As viruses go, SARS-CoV2, is actually less lethal that its cousin MERS-CoV and certainly less than the virus that causes Ebola. But it is very infectious and this has resulted in the pandemic which has changed the world–in 12 short months.

We humans have conducted a vast set of natural experiments on which societal policy responses work and which don’t. We have seen an unprecidented team effort among biomedical researchers and big Pharma that has delivered several lights and the end of the pandemic tunnel–a result which makes me not doubt my years of supporting groups like Research!America.

But we haven’t yet synthesized the lessons from this pandemic that will get us ready for the next pandemics–which may well, like smallpox, be both highly lethal and contagious. It is clear to me that we need to systematic way to observe the biosphere and its ecological landscape for emerging infectious disease threats to develop predictive models that are actionable.

At the same time, we need to institutionalize and internationalize the best responses to COVID so that there is minimal delay between detection and global response. And at the same time, we need to develop new public health interventions that are less destructive of the economy and civil rights–a very tall challenge.

This morning from my deck: these plants still have their brilliantly red leaves. I believe this is because their chlorophyll pigment is no longer present–it would have absorbed red and reflected back green. The chlorophyll has been replaced by a new pigment: anthocyanin–which reflects the red and absorbs the rest. All of this biology: this is what makes the biosphere possible–for that I am thankful. It is what keeps our spaceship Earth a home for us humans.

It also seems that we will have vaccinations soon and a new Administration. And I’m optimistic that scientists will play an important role in the tasks ahead–there are so many.

Happy thanksgiving…

The title of my colleague’s blog post here. Well for one, very differently. For another, quite effectively (subject to caveats). My thoughts on the subject are here, here, and here.

There is in error treating these two agencies as different faces of the same coin.

This time from former NSF Director Neil Lane and CU Professor Roger Pielke, in Nature here. Hat tip to Phil R.

I’m really pleased by the results released this morning for the Pfizer vaccine candidate. It feels like a tipping point for this fight and a welcome development for the incoming Biden Administration.

First, I subscribe to Tolstoy’s view of history rather than Carlyle’s “Great Man” viewpoint. So, from my point of view, where the US find’s itself in this particular election is not so much a function of the person currently holding the office, but more of where the US polity is right now.

Second, the problem of humanity’s position with regards to the rest of the biosphere aren’t going to really change after Tuesday. Whoever wins, the climate disruption will continue and the follow-on effects, both predicted and unknown, will continue to challenge us.

Third, much goes on outside the borders of the United States: some good, some bad, but all of interest in any case. I am intrigued by the entire notion of the Pacific Rim as a geo-political entity. Mostly, it seems to have a dynamism that the rest of the geopolitical world lacks these days.

Finally, the US continues to be beautiful–the land itself is the greatest asset of this place that I call home.

There is an excellent review by Florian Krammer in this week’s Nature. For those without the patience to read it, here’s the relevant figure. Bottom-line, things are progressing. Of late, I’ve found the non-scientific media not particularly helpful on the subject of COVID19.

I hope. Here’s one running for US Senator in Wyoming, Merav Ben-David. Anytime I see scientists entering the political arena I want to cheer them on. Our profession needs to become far more active in setting an agenda for the future. And that can’t be done entirely outside of politics. She’s running as a Dem. Now let’s see a scientist step up from the other side of the aisle. Oh wait, here’s one with an impeccable NSF record. Kelvin?

I don’t find myself often agreeing with David Brooks, but today’s column in the NYT was excellent. There is certainly a lot to fix and it’ll definitely be “the work of a generation”.

I’ve been following the Artemis Accords closely. They represent a follow-on to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the immediate context is the US goal of returning humans to the Moon by 2024. I’m less interested in the return trip to the Moon than I am in future legal frameworks for Space.

With regards to such legal frameworks:

To my mind there is the question of extraction of valuable resources from the Solar System and the property rights that might accompany those. Then there is the question of how, in the future, the notion of Westphalian nation states might extend off the planet. An additional question is about the militarization of space by current nations although it looks to me that the horse has already left the barn on that one.

N.B. As a matter of record, I’m inclined to oppose the notion of a separate US Space Force because I think such a DOD organization will push us further down the road of deploying offensive weapons on orbit–a bad thing, in my opinion.