It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, November 26, 2021
How big tech is changing who's in charge of our rights and freedoms
Since the end of the 20th century, daily life for most of us has increasingly moved into the digital sphere. This has led to the rise of the so-called "onlife" dimension, which represents the intimate intertwining of our online and offline lives. One day we may see the creation of the so-called metaverse, a perpetual online environment providing new digital spaces where people can interact, work and play as avatars.
The result is that people's rights and freedoms are increasingly shaped by the rules set by big technology firms. Twitter's decision to silence the former US president Donald Trump in the aftermath of the violence at Capitol Hill, Facebook's banning of Australian publishers and users from sharing or viewing news content, and the decision of YouTube to block anti-vaccine content from spreading misinformation, are just some examples of how tech firms have expanded their role not only as global gatekeepers of information but also as private powers.
These examples raise constitutional questions about who has legitimacy, who should have power, and how democracy can best function in the digital age. This points to the rise of digital constitutionalism, a new phase where individual rights and public powers are "relocated" among different groups—such as technology companies—on a global scale.
A new power play
Digital constitutionalism does not mean revolutionizing the roots of modern constitutionalism, the principles of which include responsible and accountable government, individual rights and the rule of law. Rather, it is about reframing the role of constitutional law in the digital age.
Modern constitutionalism has always pursued two missions: protecting fundamental rights and limiting powers through checks and balances.
In the digital age, one of the primary concerns regards the exercise of public powers which threaten rights and freedoms, such as internet blackouts or surveillance. This was underlined by the Snowden affair, where a CIA employee leaked documents revealing the extent of surveillance of the US's National Security Agency (NSA), prompting debate about national security and individual privacy.
But private companies now dominate the internet and enforce terms of service or community guidelines which apply to billion of users across the globe. These rules provide alternative standards which compete with the constitutional protection of fundamental rights and democratic values.
The challenge for constitutional democracies no longer comes from state authorities. Rather, the biggest concerns come from formally private entities but which control things traditionally governed by public authorities—without any safeguards. The capacity of tech firms to set and enforce rights and freedoms on a global scale is an expression of their growing power over the public.
For example, when Facebook or Google moderate online content, they are making decisions on freedom of expression and other individual rights or public interest based on private standards that do not necessarily reflect constitutional safeguards. And these decisions are enforced directly by the company, not a court.
This situation has led to calls for transparency and accountability. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, which highlighted the extensive collection of personal data for political advertising, and the recent revelations that Facebook's own research showed the potentially harmful effects of social media on young people's mental health, have increased the debate around the responsibilities of these big tech companies.
Addressing big tech powers
Constitutional democracies are still figuring out how to deal with tech firms' powers. And though they share the same global challenge, countries don't always react in the same way. Even if constitutional democracies generally protect rights and freedoms as part of everyday life in a democratic society, this does not mean that this protection is equal across the world.
But the US still sees self-regulation as the best approach to protect freedom of expression in the digital age. Even the US Supreme Court has underlined that the internet—and particularly social media—plays a critical role as a democratic forum.
As a result, online platforms have lost no time in consolidating their policy. The introduction of social media councils like the Facebook Oversight Board has been welcomed as a critical step for transparency and accountability. But this could also be seen as another step towards the consolidation of powers by adopting the veneer of more institutional system such as a "supreme court," as Facebook has also done.
Digital constitutionalism offers a variety of perspectives to analyze the protection of rights and the exercise of power by big tech companies. It should also prompt us to raise the debate about how individual rights and freedoms are not just subject to the powers of the state, but increasingly to big tech companies too.
Workers' share of annual premium for employer health plans nears $6,000
(HealthDay)—Health insurance has gotten slightly more expensive during the pandemic: A new survey shows that annual family premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose 4%, to an average of $22,221 this year.
Of that amount, employees paid an average of nearly $6,000 toward the cost of coverage, while employers paid the remainder of the premium.
But there was some good news: The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) survey of nearly 1,700 small and large companies also showed that there was an increase in workplace health benefits such as mental health services and telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.
"In a year when the pandemic continued to cause health and economic disruption, there were only modest changes in the cost of employer-provided health benefits," said Gary Claxton, KFF senior vice president and director of the Health Care Marketplace Project.
"Some employers adapted their plans to address mental health and other challenges facing their workers due to COVID-19," Claxton added in a KFF news release.
The 4% premium increase is close to the increase in workers' wages (5%) and inflation (1.9%) this year, but average family premiums have jumped 47% since 2011, outpacing increases in wages (31%) and inflation (19%), the survey found.
Meanwhile, the average single deductible is $1,669 for workers who have one, which isn't much more than in 2020 ($1,644) or 2019 ($1,655), but significantly higher than in 2011 ($991).
In 2021, 85% of covered workers had a deductible in their plan, compared with 74% a decade ago.
Overall, the burden of deductibles has increased by 92% among all covered workers over the past decade.
The journal Health Affairs is publishing an article with select survey findings online and in its December issue.
The brightest spot in the findings involved mental health coverage.
Among firms with at least 50 workers that offer health benefits, 39% said they made changes to their mental health and substance abuse benefits during the pandemic.
For example, 31% gave workers more ways to access mental health services—such as through telemedicine—and 16% offered new mental health resources, such as an employee assistance program.
Other changes included expansion of in-network mental health and substance abuse providers (6%), waiving or reducing cost-sharing for related services (4%), or increasing coverage for out-of-network services (3%).
Overall, 12% of employers with at least 50 workers that offer health benefits said there was an increase in their enrollees' use of mental-health services. Among the largest employers (1,000 or more workers), 38% reported such an increase.
"The expansions of telemedicine and mental health benefits were important in meeting the needs of employees and their families in difficult times," Claxton and colleagues said. "These types of changes made sense not because employers wants to spend more, but because employers want their employees to see their health benefit programs as 'benefits' and to value them as such."
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain issues have rattled consumers and the businesses they frequent. From Clorox wipes to semiconductors to computer chips, inventory of many products at big box stores, dealerships and even grocers is low or out of stock. The problem is creating growing concern as the U.S. inches toward Black Friday and the holiday season, the biggest spending period of the year.
Most supply chains were built to provide optimal value for relatively steady and predictable demand, but the pandemic and other factors have contributed to abrupt swings in demand patterns that long and extended supply chains are not designed to accommodate. Gurumurthi Ravishankar, a faculty member and supply chain expert at the Leeds School of Business, explains how supply chain woes started, what it means for consumers and how long it may take to repair the fractured system.
How did the supply chain become so fractured?
Over the last few decades, supply chains have become increasingly complex. Many links (companies) in the chain––many of which are based overseas––are driven by the desire for lower costs. Supply chains have also become quite lean with little inventory. Even the slightest hiccup anywhere within the chain causes a ripple effect that doesn't easily subside.
When and how did these problems start?
When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, people started falling sick and countries started locking down to control the spread of the disease. As a result, the production and delivery of countless materials slowed down or even stopped. This caused more than a ripple in the supply chain, it was a tsunami wave.
The pandemic also caused consumer spending patterns to change, which changed demand patterns (think back to toilet paper and Clorox wipe hoarding). This is classically known as the bullwhip effect in supply chain parlance. Online shopping skyrocketed, which put a lot of pressure on delivery services. Companies like Amazon were seeing buying volumes that resembled pre-Christmas in the middle of May.
How will these continued problems affect prices?
Higher prices are likely to be around for the foreseeable future because of a variety of factors. Shortages and increased demand invariably lead to prices going up, but this typically leads to temporary increases. It's also expected companies will stock up on inventory to avoid future shortages, which will increase costs as a result.
We're also seeing more permanent price increases as a byproduct of increased production costs, particularly because of labor woes. Wage rate increases have led to increased overhead, resulting in price increases to offset that cost. The pandemic has added to labor issues: fatalities, risk of falling ill, furloughs, businesses going under and people migrating with remote work or choosing to retire have all impacted the supply chain. In addition, the impact of stimulus checks, childcare credits, eviction moratoriums, decreased spending and migration to lower cost areas of the country adds to the changing financial condition of people, which has an impact on the labor pool.
Is there a solution? How long will it take?
How we "fix" the supply chain depends on what we want the supply chain to do. For example, we fixed the shortage of hand sanitizer fairly quickly as local supply increased and demand went down. However, it takes billions of dollars and many years to build local factories to produce the thousands of products in high demand (like semiconductors).
Conversely, if we continue to rely on goods exclusively produced overseas, shortages will continue and it will take a long time to return to normal supply. Factories overseas must first be able to produce material at a prepandemic pace, and then all the steps of the supply chain must be appropriately staffed in order to bring that product to the U.S.
Worker shortages in the U.S. are not an easy fix: It takes two to four years for gantry crane operators to learn how to properly operate a crane, and truck drivers must obtain a commercial driver's license and go through training before they can deliver goods across the country. Neither of those jobs are in high demand right now, which only exacerbates the problem.
Finding good employees has always been a challenge—but these days it's harder than ever. And it is unlikely to improve anytime soon.
The so-called quit rate—the share of workers who voluntarily leave their jobs—hit a new record of 3% in September 2021, according to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The rate was highest in the leisure and hospitality sector, where 6.4% of workers quit their jobs in September. In all, 20.2 million workers left their employers from May through September.
Companies are feeling the effects. In August 2021, a survey found that 73% of 380 employers in North America were having difficulty attracting employees—three times the share that said so the previous year. And 70% expect this difficulty to persist into 2022.
As a professor of human resource management, I examine how employment and the work environment have changed over time and the impact this has on organizations and communities. While the current resignation behavior may seem like a new trend, data shows employee turnoverhas been rising steadily for the past decade and may simply be the new normal employers are going to have to get used to.
The economy's seismic shifts
The U.S.—alongside other advanced economies—has been moving away from a focus on productive sectors like manufacturing to a service-based economy for decades.
That change has been seismic for employers. A majority of the jobs in service-based industries require only generalizable occupational skills such as competencies in computing and communications that are often easily transportable across companies. This is true across a wide range of professions, from accountants and engineers to truck drivers and customer services representatives. As a result, in service-based economies, it is relatively easy for employees to move between companies and maintain their productivity.
Thus, the barriers and transition costs employees incur when switching employers have been reduced.
Greater options and lower costs to move mean that employees can be more selective and focus on picking jobs that best fit their personal needs and desires. What people want from work is inherently shaped by their cultural values and life situation. The U.S. labor market is expected to become far more diverse going forward in terms of gender, ethnicity and age. Thus, employers that cannot provide greater flexibility and variety in their working environment will struggle to attract and retain workers.
Employers now have a greater obligation than in the past to convince existing and would-be employees why they should stay or join their organizations. And there is no evidence to suggest this trend will change going forward.
Thus, there is a large incentive for businesses to adapt to the new labor market conditions and develop innovative approaches to keeping workers happy and in their jobs.
A May 2021 survey found that 54% of employees surveyed from around the world would consider leaving their job if they were not afforded some form of flexibility in where and when they work.
Given the heightened priority employees place on finding a job that fits their preferences, companies need to adopt a more holistic approach to the types of rewards they provide. It's also important that they tailor the types of financial, social and developmental incentives and opportunities they provide to individual employees' preferences. It's not just about paying workers more. There are even examples of companies providing employees the choice of simply being paid in a cryptocurrency like bitcoin as an inducement.
While customizing the package of rewards each employees receives may potentially increase an organization's administrative costs, this investment can help retain a highly engaged workforce.
Managing the new normal
Companies should also plan on high employee mobility to be endemic and reframe how they approach managing their workers.
One way to do this is by investing deeply in external relationships that help ensure consistent access to high-quality talent. This can include enhancing the relationships they have with educational institutions and former employees.
For example, many organizations have adopted alumni programs that specifically recruit former employees to rejoin.
These former employees are often less expensive to recruit, bring access to needed human capital and possess both an understanding of an organization's processes and an appreciation of the organization's culture.
The newly published guidelines set best practices for sampling human remains and carrying out scientific analysis. Above, Washington University researchers conducted archaeological excavations of the Bronze Age site complex “Dali.” The ancient DNA collected at Dali showed a significant change in the ancestry of the site’s inhabitants after 2000 BC. Credit: Michael Frachetti
Fueled by technological advancements, ancient DNA research has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade. From the first full ancient genome published in 2010 to the more than 4,000 analyzed today, the DNA collected from ancient human remains has advanced researchers' understanding of the origins and history of human populations around the world.
However, given the relative infancy of the field and its rapid development, researchers find themselves in a position where they are building the plane while flying, figuratively speaking.
"There are very serious ethical implications to dealing with human remains. These samples are taken from humans who had lives, families, and whose bodies represent the ancestral history of people still living today," said Michael Frachetti, professor of archaeology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis who has used ancient DNA research to study Central and Eastern Eurasia populations.
"Anthropologists, geneticists, biologists and other researchers have a responsibility to engage in detailed and thoughtful conversations about the ethics of using human remains and to agree on guidelines that might anticipate potentially unforeseen issues that cause direct harm to descendant communities we work with throughout our research," Frachetti said.
Recently, he was one of 64 scholars from 24 countries who collaborated to develop a set of globally applicable best practices for sampling human remains and carrying out scientific analysis. The guidelines were published Oct. 20 in the journal Nature.
According to Frachetti, the guidelines established by the group provide a framework for conducting ethical DNA research that considers complex and sometimes divergent concerns among global communities and researchers, including academic and nonacademic stakeholders. The guidelines include:
Abide by all regulations in the places where they work and from which the human remains originate;
Prepare a detailed plan prior to beginning any study;
Minimize damage to human remains;
Ensure data are made available following publication to allow critical re-examination of scientific findings; and
Engage with other stakeholders and ensure respect and sensitivity to stakeholder perspectives.
Below, Frachetti discusses the process of working with diverse scholars around the world and how this type of collaboration—which crosses regional, disciplinary and identity boundaries—contributes positively to the future of scholarly work.
How did this global collaboration transpire?
The international gathering was hosted by the Reich Lab at Harvard University. David Reich is an accomplished geneticist who, in the last 10 years, has emerged as one of the most prolific, yet sometimes criticized, voices for applying genomic research to ancient populations. His state-of-the-art laboratory has become an epicenter for the combination of archaeology and genetics and has a vast global network of scholars working on a wide range of questions.
The Reich lab called together an informal meeting among global colleagues, firstly to listen to different views on ethics and open a forum to express what each saw as critical or relevant to their own national or Indigenous communities. The aim at the start was just an open discussion, but the spectrum of global input was extremely eye opening. The invitation was open to anyone engaged in this type of work, but started among colleagues. Due to the COVID pandemic, the meeting was held virtually through Zoom.
What made this collaboration unique? How did this shape the team's work?
There were already a host of articles and statements—primarily from a North American perspective—which articulated the complex and important ethical issues surrounding DNA research. These articles, many of which were written by Indigenous scholars, were the gateway for this international conversation. But the views and insights of the diverse participants in our meeting showed that the starting point for ethics in DNA differs widely across the world. This is especially true when considering the different colonial and post-colonial histories of global communities. The important ethical concerns that might be central for say, Indigenous communities in North America, might be less of an issue in countries without similar histories.
The voices of other global participants brought different issues to the surface. Hearing 60 or more people with decades of practical work in this field—including Indigenous communities, academics, museum curators and others—illustrated that a baseline for ethical practice had not yet been adopted in many regions or was quite different in some parts of the world.
Scholars from different disciplines around the world expressed what they saw as the important elements of a globally relevant, ethical approach to genetics sampling. This wasn't just a feel-good meeting. Hard topics emerged and we were communicating across cultural, social and ethnic boundaries in real and equitable ways.
Because the meeting was held virtually, participants had to take turns speaking, which created the opportunity for more conversational consensus. To the credit of everyone who participated, nobody was there to forward a personal agenda. Everybody recognized that they had some expertise to contribute to the conversation, but they were also there to listen and learn.
Ultimately, everyone is working toward the most productive endgame, which is doing research that is first and foremost considerate of the power of human ancestry, which allows for people's voices to be heard, and is done in a way that does not cause conflict or harm.
I think we were able to distill general practices that could be applied—if locally considered and augmented in necessary ways—anywhere in the world.
How will these guidelines impact future ancient DNA research?
There were already a host of articles and statements—primarily from a North American perspective—which articulated the complex and important ethical issues surrounding DNA research. These articles, many of which were written by Indigenous scholars, were the gateway for this international conversation. But the views and insights of the diverse participants in our meeting showed that the starting point for ethics in DNA differs widely across the world. This is especially true when considering the different colonial and post-colonial histories of global communities. The important ethical concerns that might be central for say, Indigenous communities in North America, might be less of an issue in countries without similar histories.
The voices of other global participants brought different issues to the surface. Hearing 60 or more people with decades of practical work in this field—including Indigenous communities, academics, museum curators and others—illustrated that a baseline for ethical practice had not yet been adopted in many regions or was quite different in some parts of the world.
Scholars from different disciplines around the world expressed what they saw as the important elements of a globally relevant, ethical approach to genetics sampling. This wasn't just a feel-good meeting. Hard topics emerged and we were communicating across cultural, social and ethnic boundaries in real and equitable ways.
Because the meeting was held virtually, participants had to take turns speaking, which created the opportunity for more conversational consensus. To the credit of everyone who participated, nobody was there to forward a personal agenda. Everybody recognized that they had some expertise to contribute to the conversation, but they were also there to listen and learn.
Ultimately, everyone is working toward the most productive endgame, which is doing research that is first and foremost considerate of the power of human ancestry, which allows for people's voices to be heard, and is done in a way that does not cause conflict or harm.
I think we were able to distill general practices that could be applied—if locally considered and augmented in necessary ways—anywhere in the world.
This article has been translated into more than 20 languages, so the hope is that people around the world can participate in this conversation in impactful ways. Ultimately, our goal for these guidelines is producing better science, better social responsibility and better dialog among global communications.
What we've seen in the past is that unforeseen consequences can occur from DNA research. The guidelines give researchers a starting protocol to avoid common pitfalls.
India is a really great example of this. The diversity of the Indian population—its history, its regional mosaic and cultural background—is so inherently complex that if you don't engage carefully and different constituencies are unable to weigh in prior to beginning research, research can have serious social and political implications.
Engaging the communities with whom you're working is one of the primary principles outlined in the guidelines. The ideal is that there's a multiscalar engagement and conversation, in which the concerns or issues that are relevant to a range of stakeholders can serve as the driving force behind collaborative research.
Another important aspect of the guidelines is transparency and open access to data, which allows the opportunity for other experts to weigh in. The guidelines make sure you're meeting the benchmarks that you promised, like sharing results with partner communities, and providing stable scientific archives of the data. This demands that scholars consult with relevant Indigenous communities before designing the sampling, the goal being establishing a common mission and goal for the research. Sometimes this means the work won't be done—and that is also an acceptable outcome of these conversations.
Ultimately, our goal for these guidelines is producing better science, better social responsibility and more responsible results. No scientific program is ever going to be perfect—there will always be a need to revise and make modifications—but we should endeavor to sustain human rights and do no harm in our approach to science.
Why was it important for you and WashU to have a seat at the table?
WashU is a major player in so many of these conversations. Our anthropology department is internationally respected, and this rests in part on the individual ethical engagements by our faculty and students. Beyond archaeology and genetics, our department has excellence in global health, primatology and human evolution, domestication sciences and ancient populations here in St. Louis and throughout the Mississippi Valley. As such, we are a part of a wide global community that extends across these regions.
What advice do you have for your WashU colleagues who want to engage in this type of work?
I believe this type of global, collaborative work will become increasingly common across disciplines, if it's not already, because we now have technologies that truly bridge national boundaries in a more inclusive way.
If these types of conversation have not occurred in your field, they likely will in the future. This type of collaboration is beneficial not only in disciplines that deal with contemporary societies, but in any discipline, business or interaction that links local and global communities to serve humanity in positive ways.
From the formation of institutional codes, guidelines and ethical approaches, inclusive participation helps societies recognize and avoid the pitfalls of the past. What was most exciting to me about this experience is that over 60 scholars from various disciplines and countries shaped a collective voice that initiates dialog around these guidelines.Why scholars have created global guidelines for ancient DNA research
More information:Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al, Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines,Nature(2021).DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-04008-x
Sake bottles and mushrooms at a standing bar in Aizuwakamatsu, Fukushima prefecture, in 2018. Credit: Eric Rath.
In Japan, the proverb "Sake wa honshin o arawasu" translates to "sake reveals the true heart."
But that's one of the few things translated when it comes to the country's signature alcoholic beverage.
"Surprisingly, despite the growing interest in sake in the U.S., there's hardly any research about the history of sake in English," said Eric C. Rath, professor of history at the University of Kansas.
"So in my translation and in a book that I'm writing, I want to give readers an understanding of sake's evolution and cultural significance."
His new article, "Sake Journal (Goshu no nikki): Japan's Oldest Guide to Brewing," provides the first English translation of the earliest Japanese manual for brewing sake. It appears in the winter issue of Gastronomica.
"Sake is sometimes translated as 'rice wine,' and that's a mistake since it's made more like beer than wine," he said.
That's not the only thing Westerners tend to misunderstand about the fermented drink.
Rath said, "Sake also has a higher alcohol content than wine. Unlike most other alcoholic beverages, sake can be enjoyed at a variety of temperatures. Cooling or heating the same sake yields remarkable changes in the taste. And sake goes well with a lot more than just Asian food. It's meant to be savored, not thrown into beer to make a 'sake bomb.'"
The original "Goshu no nikki" was a secret manuscript that was strictly safeguarded, its information kept primarily through oral tradition. It represented the earliest guide to brewing sake and one of the most significant sources for understanding its history in medieval Japan (1192–1600). Rath's article includes several translated recipes for sake, along with the directions for pasteurization.
"Back in the 14th century, brewers relied on ambient yeasts, and they had not yet perfected the best ways to ferment sake and maintain the alcohol content. They also used brown rice, which with the wild yeasts would have given it a gamier taste, far from the premium sake today that uses highly polished specialty rice and tends to be lighter, finely grained and leans toward having a melon bouquet," he said.
A curious amount of folklore surrounds the origins and processes around the beverage. One story asserts it began with the custom of virginal women chewing grains and using their saliva to render the sugars in the starch. Rath notes how modern sake brand names include words such as "maiden," "daughter" and "beauty," which can be construed as intentionally sexualizing the drink.
"Similar types of (chewed) sake were produced in Okinawa until very recently," he said. "At some point, though, this type of sake came to be associated with young women in Japan, perhaps because when the story was retold, the idea of virgin girls chewing and spitting was more appealing to older male sake drinkers."
Rath's first taste of sake came in high school, when he and some friends realized they could be served alcohol at Japanese restaurants in his hometown of Chicago.
"I recall having sake one of the times we went out for sushi. I remember that the taste was like warm rubber cement, the type of clear glue that's sold with the brush inside the lid. I was never a fan until I went to Japan and discovered there was a lot more variety to sake than the two brands I was familiar with in the U.S.," he said.
Rath recently published "Oishii: The History of Sushi" (Reaktion Books/University of Chicago Press, 2021), the first comprehensive chronicle of sushi written in English. He is also the author of the books "Japan's Cuisines: Food, Place and Identity," "Food and Fantasy in Early Modern Japan" and "Japanese Foodways, Past and Present" (with Stephanie Assmann).Mutation threatening high-quality brewing yeast identified
This comic depicts the Bhamla Lab research in an exciting and engaging way - all pointing back to curiosity-driven science and how it can impact scientific research. Credit: Lindsey Leigh for Georgia Tech
The snapping of a finger was first depicted in ancient Greek art around 300 B.C. Today, that same snap initiates evil forces for the villain Thanos in Marvel's latest Avengers movie. Both media inspired a group of researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology to study the physics of a finger snap and determine how friction plays a critical role.
Using an intermediate amount of friction, not too high and not too low, a snap of the finger produces the highest rotational accelerations observed in humans, even faster than the arm of a professional baseball pitcher. The results were published Nov. 17 in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface.
The research was led by an undergraduate student at Georgia Tech, Raghav Acharya, as well as doctoral student Elio Challita, Assistant Professor Saad Bhamla of the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, and Assistant Professor Mark Ilton of Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California.
Their results might one day inform the design of prosthetics meant to imitate the wide-ranging capabilities of the human hand. Bhamla said the project is also a prime example of what he calls curiosity-driven science, where everyday occurrences and biological behaviors can serve as data sources for new discoveries.
"For the past few years, I've been fascinated with how we can snap our fingers," Bhamla said. "It's really an extraordinary physics puzzle right at our fingertips that hasn't been investigated closely."
In earlier work, Bhamla, Ilton, and other colleagues had developed a general framework for explaining the surprisingly powerful and ultrafast motions observed in living organisms. The framework seemed to naturally apply to the snap. It posits that organisms depend on the use of a spring and latching mechanism to store up energy, which they can then quickly release.
Acharya and Bhamla felt a particular push to apply this framework to a finger snap after seeing the movie Avengers: Infinity War, released in April 2018 and produced by Marvel Studios. In it, Thanos, a villainous character, seeks to obtain six special stones and place them into his metal gauntlet. After collecting them all, he snaps his fingers and triggers universe-wide consequences.
But would it be possible to snap at all while wearing an armor gauntlet, the researchers asked? In the case of a finger snap, they suspected that skin friction played a more important role compared to other spring and latch systems. With the frictional properties of a metal gauntlet, they imagined it might be impossible.
Using high-speed imaging, automated image processing, and dynamic force sensors, the researchers analyzed a variety of finger snaps. They explored the role of friction by covering fingers with different materials, including metallic thimbles to simulate the effects of trying to snap while wearing a metallic gauntlet, much like Thanos.
For an ordinary snap with bare fingers, the researchers measured maximal rotational velocities of 7,800 degrees per second and rotational accelerations of 1.6 million degrees per second squared. The rotational velocity is less than that measured for the fastest rotational motions observed in humans, which come from the arms of professional baseball players during the act of pitching. However, the snap acceleration is the fastest human angular acceleration yet measured, almost three times faster than the rotational acceleration of a professional baseball pitcher's arm.
"When I first saw the data, I jumped out of my chair," said Bhamla, who studies ultrafast motions in a variety of living systems, from single cells to insects. "The finger snap occurs in only seven milliseconds, more than twenty times faster than the blink of an eye, which takes more than 150 milliseconds."
When the fingertips of the subjects were covered with metal thimbles, their maximal rotational velocities decreased dramatically, confirming the researchers' intuitions.
Saad Bhamla snapping. Credit: Georgia Tech
"Our results suggest that Thanos could not have snapped because of his metal armored fingers," said Acharya, first author of the study. "So, it's probably the Hollywood special effects, rather than actual physics, at play! Sorry for the spoiler."
They explained this decrease by considering the diminished contact area that exists between thimble-covered fingers.
"The compression of the skin makes the system a little bit more fault tolerant," said Challita, a coauthor on the work. "Reducing both the compressibility and friction of the skin make it a lot harder to build up enough force in your fingers to actually snap."
Surprisingly, increasing the friction of the fingertips with rubber coverings also reduced speed and acceleration. The researchers concluded that a Goldilocks zone of friction was necessary—too little friction and not enough energy was stored to power the snap, and too much friction led to energy dissipation as the fingers took longer to slide past each other, wasting the stored energy into heat.
The researchers experimented with a variety of mathematical models of the snapping process to explain their observations. They found that a model including a spring and a soft friction contact-latch could reproduce the qualitative features of their results.
"We included soft frictional contact into our mathematical model, and the results reinforced the central role played by friction in achieving ultrafast motions," Ilton said. "This model can now help us understand how other animals such as termites and ants snap their mandibles, as well as rationally bioinspired actuators for engineering applications."
Ancient Greek vase depicting a finger snap. Credit: Wikicommons
John Long, a program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Integrative Organismal Systems, oversees research in the Physiological Mechanisms and Biomechanics Program, which currently funds Bhamla's investigations into ultrafast behaviors in animals.
"This research is a great example of what we can learn with clever experiments and insightful computational modeling," he said. "By showing that varying degrees of friction between the fingers alters the elastic performance of a snap, these scientists have opened the door to discovering the principles operating in other organisms, and to putting this mechanism to work in engineered systems such as bioinspired robots."
John Long, program director in the Directorate for Biological Sciences at the National Science Foundation, oversees research in the Physiological Mechanisms and Biomechanics Program, which currently funds Bhamla's investigations into ultrafast behaviors in animals.
"The research of Dr. Bhamla and his colleagues is a great example of what we can learn with clever experiments and insightful computational modeling," he said. "By showing that varying degrees of friction between the fingers alters the elastic performance of the snap, they've opened the door for discovering these principles operating in other organisms and for putting this soft, sophisticated, and adjustable mechanism to work in engineered systems such as bioinspired robots."
The researchers believe that the results open a variety of opportunities for future study, including understanding why humans snap at all, and if humans are the only primates to have evolved this physical ability.
"Based on ancient Greek art from 300 B.C., humans may very well have been snapping their fingers for hundreds of thousands of years before that, yet we are only now beginning to scientifically study it," Bhamla said. "This is the only scientific project in my lab in which we could snap our fingers and get data."New law of physics helps humans and robots grasp the friction of touch
