommunication by mission controllers—and their masters—six worlds away. The New Horizons spacecraft, now speeding through the outer solar system, could be jettisoned under ... More a White House plan that would destroy American leadership in planetary science missions. (Photo by Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images) Heritage Images via Getty Images 'This is a vast and tragic mistake,' Stern says, 'because the issue is larger than just NASA, it also affects U.S. world leadership [and] responsible government that protects taxpayers from waste like this.' The administration's crash-and-burn dismissal of the solar system's trailblazing robotic discoverers has triggered trepidation across NASA, whose ranks of pioneering scientists are likewise set to be culled. Within NASA, Alan Stern is a pole star of cutting-edge exploration, helping guide more than two dozen missions. After his New Horizons spacecraft rendezvoused with Pluto, the agency bestowed its highest honor on him - the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal. 'Stern led the team that returned remarkable imagery and other data from the Pluto system last summer, generating headlines worldwide and setting a record for the farthest world ever explored,' NASA's leaders said. "New Horizons represents the best of humanity and reminds us of why we explore,' added Jim Green, NASA's director of planetary science. "The first flyby of Pluto is a remarkable achievement.' Being given the chance to lead the close encounter with Pluto, Stern said on accepting the award, 'has been the greatest honor of my lifetime.' Around the same time, NASA film-makers paid tribute to Stern, his 2000+ Pluto mission colleagues, and the target of their interplanetary expedition in the captivating documentary ' The Year of Pluto .' Stern has himself chronicled his trek across the twilight reaches of the star system in a stream of fascinating books, including Pluto and Charon: Ice Worlds on the Ragged Edge of the Solar System and Chasing New Horizons, and in a torrent of acclaimed papers . Scholar Stern predicts that if the White House's proposed death sentence for flotillas of pathfinding space missions is actually carried out, that would mark the decline and fall of NASA's planetary science breakthroughs, and the comparative rise of its competitors in the renewed space race of the 2020s. If NASA's funding and inter-planet journeys are decimated, he tells me, 'These cuts will absolutely destroy U.S. leadership in all the space sciences.' 'This is tragically misguided.' The potential death knell for an armada of space discovery missions has been reverberating not just across NASA, but also throughout the U.S. universities that help conceive or design these flights. 'Certainly termination of the New Horizons mission would be terrible,' says Kip Hodges , who as founding director of Arizona State University's School of Earth and Space Exploration helped transform the university into one of the top American space studies centers. 'This a real frontier mission at this point,' he tells me in an interview, 'delivering important new information about distant parts of our Sun's heliosphere.' Congress has the power to save NASA and its leading-edge robotic explorers across the solar system ... More (Illustration by Tobias Roetsch/Future Publishing via Getty Images) Future Publishing via Getty Images Professor Hodges , one of the top space scholars in the U.S., predicts that the Swords of Damocles now hanging above New Horizons and other new-frontier flights could still be lifted. If the White House plan to cut away at NASA and its revolutionary planetary scouting missions were enacted as is, he predicts, 'a great many folks in industry, the NASA labs, and academia will be disappointed.' Yet he adds that 'the budget for NASA evolves over several stages,' with the president's initial proposal just one of competing models—one that could be rejected as the Senate and House of Representatives look afresh at NASA's missions, goals and funding. After the twin chambers reach a consensus on reshaping NASA for the next phase of its evolution, Professor Hodges adds, 'Quite often, the appropriated budget is not the president's budget.' That means space aficionados across America who seek to overturn the president's capital sentence on NASA's boundary-breaking missions have a clear channel of recourse, Stern says. Would-be petitioners for a reprieve, he advises, 'should contact their elected representatives in Congress and tell them this is a huge mistake.'

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

This Poop 'Cure' May Have Unintended Long-Term Effects, Study Finds

Faecal microbial transplants (FMT), which involve transferring stool samples from a healthy gut to someone else's colon, have yielded some impressive medical results in the past. Researchers have seen promising signs of its ability to address irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn's disease, and even early Parkinson's (though this benefit only seemed to be short-lived) and other neurological issues. It has a 90% success rate for treating a bacterium related to diarrhoea, the BBC reported. But a new study published in the journal Cells has raised questions about the long-term safety of FMT treatments, suggesting that a bacterial 'mismatch' may cause problems with the patient's immune system and metabolism down the line. The scientists only found the link in mice and were not able to say how the changes they witnessed in the animals might manifest in people. They gave antibiotics to mice to interrupt their gut's normal microbiome, and then treated them with FMT and monitored them for one to three months. Often, the researchers discovered, the gut bacteria ended up in the wrong part of the gut – 'regional mismatches' – that seemed to disrupt the gut. After taking biopsies of the liver and gut, the scientists found that some genes, especially those related to the immune system and metabolism, had changed. Speaking to the University of Chicago, the study's lead author, researcher Orlando 'Landon' DeLeon said: 'I think it's a bit of a wake-up call to the field that maybe we shouldn't willy-nilly put large bowel microbes into different parts of the intestine that shouldn't be there. 'There are microbes along the entire intestinal tract, and we just study predominantly the last third of it (the colon),' he added. 'So how can you expect an FMT, with microbes from a third of the intestinal tract at the end of it, to fix the rest of the intestine?' No. This study was done on mice, which have different anatomies from us; even though the scientists found genetic changes in the liver and gut, they are not sure yet how those changes might affect even the mouse, never mind us. The study's researchers, however, still think it's a good idea to pursue 'omni-microbial transplants,' or OMT, writing in their paper: 'regional microbial mismatches after FMTs can lead to unintended consequences and require rethinking of microbiome-based interventions.' OMTs would include more bacteria from a greater area of the gut, theoretically increasing the likelihood that the correct ones will go to the right spot. Gut Health Discovery Could Help Future Parkinson's Diagnoses Let's Settle This – Is The Viral 'Puff Vs Pit' Armpit Health Check Actually Helpful? New Study Finds The Exact Age Bad Health Habits Catch Up To You

Medscape

2 hours ago

• Medscape

Can Behavioral Support Enhance CGM Use in T1D?

TOPLINE: Behavioral support for first-time users of a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device showed no significant difference in reduction of A1c levels compared with CGM alone in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Adults in both groups reported reduced diabetes distress. METHODOLOGY: Automated insulin delivery systems are the standard of care for adults with T1D, and using them requires both an insulin pump and a CGM device. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the use of CGM among 134 adults with T1D who had not previously used CGM (mean age, 35 years; 77% women; 55% not using an insulin pump) who were recruited from clinics and T1D organizations across the United States. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one received CGM alone and the other received CGM plus the ONBOARD behavioral intervention, both for 3 months. The ONBOARD intervention included four 60-minute virtual, 1:1 biweekly sessions to address barriers related to wearing the device, data management, social concerns, and trust. Changes in A1c levels and diabetes distress scores were evaluated using t-tests and linear mixed-effect models over 12 months. TAKEAWAY: At 12 months after initiating CGM, 80% of participants in the ONBOARD group and 71% in the CGM-only group reported using CGM. Both the CGM-only and ONBOARD groups showed significant reductions in A1c levels (P < .05), with no significant difference between the groups. Participants in both groups experienced significant and clinically meaningful decreases in diabetes distress (P < .001). The CGM-only group showed greater reductions in diabetes distress than the ONBOARD group at 3 months; reductions were similar between groups at 6 and 12 months. IN PRACTICE: "Findings highlight benefits of introducing CGM on diabetes management and diabetes distress for adults with T1D. Most participants were still using CGM 12 months after initiating use through the study, indicating durable uptake," the authors write. SOURCE: The study was led by Molly L. Tanenbaum, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, California. The poster will be presented on June 23 at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 85th Scientific Sessions, being held June 20-23 at the McCormick Place Convention Center, Chicago, Illinois. LIMITATIONS: No study limitations were discussed in the abstract. DISCLOSURES: One author disclosed consulting roles with Sanofi and Havas Health, an advisory role with MannKind Corporation, and receiving research support from embecta. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.