Search Results

< Back to Issue 6 Proprioception: Our Invisible Sixth Sense by Ingrid Sefton 28 May 2024 Edited by Subham Priya Illustrated by Jessica Walton What might constitute a sixth sense? Perhaps, it involves possessing a second sight or superhuman abilities. A classic example of this would be Spider-Man and his ‘spidey-sense’ — an instinctual warning system that alerts him to imminent danger. Enhancing his reflexes and agility, his sixth sense enables him to evade threats with precision. Turns out Spider-Man is not the sole bearer of a ‘spidey sense’. While we may not be scaling walls anytime soon, we too possess a special sense that unconsciously guides our movements. It might sound peculiar, but knowing your arm is indeed your own arm involves a unique form of sensory processing. Considered by neuroscientists as our own ‘sixth sense’, proprioception is our own way of helping the brain to understand the position of our body and limbs in space (Sherrington, 1907). Consider a typical scenario: your first sip of coffee in the morning. Eyes shut, you savour your latte before the day begins. Such a simple act, yet impossible without proprioception. With closed eyes, how do you know where your mouth is? How do you gauge the position of your arm to ensure the coffee cup reaches your lips? Proprioception seamlessly transmits information about muscle tension, joint position, and force to the brain, making drinking your coffee an automatic and coordinated process. Proprioception operates on principles akin to those guiding our other senses. Specialised cells, known as receptors, are found in each sensory organ and receive information from the environment. Receptors in your eyes capture visual information, while those in your ears detect auditory stimuli. This sensory information is transduced through signals to the central nervous system – through the spinal cord and to the brain – where it’s integrated and processed to determine an appropriate response. Analogously, proprioceptive information is mediated by proprioceptors, a unique type of receptors located in your muscles and joints (Proske & Gandevia, 2012). Unlike our other senses, proprioception does not rely on input from the external environment. Rather, it provides feedback to the brain about what the body itself is doing. Changes in muscle tension and the position of our joints are relayed to the brain, ensuring awareness of the body’s whereabouts at any given moment. One implication of this ‘internal’ feedback loop is that proprioception never turns ‘off’. When you cover your ears, you experience silence. If you hold your nose, you can block out the smell. Yet even when still, in motion, or unconscious, your brain continuously receives proprioceptive input. Imagine this in the context of going to bed each night. What exactly prevents you from falling out of bed, once asleep? While most senses are subdued when sleeping, proprioception remains active, informing the brain about the slightest changes in the position of the body. This ensures a perpetual awareness of our body in space – and luckily for us, stops us from rolling out of bed (Proske & Gandevia, 2012). It can be hard to appreciate what our proprioceptive system allows us to do, given its unconscious nature and integration with our other senses. Rare neurological disorders affecting proprioception highlight just how critical this sense is in our daily lives. The case of Ian Waterman – now known as ‘the man who lost his body – offers profound insights into the significance of proprioception (McNeill et al., 2009). Following a fever in 1971 at age 19, a subsequent auto-immune reaction destroyed all his sensory neurons from the neck down–a condition termed ‘neuronopathy’. Despite retaining his intact motor functions, Waterman lost all proprioceptive abilities, rendering him unaware of his body's position in space. Although the viral infection’s initial effect was that of immobility, this loss was not due to paralysis. Rather, it was Waterman’s lack of control over his body that inhibited his ability to move. Sitting, walking, and manipulating objects became impossible tasks as a result of the absence of any proprioceptive feedback from the body. Remarkably, Waterman has been able to teach himself precise strategies to walk and function with a degree of normality (Swain, 2017). Yet, all movement requires concerted planning and relies entirely on vision to compensate for the unconscious proprioceptive processing. In the absence of any light, Waterman is unable to see his limbs, thus restricting his ability to move. An understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying proprioception remains somewhat of a mystery compared to that of our other senses. However, recent genetic advancements are paving the way for the development of novel therapies aimed at neurological and musculoskeletal disorders (Woo et al., 2015). A study involving two young patients with unique neurological disorders affecting their body awareness revealed a mutation in their PIEZO2 gene (Chesler et al., 2016). Both individuals experienced significant challenges with balance and movement, coupled with progressive scoliosis and deformities in the hips, fingers, and feet. The PIEZO2 gene typically encodes a type of mechanosensitive protein in cells, r esponsible for generating electrical signals in response to alterations in cell shape (Coste et al., 2010). Mutations to this gene prevent signal generation and render the neurons incapable of detecting limb or body movement. These findings firmly establish PIEZO2 as a critical gene for facilitating proprioception in humans, a sense that is crucial for bodily awareness. PIEZO2 mutations have also been implicated in genetic musculoskeletal disorders (Coste et al., 2010). Joint problems and scoliosis experienced by the patients in a study suggest that proprioception may also indirectly guide skeletal development. These insights into the role of the PIEZO2 gene in proprioception and musculoskeletal development open up promising avenues for understanding and treating neurological and musculoskeletal disorders. It’s more than fitting to regard proprioception as our sixth sense. The capacity of our nervous system to seamlessly process vast amounts of information from our joints and muscles, all without any conscious effort on our part, is truly remarkable. So, the next time you have that eyes-shut first sip of coffee, give yourself a pat on the back. With your sixth sense at play, you’re clearly a superhero! References Chesler, A. T., Szczot, M., Bharucha-Goebel, D., Čeko, M., Donkervoort, S., Laubacher, C., Hayes, L. H., Alter, K., Zampieri, C., Stanley, C., Innes, A. M., Mah, J. K., Grosmann, C. M., Bradley, N., Nguyen, D., Foley, A. R., Le Pichon, C. E., & Bönnemann, C. G. (2016). The Role of PIEZO2 in Human Mechanosensation. N Engl J Med , 375 (14), 1355-1364. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1602812 Coste, B., Mathur, J., Schmidt, M., Earley, T. J., Ranade, S., Petrus, M. J., Dubin, A. E., & Patapoutian, A. (2010). Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels. Science , 330 (6000), 55-60. McNeill, D., Quaeghebeur, L., & Duncan, S. (2009). IW - “The Man Who Lost His Body”. In (pp. 519-543). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2646-0_27 Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. C. (2012). The Proprioceptive Senses: Their Roles in Signaling Body Shape, Body Position and Movement, and Muscle Force. Physiological Reviews , 92 (4), 1651-1697. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00048.2011 Sherrington, C. S. (1907). On the proprio-ceptive system, especially in its reflex aspect. Brain , 29 (4), 467-482. Swain, K. (2017). The phenomenology of touch. The Lancet Neurology , 16 (2), 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30389-1 Woo, S. H., Lukacs, V., de Nooij, J. C., Zaytseva, D., Criddle, C. R., Francisco, A., Jessell, T. M., Wilkinson, K. A., & Patapoutian, A. (2015). Piezo2 is the principal mechanotransduction channel for proprioception. Nature Neuroscience , 18 (12), 1756-1762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4162 Previous article Next article Elemental back to

< Back to Issue 8 Glowing Limelight, Fashioned Stars by Aisyah Mohammad Sulhanuddin 3 June 2025 Edited by Kylie Wang Illustrated by Jessica Walton Good evening Rose Bowl, Pasadena! The crowd erupts into a roar, the stadium air overcome with a thunder of adulation. Between throngs of teenagers tearing through streets in pursuit of the Beatles, concert-goers fainting at the sight of Michael Jackson, and Top Tens of the day made to navigate flirty fan calls on daytime TV in front of live audiences (1), pop history as we know it has always revolved around the deep, fanatic reverence of the star . Stars in all corners of the entertainment cosmos, be it music, film or TV, have long had their lives glamorised. Tales told of luxurious jet-setting, post-show mischief and infamous public appearances peppered with paparazzi. Fame turned into fables, circulated eagerly by the wider populace. Having avidly followed a plethora of musicians, actors and comedians at different points of my own life, the gurgling vortex of stardom culture has remained ever-intriguing. Why do our relationships with stars mean so much to our society, and have they shifted over time? Public perceptions & parasocial relationships Our journey begins with the making of a star. A star is born from an assemblage of artistic choices: artwork, stage personas, press releases, bold onstage costumes and more, which constellate into a fashioned image. Or, a ‘manufactured personal reality’ (2). This reality is what audiences draw upon when forming attachments to stars, a process that moulds complex, contradicting human beings into idealised forms that may resonate, validate or provide meaning to them. The mid-century women empowered by the feminine sexuality and intelligence of Marilyn Monroe (2), or the working class Eastern European following of Depeche Mode who saw the band as an emblem of social rebellion under the USSR in the late 80s (3), are such examples. Such attachment gives rise to the infamous ‘parasocial relationship’ (PSR). An often derisive term aptly used today to call out toxic, boundary-crossing online fan behaviour, parasocial relationships at their core simply encompass socio-emotional connections formed with media figures (4). In it, audiences extend emotional energy, time or interest towards figures that whilst unreciprocated, create a perceived idea of intimacy similar to that of two-way relationships. For the audience, PSRs can evoke feelings of safety, trust and various forms of devotion, self-strengthened through personal habits – think dressing like a favourite ‘bias’, or diligently watching a favourite director’s closet picks. PSRs have historically been one-sided. Audience reactions to sensation and scandal have had the power to make or break an artist’s image, but restricted channels of dialogue meant that direct two-way feedback was often “fragmented” (2). The influencing power of the star’s image lay within reach of the star themselves, and more often than not, was shaped by the wider commercial agendas of their agency or labels. That is, until recently… The rise of the Internet Whilst the glitz and glamour of stardom remains strongly relevant, we can focus on the advent of the internet as the most powerful force in reshaping the relationship between fan and star. Termed the “o ne and a half sided” PSR (4), seen today is a shift in power dynamics towards one of increased fan-star symbiosis. As the theory notes, technology has allowed for greater perceived proximity and reciprocity, blurring the line between social and parasocial. Under the extensive nature of the current digital world, our internet presence has become increasingly considered a material extension of our real-life selves (4), whether through Zoom calls, real-time story updates or live vlogs. Direct messages or comments that allow instant reply have muddied the realm of physical and virtual reality, thus leading audiences to feel ‘physically’ closer to the figures in question. This decrease in constructed social distance has fostered notions of reciprocity, viewing stars as people they can reach out to and touch, converse with, and most importantly, influence in return – regardless of any actual ability to do so (4). As we witness stars defend their personal choices against an onslaught of ‘netizen’ backlash or wryly reply to a barrage of invasive thirst tweets (5), we see the increased power that global audiences have over said stars’ images. Eroded power barriers between the star and fan have heightened both positive and negative emotional engagement. Well-documented are various behaviours that disrespect boundaries between personal and professional lives, such as harassment, stalking, and other breaches of privacy. Yet, the rise of the ordinary, accessible star has also allowed greater exposure to previously hidden or stigmatised facets of figures’ lives, fostering safe spaces for perceived authenticity and vulnerability that can counter blind idealisation (6). Evolving industries & societies Under the diluted power networks of stardom today, we can describe celebrity image production as increasingly decentralised (6). Technology has made entry into the entertainment industry more accessible by providing numerous channels for artistic output, whether it be through releasing music independently on streaming services like Spotify, Bandcamp or Soundcloud, or creating short-form video skits on platforms like TikTok or Instagram. With top-down connections to age-old media institutions no longer required, the pool of faces that audiences can form relationships with has drastically expanded (7). Social norms – at the time of writing – have also welcomed the notion of diversified talents. As prevailing social, cultural and political structures shape value judgments made of stars (2), we have seen increased audience meaning-making in the dimensions of gender, ethnicity, class or sexual orientation over past decades (8) aligned with a gradual direction towards progressive and learned landscapes. Here, celebrity advocacy for causes and movements beyond the stage is nothing new, but fan bases can now dissect their forays into activism more publicly than ever before. A world unapologetically critical of “out of touch” (9) wealthy stars crooning out Lennon’s Imagine at the beginning of the pandemic would unlikely have welcomed the white-saviorist charity event that was Live Aid 1985 with as open arms as the dominant media narrative did then (10). A hyper-consumerist present If the exclusive stardom of yore can be likened to the dominance of a supermarket monopoly, then stardom today looks more like a diverse hub of online stores for buyers to ‘Click and Collect’ from. Whilst this setup offers diversified perspectives to a consuming audience, it embodies wider societal trends towards hyper-commodification. Market an image that sells well, and everyone will be famous for 15 minutes , as Andy Warhol supposedly declared (11). Reinforcing the ephemerality of mass consumerism are internet memes or trends (12) that morph and dilute rebellious celebrity motifs for overarching capitalistic agendas – think Brat Summer campaigns in the style of Charli xcx’s 2024 album co-opted by the most unethical multinational corporation you’ve ever come across. Like with the discourse exposing ‘nepo’ babies in the entertainment industry (13), we are reminded that despite the semblances of democratisation, the limelight remains far from a level stage. Stardom, beyond So what then? What lies in store for the future star? On one hand, the perception of proximity with the decline of ‘untouchable’ star personas can strengthen fan worship and deification, with frenzied consequences. On the other hand, increased artist-audience dialogue can pave the way for real change over performative gestures as lessening power imbalances bring a form of democratisation that can platform diverse and marginalised voices in art. All in all, stars today may no longer be able to fully present themselves and be perceived solely as spectral, enigmatic illusions that audiences can latch upon, but the new freedoms and avenues that come with being more truly known may be just as bedazzling. References 1. Robinson P. The great pop power shift: how online armies replaced fan clubs. The Guardian [Internet]. 2014 Aug 25; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/aug/25/great-pop-power-shift-how-online-armies-replaced-fan-clubs 2. Dyer R. Introduction. In: Heavenly Bodies [Internet]. Routledge; 2004. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203605516 3. Wynarczyk N. Tracing Eastern Europe’s obsession with Depeche Mode [Internet]. Dazed. 2017. Available from: https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/36659/1/tracing-eastern-europe-s-obsession-with-depeche-mode 4. Hoffner CA, Bond BJ. Parasocial Relationships, Social Media, & Well-Being. Current Opinion in Psychology [Internet]. 2022 Feb;45(1):1–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101306 5. Yodovich N. Buzzfeed’s “celebrities reading thirst tweets”: examining the sexualization of men and women in the #MeToo era. Journal of gender studies. 2024 Feb 28;33(8):1–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2024.2324263 6. Driessens O. The Celebritization of Society and Culture: Understanding the Structural Dynamics of Celebrity Culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies [Internet]. 2013;16(6):641–57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877912459140 7. Carboni M. The digitization of music and the accessibility of the artist. Journal of Professional Communication [Internet]. 2014 Jun 4;3(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.15173/jpc.v3i2.163 8. Stewart S, Giles D. Celebrity status and the attribution of value. European Journal of Cultural Studies [Internet]. 2019 Jul 21;23(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419861618 9. Caramanica J. This “Imagine” Cover Is No Heaven. The New York Times [Internet]. 2020 Mar 20; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/arts/music/coronavirus-gal-gadot-imagine.html 10. Grant J. Live Aid/8: perpetuating the superiority myth. Critical Arts [Internet]. 2015 May 4;29(3):310–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2015.1059547 11. Nuwer R. Andy Warhol Probably Never Said His Celebrated “Fifteen Minutes of Fame” Line [Internet]. Smithsonian Magazine. Smithsonian Magazine; 2014. Available from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/andy-warhol-probably-never-said-his-celebrated-fame-line-180950456/ 12. Cirisano T. “Brat” summer and the dilemmas of going mainstream [Internet]. MIDiA Research. 2024. Available from: https://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/brat-summer-and-the-dilemmas-of-going-mainstream 13. Jones N. How a Nepo Baby Is Born [Internet]. Vulture. 2022. Available from: https://www.vulture.com/article/what-is-a-nepotism-baby.html Previous article Next article Enigma back to

Humans of UniMelb Research - Is it For Me? By Renee Papaluca Thinking about completing your Honours year or a PhD at UniMelb? This column has some advice for you, courtesy of current research students. Edited by Ruby Dempsey & Sam Williams Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Gemma Van der Hurk Science is everywhere, but how can we contribute to furthering our knowledge of science? I caught up with some current research students to learn more about the Honours-PhD pathway and their experience studying science at the University of Melbourne. Caitlin Kane Caitlin is a current Honours student at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. In her spare time, she likes to go on bike rides and read. What was the ‘lightbulb moment’ that prompted you to study science? “When I was five, I had all these books that covered basic topics like the human body and the ocean. I thought they were wild! I was just a really curious kid that loved learning things and being certain about things. For me, science was an approach to learning and understanding the world that [was] very investigative. I guess I was just curious about a lot of things and science just took that curiosity and said, ‘now you can do anything with it’". Why did you choose to study Honours? “Honours, at least for me, is a clarifying year.” “Doing a bachelor’s degree in science doesn’t [necessarily] make you a scientist … A lot of the skills you need as a scientist are practical ones; depending on your area [of study] ... Those skills are very different from what you actually learn in university.” “I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do with my degree as there are a lot of options, like doing a PhD or ... going into the workforce… I thought that Honours would really help me clarify what kinds of science I like and give me time to figure out what I wanted to do next.” What’s involved in your research? “There are many variants of HPV (human papillomavirus) circulating in Australia - some of those variants cause cancer, and some are covered by vaccination. To understand how well vaccination is working in Australia, I test for HPV in patient samples, note the patient’s vaccination status, and examine the data to see which HPV variants are prevalent right now. This involves lab skills like pipetting, running polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) and extracting DNA. When I say ‘I’ do all these steps, it’s really like 10 people ... There are a lot of different people who do different parts of the project to keep it running.” What advice would you give to prospective Honours students? “Be informed of your options, don’t be scared of talking to supervisors, and talk to older students. Everytime I would ask an older student … [’what do you wish you would have known?’] they would come out with killer advice. That’s the only trick!” “The best piece of advice I got was that ‘some supervisors only want an extra set of hands’… They just want the work to be done and that is not the kind of supervisor you want.” Alex Ritter Alex is currently completing his 2nd PhD year in the Department of Physics. In his spare time, he enjoys singing in choirs, doing crosswords, and doting over his housemate’s cat. What was the ‘lightbulb moment’ that prompted you to study science? “Going through school, there are always those things you [tend to] gravitate towards...I really liked maths and science... and wanted to do something to do with them. In high school, I also had some opportunities to do extension physics… [which] really got me interested [in tertiary study]... Luckily, it's still something I enjoy so it was the right choice.” Why did you choose to continue to a PhD following your Masters? “I did Masters of Science in Physics straight after undergrad. I really enjoyed it! I loved … really getting into the graduate subjects; diving into more detail” “[The thing] I found the most challenging was the transition into research and that whole different style of thinking. My experience was that your first year is still coursework and learning high level topics and your second year is largely research. So, I found in second year - especially towards the end - finishing the thesis was quite challenging but ultimately rewarding” What are you currently researching? “My general area of research is theoretical particle physics. This describes the tiny, subatomic particles that make us up. So, we look at electrons, inside neutrons and all the forces that hold them together. I work in dark matter ... It doesn’t give off light but it interacts gravitationally. My research generally is introducing new sub-atomic particles and forces to try and explain what dark matter might be.” Can you have a life outside of your PhD? “The thing with a PhD and research, especially in physics, is that you set your own schedule which has its pros and cons. During the pandemic, I found it difficult to keep myself motivated whilst being stuck inside all day. Due to the flexibility, it really depends on how you want to approach your PhD. I still wanted to have a life outside of my PhD. I don’t wake up and think about my PhD 24/7! I still do a fair bit of choral singing as a hobby.” “My advice is that you can balance things in a PhD but it comes down to what your personality is like and how well you can set boundaries. For example, are you someone who gets absolutely absorbed in tasks and spends hours on them? Do you overwork yourself or do you underwork yourself? How good are you at time management? I think the best thing to do is to be self-aware about how you are as a worker and researcher before you get started.” What advice would you give to prospective Masters or PhD students? “Be honest with yourself and be honest with your supervisor. Know who you are and know what your limits are and try to build everything around that.” “I think the hardest part for me was knowing what to do at the start of the process. There isn’t a lot of information [available]... In terms of picking a supervisor, I think the best advice is to try and chat to them as honestly as you can about the things they do and what kinds of students they like.. For example, try and see how busy your supervisor is. Sometimes, a supervisor can be great, their research is great and can be super interesting... But, often they’ll be in high demand with very little time … to be a hands-on supervisor. I think also trying to get an understanding of what the working relationship will be like is also important.”

< Back to Issue 6 Fire and Brimstone by Jesse Allen 28 May 2024 Edited by Sakura Kojima Illustrated by Aisyah Mohammad Sulhanuddin CW: references to death, religion The year is 1783, and it seems that the end is nigh – at least, that is the impression of Icelandic priest Jón Steingrímsson. His diary offers a striking firsthand account of a fissure eruption which would last around eight months and claim the lives of approximately 9,000 people. These events are characterised by the emergence of molten magma through a crack in the Earth’s crust; and though they might lack the dramatic, Vesuvian spectacle of a typical volcanic eruption, they can be no less devastating (Witt et al., 2018). Steingrímsson recounts how “the ground swelled up with tremendous howling” before “flames and fire erupted” and sent “great blocks of rock and pieces of grass…high into the air”. There could only be one explanation for such apocalyptic scenes: these were surely “the signs of an angry god” (Bressan, 2013). In a last-ditch effort to save the local populace from this act of divine wrath, Steingrímsson held a church service in the town of Kirkjubæjarklaustur – which the relentless magma threatened to engulf – in which he urged repentance and led feverish prayers for mercy. It has gone down in Icelandic folklore as the Eldmessa , or ‘fire mass’ (Andrews, 2018). Since October 2023, Iceland’s Reykjanes Peninsula has been beset with an intense new wave of seismic activity and fissure eruptions (Andrews, 2024). In these ‘rift zones,’ magma can seep upwards through splits in the Earth’s crust towards the surface, forming large dikes and potentially creating multiple vents from which lava fountains can occur (Witt et al., 2018). At the time of writing, the situation has been declared stable by the Icelandic Met Office. But after centuries of dormancy, it has made the extraordinary power residing beneath the surface of our planet abundantly clear to local and international observers alike. It might seem that people are helpless in the face of such raw, elemental forces; all we can do is hope and pray. Yet, thanks to the tireless work of local authorities and dedicated scientists, it has become possible to decode the previously ineffable language of the fiery interior – and save lives in the process (Andrews, 2024). At the heart of this effort lies the Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), which enables scientists to map surface deformations and, hence, to infer magma movements (Tolpekin, 2023). This imaging technique records the backscatter of microwave signals as they ‘bounce’ off the surface (European Space Agency, n.d.). When two images are taken of the same location at different times – and then aligned pixel by pixel – the level of deformation can be represented with an interferogram, which functions like a brightly coloured topographic map (NASA, n.d.). This technology has major implications for planning authorities (Ducrocq et al., 2024). The increased frequency and intensity of tremors that began late last year, for instance, heralded the possibility of an imminent eruption. In conjunction with Iceland’s network of over 50 seismographs – ground-based devices which detect movement in all directions – InSAR provided the early warning on November 10 (Icelandic Met Office, n.d.). Beyond measuring the deformation magnitude (around 50 centimetres), scans also showed the localised area that was most likely to be affected, around the town of Grindavik. A state of emergency was declared by the Icelandic government on November 12, and the town was subsequently evacuated. The Reykjanes fissure first erupted in December and has done so three more times since then, as of 19th March 2024 (Baker, 2024). Having lain dormant for centuries, the peninsula could now face decades, even centuries, of heightened volcanic activity (Andrews, 2024). Situated on the ridge between the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates, Iceland has long been a hotbed for geologists and other scientists; the most recent eruptions will continue to foster a deeper knowledge of the primordial forces at work beneath the crust. Even technology such as InSAR cannot flawlessly predict where the next fissure will occur, with the systems at work simply too complex and subject to unpredictable changes, nor does it offer the opportunity to tame these forces. But forewarned is forearmed: the lives that have already been saved illuminate the role of scientific understanding as a force for overcoming our powerlessness in the face of the elements. The fury of heaven, as Steingrímsson would surely have it. References Andrews, R.G. (2024, February 20). Inside Scientists’ Life-Saving Prediction of the Iceland Eruption. Quanta Magazine . https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-scientists-life-saving-prediction-of-the-iceland-eruption-20240220/ Andrews, R.G. (2018, April 4). The Legend of The Icelandic Pastor Who Appeared To Stop A Lava Flow. Forbes . https://www.forbes.com/sites/robinandrews/2018/04/24/the-legend-of-the-icelandic-pastor-who-appeared-to-stop-a-lava-flow/?sh=703ae4301798 Baker, H. (2024, March 19). Iceland volcano: 'Most powerful' eruption yet narrowly misses Grindavik but could still trigger life-threatening toxic gas plume . Live Science. https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/volcanos/iceland-volcano-most-powerful-eruption-yet-narrowly-misses-grindavik-but-could-still-trigger-life-threatening-toxic-gas-plume Bressan, D. (2013, June 8). June 8, 1783: How the “Laki-eruptions” changed History . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/history-of-geology/8-june-1783-how-the-laki-eruptions-changed-history/ Ducrocq, C., Arnadottir, T., Einarsson, P., Jonsson, s., Drouin, V., Geirsson, H., & Hjartadottir, A.R. (2024). Widespread fracture movements during a volcano-tectonic unrest: the Reykjanes Peninsula, Iceland, from 2019-2021 TerraSAR-X intereferometry. Bulletin of Volcanology , 86 (14). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-023-01699-0 European Space Agency (n.d.). How does interferometry work? https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/How_does_interferometry_work Icelandic Met Office (n.d.). 100 Years of Seismic Observations . https://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/conferences/jsr-2009/100_years/ NASA (n.d.). Interferometry . https://nisar.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/get-to-know-sar/interferometry/#:~:text=Interferometry%20is%20an%20imaging%20technique,reveal%20surface%20motion%20and%20change . Tolpekin, V. (2023, November 17). ICEYE Interferometric Analysis: Monitoring Potential Volcanic Eruption in Iceland . ICEYE. https://www.iceye.com/blog/iceye-interferometric-analysis-monitoring-potential-volcanic-eruption-in-iceland Witt, T., Walter, R.T., Muller, D., Gudmundsson, M.T., & Schopa, A. (2018). The relationship between lava fountaing and vent morphology for the 2014-2015 Holuhraun eruption, Iceland, analysed by video monitoring and topographic mapping. Frontiers in Earth Science , 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00235 Previous article Next article Elemental back to

By Andrew Lim < Back to Issue 3 Hope, Humanity and the Starry Night Sky By Andrew Lim 10 September 2022 Edited by Manfred Cain and Yvette Marris Illustrated by Ravon Chew Next Image 1: The Arecibo Observatory looms large over the forests of Puerto Rico The eerie signal reverberates out over the Caribbean skies, amplified by the telescope below. It oscillates between two odd resonating tones for little more than a couple of minutes, then shuts off. Eminent scholars, government administrators and elected representatives watch in wonderment, their eyes glued open. The forest birds and critters chirp and sing. It is November 16, 1974 – from a little spot in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Earth is about to pop its head out the door to say ‘hello’. Those sing-song tunes, beamed out into space on modulated radio waves, are a binary message designed for some alien civilisation– a snapshot of humanity in 1679 bits. It sounds like the beginning of a bad sci-fi flick: the kind that ends with little green men coming down in UFOs for a cheap-CGI first contact. But it isn’t, and it doesn’t. Instead, the legacy of those telescope-amplified sounds – that ‘Arecibo Message’ – has a place in history as a symbol of human cooperation, here on Earth rather than in the stars. The message’s unifying vision imbued the famous ‘pale blue dot’ monologue of its co-creator Carl Sagan; and led to the launch of a multi-year international programme designing its successor message 45 years on, presenting extra-terrestrial communication as a mirror of our earth-bound relations. A unified message symbolizing a unified humanity. The previous feature in this series (Discovery, Blue Skies…and Partisan Bickering?) ended with a declaration of nuance: that science in politics matters solely because it transcends partisan bounds with clear analysis. Yet, looking at stories like Arecibo’s, so imbued with human optimism, maybe this cold, logical formulation isn’t enough. Perhaps for all its focus on appropriations bills, initiative funding and flawed infrastructure, that perspective lends insufficient weight to science’s ability to inspire, to cut through the fog of day-to-day policy battles with a beacon of what could yet be. But is this talk of hope just ideological posturing – a triumphant humanism gone mad? Or could there be some merit to its romantic vision of humanity speaking with one voice to the stars? Might it possibly be that science really is the key to bridging our divisions? COOPERATION AMIDST CHAOS Well, why not begin in the times of Arecibo? After all, the interstellar message came at a key moment in the Cold War. Just a few months before, US President Richard Nixon had made his way to Moscow to meet with General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, leader of the USSR. The signing of a new arms treaty, a decade-long economic agreement and a friendly state dinner at the Kremlin all seemed to indicate a world inching away from the edge of nuclear apocalypse. Such pacifist optimism is found readily in the message’s surrounding documents, with its research proposal speaking glowingly of future messages designed and informed by “international scientific consultations…[similar to] the first Soviet-American conference on communication with extraterrestrial [sic] intelligence.” Indeed, it seems the spirit of the age. Soon after the Arecibo message’s transmission, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project would see an American Apollo spacecraft docking with a Soviet Soyuz module. Mission commanders Thomas Stafford and Alexei Leonov conducted experiments, exchanged gifts, and even engaged in the world’s first international space handshake – a symbol of shared peace and prosperity for both superpowers. Image 2: Thomas Stafford and Alexei Leonov shake hands on the Apollo-Soyuz mission Apollo-Soyuz marked an effective end to the US-USSR ‘Space Race’ (discussed in Part I of this series), and would lead to successor programmes, including a series of missions where American space shuttles would send astronauts to the Russian space station Mir, and eventually the building of the 21st-century International Space Station (ISS). Science seemed capable of forging cooperation amidst the greatest of disagreements, transcending our human borders and divides. Frank Drake, the designer of the Arecibo Message, was filled with optimism, hoping that his message might herald the beginning of a new age, marked by united scientific discovery and unparalleled human growth. He triumphantly declared to the Cornell Chronicle on the day of its transmission that “the sense that something in the universe is much more clever than we are has preceded almost every important advance in applied technology. SCIENTIFIC SPHERES OF INTEREST Yet this rose-tinted vision of science as the great mediator perhaps has a few more cracks in it than its advocates like to admit. Even at the height of Nixon’s Cold War détente, science was not pure intellectual collaboration. Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State, pioneered ‘triangular diplomacy’, the art of playing adversaries off against one another with alternating threats and incentives. In later years, he would declare that “it was always better for [the US] to be closer to either Moscow or Peking than either was to the other”. And as he opened channels of communication with China, it was science that would pave the way for a stronger relationship. In the Shanghai Communique negotiated on Nixon’s 1972 trip to China, both sides “discussed specific areas in such fields as science [and] technology…in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial [and] undert[ook] to facilitate the further development of [them].” Scientific collaboration (often manipulated by spy agencies from the CIA to the KGB) was the carrot beside the military stick – a central part of building alliances in a world of realpolitik. To Kissinger and his colleagues, the world was to be divided into Image 3: US President Richard Nixon shakes hands with CCP Chairman Mao Zedong in China in 1972 spheres of influence, even in times of peace – and science was best used as a way of strengthening and shoring up your own prosperity. It is a realist view of science diplomacy that continues to this day, with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noting in Image 4: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets with his Cambodian counterpart Prak Sokhonn in September 2021, pledging additional aid and vaccine doses. 2014 that “educational exchanges, cultural tours and scientific collaboration…may garner few headlines, but… [can] influence the next generation of U.S. and [foreign] leaders in a way no other initiative can match”. To both Clinton and Kissinger, science is an instrument of foreign policy, whether deployed overtly in winning over current governments or more subtly in shaping the views of future ones. For them, amidst competing interests and simmering tensions, we ignore science’s soft power at our own peril. Just look at China’s distribution over Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines in the pandemic. In October 2020, January 2021 and September 2021, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi went on tours of Southeast Asia, promising vaccine aid while pushing closer connections between China and the rest of Asia. Last year, it was estimated that China had promised a total of over 255 million vaccine doses – a key step in building stronger economic and military ties in an increasingly tense region. Indeed, in mid-2021, just as concerns about Chinese vaccine efficacy grew, US President Joe Biden announced “half [a] billion doses with no strings attached…[no] pressure for favours, or potential concessions” from the sidelines of a G7 Summit. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin travelled across Southeast Asia. In the the Philippines he renewed a military deal just as a new shipment of vaccines was announced – a clear indicator of the linkage between medical and military diplomacy, something reinforced when Vice President Kamala Harris landed in Singapore later that year to declare the US “an arsenal of safe and effective vaccines for our entire world.” Australia is key to vaccine diplomacy too. On his visit here earlier this year, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a point of visiting the University of Melbourne’s Biomedical Precinct to talk about COVID-19, declaring on Australian television that our nation was central to “looking Image 5: United States Secretary of State Lloyd J Austin III meets with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in July 2021 for negotiations on renewing the Visiting Forces Agreement at the problems that afflict our people as well as the opportunities…dealing with COVID…[in] new coalitions [and] new partnerships.” These views are backed up locally too. Sitting down for an exclusive interview with OmniSci Magazine last year, Dr Amanda Caples, Lead Scientist of Victoria, was keen to characterise her work in terms of these developments, reminding us that Victoria had been key to “improving the understanding of the immunology and epidemiology of the virus, developing vaccines and treatments and leading research into the social impact of the pandemic”, and emphasising Australia’s national interest, declaring that “global policymakers understand that a high performing science and research system benefits the broader economy…science and research contribute to jobs and prosperity for all rather than just the few.” Science, it seems, whether in vaccines, trade or exchanges, just like fifty years ago, is again to be a key tool for grand strategy and national interests. Image 6: Dr Amanda Caples, Lead Scientist of Victoria ARGUMENTS AND ARMS But perhaps even this might be too optimistic an outlook – for that simmering balance of power occasionally boils over. We need only to look at what happened when the détente of Nixon and Brezhnev was dashed to pieces with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The policy was roundly condemned as sheer naïveté in the face of wily adversaries, with President Ronald Reagan later describing détente in a radio address as “what a farmer has with his turkey – until Thanksgiving Day”. Science was the first target for diplomatic attacks. After the invasion, Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) launched legislation barring the National Science Foundation from funding trips to the USSR. And the push seemed bipartisan, with Representative George Brown Jr. (D-CA-36) proposing a House Joint Resolution enacting an immediate “halt [to] official travel related to scientific and technical cooperation with the Soviet Union”. Image 7: Russia’s cosmonauts board the ISS on 18th March 2022, shortly before Russia ends its participation in the program Now, as we face war on the European continent, even the ISS – the descendant of Apollo-Soyuz’s seemingly-apolitical scientific endeavours – seems to be falling apart spectacularly. On April 2 this year, Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, announced that it would be ending its participation in the ISS program, demanding a “full and unconditional removal of…sanctions” imposed over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Earlier in the year, Roscosmos’ Director General Dmitry Rogozin openly suggested on Twitter that the ISS being without Russian involvement would lead to “an uncontrolled deorbit and fall [of the station] into the United States or Europe”, alluding to “the option of dropping a 500-ton structure [on] India and China.” Rogozin’s threats became even more pronounced as the war continued, with Roscosmos producing a video depicting Russia’s two astronauts on the station not bringing NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei back to Earth with them (American astronauts primarily go to and return from space via Russian Soyuz capsules). Shared by Russian state news, its chilling final scenes show the Russian segment of the ISS detaching too, with Vande Hei presumably left to die in space aboard the station. Such attacks need not remain rhetorical, either. Scientific advancements have long been tied to weaponry and defence systems, with mathematicians and physicists from John Littlewood to Richard Feynman involved in making bombs and ballistics in times of war. Even Arecibo, that bastion of a united humanity, began life as a Department of Defence initiative detecting Soviet ballistic missiles. Today, the AUKUS defence partnership – one of the most significant Indo-Pacific defence developments in recent memory – centres on sharing nuclear submarine science and technology, promising scientific cooperation regarding “cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities”. Even if induced by factors beyond our control, such weapons-based science is a far cry from the pacifist ideals of the Arecibo message. Thus, perhaps this messy reality is more central to our science than we like to admit. From the ISS to Australia’s waters, science still is intertwined with conflict and frequently co-opted by geopolitical actors in times of renewed aggression. Science at its worst is mere weaponry. But at its best, it speaks to something greater. HOPE IN THE DARKNESS In June 1977, the world was far from diplomatically stagnant. From the rumblings of Middle Eastern peace (what became the Camp David Accords) to new hopes of nuclear arms reduction, US President Jimmy Carter had quite the array of diplomatic dilemmas to consider. But amidst all that cold politics, he penned a letter to be sent on board the spacecraft Voyager, now the furthest manmade object from our solar system, declaring “We are attempting to survive our time so we may live into yours…This record represents our hope and our determination, and our good will in a vast and awesome universe.” And if this magazine has purported to speak to the ‘alien’ – far removed from our human lives - then perhaps we have discovered quite the opposite: that looking out up there is so much about looking in down here. Science presents a way we can look out at the alien and see ourselves – “survive our time…into yours”, finding a path ahead reflected in the inky blackness above. We are often constrained by time and circumstance, forced in the face of nefarious actors to compromise our idealism and use science as a mere weapon or tool. Discovery for discovery’s sake is frequently the first casualty when battle lines are drawn and aggression begun, and too often the political pessimism of the scientist can seem overpowering. But if the stories of broken détentes, diplomatic realpolitik and weaponised technology have made it all feel inevitable, then perhaps it is worth considering the story we began with, looking up into the night sky and remembering that somewhere amidst the stars is a tiny warble in the electromagnetic spectrum. Long after the funds and papers that forged it have faded away, after the people who wrote it have perished, it will continue. In its odd combination of ones and zeroes, it will represent humanity: our contradictions and our fears, our constant foibles and infighting, but also our occasional glimpses of a future beyond them. A signal…a reminder that when the times, the people Image 8: President Jimmy Carter’s message, sent aboard Voyager, the furthest man-made probe from Earth and the ideas line up just right, science can be the torchbearer for something greater. Something so rare that amidst all the ills of the world, it often seems non-existent, and so powerful that over two millennia ago, Aeschylus himself deemed it the very thing given to humanity by Prometheus to save us from destruction – the ideal that transformed us from mortals fixated on ourselves and our deaths to a civilisation capable of great things. “τυφλὰς…ἐλπίδας”, he called it: blind hope. A handshake in a capsule. A life-saving jab on board a ship. A binary message in a bottle, out among the stars. Fleeting images – not of what we are, but of what we can be: visions of blind hope, that sheer belief that we can grow past our worst violent impulses and reach out into the great beyond. Maybe it’s foolish. Maybe it’s naïve. But, on a brisk fall evening, looking out at a sky full of stars, each one more twinkling than the last, it’s easy to stop and imagine…maybe it’s the only thing that matters. Andrew Lim is an Editor and Feature Writer with OmniSci Magazine and led the team behind the Australian Finalist Submission to the New Arecibo Message Challenge. Image Credits (in order): National Atmospheric and Ionosphere Centre; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Archives Nixon White House Photo Office Collection; Kith Serey/Pool via Reuters; Malacanang Presidential Photo via Reuters; The Office of the Lead Scientist of Victoria; AP; National Aeronautics and Space Administration Previous article Next article alien back to

< Back to Issue 2 How to use a time machine Whilst time travel is thought to be nothing more than science fiction, the very laws of physics point to its possibility. Physicists have long sought the answer to such a phenomenon using knowledge from rockets to generating wormholes. by Sabine Elias 10 December 2021 Edited by Niesha Baker Illustrated by Quynh Anh Nguyen So you have just entered the TARDIS machine and are trying to work out how to use it to travel to the past to re-write the present and save the future? Well, look no further because you have come to right place. In this article, I will be describing how to jumpstart your time traveling vehicle and by the end, you will be proficient in navigating your way through the universe and evading time. Do be warned however, that batteries are not included and the simulation may crash at times. Now, you are probably wishing that you could travel back in time to have not clicked this article and saved yourself these two minutes of life that you will never get back. But is time travel really a possibility? We often think about the world as a state of order. Social and political constructs generally keep society running in a systematic manner. But what if I told you the entire universe came to exist from disorder? Before we get to logistics, let me introduce you to a little something known as ‘entropy’. Entropy describes the state of disorder (1). Take a closed bottle containing gas. Once you open this bottle, the gas will diffuse out into the open space with no way to retrieve it in the exact same state back inside the bottle. In essence, this gas has become ‘disordered’ and thus its entropy has increased. For years, scientists have understood that the entropy of the universe is always increasing, which means that stars, planets and galaxies are in constant motion away from each other (1). If we wanted to travel back in time, we would essentially have to reverse every single chemical reaction that has occurred from the point in time we currently stand in, to the point in time that we wish to travel to (2). This is theoretically impossible as we would be violating the laws of physics and decreasing the entropy of the universe but we still do not know if it is physically impossible. Let Brain Cox explain: Another problem with time travel would be altering events of the past. Take the Grandfather Paradox: if someone travelled back in time to kill their ancestor, then the possibility of their existence in the future would be zero (3). Thus, they would have been unable to time travel to begin with to have killed their ancestor. This issue of causality is expanded upon through the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle (4). This states that if an event causes a paradox or changes the past, the possibility of this event occurring would be impossible. However, this principle is not widely accepted by time travel enthusiasts. Now, whilst your TARDIS machine may be nothing but a prop at this point in time, it could still help provide evidence on the possibility of time travel. Take this example: you set up two duplicates of the same clock that read the same time and placed one into a rocket that blasts off into space. The rocket orbits around the Earth and then returns and is compared to the clock that remained on Earth. You would find that less time has passed on the clock that was in the rocket. Why? Because moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks. That is, as you move faster through space, you move slower through time. This is known as Time Dilation (5). An example of time dilation is the comparison of time on the International Space Station (ISS) to the time on Earth. Astronauts who have spent 6 months in the ISS have aged 0.005 seconds less than people on Earth (6). This does not seem like much because the astronauts are not traveling close to the speed of light. To see the effects of time dilation multiply, one would need to be very close to the speed of light. If you were to travel in space at 90 per cent the speed of light, whilst everyone on earth would age by 22 years you would only have aged by 9! Speed is not the only thing that affects how fast we age, gravity also affects our experience of time. A stronger gravitational field means that time travels slower in that field. For instance, your feet age slower than your head considering the slightly smaller gravitational pull on your feet compared to your head. Now take a black hole; we know that black holes have immensely strong gravitational fields where one hour near a black hole would equal approximately 100,000,000 years for a person on earth (7). So what would happen if you travelled through a black hole? No one really knows what occurs inside a black hole but we know trying to enter will likely turn you into spaghetti (8). That being said, we can only observe things that go as far as the event horizon of the black hole, so once something has entered it, we do not know what has happened. Black holes have however, been especially useful in theoretically explaining the possibility of time travel. Placing someone in a strong gravitational field or having them experience motions close to the speed of light would have them experience time slower compared to someone on Earth. This brings us to wormholes. Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts the existence of wormholes which would theoretically permit time travel. To travel to a galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away with the fastest rocket on earth would be impossible as it would take longer than a human lifetime. This is where wormholes come to the rescue. A wormhole would provide us with a shortcut to our location of interest. Imagine folding a paper in half and poking a pen through it to represent your route of travel. You are essentially skipping the length of the paper and traveling from one end to the other. Source: The Independent. (2008). The Big Question: Is time travel possible, and is there any chance (9). You then situate one mouth of the wormhole in a spacecraft traveling close to the speed of light and the other mouth on Earth. If you then went through the mouth on Earth and travelled through to the space craft, you would be traveling back in time. This is because time would be passing much slower at the other end of the wormhole than where you entered from. However, physicists have not yet developed such advanced technology capable of this, but theoretically speaking, this is a possibility if such technology was developed in the future. Whilst you may have thought that time travel was merely based on science fiction, the laws of physics do not forbid its existence. However, here is some food for thought: “If time travel is possible, where are the tourists from the future?” Stephen Hawking Perhaps with time, we may transform this theory into reality. So for the time being, just sit back and enjoy the presence of your TARDIS machine. Perhaps you might even get lost in time from the very thought of time travel. References: 1. Wehrl, Alfred. “General Properties of Entropy.” Reviews of Modern Physics 50, no. 2 (April 1, 1978): 221–60. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.50.221. 2. BBC. “Brian Cox Explains Why Time Travels in One Direction - Wonders of the Universe - BBC Two.” YouTube, March 10, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQSoaiubuA0. 3. Smith, Nicholas J.J. “Time Travel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, November 14, 2013. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel/#GraPar. 4. Carlini, A., V.P. Frolov, M.B. Mensky, I.D. Novikov, and H.H. Soleng. “Time machines: The principle of self-consistency as a consequence of the principle of minimal action.” International Journal of Modern Physics, no. 05 (October 1995): 557–80. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218271895000399. 5. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Time Dilation | Explanation, Examples, & Twin Paradox.” In Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/science/time-dilation. 6. Dickerson, Kelly. “Here’s Why Astronauts Age Slower than the Rest of Us Here on Earth.” Business Insider Australia, August 20, 2015. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/do-astronauts-age-slower-than-people-on-earth-2015-8. 7. Gharat, Sarvesh Vikas. “Relativity and Time Dilation.” International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology 7, no. 11 (November 30, 2019): 650–51. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2019.11103. 8. "Death by spaghettification: Scientists record last moments of star devoured by black hole." NewsRx Health & Science, November 1, 2020, 236. Gale Academic OneFile. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A639405517/AONE?u=unimelb&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=6812ee05. 9. “The Big Question: Is Time Travel Possible, and Is There Any Chance.” The Independent, February 8, 2008. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/big-question-time-travel-possible-and-there-any-chance-it-will-ever-take-place-779761.html. Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

The Intellectual’s False Dilemma: Art vs Science By Natalie Cierpisz The age-old debate once again resurfaces. How do art and science truly interact? Is one dependent on the other? How does the ‘art intellectual’ embrace science, and how does the ‘science intellectual’ embrace art? Is this all a meaningless debate anyway? Edited by Andrew Lim, Mia Horsfall & Hamish Payne Issue 1: September 24, 2021 Illustration by Casey Boswell The autumnal Melbourne wind whistles through the naked plane trees lining South Lawn, the sky is flat and grey. Two individuals who regard themselves and only themselves as ‘intellectual paragons’ are seated on a somewhat uncomfortable wooden bench, a perfect perch for people-watching, yet they are rather egotistical and notice only their own presence. One carefully places down their black coffee to light a hand-rolled cigarette; they are a liberal arts intellectual. As the wind grows stronger, the other tightly wraps a lab coat around themselves, and pushes a pair of wire-rimmed spectacles up their nose for the nth time. This would be our scientist. “So, are you still fooling around with your test tubes and pretty lights?” asks the liberal arts academic, cigarette hanging out the corner of their mouth. “If you mean, am I still investigating antiprotons using laser spectroscopy, then yes, indubitably so. How’s your fooling around with Hegel going?” replies the scientist, again pushing their glasses back up to a suitable height. The liberal arts intellectual is quick to retort the scientist’s trite remarks - they are in fact composing a Hegelian analysis of The Communist Manifesto, and not ‘fooling around’ by any means. The tension between the two self-professed intellectuals is building. The two appear to be fighting for dominance in their passive attacks on ego. So goes the age-old feud between the arts and the sciences. These two shallow characters play into the false dilemma that science and art are separate, distinct, alien. Two polar opposites. A total and unequivocal dichotomy. In all fairness, it is difficult to imagine many people will take this polarised a stance on the relationship between art and science. And now, as we delve into the complex relationship between the two domains, it should become clear that science and art are functionally interdependent (1), and considering art and science as totally separate is simply absurd. Let’s get back to our two feuding intellectuals. There seems to be much stereotypical disjunction between the two. But how does this translate to the true relationship between art and science? If the liberal arts intellectual and scientist were not so wrapped up in their self-interested ways, perhaps their gaze would slowly drift to the grandiose arches and imposing columns of the Old Quad. The harmonious form and mathematical ratios of these monuments are an enduring reminder of the architectural leaps and bounds made in the early 14th century, a blended pursuit of art and science. Ergo, we will head to one of the greatest paradigm shifts in Western history – the Renaissance. The Renaissance roughly spanned from the 14th to the 17th century and was a period of complete intellectual revolution – for both science and the arts (2). Everyone is familiar with Leonardo da Vinci, the great Renaissance artist. Less people know that he was also an inventor and a man whose artistic practice was heavily influenced by science (3). To ensure his paintings were as realistic as possible, Da Vinci dissected cadavers to better understand human anatomy, and studied optics and astronomy to perfect his use of space and form in paintings like The Last Supper. Likewise, scientists like Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei kickstarted a revolutionary paradigm shift towards the heliocentric model, their work in optics and astronomy being heavily reflected in artworks of the same era. Both science and art challenged what was for centuries prior considered the status quo. Source: Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, 1498, tempera on gesso, pitch, and mastic, 460 cm × 880 cm, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org (4). This certainly isn’t a call for readers to head to the Melbourne General Cemetery and begin digging up specimens, nor to transfer to a double degree in fine arts and biomedicine. Instead, the point is more about how fruitful interaction between the two domains can be, and how one requires the other to flourish. Returning briefly to South Lawn, the snarky liberal arts intellectual continues looking bored and takes out their copy of The Myth of Sisyphus. Sitting directly opposite them the scientist has gone back to finishing the latest New Scientist podcast and calculating a quantum theory of gravity. We have seen that science can inspire art, but how can art inspire science? “The greatest scientists are artists as well.” (5) So said perhaps the most well-known scientist of the modern century. Not only did Albert Einstein develop the special and general theory of relativity (we won’t get into the mathematical specifics for both our sakes), he was also a talented violinist and pianist. Einstein often credited his artistic side for his success in science, testifying that, "the theory of relativity occurred to me by intuition, and music is the driving force behind this intuition. My parents had me study the violin from the time I was six. My new discovery is the result of musical perception.” (6) We have already seen how science prompts art to create new visions, and Einstein was no exception. His revolutionary ideas about space and time have been acknowledged as a prime artistic influence for Picasso’s arguably infamous Cubist style, as well as for the Surrealist art movement. (7) But the arts are not just confined to visual and musical expression. How about the area of expertise of our liberal arts friends? Liberal arts as they are known today, include sociology, literature, philosophy, psychology, politics, and more. The knowledge and, most importantly, critical thinking that is learnt through humanistic education is perhaps key to the future of science. As the world changes and evolves, humans must change and evolve with it, creating innovative solutions along the way. If we shift our focus to around the 1st century BCE, we will encounter what is widely regarded as the coining of the term artes liberales, or liberal arts. Roman statesman, scholar and writer Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote extensively about a wide array of topics, from politics and education to Stoic philosophy. “Artes liberales” roughly translates to “subjects worthy of a free person” - academic study that would enable one to actively participate in society (8). This curriculum consisted of a focus on seven key disciplines of rhetoric, geometry, grammar, music, astronomy, arithmetic, and logic. Liberal arts by nature are not the antithesis of science. From the crux of the artes liberales evolved the study of mathematics, physics, philology, history, and so on. Today we have reached a point where these seven disciplines have evolved and branched out so expansively that we have lost sight of the fact that our modern-day science and arts curriculums are sown from the same seed. Both science and art stem from the real world. Simply put, science is a lens into the study of this world and the inhabitants within it. Art is another lens into this complex system, providing a different but equally valuable perspective. Life is not binary, so neither should be our approach to studying it, and by virtue studying ourselves. Now is the time to embrace such transdisciplinary thinking. We need to bridge the gap between rigorous climate science facts and currently inadequate policy making, assess the ethics of the future of gene-editing, and ultimately become better thinkers. The combined intellectual strength of analytical thinking associated with science, where we learn how to test hypotheses, interpret data and draw valid conclusions; and the arts, where we learn critical thinking, how to develop arguments, how to understand a diverse audience, is necessary to keep humanity’s head above water as our world rapidly changes. Take for example the future of the CRISPR-Cas9 editing tool. This enzyme-based tool allows scientists to remove or add sections of DNA sequence in our genome, our code for life. With this ‘hand of God’ comes great responsibility. Collaboration needs to be made between scientific thinkers and humanistic thinkers to identify what type of robust legislation needs to be implemented to ensure ethical use of this tool. It is no longer a case of scientists working in isolation in underground bunkers. Scientists are making huge strides in research that extend to and greatly impact the wider community. Cases like CRISPR-Cas9 demand a lens from science and a lens from the arts in order to see the full picture – and in this case, to ensure the ethical and safe practise of a tool that has potential to save lives and improve individuals’ quality of life – but this only happens if science and art function in harmony. So back to you, the reader. Perhaps think about enrolling in that philosophy breadth subject next semester that your liberal arts friend raves about. Pick up that popular science book you have been eyeing off at Readings on Lygon St. Listen to that science podcast that keeps popping up on your Spotify homepage (The BBC’s The Infinite Monkey Cage is excellent). Pick up that paintbrush. Go visit Science Gallery Melbourne, a recent art scene addition affiliated with University of Melbourne – how fitting! This isn’t Romeo and Juliet, where you are either a Capulet or a Montague. Rather, this is a case of wave-particle duality, where an electron is both a wave and a particle, and you are both an artist and a scientist. As the typical Melbourne wind continues to pick up and the Old Arts clocktower strikes 7:00 pm, it appears the liberal arts intellectual just swapped their copy of The Myth of Sisyphus for the scientists’ copy of Brief Answers to the Big Questions. Looks like they’re making progress. References: 1. Richmond, Sheldon. “The Interaction of Art and Science.” The MIT Press 17, no. 2 (1984): 81-86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1574993 . 2. History.com Editors. “Renaissance.” History.com. April 4, 2018. https://www.history.com/topics/renaissance/renaissance . 3. Powers, Anna. “Why Art is Vital to the Study of Science.” Forbes. July 13, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/annapowers/2020/07/31/why-art-is-vital-to-the-study-of-science/?sh=7dfd8f8942eb . 4. Da Vinci, Leonardo. The Last Supper. 1498. Tempera on gesso, pitch, and mastic. 460 cm × 880 cm. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org . 5, 6. Root-Bernstein, Michelle. “Einstein On Creative Thinking: Music and the Intuitive Art of Scientific Imagination.” Psychology Today. March 31, 2010. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/imagine/201003/einstein-creative-thinking-music-and-the-intuitive-art-scientific-imagination . 7. Muldoon, Ciara. “Did Picasso know about Einstein?” Physics World. November 1, 2002. https://physicsworld.com/a/did-picasso-know-about-einstein/ . 8. Tempest, Kathryn. “Cicero’s Artes Liberales and the Liberal Arts.” Ciceronian on Line 4, no. 2 (2020): 479-500. https://doi.org/10.13135/2532-5353/5502 . Feynman, Richard, P. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. New York: Basic Books, 2005. Science Gallery Melbourne. “Inspiring and Transforming Curious Minds.” Published 2021. https://melbourne.sciencegallery.com/what-we-do . White, Fiona. “Why art and science are better together.” The University of Sydney News. September 17, 2020. https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/news-and-events/2020/09/17/arts-and-science-better-together.html .

< Back to Issue 8 Microbic Mirror of The Self by Sarah Ibrahimi 3 June 2025 Edited by Jax Soon-Legaspi Illustrated by Noah Chen For decades, we did not fully understand the functional purposes of many parts of the human body. The spleen was once thought of as dispensable, earwax merely as dirty waste and the appendix as a useless leftover from the course of human evolution. But science has a habit of humbling us and we now know that all of these components serve essential purposes in the human body. Our understanding of the gut microbiome is following a similar pattern. However, beyond knowing that it plays a role, we still lack a full understanding of the true nature and mechanisms of this mysterious system. Given the average person's current understanding of microbes, it is unsurprising that they are often associated with disease, capable of causing some of the most deadly disorders. They are thought of as a foreign figure entirely and that should remain separate from us. Nevertheless, just like their occupation all over our skin, our gut is home to them too. When we think of our own identities, we tend to boil ourselves down to a singular body, a singular self. Typically, we define ourselves by our jobs, the activities we enjoy and the values we admire - elements all tied to a single individual. Yet, within us lives an entire biosphere that hosts a whole community of microbes. These minute beings govern our guts in symbiosis with other systems of the human body and outnumber human cells ten to one (1). It is a wonder how we are home to trillions of bacteria and are barely conscious of their existence. How do these seemingly fatal organisms operate cooperatively with the body? Can we construe the self as a singular individual when our body is a complex community with seemingly precarious organisms living within us? “What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us” - Ralph Waldo Emerson The community that is composed of bacteria, fungi, viruses and archaea plays a significant role in many aspects of our lives, affecting the way we digest food down to the regulation of our mental health. We understand the digestive system to be composed of the mouth, stomach, intestines and other vital organs as the main drivers of digestion. Similarly, the immune system depends on the bone marrow, spleen, white blood cells and antibodies to suppress an infection. Yet, the microbes sequestered within our gut assist extensively in driving the actions associated with these systems. In digestion, the range of their skill extends from the ability to synthesise vitamin K to using cross-feeding mechanisms - a phenomena where one bacterium breaks down parts of plant compounds and passes the byproducts to others, resulting in boosted health (2,3). They have also been shown to promote gut barrier integrity to prevent the entry of harmful pathogens, while also aiding in regulating immune system homeostasis, assisting the body in blocking harmful pathogens and enabling a strengthened immune response in the face of infection (3). Although there has been extensive research conducted to investigate the role of gut microbes in our physical health, their effects on our mental health have often been overlooked. Yet, they play a fundamental role in its regulation and the promotion of positive wellbeing. This contribution is most evident in the context of the gut-brain axis, which consists of two-way signalling between the central nervous system and enteric nervous system, serving the emotional and cognitive domains of the brain. Working hand-in-hand, the mental state of an individual can cause harmful alterations to the composition of healthy gut microbes and in a reciprocal manner, a dysregulated gut flora can adversely affect the brain through pathways such as immune activation and the production of neuroactive substances (4). Such imbalances in the gut microbiota have been linked to the emergence of depressive-like behaviours (5), though there is an increased prevalence of other psychiatric disorders like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and anxiety that occur as a result too (6). The last decade of science has demonstrated a dramatic increase in the understanding of the gut microbiome as we know it today. Like in any field however, there is still more to be discovered. Similar to the infamous genome-wide association studies that assist in the recognition of certain genetic markers to particular diseases or traits through a statistical basis, metagenome-wide association studies are being conducted to identify associations with microbiome structures and several major diseases (7). Research in this field has already allowed for the detection of shifts in gut compositions and how these changes functionally contribute to many metabolic diseases. However, small sample sizes for such research highlight the requirement for greater development within the field. “The self is not something ready-made, but something in continuous formation through choice of action” - John Dewey The human body has a mutual relationship with the gut microbiome, like that of the gut-brain axis. So when one of these systems is not functioning at its peak, the performance of the other is also derailed. Dysbiosis of the gut's natural flora contributes to clinical conditions such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and anxiety (4). However, microbial imbalance is mediated through the actions and behaviours of the individual at hand. Both chronic and acute stressors can increase gut barrier permeability, resulting in a “leaky” gut, allowing bacteria to seep into the cracks and trigger an array of physiological responses like inflammation. It is safe to say that there is no single, definitive state that our individual guts exist in. In a world driven by antimicrobial usage, fluctuating diets and the invisible weight of daily stress, the gut microbiome remains in a state of constant transformation. Ever-changing, they mirror the conscious and unconscious choices we make, ultimately shaping our health in ways we are only beginning to imagine. References National Institutes of Health (NIH) [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2025 Jun 1]. NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body. Available from: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-human-microbiome-project-defines-normal-bacterial-makeup-body Mueller C, Macpherson AJ. Layers of mutualism with commensal bacteria protect us from intestinal inflammation. 2006 Feb 1 [cited 2025 Jun 1]; Available from: https://gut.bmj.com/content/55/2/276 Zhang YJ, Li S, Gan RY, Zhou T, Xu DP, Li HB. Impacts of Gut Bacteria on Human Health and Diseases. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2015 Apr;16(4):7493–519. Carabotti M, Scirocco A, Maselli MA, Severi C. The gut-brain axis: interactions between enteric microbiota, central and enteric nervous systems. Ann Gastroenterol. 2015;28(2):203–9. Bested AC, Logan AC, Selhub EM. Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances: Part I – autointoxication revisited. Gut Pathogens. 2013 Mar 18;5(1):5. Nikolova VL, Smith MRB, Hall LJ, Cleare AJ, Stone JM, Young AH. Perturbations in Gut Microbiota Composition in Psychiatric Disorders: A Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Dec 1;78(12):1343–54. Wang J, Jia H. Metagenome-wide association studies: fine-mining the microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016 Aug;14(8):508–22. Previous article Next article Enigma back to

< Back to Issue 5 Griefbots: A New Way to Grieve (or Not) Akanksha Agarwal 24 October 2023 Edited by Celina Kumala Illustrated by Louise Cen Trigger warning: This article mentions themes of death or dying. If at any point the content is distressing, please reach out for support via Griefline or refer to the services listed at the end of this article. Rumi once wrote, ‘Anything you lose comes round in another form.’ (Goodreads, n.d., p. 1). There are many ritualistic ways to memorialise the death of a loved one, but what if they had never “died”? Over the past decade, the intersection of technology and mental health has given rise to innovative solutions for various psychological conditions. From virtual reality therapy for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (Kothgassner et al., 2019) to prescription video games aimed at helping children manage Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Tiitto & Lodder, 2017), the mental health technology industry has expanded significantly. Enter, a recent addition to this landscape - the grief bot. In 2015, Roman Mazurenko, an entrepreneur and prominent figure in Moscow’s night-life scene, suddenly passed away from a fatal car accident (Newton, 2016). His close friend, Eugenia Kuyda, proceeded to create a “digital monument” in his memory (Newton, 2016). While grieving, she found herself re-reading all his old messages, feeling nostalgic at Roman’s unique word choices, and spelling. Kuyda had previously founded a startup involving artificially intelligent chat bots. After the incident, she fed her bot with Roman’s text exchanges. The bot then adopted Roman’s speech pattern, enabling her to chat with a version of him. This marked the birth of the griefbots, or chat bots programmed using digital remains (emails, text messages, social media posts) of a deceased individual to support their grieving loved ones. In other words, using natural language processing, these bots are able to mimic conversational patterns using the data of the deceased. Are these conversational patterns accurate? How then, does this impact the way we grieve? Should we even be using griefbots? To answer these, we could attempt to understand grief. Grief is a complex emotion. You could be grieving the loss of a loved one, a relationship, an object, or even an abstract idea (e.g. familiarity). Grief can also manifest at different times for each individual. According to the Australian Psychological Society ‘grief is the natural response to loss and can influence the physical, emotional, cognitive, behavioural and spiritual aspects of our lives.’ (APS, n.d, p. 1). In their book, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and David Kessel (2014) coined ‘The Five Stages of Grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Essentially, the model suggests an initial reaction of symbolic denial or shock. Following this is typically a phase of emotional support through vocalising the experience or making meaning. The final stage being acceptance, or moving forward. “Are they really gone?” Denial is viewed as a protective mechanism to meet the psyche where it is. “Why me?” Anger is interestingly framed as an anchor to connect you to someone you’ve lost. “What if they suddenly return?” Bargaining shifts from the past to the future, until the truth sinks in. “What’s the point?” Depression is protecting the nervous system from overload, and is arguably natural to grief, when not clinical. “I lost them, but I am going to be okay.” Acceptance as you start to move forward, with some stability. Now, each of these questions might manifest in different ways, and require different coping mechanisms. However, they do give us an indication of generic phases across unique manifestations of grief. In other words, these are not linear, clear-cut stages, rather, there is an element of individuality in the way we experience each stage. We might experience one stage before another, or circle back, or take a completely new route. In any case, this is one way to make sense of grief. Other theories around grief include Bowlby’s attachment theory (1980) which suggests that our response to losing someone is coded in the way our attachments develop. Silverman and Klass (1996) put forth the idea of continuing bonds, where the meaning of loss changes with the deceased living on in memory. On the other hand, Strobe and Schut (1999) posit a dual process with individuals constantly switching from avoidance or confrontation of loss. Regardless of your theoretical inclinations, chances are that one might seek closure, a sense of reconciliation or even self-fulfilment after experiencing loss. What, then, would be the wellbeing impacts of artificial chat bots, that are designed to adopt the language patterns of those we have lost, on the grieving process? Grief can result in cognitive changes, such as confusion, identity disturbances, dysphoria, and yearning among others (Bonnano & Kaltman, 2001). Norlock (2016) proposes that imaginal relationships with the deceased can reflect relational value, ethical behaviour (such as forgiveness), and relationship maintenance. Furthermore, it is argued that continued internal representations of people who have passed away might also add value to future relationships. In contrast, some may argue that interacting with an artificial grief bot might engender para-social relationships where the user is investing time into a relationship (Vost & Kamp, 2022); however, the receipt is unaware (similar to celebrities and their fans). Furthermore, anthropomorphising a non-living chatbot, and conflating this for a person might distort reality, take wrongful advice, delay grief, or fabricate new false memories (Vost & Kamp, 2022). It leads one to wonder, just what are the potential ethical issues surrounding griefbots? Data is impermanent, with the ability to be wiped (Grandinetti et al., 2020). Data is deeply contextual, contingent, and unstable (Grandinetti et al., 2020). In order to understand how the bot is responding, ensuring no advice is given, and also preserving the griever’s best interest, is a complex task. Moreover, viewing griefbots as permanent or true representations of the dead is another issue. There are also ethical questions around consent and whether the deceased are capable of giving consent to the usage of their data, along with users. Whether companies can be transparent about how the data is being handled, and the algorithms generated, remains unclear. Would knowing how the responses were generated changed the way people viewed grief bots, and would that defeat the purpose? Yet, there are broader challenges. If users disclose private information to profit-driven companies based on the trust with the person they have lost, the data could be misused. The role of protection plans in the event of deep fakers or hackers, becomes paramount. The large amount of data used also raises questions about the sustainability of such bots. Additionally, the high cost of sophisticated bots might create greater disparities in access to support. While autonomy may improve with access to immediate technology, the addictive interaction patterns could lead to dependence, overuse, and potentially social withdrawal. Furthermore, gender, age, sensitive content, changing political landscapes, might potentially bias the bot inherently. Griefbots remain a hotly contested topic, with widespread caution surrounding potential impacts. There have been attempts to design similar bots with ethical features in mind, and even suggestions to medically regulate or test such devices. However, this use for AI bots opens up a multitude of questions. By 2025, Vorst and Kamp (2022) speculate that holographic avatars could be generated through photographs, physical and digital remnants, even voice recordings. Ultimately, the impact of griefbots on our perception of mortality and memory challenges us to reconsider the boundaries of life, death, and the enduring essence of human connection in a digital age. Support resources If you are experiencing prolonged symptoms of grief or depression, please seek support via the following resources with different options for support: Grief Australia: counselling services, support groups, app https://www.grief.org.au/ga/ga/Get-Support.aspx?hkey=2876868e-8666-4ed2-a6a5-3d0ee6e86c30 Griefline: free telephone support, community forum and support groups https://griefline.org.au/ Better Health Channel: coping strategies, list of support services, education on grief https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/servicesandsupport/grief Beyond Blue: understanding grief, resources, support, counselling https://www.beyondblue.org.au/mental-health/grief-and-loss Lifeline: real stories, techniques & strategies, apps & tools, support guides, interactive https://toolkit.lifeline.org.au/topics/grief-loss/what-is-grief?gclid=CjwKCAjw-KipBhBtEiwAWjgwrE1pJaaBabh3pT_UR0PlVBZTFMEA26NVJe2ue8sqCF0BLg2rMI4i2xoCp5IQAvD_BwE Reach Out Australia: coping strategies https://au.reachout.com/articles/working-through-grief?gclid=CjwKCAjw-KipBhBtEiwAWjgwrKXLb9w-wXXVLIbhZDkPumIF6ebe-0Pk77Hv7-cK4dLDrHJxCRkyRBoC2B4QAvD_BwE Find a Helpline: for international/country-specific helplines https://findahelpline.com/ This list is not exhaustive, please refer to your area’s specific services for additional support. References Albert, S., & Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Sadness and depression . Journal of Marriage and the Family , 44(1), 248. https://doi.org/10.2307/351282 APS. (n.d.). Grief | APS . Australian Psychological Society | APS. https://psychology.org.au/for-the-public/psychology-topics/grief Basom, J. (2021, May 19). The ethical, social, and political implications of “Griefbots”. Medium . https://jonathanb108.medium.com/the-ethical-social-and-political-implications-of-griefbots-48780fd1d1c2 Bonanno, G. A., & Kaltman, S. (2001). The varieties of grief experience . Clinical Psychology Review , 21(5), 705-734. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(00)00062-3 Craytor, J. K., & Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. The American Journal of Nursing , 69(12), 2710. https://doi.org/10.2307/3421124 Elder, A. (2019). Conversation from beyond the grave? A Neo‐confucian ethics of chatbots of the dead. Journal of Applied Philosophy , 37(1), 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12369 Goodreads. (n.d.). A quote by Rumi . Goodreads | Meet your next favorite book. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/32062-don-t-grieve-anything-you-lose-comes-round-in-another-form Grandinetti, J., DeAtley, T., & Bruinsma, J. (2020). The dead speak: Big data and digitally mediated death . AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research . https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2020i0.11122 Jiménez-Alonso, B., & De Luna, I. B. (2022). Correction to: Griefbots. A new way of communicating with the dead? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09687-3 Klass, D. (2021). The sociology of continuing bonds. Culture, Consolation, and Continuing Bonds in Bereavement, 113-128. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003243564-11 Kothgassner, O. D., Goreis, A., Kafka, J. X., Van Eickels, R. L., Plener, P. L., & Felnhofer, A. (2019). Virtual reality exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2019.1654782 Kübler-Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2014). On grief and grieving: Finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss. Simon & Schuster. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0TltiT8Y9CYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=grief+&ots=S1j1XyF91N&sig=pDnxX-bJQIJIFeX074oGrHRD0Ms&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=grief&f=false Lindemann, N. F. (2022). The ethics of ‘Deathbots’ . Science and Engineering Ethics , 28(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00417-x Newton, C. (2016, October 6). When her best friend died, she used artificial intelligence to keep talking to him . TheVerge.com . https://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memorial-roman-mazurenko-bot Norlock, K. J. (2016). Real (and) imaginal relationships with the dead. The Journal of Value Inquiry , 51(2), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-016-9573-6 Santa Clara University. (n.d.). AI, death, and mourning . https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/internet-ethics/resources/ai-death-and-mourning/ Schut, M. S. (1999). The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies , 23(3), 197-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/074811899201046 Shardlow, J. (2022). Temporal perspectives and the phenomenology of grief. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-022-00659-5 Tiitto, M. V., & Lodder, R. A. (2017). Therapeutic Video Games for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) . WebmedCentral , 8(11). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.26.355990 Van der Vorst, R., & Kamp, J. M. (2022). 12. Designing a griefbot-for-good . Moral design and technology, 215-241. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-922-0_12 Wicked back to

< Back to Issue 6 Hidden in Plain Sight: The dangerous chemicals in our everyday products by Kara Miwa-Dale 28 May 2024 Edited by Zeinab Jishi Illustrated by Semko van de Wolfshaar Water bottles, lipsticks, receipts, and tinned food cans. Have you ever considered what may be lurking in these seemingly harmless daily essentials? These items all contain bisphenol A (BPA), a common endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC). EDCs are chemicals that mimic or interfere with the endocrine system, which is responsible for producing and releasing hormones that regulate important processes in the body such as growth, metabolism, and reproduction (The Endocrine Society & IPEN, 2024). Upon being released into the bloodstream, hormones travel to their target tissues and organs, where they influence key biological functions. Hormones have specific receptors on their surface which bind to matching receptors on their target tissue. The endocrine system is an incredible feat of nature. It creates widespread and long-lasting changes throughout the body via an intricately controlled web of interactions between tiny molecules. However, a small change can be enough to tip this finely regulated balance into disarray. BPA is a type of bisphenol, which is one class among many other types of EDCs, such as phthalates, perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). BPA has a similar chemical structure to oestrogen, an important hormone involved in both male and female reproductive systems. This enables BPA to ‘mimic’ oestrogen; essentially tricking oestrogen receptors into activating in the absence of oestrogen. BPA is known to cause a wide range of negative health impacts, such as reproductive, metabolic, and neurological issues (The Endocrine Society & IPEN, 2024). But don’t just take my word for it. The toxicity of BPA has been debated over many decades, ever since it was first linked to health issues in the 1970s. It has been challenging to generate evidence relating to the toxicity of BPA, given the ethical concerns of deliberately exposing people to EDCs. As a result, scientists have mainly used animal models, alongside studies examining the correlation between EDC exposure and disease, to investigate the action of BPA. Research strongly indicates that elevated exposure to BPA is correlated with poorer egg quality and higher miscarriage rates in women, alongside a reduction in sperm count in men (Matuszczak et al., 2019). BPA is also a known obesogen (a hormone which disrupts metabolism, increasing risk for obesity), supported by a recent study indicating the odds of adult obesity rise by 15% for every 1 nanogram/mL increase in the concentration of their urinary BPA (Wu et al., 2020). Even more concerningly, BPA has been found to have epigenetic effects, which are heritable chemical modifications to DNA which regulate how genes are turned on and off. Scientists were able to demonstrate these epigenetic effects by exposing rats to BPA and allowing them to breed for multiple generations. In this study, rates of obesity and reproductive disease were increased in all subsequent generations of rats, despite only the first generation being directly exposed to BPA (Manikkam et al. 2013). Considering that BPA has been used commercially since the 1950s, it is probable that these epigenetic effects have been compounding in humans with each passing generation. Without intervention, the consequences of ongoing BPA exposure are likely to intensify. It is deeply concerning that BPA remains ubiquitous in the community, with more than 7 million tonnes produced each year (Manzoor et al., 2022). Given its presence in a multitude of everyday products, BPA exposure is essentially impossible to avoid. Detectable levels of BPA are present in nearly all children and adults, and even developing foetuses (Calafat et al., 2004). Mounting evidence for the toxicity of BPA is prompting scientists to call for greater measures in preventing harmful exposure to BPA and other EDCs. What is being done by policy makers to address this issue? I sat down with A/Prof Mark Green, an Associate Professor in Reproductive Biology at the University of Melbourne, to discuss the current research around EDCs and the measures that can be taken to protect the public from their damaging effects. Are BPA-free labels just illusions of safety? There has been a shift towards manufacturing products labelled ‘BPA-free’, such as BPA-free water bottles. This sounds great on the surface: purchase the ‘BPA-free’ water bottle and sleep well knowing that you’re taking proactive action to protect your health. Unfortunately, these efforts may be in vain. As companies manufacturing EDC-containing items have a vested interest in their products being approved as safe, many of these ‘BPA-free’ products are simply being replaced with other bisphenols (e.g. bisphenol F, or BPF), which are suspected to have similar or even worse effects compared to BPA (Wiklund & Beronius, 2022). Fortunately, some countries have started looking towards more holistic ways of regulating suspected EDCs, as noted by A/Prof Green: ‘A positive step forward is that the USA and EU are starting to think about regulating whole classes of chemicals, rather than individual chemicals.’ Introducing this new approach will help to ensure that manufacturers can’t simply switch to a similar (but unregulated) chemical when one is banned. Redefining toxicity: Does the dose make the poison? Another key issue is the current way that EDCs are evaluated for toxicity. A historical principle of toxicology (which has later been challenged) is the idea that ‘the dose makes the poison’. This theory proposes that substances with ‘toxic’ properties only cause us harm if we are exposed to a certain ‘threshold’ amount. In other words, if someone is exposed to five times the amount of a chemical, they will observe five times as much of an effect on their health. However, scientists have found that many EDCs don’t behave in this way. There are some instances where lower doses may, in fact, lead to more severe effects. As A/Prof Green aptly puts, there may be no such thing as a ‘safe dose’ for some EDCs. Blind spots in EDC regulatory testing: Are vulnerable populations overlooked? Regulatory testing procedures often underestimate the negative impact of EDCs by disregarding how hormones affect people differently throughout the lifespan. Embryonic development is a critical period in which exposure to EDCs can have disproportionately large impacts on health compared to exposure in adults. Choi and colleagues (2016) studied the consequences of BPA exposure on developing cattle embryos and observed that even short-term exposure had concerning repercussions on their development and metabolism. Nost testing procedures fail to take these endpoint measures into account. A/Prof Green pointed to examples of toxicology testing in which ‘rates of death and tumours in adult male rats were used as an end point measure to define toxicity, which had nothing to do with more subtle effects on reproduction’. Context matters: Navigating EDC regulation in the real world Another factor to consider is that these individual EDCs don’t exist in a vacuum; the reality is that we are exposed to a ‘soup’ of many different chemicals every day. A/Prof Green noted the inefficiency of testing individual chemicals for endocrine-disrupting properties: ‘Historically a lot of these EDCs have been studied individually, but we don’t know what happens with all the different compounds when they go together, and which combinations are worse. Investigating EDC mixtures is a big gap of knowledge.’ In isolation, small doses of EDCs may not result in any adverse impacts on human health. That said, the interaction of many EDCs may have severe consequences (Conley et al., 2021). These interactions may explain the conflicting evidence surrounding EDCs, where some studies reveal significant effects and others do not. A/Prof Green is currently investigating the impacts of EDC mixtures on human health in relation to the ‘exposome’, which is the cumulative effect of the environmental exposures we encounter throughout our lives (e.g. chemicals, air pollutants, radiation, food). He hopes that a better understanding of these complex interactions will allow us to make more informed decisions about how to regulate EDCs. Paving the path towards a healthier future Unfortunately, the economic interests of companies producing EDC-containing products compete with the implementation of necessary policies. Given the suspected epigenetic effects of EDCs like BPA, taking a more cautious but proactive approach in regulating EDCs seems to be a wise course of action. The burden created by EDCs is huge, with attributable annual disease costs estimated to be $340 billion USD in the USA, and $217 billion USD in the EU (Malits et al., 2022). What can we do as consumers? Are we resigned to bathing in a cocktail of EDCs, awaiting our descent into a dystopian nightmare reminiscent of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’? Despite the disheartening reality of EDCs, there is room for hope. Scientists are working hard to find safer alternatives to materials containing EDCs, and a growing number of chemicals are facing bans or stricter regulation. The first step in mitigating the negative consequence of these chemicals is increasing awareness about EDCs and reducing our personal exposure to them. Here are 5 tips from A/Prof Green that can help you to avoid unnecessary exposure to EDCs: 1. Don’t drink from plastic water bottles, especially if they have been left in a hot environment. 2. Don’t reheat food in plastic containers - use a microwave-safe bowl or plate instead. When storing leftover food, let it cool before transferring to plastic containers. 3. Try to reduce consumption of tinned foods, as these are lined with plastic resins. 4. Avoid handling receipts, as these are covered in BPA. 5. Ventilate your home and avoid perfumes or sprays with strong smells – these often contain EDCs. To encourage governments and industrial regulators to enforce stronger legislation and tighter controls on EDCs, it is essential to empower consumers and advance scientific research. While our direct influence on policy decisions may be limited, as consumers, we possess the power to drive positive change, promoting public health not only in the present but for generations to come. For some more information, check out these great resources about EDCs: https://www.yourfertility.org.au/everyone/drugs-chemicals https://endocrinedisruption.org/ https://www.ewg.org/ References Calafat, A. M., Kuklenyik, Z., Reidy, J. A., Caudill, S. P., Ekong, J., & Needham, L. L. (2005). Urinary concentrations of bisphenol A and 4-nonylphenol in a human reference population. Environmental Health Perspectives , 113 (4), 391-395. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7534 Choi, B. I., Harvey, A. J., & Green, M. P. (2016). Bisphenol A affects early bovine embryo development and metabolism that is negated by an oestrogen receptor inhibitor. Scientific Reports , 6 (1), 29318. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29318 Conley, J. M., Lambright, C. S., Evans, N., Cardon, M., Medlock-Kakaley, E., Wilson, V. S., & Gray Jr, L. E. (2021). A mixture of 15 phthalates and pesticides below individual chemical no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) produces reproductive tract malformations in the male rat. Environment International , 156 , 106615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106615 Gore, A.C., La Merrill, M.A., Patisaul, H.B., and Sargis, R. (2024). Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health. The Endocrine Society and IPEN. https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/edc_report-2024-final-compressed.pdf Malits, J., Naidu, M., & Trasande, L. (2022). Exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in Canada: population-based estimates of disease burden and economic costs. Toxics , 10 (3), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10030146 Manikkam, M., Tracey, R., Guerrero-Bosagna, C., & Skinner, M. K. (2013). Plastics derived endocrine disruptors (BPA, DEHP and DBP) induce epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of obesity, reproductive disease and sperm epimutations. PloS One , 8 (1), e55387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055387 Manzoor, M. F., Tariq, T., Fatima, B., Sahra, A., Tariq, F., Munir, S., Khan, S., Ranhja, M. M. A. N., Sameen, A., Zeng, X., & Ibrahim, S.A. (2022). An insight into bisphenol A, food exposure and its adverse effects on health: A review. Frontiers in Nutrition , 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1047827 Matuszczak, E., Komarowska, M. D., Debek, W., & Hermanowicz, A. (2019). The impact of bisphenol A on fertility, reproductive system, and development: a review of the literature. International Journal of Endocrinology , 2019 . https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4068717 Wu, W., Li, M., Liu, A., Wu, C., Li, D., Deng, Q., Zhang, B., Du, J., Gao, X., & Hong, Y. (2020). Bisphenol A and the risk of obesity a systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence. Dose-Response , 18 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325820916949 Previous article Next article Elemental back to

By Julia Lockerd Meet the New Kid By Julia Lockerd 23 March 2022 Edited by Caitlin Kane Illustrated by Quynh Anh Nguyen ‘Machines Enrol in Art Class!’ The title of the American Scientist article (1) I’m currently reading is droll take on the process of artificial intelligence (AI) learning. I imagine the first art class I ever attended had a robot classmate. “I want everyone to be very welcoming to our new student! Class this is DALL-E.” DALL-E’s name is a clever blend of surrealist painter Salvador Dali and robot character WALL-E. It is the most popular AI art platform in the world, as well as the face of a quickly expanding industry. The purpose of DALL-E is evident in its namesakes: simply, it is a robot that creates art. Artificial intelligence is described as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines (2).” More specifically “machines that think like humans.” AI art is an application of this wider machine learning. In short, it is art created by a “thinking” computer. In mid-2022 the world of AI art became a monster of industry, with AI art platform Midjourney reporting over 12 million users since its launch in July 2022 (4). However, as with any quick advancement in technology, there are issues that come with the new power we’ve been given; there is a question we must ask ourselves: how far is too far? Back in art class, other students and I share uneasy glances as our strange companion clicks and whirrs behind his desk. I smile at him and reach out a hand. He breaks my finger and steals my Snoopy drawing right off my desk. Ouch. This is the first impression many artists had when AI art was first introduced. For years we had been told that truck drivers, factory workers and other industry roles would be fully automated in the future. This was an issue in itself, but an inevitability as the wheels of advancement turned over. Few expected that the creative industries would so quickly slip under the control of automated technology. With AI on the rise, many artists fear for their livelihoods, job prospects and their intellectual and creative property. To both create and vet the art for our personal viewing experience, AI uses tools called Generative Adversarial Networks (5). Imagine two little robots hunched over side-by-side desks. One’s job is to create images and fool the other into believing its art is original. If the second robot is fooled half the time, the first is performing as it should, creating art the public will believe is genuine. Fool me once. The definition of “genuine” art is vague at best and still under heavy debate. I believe that “genuine” is a feeling you get when you look at the art in front of you. It’s up to you to decide, can AI art ever really be genuine? Another issue arises from AI art: usually when you go to an art class, the teacher knows they’re teaching. My robot classmate begins to shuffle through its filing cabinet of pre-existing works made by humans. It’s been fed these images, paintings, photographs and learnt to reassemble the input as AI-created art (1,6,7). I can’t help but bristle in contempt as he examines my sketch of Snoopy and adds it to the ever-growing collection of “borrowed” art. As public use of AI continues to rise, we will inevitably have more ethically grey tundra to cross. In 2018 the Portrait of Edmund Belamy, sold for 432,500 USD at Christie’s Auction house. The controversy surrounding the piece stems from the fact that it was painted by an AI that had been fed 15,000 portraits from 20th century artists (7). Edmond De Belamy is not a real person, nor is the person who painted his portrait. Both are simply amalgamations of the people who came before. Which begs the questions, who deserves to be rewarded for this artistic feat? Is this painting even original? Once upon a time it was something genuine; it is up to us to decide how many times we can take the derivative of a piece of art before it loses its emotion. Or is it simply always the case that every artist takes inspiration from those who came before? When each creation is the derivative of a piece, it’s critical to examine what it’s deriving from. It is both fascinating and alarming that social biases have even made their way into the creative and malleable minds of machines. Dark-skinned people and hijab wearers have taken to social media to report their selfies, which they had run through an AI software, had returned distorted, warped or whitewashed (8). AI learns from the dataset that its human trainers provide, and it's important that we consider who and what are represented in that training. It is a strange sort of embarrassment to know that these machines and their endless learning have picked up on our shortcomings. In a world that already rejects difference and shame people for their deviation from unachievable standards, we have taught machines to do the same. Like a child passively taking up its parents' opinions. In this way, some consequences of our technological development aren’t so much AI art issues as they are societal issues. The only fix is to work to include and recognise all people in creative spaces so that machines can learn to think like all humans. Despite criticism and philosophising, we cannot stop the march of progress. AI will continue to advance, to become better at thinking and emulating us. Perhaps our responsibility will just be to give them something good to copy. As for traditional artists left behind by the AI advance? I believe we’ll be okay. We differ from machines, and there will always be something more rewarding than just an output. The joy is in the creation, the connection, and the humanity of art. Half of my art class is robots now, churning out hundreds of creations per second. I hold up a half-finished picture to my desk mate to see their smile. That moment of connection is why it’s worth staying until the end of the class. References Elgammal A. AI Is Blurring the Definition of Artist [Internet]. American Scientist. 2019. Available from: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/ai-is-blurring-the-definition-of-artist McCarthy J. What is AI? [Internet]. Stanford.edu. 2012. Available from: http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/whatisai.html Midjourney Discord Interface [Internet]. docs.midjourney.com. Available from: https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/midjourney-discord Hughes RT, Zhu L, Bednarz T. Generative Adversarial Networks–Enabled Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaborative Applications for Creative and Design Industries: A Systematic Review of Current Approaches and Trends. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2021 Apr 28;4. Goodyear S. Why those AI-generated portraits all over social media have artists on edge [Internet]. CBC. 2022. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/artificial-intelligence-ai-art-ethics-greg-rutkowski-1.6679466 Christie's. Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium [Internet]. Christies.com. Christies; 2018. Available from: https://www.christies.com/features/A-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx GANs. Edmond De Belamy, From La Famille de Belamy [Internet]. Caselles-Dupré H, Fautrel P, Vernier G, editors. original gilded wood frame. 2018. Available from: https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-edmond-de-belamy-from-la-famille-de-6166184/?from=salesummery&intobjectid=6166184&sid=18abf70b-239c-41f7-bf78-99c5a4370bc7 AI selfies — and their critics — are taking the internet by storm. Washington Post [Internet]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/08/lensa-ai-portraits/ Previous article Next article

By Monica Blasioli < Back to Issue 3 The Ethics of Space Travel By Monica Blasioli 10 September 2022 Edited by Yvette Marris and Tanya Kovacevic Illustrated by Aisyah Md Sulhanuddin Next "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Even without a hyphen next to that quote, people around the world will recognise it. The mere sentence can bring forth a flurry of emotions and thoughts - national pride, curiosity, nervousness, and even scepticism - but most will recognise them as the first words spoken by Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, in July of 1969. Despite this, there are deeper considerations that need to be taken when discussing space travel than what first meets the eye. Just like on Earth, there are a number of health and environmental implications that should not be ignored in the flurry of excitement to explore the wonders of space. Not only are passenger safety and climate change areas of concern, particularly with constant and normalised space travel, but so are the ethics of monetising from experiences that can inflict so much damage. First and foremost, space exploration can foster communication and cooperation between countries. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an independent branch of the US federal government, involves countries such as Australia, Italy, Russia, France and Germany. NASA prides themselves on their international cooperation, celebrating their achievements in bringing together a global community of scientists to collaborate on space research and communication. And this is truly the reality! For over 64 years, NASA has successfully commercialised off the excitement surrounding space exploration, creating jobs across the globe (and in space), and sparking interest in science internationally through captivating space images, educational programs and videos, and even a clothing range at H&M! In particular, collaborative work and research conducted at the International Space Station (ISS) has been a major benefit to humans. Despite not even being on Earth itself, it has deepened the understanding of our home planet. Research has revealed how the human body reacts to increased exposure to radiation and how plants grow in space, enabling a better awareness of how plants grow on Earth, as well as how chemicals and materials react to low-gravity environments. In fact, without space research, we wouldn’t be able to comprehend some things we take for granted on Earth. For example, how the moon impacts the tides and how long a day lasts (and also what your personality traits are, if you buy into that stuff). However, there is always a dark side to the moon. The normalisation of space travel through its commercialisation could have devastating environmental impacts. On July 20 2021, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos took off to space in his New Shepard rocket, built by his own company, Blue Origin. For ten minutes and ten seconds. Bezos and his company celebrated this moment as the beginning of their vision for a future where space travel, along with citizens living and working in space, is normalised - and, of course, commercialised by his company. While we congratulate Bezos and his team, can we really rejoice in Bezos’ vision for the future knowing that the impacts for those back at home could be deadly? A 2010 study using a global climate model found that 1000 launches of suborbital rockets each year would produce enough carbon to change polar ozones by 6%, increase the temperature over the poles by one degree Celsius, and reduce polar sea ice levels by 5%. (1). And of course, the rockets could contribute to climate change. The vast amount of soot produced by spaceships yields the potential to further break down the Earth’s atmosphere, and more worryingly, even begin to break down the current untouched outer layers (2). Once again, these impacts make it difficult to justify Bezos’ plans to make paying for space travel a ‘norm’ in our lives. The precise impacts of this may be unknown, however, Karen Rosenlof, senior scientist from the Chemical Sciences Laboratory in the U.S. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, warns that releasing pollutants into spaces they have never been before never has positive outcomes (2). There seems to be little concern by Bezos about these effects and too much concern on monopolising from the endeavours instead. And this is only the beginning - the potential health disasters could be even worse. Just like Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence in Passengers, we are not immune to a potential space-based disaster. For over 50 years, NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) has been researching the impacts of space travel on humans - and trying to decrease the impacts on their astronauts. Many space radiation particles are more deadly than those on Earth, and more difficult to be shielded from, increasing the chance of cancer and degenerative diseases, such as cataracts (3). The usual radiation protective measures do not hold up, particularly when travelling further distances from Earth, to a planet like Mars, where the radiation exists at higher, deadlier levels (3). In fact, on a trip to Mars, three different gravity fields would be encountered, and passengers would need to readjust to Earth’s gravity when returning (3). This damages spatial orientation, coordination and balance, as well as causing acute space motion sickness in travellers, which can lead to chronic conditions (3). All in all, this is still only the beginning of space travel and the research surrounding it. There are still - quite literally - galaxies of information that still need to be uncovered, meaning humans don’t have all the answers yet. This reach to the stars may blind us to issues later down the line which still lack research - long term exposure to radiation, prolonged consumption of dehydrated “space” food, the change in gravity, and how all of these cumulatively will interact in the long term… the list goes on and on. Are further endeavours into space worth the impacts on our world and fellow humans alike? And all to further line the pockets already filled with billions of dollars? References 1. Ross M, Mills M, Toohey D. Potential climate impact of black carbon emitted by rockets. Geophysical Research Letters. 2010 December 28;37(24):1-5. 2. Pultarova S. The rise of space tourism could affect Earth's climate in unforeseen ways, scientists worry [Internet]. 2021 July 26. Available from: https://www.space.com/environmental-impact-space-tourism-flights 3. Abadie L, Cranford N, Lloyd C, Shelhamer M, Turner J. The Human Body in Space; 2021 February 3 [updated 2022 February 24]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/bodyinspace/ Previous article Next article alien back to