Monday, January 20, 2020

Why Didn't the Allies Bomb Auschwitz?

By Mindy Weisberger - Senior Writer 

A new PBS documentary probes the deliberation behind the historic decision.

Train tracks converge at the entrance to the Nazi 
death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau. In this photo,
 taken in 1945, the tracks are strewn with snow-covered 
personal effects that belonged to the camp's inmates.
(Image: © Alamy)

In the spring of 1944, Allied forces received disturbing intelligence about horrific atrocities taking place at Auschwitz-Birkenau in southern Poland, a place now known as one of the Nazis' most brutal extermination camps.

Two escaped Jewish prisoners revealed first-hand knowledge of the horrors they experienced, and the Allies faced a terrible choice at a pivotal moment during the war, when their military resources were already strained to the breaking point.

Should they deploy aircraft to bomb the death camp, despite a substantial risk of killing trapped prisoners? Or were the military cost and potential loss of life too great, when the outcome of World War II itself hung in the balance? In a new PBS documentary, "Secrets of the Dead: Bombing Auschwitz," historians probe the deliberations of Allied leaders: Should they perform a moral but militarily fruitless action, or concentrate their might on crushing the Nazi war machine for good?

Established in 1940 near the town of Oświęcim, Poland, as a concentration camp for Polish political prisoners, Auschwitz's inmate numbers skyrocketed as the war progressed. In August 1944, Auschwitz held around 400,000 people: 205,000 were Jews and 195,000 were non-Jews — Poles, Soviet POWs, Roma and other ethnic groups, according to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum. (By the war's end an estimated 1.1 million people had died there.)

When Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler escaped Auschwitz in April 1944, they brought with them the first eyewitness testimony describing gas chambers and the Nazis' use of mass murder at an unthinkable scale. Their detailed account to Slovakia's Jewish underground, first known as the Vrba-Wetzler report, was later distributed as The Auschwitz Protocol, according to PBS.

From May through July of 1944, copies of the report were sent to neutral Switzerland's War Refugee Board; to the War Refugee Board headquarters in Washington, D.C.; and to leaders of the Allied forces, including the American assistant secretary of war, John McCloy. Winston Churchill, the British prime minister, was so troubled by the report that he issued a memo recommending a bombing raid on the death camp.

But ultimately, no bombers were sent to Auschwitz. Though Allied raids were already targeting the German chemical plant IG Farben, which was located just 4 miles (6 kilometers) from the death camp and even used Auschwitz prisoners for labor, several factors led the Allies to reject Auschwitz as a potential target, said Tami Davis Biddle, a professor of history and national security strategy at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Sketch of the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers and crematoria from
 the English-language version of the Vrba-Wetzler report, published 
November 1944.
 (Image credit: Executive Office of the United States War Refugee Board)

An uncertain outcome

One reason can be traced to widespread anti-Semitism in the U.S. and the U.K. during WWII, fanned by a highly effective Nazi propaganda campaign suggesting that Jews were manipulating the Allied war machine, Biddle told Live Science.

"Politicians got nervous if it looked like they were making special efforts on behalf of the Jews," Biddle said. In fact, many figures in American leadership — Jewish and non-Jewish alike — agreed at the time that maintaining public support of the war effort required downplaying emphasis on Jewish interests, said Michael Berenbaum, a professor of Jewish studies at American Jewish University in Los Angeles.

"There was a fear that Americans would support the war effort less if they thought it was war about the Jews," Berenbaum told Live Science.

There was also the question of how accurately Auschwitz could be bombed from the air. Allied military officers had some aerial photos of the camp, and the Auschwitz Protocol provided more intel about the buildings, so bombers could pick targets that would cause fewer casualties. But aerial bombing during WWII was notoriously inaccurate; so-called precision bombing, as we know it today, was impossible, and a raid could have killed far more prisoners than it saved, Biddle said.

"You would need to drop 220 bombs on each of the four crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau to have a 90% chance of one of them hitting each crematorium," Biddle said.


Aerial photographs such as this one, taken above Auschwitz on April 4,1944,
 gave the Allies limited information about the layout and distribution of buildings.
 (Image credit: Alamy)

What's more, assigning bombers to an Auschwitz raid would divert military resources away from the front lines, Biddle said.

"We look back on World War II and we tend to think, well, it was probably obvious that we were going to win. It wasn't," Biddle said. The window in 1944 in which it was possible to strike at Auschwitz was also one of the most intense periods of fighting on the European continent; Allied forces were scrambling to move armies eastward, shut down German rocket-launching sites and prevent a resurgence of the Luftwaffe — the German air force.

"The military was very jealous of its resources. It's pretty much fighting for its life in 1944," Biddle said. "On the one hand, there's the case for diverting resources to go hit this target. On the other hand, there's this sense that we've just got to defeat the Germans no matter what, and focus everything on the military defeat."

Even if the Allies had bombed Auschwitz, it wouldn't have been a "magic bullet" that saved millions of lives, Berenbaum said. By the time the Allies had what they needed to proceed with a raid, it would have been too late for most of the Holocaust's 11 million victims. Most of the death camps had already been shut down by the retreating Nazis; at that point, about 90% of the people murdered by the Third Reich had already been killed, Berenbaum said.

Nevertheless, there's no denying that bombing Auschwitz would have sent a resounding message that such terrible atrocities would not go unanswered.

"I wish we had done it," Biddle said. "I wish that we could look back on our record of the war and say, we understood how awful this was, and we want to make a moral statement."

"Secrets of the Dead: Bombing Auschwitz" premieres Jan. 21 at 9 p.m. on PBS (check local listings), pbs.org/secrets and the PBS Video app to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Related: 




Originally published on Live Science.

   
(Image: © Shutterstock)
The moquito-spread Zika virus known for its links to brain damage in babies born to infected mothers has the potential to target and destroy brain cancer, scientists have found.
New research has revealed that the Zika virus breaks into brain cells by using a special molecular key, and scientists think the virus could be tweaked so that it infects only brain cancer cells, leaving  healthy cells unharmed.
The aggressive brain cancer glioblastoma often defies standard cancer treatment because the disease transforms normal brain cells into stem cells. While typical neurons stop dividing after so many replications, stem cells can reproduce indefinitely and grow a whole new tumor from just a handful of cells. Patients typically survive less than 20 months after being diagnosed with glioblastoma; even if the cancer can be forced into remission, the tumors typically regrow and take the life of the patient within 12 months. 
But where standard treatments fail, the Zika virus may offer a new strategy to wipe out the deadly disease, according to a pair of studies published Jan. 16 in the journals Cell Reports and Cell Stem Cell.   
"While we would likely need to modify the normal Zika virus to make it safer to treat brain tumors, we may also be able to take advantage of the mechanisms the virus uses to destroy cells to improve the way we treat glioblastoma," senior author Dr. Jeremy Rich, director of neuro-oncology and of the Brain Tumor Institute at UC San Diego Health, said in a statement. (Rich and his colleagues authored the Cell Stem Cell paper.) 
When the Zika virus infects developing fetuses, the virus stunts brain development by targeting neural stem cells and stunting their proliferation. Rich and his co-authors wondered whether the virus' strategy could be co-opted to shrink brain tumors. In a 2017 study published in The Journal of Experimental Medicine, the team put their theory to the test and found that the Zika virus actually prefers to infect glioblastoma stem cells over normal brain cells — at least in petri dishes and mouse models of the disease. The reason behind this preference remained a mystery, until now. 
To learn how Zika breaches the membranes of cancer cells, the team scanned the virus' surface for integrins — receptors that viruses often use to latch onto their victims' cells and slip inside. Having identified various integrins on the viral surface, the researchers then blocked each with a protein. Then, they unleashed the modified virus into a lab dish holding a mix of normal brain stem cells and cancerous ones. If a particular integrin helped Zika hack into brain cells, blocking the receptor should stop the infectious virus in its tracks.
Through trial-and-error, the team learned that an integrin called αvβ5 serves as the key that lets Zika into brain cells.    
"When we blocked other integrins, there was no difference," Rich said. "But with αvβ5, blocking it with an antibody almost completely blocked the ability of the virus to infect brain cancer stem cells and normal brain stem cells." 
According to the study, αvβ5 consists of two halves: αv and β5. The former half appears in abundance on brain stem cells, which may help to explain how the virus targets both healthy and cancerous brain stem cells. The latter half, however, mostly appears on cancer cells and renders tumors more aggressive, regarding how quickly they can spread. 
For this reason, glioblastomas may be more vulnerable to Zika infection than normal brain stem cells. The team confirmed the idea by injecting Zika into human brain organoids — tiny models of the human brain grown in a lab dish. In the mini-brains, the virus reliably infected cancer cells more often than healthy cells. But without an intact αvβ5 receptor, the virus could not infect the cells at all.     
The second study, published in Cell Reports, also confirmed that αvβ5 grants Zika its cancer-crushing powers. 
Using the CRISPR gene-editing technique, the researchers selectively deleted specific genes from glioblastoma stem cells and exposed each mutant tumor to the Zika virus. When they deleted the gene that contained instructions to build αvβ5, Zika could no longer grab hold of the cancer cells. The discovery "made perfect sense" because αvβ5 appears in such large quantities on neural stem cells, the virus' primary target, senior author Tariq Rana, professor and chief of the Division of Genetics in the Department of Pediatrics at UC San Diego School of Medicine and Moores Cancer Center, said in the statement.   
With the knowledge that αvβ5 may be a soft spot in aggressive glioblastomas, the researchers now aim to genetically modify the Zika virus to target the cancer while sparing healthy cells.  
Other deadly viruses could also serve as weapons against brain cancer. In a study published in 2018 in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers treated glioblastoma patients with a genetically modified poliovirus and found that more than 20% remained alive three years later, as compared with 4 percent of patients who received a standard treatment, Live Science reported at the time. As the field of virotherapy continues to grow, once-deadly diseases may prove to be powerful weapons in the fight against cancer.  

Here's What Scientists Know About 'Screen Time' and Your Health

 
Humans are bombarded by digital media 24/7. Is that a problem?
(Image: © Bruce Rolff/Shutterstock)
There's a lot of talk about digital media. Increasing screen time has created worries about media's impacts on democracyaddictiondepressionrelationships, learning, healthprivacy and much more. The effects are frequently assumed to be huge, even apocalyptic.
Scientific data, however, often fail to confirm what seems true based on everyday experiences. In study after study, screen time is often not correlated with important effects at a magnitude that matches the concerns and expectations of media consumers, critics, teachers, parents, pediatricians and even the researchers themselves. For example, a recent review of over 200 studies about social media concluded there was almost no effect of greater screen time on psychological well-being. A comprehensive study of adolescents reported small effects of screen time on brain development, and no relationship between media use and cognitive performance. A review of 20 studies about the effects of multitasking with media — that is, using two or more screens at the same time — showed small declines in cognitive performance because of multitasking but also pointed out new studies that showed the opposite.
As communicationpsychological and medical researchers interested in media effects, we are interested in how individuals' engagement with digital technology influences peoples' thoughts, emotions, behaviors, health and well-being.

Moving beyond 'screen time'

Has the power of media over modern life been overstated? Probably not, but no one knows, because there is a severe lack of knowledge about what people are actually seeing and doing on their screensIndividuals all around the world are now all looking at pretty much the same screens and spending a lot of time with them. However, the similarities between us end there. Many different kinds of applications, games and messages flow across people's screens. And, because it is so easy to create customized personal threads of experiences, each person ends up viewing very different material at different times. No two people share the same media experiences.
To determine the effects of media on people's lives, whether beneficial or harmful, requires knowledge of what people are actually seeing and doing on those screens. But researchers often mistakenly depend on a rather blunt metric — screen time.
Reports of screen time, the most common way to assess media use, are known to be terribly inaccurate and describe only total viewing time. Today, on a single screen, you can switch instantly between messaging a neighbor, watching the news, parenting a child, arranging for dinner delivery, planning a weekend trip, talking on an office video conference and even monitoring your car, home irrigation and lighting. Add to that more troublesome uses — bullying a classmate, hate speech or reading fabricated news. Knowing someone's screen time — their total dose of media — will not diagnose problems with any of that content.
A media solution based only on screen time is like medical advice to someone taking multiple prescription medications to reduce their total number of pills by half. Which medications and when?

Complex and unique nature of media use

What would be a better gauge of media consumption than screen time? Something that better captures the complexities of how individuals engage with media. Perhaps the details about specific categories of content — the names of the programs, software and websites - would be more informative. Sometimes that may be enough to highlight problems — playing a popular game more than intended, frequent visits to a suspicious political website or too much social time on Facebook.
Tracking big categories of content, however, is still not that helpful. My one hour of Facebook, for example, could be spent on self-expression and social comparison; yours could be filled with news, shopping, classes, games and videos. Further, our research finds that people now switch between content on their smartphones and laptops every 10 to 20 seconds on average. Many people average several hundred different smartphone sessions per day. The fast cadence certainly influences how people converse with each other and how engaged we are with information. And each bit of content is surrounded by other kinds of material. News read on Facebook sandwiches political content between social relationships, each one changing the interpretation of the other.

A call for a Human Screenome Project

In this era of technology and big data, we need a DVR for digital life that records the entirety of individuals' screen media experiences - what we call the screenome, analogous to the genomemicrobiome and other "omes" that define an individual's unique characteristics and exposures.
An individual's screenome includes apps and websites, the specific content observed and created, all of the words, images and sounds on the screens, and their time of day, duration and sequencing. It includes whether the content is produced by the user or sent from others. And it includes characteristics of use, such as variations in how much one interacts with a screen, how quickly one switches between content, scrolls through screens, and turns the screen on and off.
Without knowledge of the whole screenome, no one — including researchers, critics, educators, journalists or policymakers — can accurately describe the new media chaos. People need much better data — for science, policy, parenting and more. And it needs to be collected and supported by individuals and organizations who are motivated to share the information for all to analyze and apply.
The benefits from studying the human genome required developing the field of genomics. The same will be true for the human screenome, the unique individual record of experiences that constitute psychological and social life on digital devices. Researchers now have the technologies to begin a serious study of screenomics, which we describe in the journal Nature. Now we need the data — a collective effort to produce, map and analyze a large and informative set of screenomes. A Human Screenome Project could inform academics, health professionals, educators, parents, advocacy groups, tech companies and policymakers about how to maximize the potential of media and remedy its most pernicious effects.
[Like what you've read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation's daily newsletter.]
This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.
Ancient Australian Crystals Unlock History of Earth's First Magnetic Field


By Rafi Letzter - Staff Writer

It was a lot more powerful than anyone believed.

An image shows one of the tiny zircon crystals
found in Australia on a US dime. Even smaller 
particles within the zircon encode data about the 
state of the Earth's magnetic field at the time the crystal formed.
(Image: © University of Rochester / John Tarduno)


Tiny Crystals in Australia are helping scientists unlock the ancient history of our planet's first magnetic field, which disappeared hundreds of millions of years ago. And the crystals show that this field was a lot more powerful than anyone believed. That, in turn, could help answer a question about why life emerged on Earth.

Those tiny, old crystals are locked in rocks that date to well over half a billion years ago. At the time, tiny magnetic particles floated in the molten rock. But as that rock cooled, the particles, which aligned to the magnetic field orientation at the time, locked into place. And those particles still sit in a pose suggesting that they were influenced by a much more powerful magnetic field than scientists had assumed, a new study reveals.

Earth's magnetic field is generated by the planet's solid iron inner core spinning in a liquid-iron outer core. Extending far beyond our atmosphere, this field protects the planet from dangerous particles blasting through space, such as solar wind and cosmic rays. But because its visible effects on the planet's surface are so minimal, studying the field's long history is difficult. However, this history is important for understanding the future of our own planet and other planets in the universe. We know our planet has had a strong magnetic shield for a long time, because it kept its surface water and sprouted life. Otherwise, cosmic radiation would have blasted both life and water off the surface long ago. In that scenario, Earth would look a lot like Mars, where the old magnetic field collapsed as the planet cooled and its core stopped spinning, according to a statement from the researchers.

Earth has had a magnetic core for 4.2 billion years, according to the new study. But until 565 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs arrived and a bit before complex life emerged in the Cambrian explosion, that magnetic core worked completely differently. At that point, there was no inner core. But magnesium oxide, which had dissolved into the all-liquid core during the same giant impact that created Earth's moon, was slowly moving out of the core and into the mantle. That movement of magnesium generated movement in the liquid core that created Earth's early magnetic field.

When the magnesium oxide ran out, the field almost collapsed, researchers believe. But the solid inner core formed at around the same time and saved life on Earth.

Conventional wisdom held that the field produced by the old, magnesium-oxide magnet was a lot weaker than the one we have now. But studying those ancient ancient zircon crystals, which formed when the old magnetic field still suffused the planet, indicates that this was wrong.

"This research is telling us something about the formation of a habitable planet," John Tarduno, an Earth scientist at the University of Rochester and author of the new paper, said in the statement. "One of the questions we want to answer is why Earth evolved as it did, and this gives us even more evidence that the magnetic shielding was recorded very early on the planet."

The paper was published today (Jan. 20) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Are Birds Dinosaurs?

By Mindy Weisberger - Senior Writer

Modern birds can trace their origins to theropods, a branch of mostly meat-eaters on the dinosaur family tree.

In some birds, like this cassowary, the resemblance to extinct

 theropod dinosaurs is easy to see. (Image: © Shutterstock)

What do sparros, geese and owls have in common with a velociraptor or the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex? All can trace their origins to a bipedal, mostly meat-eating group of dinosaurs called theropods ("beast-footed") that first appeared around 231 million years ago, during the late Triassic Period.

The earliest birds shared much in common with their theropod relatives, including feathers and egg-laying. However, certain traits – such as sustained, powered flight – distinguished ancient birds from other theropods, and eventually came to define modern-bird lineage (even though not all modern birds fly).

Today, all non-avian dinosaurs are long extinct. But are birds still considered to be true dinosaurs?
In a word: Yes.

"Birds are living dinosaurs, just as we are mammals," said Julia Clarke, a paleontologist studying the evolution of flight and a professor with the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.

In spite of the physical differences that distinguish all mammals from other species, every animal in that group — living and extinct — can trace certain anatomical characteristics to a common ancestor. And the same is true for birds, Clarke told Live Science.

"They're firmly nested in that one part of the dinosaur tree," she said. "All of the species of birds we have today are descendants of one lineage of dinosaur: the theropod dinosaurs."
What makes a bird, a bird?

Modern birds have feathered tails and bodies, unfused shoulder bones, toothless beaks and forelimbs that are longer than their hind limbs. They also have a bony plate near their tails called a pygostyle. Other types of extinct theropods had one or more of these features, but only modern birds have all of them, according to Takuya Imai, an assistant professor with the Dinosaur Research Institute at Fukui Prefectural University in Fukui, Japan.

In a primitive bird from Japan called Fukuipteryx — a 120-million-year-old avian that Imai described in November 2019 and the earliest known bird with a pygostyle — the preserved structure closely resembled the pygostyle of a modern chicken, Imai previously told Live Science. In other words, some structures in modern birds can be traced back to some of their earliest ancestors.

However, primitive birds still had much in common with non-avian theropods, said Jingmai O'Connor, a paleontologist specializing in dinosaur-era birds and the transition from non-avian dinosaurs, at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthroplogy in Beijing, China.

In fact, early birds were "very dinosaur-like" compared to modern birds, O'Connor told Live Science in an email. "Some had long, reptilian tails, teeth and claws on their hands," she said. And many theropod dinosaurs that were not birds had true feathers, "which are feathers that have a central part down the middle and branching barbs," according to Clarke.

Paleontologists distinguish between animal groups through precise measurements of subtle variations in bones and other fossilized body tissues, including "little bumps and tubercles [a rounded bulge on a bone] that are related to reorganizing different muscle groups," Clarke said. This morphological data is translated into numbers that are then processed by algorithms to pinpoint how animals are related, O'Connor explained. By using these algorithms in a system known as cladistics, experts can differentiate ancient birds from their theropod relatives.



Early birds

The earliest known bird is Archaeopteryx ("ancient wing"), which lived around 150 million years ago in what is now southern Germany. The creature weighed around 2 pounds(1 kilogram) and measured about 20 inches (50 centimeters) in length; fossil evidence shows that it sported plumage on its tail and body. The shape of its forelimbs and feathers also suggests that Archaeopteryx was capable of powered flight, a trait associated with most modern birds. However, unlike birds today, Archaeopteryx retained individual, clawlike fingers at the tips of its wings.

Fossils of birds from the early Cretaceous Period (145.5 million to 65.5 million years ago) have been found in northeastern China, such as Confuciusornis, which lived around 125 million years ago, and had a beak and long tail-feathers. Some Confuciusornis fossils, described in 2013, even included medullary bone, a spongy tissue found in female birds that are sexually mature, Live Science previously reported.

Another piece of fossil evidence links ancient birds to their modern relatives through their digestion, in the form of the earliest known bird pellet — a mass of indigestible fish bones coughed up by a Cretaceous avian in China around 120 million years ago.
Fly, robin, fly

One defining feature of birds is their ability to fly, requiring large forelimbs covered with asymmetrically-shaped feathers and roped in powerful muscles, O'Connor said.

"In the lineage evolving towards birds, most likely a lineage within the Troodontidae [a family of birdlike theropods], flight is what separates birds from their closest non-avian dinosaur (probable troodontid) kin," said O'Connor.

Then, after the evolution of flight, the small bones in birds' hands "become reduced and fused up to create this kind of stiffened structure that supports the feathers of the wing," Clarke said.

After the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period, birds continued to evolve and diversify, developing more specialized features related to flight, such as an elongated structure in their breastbones (called a keel), and powerful pectoralis muscles to power the downstroke during flight, Clarke said.

"You see bigger and bigger pectoralis that are associated with this deep keel. And that evolved after the origin of flight and is present in living birds," she said.

Today, there are approximately 10,000 bird species worldwide. Birds might be as tiny as a hummingbird or as big as an ostrich; they might soar like an eagle or dive like a penguin. Nevertheless, they still belong to the same group of theropod dinosaurs that hatched Archaeopteryx 150 million years ago.

So, the next time you wonder what dinosaurs may have looked like when they walked the Earth, look no farther than the seagull eyeing your french fries at the beach, the crow scolding you from a fence, or the nearest pigeon pecking at crumbs on the sidewalk.