Science

The neighbourhood of space where the International Space Station (ISS) resides seems to be littered with unexpected quantities of antimatter – and the culprits may be mysterious particles of dark matter.

“We were very surprised. This is weird, and the mechanism that is producing this amount of antimatter should be something exotic,” says Pedro De La Torre Luque at the Autonomous University of Madrid in Spain. He and his colleagues found hints of this antimatter by analysing 15 years of data from the Alpha…

The European Space Agency’s Hera mission will set off from Cape Canaveral on 7 October on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. It will travel several hundred million kilometers to reach the double asteroid Didymos in autumn 2026.

This is the follow-up of the intentional impact of NASA’s DART probe onto the smaller body of this double asteroid, the moon called Dimorphos. This first-ever asteroid deflection test aims at modifying the trajectory of the target and understanding precisely what went on. And we already know quite a few things about the success of this deflection—thanks to a camera on-board DART, an Italian minisatellite (or CubeSat) deployed before impact, the combined power of ground-based telescopes, and the sharp eyes of Hubble and James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

However, we lack a great deal of information to really understand what happened following the impact. This is essential for generalizing the results and developing models that would enable us to deflect other asteroids that arrive toward the Earth or space installations (satellites, space stations…).

Understanding what Didymos and Dimorphos look like now is Hera’s mission.

What we already know about the deflection

This first-ever asteroid deflection test was a complete success. Firstly, because the DART probe successfully guided itself in the final hours before impact (autonomously) to collide with a small asteroid whose size was the main thing we knew about it.

Secondly, because the collision did indeed deflect the trajectory of Dimorphos, as was shown by a campaign of observations by ground-based telescopes, spread out on most continents. Together, they measured the reduction in the orbital period of Dimorphos around Didymos (11.22 hours after impact compared with 11.55 hours before), also demonstrating the ability to organize on an international scale to measure the consequences of a deviation.

The images taken by DART before the impact also provided some knowledge of the surface properties of the Dimorphos target and its main body.

Finally, images taken by the Italian minisatellite LICIAcube, launched by DART before the impact to observe it from a distance, as well as images from the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes, which were pointing at the same object for the first time, showed that a tail of dust was emitted by the impact. And that this dust spread out over tens of thousands of kilometers afterwards, pushed by the sun’s light exerting pressure on it (a phenomenon known as “solar radiation pressure”). Some of this dust could actually end up in the Earth’s atmosphere as shooting stars (with no risk of damage as they would burn up completely in the atmosphere).

Hera and her CubeSats, three ultra-sophisticated science detectives

But even all this information is not enough to measure the effectiveness of the asteroid redirection technique and to validate our modeling of such impacts—which must be able to reproduce this test at scale in order to extrapolate it to other scenarios.

Crucial questions remain unanswered. For example, to measure the effectiveness of the deflection, we need to know the mass of Dimorphos. To understand how the impact affected the double asteroid system, we need to know more about the physical properties of Dimorphos, and in particular its internal properties: Are there large voids inside Dimorphos, and what are the sizes of the boulders that make it up? Or is it a compact rock covered with surface rocks? Did DART’s impact produce a crater or did it change the shape of the small moon altogether, as some modeling predicts and some recent ground observations seem to indicate?

So, like a detective, Hera is now setting off to investigate and report back on exactly what happened and why. And Hera is the hero of this story, as it’s the first time a probe will move so close to a double asteroid.

It will also be the first time that a space mission has explored a small body using three satellites at the same time. Hera carries two “CubeSats,” each the size of a shoebox and equipped with its own propulsion systems and a variety of measurement instruments. They’ll be deployed in the vicinity of the asteroid to take measurements at closer range.

This configuration is intended to demonstrate the advantages of taking smaller modules on board, enabling us to take greater risks by deploying them for operations at very close range, while the main probe remains at a distance and ensures that the essential scientific objectives are met (the Hera probe itself carries two cameras for observation in the visible range, a hyperspectral imager providing data on mineralogical composition, a thermal infrared imager supplied by the Japanese Space Agency, the JAXA, to determine the thermal properties and roughness of the surface, and a laser altimeter).

Before receiving the first images of Dimorphos transformed by this first deflection test, we will have the opportunity to marvel at the probe’s flyby of Mars in mid-March 2025, during which the in-flight instruments will be calibrated by observing not only the planet, but also one of its two moons, Deimos… possibly offering new scientific data on its way.

Studying the consequences of the impact in detail so that they can be extrapolated to future collisions

This is also the first time that a mission has returned to a small body of which we already have images, but which we already know have nothing to do with what it has become. On the basis of current data—which is very partial—predictions are subject to considerable uncertainties, and several results are possible.

In fact, the DART data provides us with the initial conditions of the impact, but we lack the final result and the properties of the target that are involved in its response to the impact. Modeling based on the initial conditions provided by DART and the actual internal properties of the target that have yet to be measured, must reproduce the final result.

The idea is to reduce the free parameters as much as possible to ensure that the models succeed in reproducing the impact, not because unknown parameters have been adjusted to achieve the desired result, but because they are valid and reliably capture the phenomenon on a scale that is inaccessible in terrestrial laboratories.

These validated models will later enable us to calibrate the impact energy required to deflect other asteroids with known properties.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.

Coaxing conspiracists—the extremists

In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.

Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.

You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”

Combative conspiracists—the disinformants

Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.

Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.

As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”

Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.

Chaos conspiracists—the trolls

In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.

For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.

Commercial conspiracists—the profiteers

Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”

When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.

Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.

Common conspiracists—the attention-getters

You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.

These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?

Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.

Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.

For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.

The dangers of spreading lies

Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.

It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write—and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Leading academic publisher Springer Nature made its stock market debut Friday, one of the few initial public offerings in Frankfurt this year despite the exchange’s strong performance.

The share price topped 24 euros ($26) shortly after trading began, well above the IPO price of 22.50 euros, which valued the group at nearly 4.5 billion euros.

Springer Nature is a major publisher in the fields of research, health and education. Its titles include Nature and Scientific American, and it has around 9,000 employees in 40 countries.

Demand from both German and foreign investors has been strong, according to Bloomberg.

The IPO is for a maximum of some 600 million euros, partly via a capital increase of 200 million euros, and the rest through the sale of existing shares.

The group says it has a strong position in the growing research publishing market, boosted by trends such as artificial intelligence.

In 2023 it reported sales of 1.85 billion euros and adjusted operating profit of over 500 million euros.

Despite a strong performance by the Frankfurt Stock Exchange this year—with the blue-chip DAX index recently hitting a record high—there have been few IPOs.

In April the world’s largest tourism operator TUI returned to the Frankfurt exchange after being primarily listed in London for 10 years.

Leading perfume retailer Douglas also returned to the exchange this year, as did Renk, which makes gearboxes for tanks.

© 2024 AFP

Findings from a landmark study that could have major implications for the future of academic research assessment have been published by researchers in the University of Glasgow’s Adam Smith Business School.

The study challenges mainstream thinking that academic judges are best suited for evaluating research outputs. It aims to inspire methods to utilize metrics effectively, taking into account the diverse communities requiring clear evaluation criteria.

In an article published in the Research Policy journal, the research team used data from the UK’s 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF) to examine the interplay between metrics and expert judgment in evaluating research outputs from 108 institutions, covering 13,973 publications in business and management—one of the evaluation’s largest and most heterogeneous fields.

This is the first conclusive evidence on post-DORA research assessment, offering valuable lessons for research evaluations worldwide.

The research finds a strong correlation between journal rankings and expert scores, particularly for top-tier journals, suggesting that the perceived prestige of a journal may be influencing the expert review process, despite claims of journal ranking blindness. Despite the widespread endorsement of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which advocates for responsible assessment practices, DORA affiliation does not seem to make a difference in this correlation.

Many institutions publicly endorse DORA and wider responsible assessment principles, yet their REF submissions reveal an implicit reliance on traditional metrics like journal rankings. This “institutional peacocking” suggests a superficial adherence to principles which do not necessarily change the status-quo.

Anna Morgan Thomas is Professor of Digital Management and Innovation at the Adam Smith Business School and the lead author of the study. She said, “This research comes at an extremely challenging time for the higher education sector, with uncertainty over funding and an increasing number of academics experiencing unsustainable workloads and high amounts of stress. Early career researchers are particularly vulnerable, with the current method of academic evaluation relying on knowledge of the system and more experienced voices dominating.

“Concerns over a knowledge gap in responsible research assessment have been raised for a while now, and we were keen to contribute to the ongoing debate by providing empirical evidence that challenges the application of these principles in practice and highlights the need for genuine commitment to change.

“We hope our findings will stimulate further discussion and lead to more transparent and effective research evaluation practices worldwide.”

Adina Dudau, Professor of Public Management and co-author of the paper, said, “Ultimately, as academics we all have a responsibility to build a research environment in which everyone can thrive and undertake impactful research that could improve society and humanity.”

Dr. Beth Cloughton is an early career researcher in the Adam Smith Business School. Reflecting on the findings of this study, and on existing evaluation structures, she describes the current situation as “affecting oppressed and early career academics, who are perhaps more modest in their self-evaluations of novelty and contributions to a body and practice of work which neither reflects, nor offers, a promising career horizon.”

Recommendations for policymakers and academic institutions to consider include reassessing evaluation practices. Institutions need to critically examine their assessment practices to ensure they align with the principles they publicly endorse. There is a need for genuine adherence to responsible assessment beyond mere declarations, and to blend qualitative and quantitative assessment methods, when and as appropriate.

Greater transparency and accountability in the evaluation process is important. Both REF panels and HEI institutions should provide clear evidence of how they implement responsible assessment principles in practice. In addition, REF panels are encouraged to make their evaluation outcomes available to researchers to enable service improvement and open research into evaluation practices.

An international team of researchers have conducted groundbreaking research at the Casas del Turuñuelo site in Guareña, Badajoz, Spain. Their work is published in the journal Scientific Reports.

The archaeological site stands as the best-preserved earthen building in the western Mediterranean. Thanks to its remarkable state of preservation, a team of researchers from the Universities of Helsinki and Murcia, alongside the Institute of Archaeology (CSIC—Junta de Extremadura), has successfully reconstructed the construction process of this monumental edifice. Esther Rodrigues Gonzales and Sebastian Celestino Perez, CSIC, have been in charge of the excavation of this site since since 2014.

Marta Lorenzon from the University of Helsinki, a key member of the research team, explains, “Our goal was to understand how the earthen materials were processed and used, the organization of labor, and the skill levels of the community involved in the construction. We aimed to shed light on the construction methods, environmental exploitation, and the socio-political structures that enabled the creation of such monumental architecture.”

According to one of the co-writers of the research, Benjamín Cutillas Victoria, the Tartessians’ use of earthen construction was a highly adapted and sustainable approach, particularly in local environmental contexts. The fact that they thrived using this form of architecture adds a new dimension to the story of their building skills and culture, one that has not been emphasized much in previous research.

This achievement not only highlights the advanced architectural skills of the Tartessians, but also underscores their sustainable approach to building in harmony with their local environment.

“This research can help us better understand sustainable building practices from the past that might inspire modern construction. The use of local, natural resources in a coordinated manner could offer ideas for eco-friendly building approaches today,” Lorenzon states.

Additionally, understanding how ancient societies organized labor and resource management can provide lessons for modern-day project management and workforce coordination.

“The ability to reconstruct these ancient techniques provides invaluable insights into how this protohistoric culture thrived and adapted, offering a new dimension to our understanding of their ingenuity and resilience,” Lorenzon concludes.

Across Europe, the anti-immigration rhetoric is growing louder. Leaders in Germany and France, once seen as stalwarts behind a borderless European Union, have reacted to a rise in support for far-right parties by increasing border controls.

Last month, Berlin introduced greater land border checks in what some observers warned could be the end of the European Union’s Schengen Treaty that, in principle, provides for a passport-free area between the bloc’s 27 member countries.

France’s new interior minister, Bruno Retailleau, said last week that he wanted faster deportations of those who had “broken in” to his country. Until a recent change of government, the United Kingdom was ready to deport asylum-seekers arriving via the English Channel in small boats to Rwanda.

Italy, with its huge coast and close proximity to North Africa and Eastern Europe, has been a popular target for asylum-seekers and economic migrants. Looking to tackle the number of migrants landing on its shores, Italy has signed deals with other countries to help create deterrents, including with Libya in 2017 and Albania in 2023.

Anti-migrant policies are often seen as a trait of right-wing administrations but new research co-authored by a Northeastern University professor shows how even centrist governments have been willing to “blur” their ideology to adopt a harder stance on border controls.

Marianna Griffini, an assistant professor in international relations and anthropology, and Matilde Rosina, a lecturer in global challenges at Brunel University London, analyzed Italian parliamentary debates taking place around the time when Rome signed the respective third country migration agreements.

In an article, “An Ideological Divide? Political Parties’ Discourse in Italy’s Migration Cooperation with Libya and Albania,” published in The International Spectator, the academics found that the arguments around migration centered around two themes: a security-based logic that focused on the country’s safety, and a rights-orientated logic that honed in on the human rights of migrants.

The pair found that, while those on the left of the migration debate were more likely to focus on migrant rights, that could be switched in a time of emergency. That was certainly the case, Griffini says, when the memorandum of understanding with Libya was signed by then Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, a politician from the center-left.

“Gentiloni’s administration stressed the requirement to fight migration, saying that it involved individuals who turn into ‘mafiosi’ and ‘criminals,'” says Griffini. “They wanted to turn an iron fist towards migrants because they were saying they wanted to protect security and integrity within the nation. During debates, they talked about it being an alarming situation.”

The memorandum was adopted against the backdrop of increasing migration to Italy. In 2016, the highest number of arrivals via sea were recorded since 2012, with more than 181,000 people landing on Italian shores.

In a deal worth $140 million, Rome and Tripoli agreed to fight against “irregular migration, trafficking and smuggling,” with Italy providing technical support to the Libyan Border Guard in a bid to reduce migrant boat departures. Italy and the EU also agreed to financially support migrant “reception centers” within Libya and to train staff operating such camps.

Griffini says MPs from Gentiloni’s Democratic Party did voice humanitarian concerns about the conditions of the reception centers but looked to avoid directly criticizing their own government.

The second deal—last year’s 670 million euro ($741 million) pact with Albania—made headlines the world over, with Griffini’s article calling it the “first of its kind.”

This time it was signed by a right-wing administration—current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers Of Italy party are outspoken about protecting the country’s cultural heritage from an increase in migration.

The 2023 deal with Tirana, agreed in response to landings bypassing the 157,000 mark that same year, envisages the construction of two immigration centers in Albania to host and process migrants who have been rescued at sea by Italian military ships.

Griffini says it was designed to “disincentivize” migration and to “show a strong state” by closing off avenues of irregular arrival, with Meloni’s MPs and coalition partners falling back on security-based arguments to support the move. They “denounced immigration as a threat to social cohesion and to the economy” and looked to drive home “their toughness” on the issue, says the London-based academic.

In contrast with their stance six years prior when the Libya deal was signed, the center-left opposition parliamentarians went “back to their own traditional ideological position” and started “invoking humanitarian arguments.”

Meloni’s Albania plan withstood domestic resistance with help from the backing of the European Commission and major European national leaders such as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who argued that Italy was simply working on migration with a country that was likely to “quite soon … be a member of the EU.” The premier was able to point to Brussels’ support as a way of validating outsourcing the processing of asylum seeker claims.

Scholz, only months after offering his support for Italy, would go on to approve the extension of border checks in his own country.

Support for far-right and anti-migrant parties, both in domestic and EU elections, has forced politicians of all persuasions—including in powerhouse countries such as France and Germany—to consider a security-based approach to dealing with migration, Griffini says.

“Ultimately, if we take the temperature of the population, what comes out is that we have a sizable chunk that is attracted by the far-right,” says the populism expert. “And if mainstream governments want to survive the attack from the far-right, they need to lure some voters away from that camp.

“I’m not saying that these parties have changed their ideology out of the blue. That kind of change would take longer but there are some strategic considerations to be made. If you want to gain the votes that you have lost, you will need to win back your core electorate.”

This story is republished courtesy of Northeastern Global News news.northeastern.edu.

Europe’s Hera probe is tentatively scheduled to launch Monday on a mission to inspect the damage a NASA spacecraft made when it smashed into an asteroid during the first test of Earth’s planetary defenses.

In a scene that sounds straight out of science fiction, the spacecraft deliberately crashed into the pyramid-sized asteroid Dimorphos in 2022, roughly 11 million kilometers (6.8 million miles) from Earth.

The fridge-sized impactor used in the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) successfully knocked the asteroid well off its course.

This demonstrated that the idea worked—humanity may no longer be powerless against potentially planet-killing asteroids that could approach in the future.

But much about the impact remains unknown, including how much damage was done and exactly what the asteroid was like before it was hit.

So the European Space Agency said it was sending Hera to the asteroid to conduct a “crime scene investigation” in the hopes of learning how Earth can best fend off asteroids that pose a threat.

The spacecraft is scheduled to blast off on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral in the US state of Florida on Monday.

‘Anomaly’ could delay launch

However an “anomaly” involving a Falcon 9 rocket during the launch of SpaceX’s Crew-9 astronaut mission on Saturday could potentially delay the launch date, the ESA’s Hera project manager Ian Carnelli said at a press conference.

The ESA is hoping to receive approval by Sunday from the US Federal Aviation Administration, NASA and SpaceX, Carnelli said.

The launch window for the mission will remain open until October 27.

Once launched, Hera is planned to fly past Mars next year and then arrive near Dimorphos in December 2026 to begin its six-month investigation.

An asteroid wider than a kilometer (0.6 miles)—which could trigger a global catastrophe on a scale that wiped out the dinosaurs—is estimated to strike Earth every 500,000 years or so.

An asteroid around 140 meters (460 feet) wide—which is a little smaller than Dimorphos but could still take out a major city—hits our home planet around every 20,000 years.

Most of these celestial objects come from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Almost all those bigger than a kilometer wide are known to scientists, and none are expected to threaten Earth in the next century.

There are also no known 140-meter asteroids on a collision course with Earth—but only 40 percent of those space rocks are believed to have been identified.

Although asteroids are one of the least likely natural disasters to strike the planet, people now have the “advantage of being able to protect ourselves against them”, the Hera mission’s principal investigator Patrick Michel said.

Loose rubble ‘defies intuition’

Dimorphos, which is actually a moonlet orbiting its big brother Didymos, never posed a threat to Earth.

After DART’s impact, Dimorphos shed material to the point where its orbit around Didymos was shortened by 33 minutes—proof that it was successfully deflected.

Analysis of the DART mission has suggested that rather than being a single hard rock, Dimorphos was more a loose pile of rubble held together by gravity.

“The consequence of this is that, instead of making a crater” on Dimorphos, DART may have “completely deformed” the asteroid, Michel said.

But there are other possibilities, he said, adding that the behavior of these low-gravity objects is little understood and “defies intuition”.

The 363-million-euro ($400 million) mission will be equipped with 12 scientific instruments and two nanosatellites.

The Juventas nanosatellite will aim to land on Dimorphos, which would be a first on such a small asteroid. It will use radar to probe deep inside the asteroid and a gravimeter to measure its gravity.

From farther away, the Milani nanosatellite will use cameras and other instruments to study the asteroid’s composition and assess DART’s impact.

Once its job is done, the team on the ground hopes that Hera can land gently on Dimorphos or Didymos, where it will spend the rest of its days.

© 2024 AFP

Wars, a refugee crisis, famine and artificial intelligence could all be recognized when Nobel Prize announcements begin next week under a shroud of violence.

The prize week coincides with the Oct. 7 anniversary of the Hamas-led attacks on Israel, which began a year of bloodshed and war across the Middle East.

The literature and science prizes could be immune. But the peace prize, which recognizes efforts to end conflict, will be awarded in an atmosphere of ratcheting international violence—if awarded at all.

“I look at the world and see so much conflict, hostility and confrontation, I wonder if this is the year the Nobel Peace Prize should be withheld,” said Dan Smith, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

As well as events roiling the Middle East, Smith cites the war in Sudan and risk of famine there, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and his institute’s research showing that global military spending is increasing at its fastest pace since World War II.

“It could go to some groups which are making heroic efforts but are marginalized,” Smith said. “But the trend is in the wrong direction. Perhaps it would be right to draw attention to that by withholding the peace prize this year.”

Withholding the Nobel Peace is not new. It has been suspended 19 times in the past, including during the world wars. The last time it was not awarded was in 1972.

However, Henrik Urdal, director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo, says withdrawal would be a mistake in 2024, saying the prize is “arguably more important as a way to promote and recognize important work for peace.”

Civil grassroot groups, and international organizations with missions to mitigate violence in the Middle East could be recognized.

Nominees are kept secret for 50 years, but nominators often publicize their picks. Academics at the Free University Amsterdam said they have nominated the Middle East-based organizations EcoPeace, Women Wage Peace and Women of the Sun for peace efforts between Israelis and Palestinians.

Urdal believes it’s possible the committee could consider the Sudan Emergency Response Rooms, a group of grassroots initiatives providing aid to stricken Sudanese facing famine and buffeted by the country’s brutal civil war.

The announcements begin Monday with the physiology or medicine prize, followed on subsequent days by the physics, chemistry, literature and peace awards.

The Peace Prize announcement will be made on Friday by the Norwegian Nobel Committee in Oslo, while all the others will be announced by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. The prize in economics will be announced the following week on Oct. 14.

New technology, possibly artificial intelligence, could be recognized in one or more of the categories.

Critics of AI warn the rise of autonomous weapons shows the new technology could mean additional peace-shattering misery for many people. Yet AI has also enabled scientific breakthroughs that are tipped for recognition in other categories.

David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, says scientists from Google Deepmind, the AI lab, could be among those under consideration for the chemistry prize.

The company’s artificial intelligence, AlphaFold, “accurately predicts the structure of proteins,” he said. It is already widely used in several fields, including medicine, where it could one day be used to develop a breakthrough drug.

Pendlebury spearheads Clarivate’s list of scientists whose papers are among the world’s most cited, and whose work it says are ripe for Nobel recognition.

“AI will increasingly be a part of the panoply of tools that researchers use,” Pendlebury said. He said he would be extremely surprised if a discovery “firmly anchored in AI” did not win Nobel prizes in the next 10 years.

© 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

News consumers are averse to AI-generated headlines, which are seen as potentially inaccurate. AI-generated content is proliferating online, and social media companies have started to label it.

Sacha Altay and Fabrizio Gilardi conducted two preregistered online experiments among 4,976 US and UK participants to investigate the effect of labeling headlines as AI. The study is published in the journal PNAS Nexus.

Respondents rated 16 headlines that were either true, false, AI- or human-generated.

In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to conditions in which (i) no headline was labeled as AI, (ii) AI-generated headlines were labeled as AI, (iii) human-generated headlines were labeled as AI, and (iv) false headlines were labeled as false.

The results show that respondents rated headlines labeled as AI-generated as less accurate and were less willing to share them, regardless of whether the headlines were true or false, and regardless of whether the headlines were created by humans or AI. The effect of labeling headlines as AI-generated was three times smaller than labeling headlines as false.

The authors also investigated the mechanisms behind this AI aversion by experimentally manipulating definitions of AI-generated headlines. The authors found that AI aversion is due to expectations that headlines labeled as AI-generated have been entirely written by AI with no human supervision.

Despite wide support for the labeling of AI-generated content, the authors argue that transparency regarding the meaning of the labels is needed as the labels may have negative unintended consequences.

According to the authors, to maximize impact, false AI-generated content should be labeled as false rather than solely as AI-generated.