Asher Elias was galvanized into activism on behalf of his fellow Ethiopian Jews in Israel by a 1996 revelation.
Asher Elias uses high-tech training to lift Ethiopian Jews in Israel
In Israel, most Ethiopian Jews are trapped at the bottom of society in dead-end jobs. Asher Elias gives them high-tech training to boost their upward mobility.
Though telescopes can't spot the dwarf galaxy, scientists detected its presence through the tiny distortions its gravity causes to light that passes it by.
Astronomers have discovered a small galaxy that is invisible to telescopes and may be completely composed of dark matter, which reflects no light.
Skip to next paragraph
The newfound galaxy is incredibly distant and extremely small. It orbits as a satellite of a larger galaxy. Though telescopes can't spot the dwarf galaxy, scientists detected its presence through the tiny distortions its gravity causes to light that passes it by.
Scientists think?dark matter, which may be made of some exotic particle that doesn't reflect light, makes up about?98 percent of all matter?in the universe. Yet it has never been detected directly. Discovering dark objects like this tiny, distant galaxy could help researchers understand better what dark matter is and how it affects regular matter around it.
Warped light
The new dwarf galaxy is about 7 billion light-years away, meaning its light has taken 7 billion years to reach us here on Earth. It weighs about 190 million times the mass of the sun ? a seemingly hefty sum, although typical galaxies pack in the mass of tens of billions of suns. [Images: Peering Back to the Big Bang & Early Universe]
"This is the lowest mass galaxy that we've seen at this distance by far," said study co-author Matthew Auger of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Even farther away, at about 10 billion light-years, is another galaxy whose light passes by the dark dwarf and its host on its way to Earth. As this light travels through space, it is bent by the gravity of the intervening galaxy and its satellite, causing a distorted, curved picture called an "Einstein ring," after the famous scientist, who predicted such warping effects in his general theory of relativity. This process is called?gravitational lensing.
Though most of this warping is caused by the larger gravitational tug of the host galaxy, researchers used a?computer?model to detect a slight excess of warping caused by the tiny addition of the dwarf satellite's gravity.
"It's a subtle effect that by eye you would tend not to see except from subtracting a model from the?data," Auger told SPACE.com.
The astronomers were also helped by extremely high-resolution images taken by the Keck Observatory in Hawaii, using a system called adaptive optics to compensate for atmospheric blurring.
"The image quality in the data we used here is somewhat better than the quality you can get from the Hubble Space Telescope," Auger said.
Auger and his colleagues, led by Simona Vegetti of MIT, reported their finding in the Jan. 19 issue of the journal Nature.
Hidden stars?
Because it is so far and hard to see, astronomers can't be sure if the newly discovered galaxy really is made almost exclusively of?dark matter, or if it just contains stars that are too dim to be visible at this distance.
There is some reason to think that very low-mass dark matter galaxies might exist independent of any visible matter, researchers said. The small clump of dark matter may have originally contained gas that formed stars when it was newborn, but when these stars died and exploded in supernovas, they may have blasted all the remaining gas out into space, leaving the dark matter clump without any material to form new stars.
However, theoretical models aren't clear on this issue, and astronomers would like to know more about when light matter galaxies form, and when dark matter clumps remain starless.
Dwarf galaxies aren't a rarity in the cosmos; even our Milky Way has them. In fact, the newfound galaxy is about the same size as our own galaxy's?Sagittarius dwarf satellite.
"For the first time we're getting information about something with a mass that's comparable to some of the smaller Milky Way satellites (like the Fornax and Sagittarius dwarfs) but outside of the local universe," study co-author David Lagattuta of the University of California, Davis, told SPACE.com in an email. "Add in the fact that it's something like 6 or 7 billion light years away, it's really true that we've never been able to see something like this before!"
The Milky Way's satellites are also little understood ? they are hard to observe, and theory predicts many more of them than have been discovered. Scientists hope that finding more dwarf galaxies around distant hosts may help shed light on the problem.
"Vegetti and colleagues show convincingly that gravitational lenses allow low-mass satel?lite galaxies to be discovered regardless of how luminous the satellites are," astronomer Robert W. Schmidt of the Universit?t Heidelberg, in Germany ? who was not involved in the research ? wrote in an accompanying essay in the same issue of Nature. "As such, they offer the means to refine measurements of the mass function of faraway satellites."
You can follow SPACE.com assistant managing editor Clara Moskowitz on Twitter
WASHINGTON ? The Pentagon says the U.S. is paying six times more than before to send war supplies to troops in Afghanistan through alternate routes since Pakistan's punitive decision in November to close border crossings to NATO convoys.
Pentagon figures provided to the AP show it now costs about $104 million per month to move the supplies through a longer northern route, $87 million more a month than when the cargo moved through Pakistan. Islamabad shut down two key Pakistan border crossings after a U.S. airstrike killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers in late November, and it is unclear when it might reopen them.
U.S. officials have acknowledged that using alternate transportation routes for Afghan war supplies is more expensive and takes longer, but the total costs had not been revealed until now.
Sizewell in Suffolk, site of one of the UK's remaining nuclear power stations
It seems that we?re at a really interesting crossroads in the debate over nuclear power. Large portions of the environmental movement have become more in favour of it in recent years, seeing the risks of another Japan-style meltdown as less than the benefits of more low-carbon energy. In response, those still opposed to nuclear have shifted their argument away from safety and focused on the cost of nuclear, arguing it?s less cost-efficient than simply massively expanding renewables.
Interestingly, Fukushima doesn?t seem to have altered this conversation much. Nuclear operators have suffered from a freeze in new nuclear builds while countries carry out post-Fukushima safety reviews. And Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland?have all since cancelled new nuclear plans. But in those countries where governments remain committed to nuclear, campaigners against it are continuing to focus on financial issues over safety.
Take the UK, for example, where a new campaign group is mounting a legal challenge against what they perceive as government subsidies for nuclear.
The group, called Fair Energy, has logged a formal complaint with the European?Commission, arguing that various policies of the UK government amount to illegal subsidies of the nuclear industry. As the Guardian reports:
One of the largest incentives is the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents but Fair Energy also points to the fact that uranium is exempted from wider taxes on fuels in the UK, and that government will help with the costs of dealing with nuclear waste.
The complaint is interesting because, while the UK government has, for some years, been in favour of new nuclear power stations being built in the UK, they?ve consistently said they?re not prepared to subsidise them. As recently as October, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne ? from the more traditionally environmental Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition government ??said: ?I believe that nuclear electricity can and should play a part in our energy future provided that new?nuclear?is built without public subsidy.?
But critics have argued for some time that the government?s plans for a minimum price for carbon emissions amount to a subsidy for nuclear. This new campaign widens the criticism to include other aspects of the UK?s energy laws.
The campaign has the support of Caroline Lucas, Britain?s first Green MP, who says:??Despite persistent denials by ministers, it?s clear that this is a subsidy by another name, which makes a mockery of the coalition pledge not to gift public money to this already established industry. If these subsidies are found to be unlawful, I trust the European commission will take action and prevent the UK?s nuclear plans from seriously undermining the shift towards new green energy.?
No word yet on when the European Commission might respond to the complaint, or what further legal action is planned.
COMMENTARY | The support for Ron Paul is picking up steam as three more South Carolina Senators endorsed his bid on Tuesday for the Republican presidential nomination. It seems with each passing day more people are starting to wake up, even those in already serving in government are beginning to open their eyes and realize that Dr. Paul really is what we need to get America back on its feet. Perhaps the mainstream media will finally catch on to the fact that Ron Paul is electable, and give him his fair share of coverage over the real issues facing this country. The list of Republicans backing Ron Paul now includes Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg), Sen. Kevin Bryant (R-Spartanburg), and Sen. Danny Verdin (R-Greenville).
Sen. Lee Bright was elected to the South Carolina State Legislature in 2008. He is known as a fiscal and social conservative. Sen. Bright serves on the committees for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Judiciary, Labor Commerce and Industry and Transportation. He also serves on the William Wallace Caucus, which is a non-legislative caucus that votes against government intrusion, wasteful spending and unnecessary regulation.
Sen. Kevin Bryant was a delegate at the Republican National Convention in 2000. He was the Chairman of the Anderson County Republican Party from 1997 to 2001. He joined the South Carolina State Senate in 2004 and has served in that position since representing the 3rd district. On his blog Sen. Bryant says, ""Why Dr. Paul?" is the question many people have asked, "He's got some extreme positions." Well, "let me remind you, that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice" (Barry Goldwater-1964) I've also reminded my friends that our future generations have had $117 trillion debt thrust upon them. This extreme problem needs extreme solutions before we self-destruct."
Sen. Danny Verdin is a third-term Republican from South Carolina's 9th District. He currently serves as the Chairman of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. He also serves as a committee member for Finance, Invitations, Medical Affairs, Transportation and Fish, Game and Forestry.
Even South Carolina Senator Jim Mint, who isn't endorsing any candidate at the moment, had this to say about Ron Paul: "If we don't listen to Ron Paul the unaccountable, out of control Federal Reserve is going to destroy our monetary system. The whole concept of individual liberty and limited government, that needs to be not only the core of the Republican Party but American people need to realize that that's what makes us great, not this central government collectivism that we've moved towards now."
Oil storage tanks at the Chevron Burnaby Oil Refinery on the shores of Burrard Inlet, east of Vancouver, B.C.
President Obama is feeling election-year pressure on the pending decision over the Keystone XL pipeline. Republicans say the Canadian project would provide the U.S. with oil and new jobs, but environmentalists want him to block it. They say Alberta's oil sands generate more greenhouse gases than other kinds of oil, and Americans must not become dependent on such a dirty source of energy. But it may already be too late to change that.
Tucked in among the ranch houses in Burnaby, British Columbia, a quiet suburb east of Vancouver, is the terminal for the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which brings in oil from Alberta. For decades, that oil was mainly consumed in the Vancouver region. But that is changing.
Ben West, an anti-oil tanker activist with a group called the Wilderness Committee, says when the pipeline company Kinder Morgan bought this facility in 2005, it shifted its focus to exports ? primarily to the American West Coast.
"We've seen this huge increase of tanker traffic," he says. "We went from 22 tankers in 2005, up to 79. You know these 700,000-barrel tankers that are now coming through the Burrard Inlet, which passes through one of the most populated areas of British Columbia."
The pipeline also has a branch that crosses the border, feeding crude oil to refineries in Washington state. Kinder Morgan is now exploring the possibility of doubling the pipeline's capacity. West calls it the "quiet repurposing" of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. And because of it, oil sands gasoline is now fueling cars from Seattle to San Francisco.
Philip Verleger, an economist who specializes in oil markets, says even if environmentalists convince President Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline, it won't stop the growth of production in the Canadian oil sands.
"With prices around a hundred dollars a barrel globally, that oil is going to make it to the market somehow," Verleger says. "The development may be slowed for a year or two. But one can move the oil west on the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline. They could expand pipelines east. Those pipelines already exist and they can be expanded."
In fact, Enbridge, a Canadian energy company, recently asked Canadian regulators for permission to reverse the direction of one of its pipelines in Ontario, which many see as the first step to move more Canadian oil to the American East Coast ? and relieve some of the Canadian oil glut in the upper Midwest.
Back in Burnaby, activist West is well aware of the spider's web of pipelines exporting oil from Alberta, but that doesn't make him any less opposed to the Keystone XL.
"I think it's true that the Keystone pipeline is not the only way that the oil is making its way to market, and there's definitely enough demand that if one of these gets built, people will want to build the other ones," West says. "But, you know, we really need to turn that around."
But demand is the key, say most economists. If you can get American drivers to buy less gas ? by raising fuel efficiency standards, as the Obama Administration recently did ?? then, they say, you stand a much better chance of slowing down production in the oil sands.
Balancing scientific freedom and national securityPublic release date: 19-Jan-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Karen Mallet km463@georgetown.edu Georgetown University Medical Center
2 Georgetown professors explore a process needed to avoid the current dilemma faced by 2 scientific journals recently asked by the US government to redact parts of scientific publications deemed to be a biosecurity threat
WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S. government's request that the journals Science and Nature withhold scientific information related to the genetically modified H5N1 virus because of biosecurity concerns does not violate the First Amendment, say two Georgetown University professors. They caution, however, that a fair, transparent process undertaken by research organizations is preferable to governmental constraints on disseminating scientific information.
Writing in Science, John D. Kraemer, JD, MPH, assistant professor of health systems administration at Georgetown University School of Nursing & Health Studies, and Lawrence O. Gostin, the Linda D. and Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Global Health Law and faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center, explore the balance of scientific freedom and national security in their opinion piece published online today entitled, "The Limits of Government Regulation of Science."
In 2011, two research teams genetically modified the H5N1 avian influenza virus. Their work, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), demonstrates the ability to alter a virus in such a way that it could possibly spread rapidly among humans killing more than half who contract it (the research was conducted in an animal model believed to represent human behavior of the virus). The research prompted the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), which advises the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to recommend that Science and Nature redact key information prior to publication. Both NSABB and HHS expressed concerns that published details about the papers' methodology and results could become a blueprint for bioterrorism.
"The NSABB process seems to have worked well in this instance," says Kraemer. "It raised legitimate security concerns while avoiding censorship of the scientific press. But there remains a need to strengthen precautions around this type of research before it occurs."
To date, Science and Nature have not yet announced their intentions regarding the government's request.
In their commentary, Kraemer and Gostin write "HHS' request reveals a troubled relationship between security and science." However, the authors point out, "Given the absence of legal force or undue inducements or penalties, the government's request to withhold information does not violate the First Amendment."
Kraemer and Gostin say the First Amendment, "affords considerable protection to political artistic and scientific expression, triggering 'strict scrutiny' by the Supreme Court." They point out that had the government compelled either the researchers or the journals to withhold publication, that act would have violated the First Amendment.
In their opinion piece, the authors explore various court cases that challenge and support the government's rights to go further with such an issue. They say the federal government has the power to prevent dissemination of sensitive life science research, but warn, " there are good reasons to exercise that power sparingly."
Looking beyond the current dilemma, Kraemer and Gostin ask: "Can the review process for high-risk biologic research be improved further?"
The origins of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity can be traced to the National Research Council's Fink Report issued in 2004. The Fink Report endorsed, among other things, expanded self-governance by researchers toward issues of biosecurity, as well as the formation of a national advisory board to help guide both the government and research community in addressing issues involving dual-use research.
However, Kraemer and Gostin point out that vital recommendations in the Fink Report have not yet been implemented, including the need to employ an institutional review process for biological "experiments of concern" patterned on the Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBC) required for recombinant DNA research.
Kraemer and Gostin make the following recommendations to improve the review process:
HHS, in partnership with institutions, will have to ensure that the IBC model works effectively: (1) institutions must develop the requisite expertise to review dual use research; (2) HHS must specify the categories of research requiring institutional reviewminimally including the 7 types of high-risk experiments; and (3) HHS must set clear and consistent standards for institutional review. If IBCs are formally designated to conduct the institutional review function, HHS will have to clarify whether NSABB will guide and oversee the process.
Kraemer and Gostin suggest that such a process can ensure a, "sound balance between scientific freedom and national security. A fair, transparent process undertaken by research institutions, with a balanced approach to scientific benefits and public safety, together with HHS guidance and oversight of high-risk research, is preferable to government constraints on scientific information by force of law."
###
About Georgetown University Law Center
Georgetown University Law Center is one of the world's premier law schools. It is pre-eminent in several areas, including constitutional, international, tax and clinical law, and the faculty is among the largest in the nation. Drawing on its Jesuit heritage, it has a strong tradition of public service and is dedicated to the principle that law is but a means, justice is the end. With this principle in mind, Georgetown Law has built an environment that cultivates an exchange of ideas and the pursuit of academic excellence. It brings together an extraordinarily varied group of teachers, scholars and practitioners, as well as an outstanding student body representing more than 60 countries.
About Georgetown University Medical Center
Georgetown University Medical Center is an internationally recognized academic medical center with a three-part mission of research, teaching and patient care (through MedStar Health). GUMC's mission is carried out with a strong emphasis on public service and a dedication to the Catholic, Jesuit principle of cura personalis -- or "care of the whole person." The Medical Center includes the School of Medicine and the School of Nursing & Health Studies, both nationally ranked; Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, designated as a comprehensive cancer center by the National Cancer Institute; and the Biomedical Graduate Research Organization (BGRO), which accounts for the majority of externally funded research at GUMC including a Clinical Translation and Science Award from the National Institutes of Health. In fiscal year 2010-11, GUMC accounted for 85 percent of the university's sponsored research funding.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Balancing scientific freedom and national securityPublic release date: 19-Jan-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Karen Mallet km463@georgetown.edu Georgetown University Medical Center
2 Georgetown professors explore a process needed to avoid the current dilemma faced by 2 scientific journals recently asked by the US government to redact parts of scientific publications deemed to be a biosecurity threat
WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S. government's request that the journals Science and Nature withhold scientific information related to the genetically modified H5N1 virus because of biosecurity concerns does not violate the First Amendment, say two Georgetown University professors. They caution, however, that a fair, transparent process undertaken by research organizations is preferable to governmental constraints on disseminating scientific information.
Writing in Science, John D. Kraemer, JD, MPH, assistant professor of health systems administration at Georgetown University School of Nursing & Health Studies, and Lawrence O. Gostin, the Linda D. and Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Global Health Law and faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center, explore the balance of scientific freedom and national security in their opinion piece published online today entitled, "The Limits of Government Regulation of Science."
In 2011, two research teams genetically modified the H5N1 avian influenza virus. Their work, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), demonstrates the ability to alter a virus in such a way that it could possibly spread rapidly among humans killing more than half who contract it (the research was conducted in an animal model believed to represent human behavior of the virus). The research prompted the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), which advises the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to recommend that Science and Nature redact key information prior to publication. Both NSABB and HHS expressed concerns that published details about the papers' methodology and results could become a blueprint for bioterrorism.
"The NSABB process seems to have worked well in this instance," says Kraemer. "It raised legitimate security concerns while avoiding censorship of the scientific press. But there remains a need to strengthen precautions around this type of research before it occurs."
To date, Science and Nature have not yet announced their intentions regarding the government's request.
In their commentary, Kraemer and Gostin write "HHS' request reveals a troubled relationship between security and science." However, the authors point out, "Given the absence of legal force or undue inducements or penalties, the government's request to withhold information does not violate the First Amendment."
Kraemer and Gostin say the First Amendment, "affords considerable protection to political artistic and scientific expression, triggering 'strict scrutiny' by the Supreme Court." They point out that had the government compelled either the researchers or the journals to withhold publication, that act would have violated the First Amendment.
In their opinion piece, the authors explore various court cases that challenge and support the government's rights to go further with such an issue. They say the federal government has the power to prevent dissemination of sensitive life science research, but warn, " there are good reasons to exercise that power sparingly."
Looking beyond the current dilemma, Kraemer and Gostin ask: "Can the review process for high-risk biologic research be improved further?"
The origins of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity can be traced to the National Research Council's Fink Report issued in 2004. The Fink Report endorsed, among other things, expanded self-governance by researchers toward issues of biosecurity, as well as the formation of a national advisory board to help guide both the government and research community in addressing issues involving dual-use research.
However, Kraemer and Gostin point out that vital recommendations in the Fink Report have not yet been implemented, including the need to employ an institutional review process for biological "experiments of concern" patterned on the Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBC) required for recombinant DNA research.
Kraemer and Gostin make the following recommendations to improve the review process:
HHS, in partnership with institutions, will have to ensure that the IBC model works effectively: (1) institutions must develop the requisite expertise to review dual use research; (2) HHS must specify the categories of research requiring institutional reviewminimally including the 7 types of high-risk experiments; and (3) HHS must set clear and consistent standards for institutional review. If IBCs are formally designated to conduct the institutional review function, HHS will have to clarify whether NSABB will guide and oversee the process.
Kraemer and Gostin suggest that such a process can ensure a, "sound balance between scientific freedom and national security. A fair, transparent process undertaken by research institutions, with a balanced approach to scientific benefits and public safety, together with HHS guidance and oversight of high-risk research, is preferable to government constraints on scientific information by force of law."
###
About Georgetown University Law Center
Georgetown University Law Center is one of the world's premier law schools. It is pre-eminent in several areas, including constitutional, international, tax and clinical law, and the faculty is among the largest in the nation. Drawing on its Jesuit heritage, it has a strong tradition of public service and is dedicated to the principle that law is but a means, justice is the end. With this principle in mind, Georgetown Law has built an environment that cultivates an exchange of ideas and the pursuit of academic excellence. It brings together an extraordinarily varied group of teachers, scholars and practitioners, as well as an outstanding student body representing more than 60 countries.
About Georgetown University Medical Center
Georgetown University Medical Center is an internationally recognized academic medical center with a three-part mission of research, teaching and patient care (through MedStar Health). GUMC's mission is carried out with a strong emphasis on public service and a dedication to the Catholic, Jesuit principle of cura personalis -- or "care of the whole person." The Medical Center includes the School of Medicine and the School of Nursing & Health Studies, both nationally ranked; Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, designated as a comprehensive cancer center by the National Cancer Institute; and the Biomedical Graduate Research Organization (BGRO), which accounts for the majority of externally funded research at GUMC including a Clinical Translation and Science Award from the National Institutes of Health. In fiscal year 2010-11, GUMC accounted for 85 percent of the university's sponsored research funding.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uOZ-vG4qmnMDQBAX2STX9llxgTDVRJF-h9QFsXiIMPbzg48autv5UzDMDAqUVmTHmO7LrevGKgpyI1eTVbAp-QRC87-qZbQWL29RmoGSo=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 19-Jan-2012
Share ]