Thursday, December 22, 2022

Spinoff from Argonne-led innovation hub opens new frontier for batteries

Business Announcement

DOE/ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Blue Current achieves success with a breakthrough material originally discovered by the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research.

There is broad consensus that there is no silver bullet for climate change. Rather, many solutions will be required. What makes the challenge particularly daunting is the enormous reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed in a short period of time. Some experts are concerned that there is not enough time to turn breakthrough scientific discoveries into the revolutionary products necessary to achieve aggressive decarbonization goals.

The Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), an Energy Innovation Hub led by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, recognized this dilemma when it launched in 2012. JCESR brings together more than 150 researchers from 20 institutions — including national laboratories, universities and industry — to build materials to enable breakthrough batteries.

“JCESR creates and proves the ideas that eventually go commercial,” said George Crabtree, JCESR’s director and an Argonne senior scientist. ​“These are the riskier ideas that no investors would fund — and that companies are unlikely to pursue — because the outcome is so uncertain. If proven, these ideas can drive the rapid progress on climate change that we need.”

“JCESR put resources behind composites because the materials had potential to address a market need for safe, solid-state batteries while solving important technical challenges. By proving these materials, JCESR made it a lot easier for us to move forward with the technology.” — Kevin Wujcik, Blue Current’s chief technology officer

The successful trajectory of JCESR spinoff company Blue Current points to the wisdom of this approach. In 2015, one of JCESR’s laboratories discovered a promising new battery material, known as a ​“composite,” that can make batteries dramatically safer. Inspired by the composite’s potential, Blue Current developed it further. Now, Blue Current is ramping up production of its battery cells. What’s more, an arm of Koch Industries has invested $30 million in the company to build its first megawatt-scale pilot factory in Hayward, California.

A focus on safety from the start

Safety is an important issue with batteries. When batteries are charged and discharged, substances known as electrolytes carry charge between the positive and negative electrodes. The liquid electrolytes found in many commercial lithium-ion batteries are flammable.

Since its founding, Blue Current’s top priority has been to develop a completely safe battery. At the same time, it has gone to great lengths to avoid the safety related design compromises that other battery companies have made. Its primary target market is electric vehicles (EVs).

“Helping the transition to sustainable energy is part of our core mission, and EVs provide the biggest platform to do that,” said Kevin Wujcik, Blue Current’s chief technology officer. Wujcik was on the JCESR research team that discovered the composite material. At the time, he was pursuing his Ph.D. studies at University of California, Berkeley.

Developing batteries for EVs is particularly challenging because many needs have to be met at once. ​“An EV battery has to be both a marathon runner and a sprinter,” said Wujcik. ​“It has to have a very long driving range and operate for a long time. But it also has to be able to charge very quickly. And it needs to work well in low and high temperatures.”

Two internationally recognized battery researchers founded Blue Current in 2014. Nitash Balsara is a JCESR scientist, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley and a senior faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Joseph DeSimone, who was a chemistry professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2014, is a Stanford chemical engineering professor today.

An early pivot

Solid-state batteries, which contain solid electrolytes, are much less flammable than liquid batteries. That’s why many battery developers view solid-state technologies as key to developing completely safe batteries. But solid electrolytes face many technical challenges, and no company has successfully commercialized a solid-state battery to date.

A crystalline class of solids known as glass ceramics have good conductivity, which is the ability to move lithium ions quickly. But they lack the ability to stick to the chemically active materials in battery electrodes that store lithium ions.

Another class of materials known as polymers — large molecules with repeating chemical units — are effective at sticking to electrodes. But they have low conductivity.

Initially, Blue Current focused on developing a battery cell with a nonflammable liquid electrolyte. Then, in 2015, as part of JCESR-sponsored research, Balsara’s lab made a breakthrough discovery that turned out to be a key formative event for Blue Current. The lab addressed the shortcomings of glass ceramics and polymers by bonding them together. The resulting composite solid electrolyte demonstrated good conductivity and good stickiness. Recognizing the composite’s potential to address key challenges with solid-state batteries, Blue Current pivoted to the solid-state field in 2016.

“By combining these materials, the JCESR discovery solved the challenges that each material faced on its own,” said Wujcik. ​“We decided that using composites was the best way to make the safest battery possible.”

“Getting the science right”

Initially, the anode (negative electrode) of Blue Current’s battery cell was made of lithium metal. Then, in 2018, the company decided to use silicon as the chemically active anode material. One reason for the switch was safety: Lithium metal is highly reactive and flammable, even in solid-state batteries.

Since 2018, the company has refined its composite electrolytes, silicon anode and other battery materials, with an aim of solving the technical challenges of solid-state technology.

“We have focused on getting the science right,” said Wujcik.

One solid-state challenge involves the amount of pressure needed for good battery performance. To help solid electrolytes stick to electrodes, some companies add heavy metal plates and bolts that put battery cells under high pressure. These fixtures increase manufacturing costs while reducing energy density — the amount of energy that can be stored in batteries per unit weight or volume. Lower energy density in EV batteries translates into shorter driving ranges unless the manufacturer increases the size and weight of the batteries. Shorter driving ranges tend to make EVs less attractive to consumers.

Blue Current’s vision has been to use the adhesiveness and elasticity of its composite electrolyte to lower the amount of pressure required for cells to operate. The composite is able to maintain good contact with silicon particles in the anode — without the use of heavy metal plates. This is an impressive achievement: Silicon expands and contracts as a battery cell charges and discharges, which makes it particularly difficult for solid electrolytes to maintain contact.

A second challenge that Blue Current has overcome involves temperature. Because polymer electrolytes have low conductivity, many solid-state battery developers use heating elements to raise the temperature of the cells. While the heat improves the polymers’ conductivity, it requires energy, reducing the battery’s cost-effectiveness. As a result, this approach is not viable for many commercial applications. Today, the high conductivity of Blue Current’s composite electrolytes enables its cells to operate effectively at room temperature.

Solid-state battery developers often struggle to design cost-effective, large-scale manufacturing processes. For example, solid-state cells with lithium metal anodes require specialized manufacturing equipment to avoid formation of dendrites during battery operation. Dendrites are needle-like lithium structures that make batteries less safe and less durable.

Blue Current has overcome this barrier by selecting affordable, abundant silicon anode materials. Additionally, it has designed its components so that they can be processed with the same equipment used by high-volume, lithium-ion battery manufacturers today.

Blue Current’s cells have demonstrated excellent performance. As part of rigorous safety testing, the company subjected its cells to harsh conditions that EVs could encounter in the real world, including crushing, puncturing and overcharging. Thermal runaway — an overheating event in batteries that can lead to fires — never occurred.

“If you get rid of thermal runaway, you make the battery a lot safer,” said JCESR’s Crabtree. ​“This is especially important in EVs. The batteries are located under the passenger seats.”

In other recent tests, Blue Current’s cells retained 85% of their energy capacity after more than 1,000 charge-discharge cycles — the equivalent of driving hundreds of thousands of miles. It’s a promising sign that the cells will last a long time. According to an EV industry rule-of-thumb, 80% capacity retention is excellent.

The path forward

Blue Current is currently outfitting its Hayward pilot manufacturing plant with high-volume manufacturing equipment. When completed in 2023, the plant will have an annual production capacity of 1–2 megawatt-hours. Here, it will develop the specifications for manufacturing even higher volumes. ​“The plant is going to lay the groundwork for the next facility,” said Wujcik.

Blue Current also plans to remain focused on research and development. ​“We’re seeing the battery industry shifting towards the use of silicon anodes to improve the performance of both traditional lithium-ion batteries and next-generation, solid-state batteries,” said Wujcik. ​“Because the solid-state silicon field is still in an early stage, it’s essential for us to continue our efforts developing new materials.”

Indeed, Blue Current’s success with solid-state silicon batteries opens up a new field for researchers and other companies to explore. ​“There’s a lot of work that can be done in this space,” said Wujcik. ​“Researchers can investigate which solid electrolytes and silicon materials to use and how composite electrolytes stick to anode materials.”

Wujcik expressed appreciation for JCSER’s important role in Blue Current’s success.

“The idea of using composites in batteries was new and unproven prior to the JCESR program,” he said. ​“JCESR put resources behind composites because the materials had potential to address a market need for safe, solid-state batteries while solving important technical challenges. By proving these materials, JCESR made it a lot easier for us to move forward with the technology.”

The Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), a DOE Energy Innovation Hub, is a major partnership that integrates researchers from many disciplines to overcome critical scientific and technical barriers and create new breakthrough energy storage technology. Led by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, partners include national leaders in science and engineering from academia, the private sector, and national laboratories. Their combined expertise spans the full range of the technology-development pipeline from basic research to prototype development to product engineering to market delivery.

Argonne National Laboratory seeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology. The nation’s first national laboratory, Argonne conducts leading-edge basic and applied scientific research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne researchers work closely with researchers from hundreds of companies, universities, and federal, state and municipal agencies to help them solve their specific problems, advance America’s scientific leadership and prepare the nation for a better future. With employees from more than 60 nations, Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visit https://​ener​gy​.gov/​s​c​ience.

Researchers zoom in on battery wear and tear

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

3D side-by-side battery microscopy and model 

IMAGE: PME RESEARCHERS COLLECTED DATA ON HOW DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF A THICK LITHIUM ION BATTERY ELECTRODE EVOLVE AFTER SUCCESSIVE CYCLES (ONE SNAPSHOT OF THE MICROSCOPY DATA SHOWN ON THE LEFT). THEN, THEY USED THIS DATA TO CREATE A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL (RIGHT) ILLUSTRATING THE DEGRADATION AND POINTING TOWARD HOW TO IMPROVE THE LIFESPAN OF THE BATTERIES. view more 

CREDIT: IMAGE COURTESY OF THE LABORATORY FOR ENERGY STORAGE AND CONVERSION.

From the moment you first use it, a new lithium-ion battery is degrading. After a few hundred charge cycles, you’ll notice — your phone, laptop or electric car battery wears out more quickly. Eventually, it stops holding a charge at all. 

Researchers at the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) have now used a combination of high-powered electron microscopy and computational modeling to understand, at an atomic level, exactly what occurs when lithium-ion batteries degrade. Their research points toward one approach to designing longer-lasting lithium-ion batteries — by focusing on an oft-ignored structural component, the carbon binder domain (CBD).

“To tackle many of the world’s energy storage and conversion challenges over coming decades, we need to keep innovating and improving batteries,” said Prof. Y. Shirley Meng, who led the research, published in the journal Joule. “This work is one step toward more efficient and sustainable battery technology.”

Limited Charge Cycles

The widespread commercialization of lithium-ion batteries at the end of the twentieth century played a role in the advent of lightweight, rechargeable electronics. Lithium is the lightest metal and has a high energy density-to-weight ratio. When a lithium-ion battery is charged, lithium ions move from a positively charged cathode to a negatively charged anode. To release energy, those ions flow back from the anode to the cathode.

Throughout charging cycles, the active materials of the cathode and anode expand and contract, accumulating “particle cracks” and other physical damage. Over time, this makes lithium-ion batteries work less well.

Researchers have previously characterized the particle cracking and degradation that occurs in small, thin electrodes for lithium-ion batteries. However, thicker, more energy-dense electrodes are now being developed for larger batteries — with applications such as electric cars, trucks and airplanes.

“The kinetics of a thick electrode are quite different from those of a thin electrode,” said project scientist Minghao Zhang of the University of California San Diego, a co-first author of the new paper. “Degradation is actually much worse in thicker, higher-energy electrodes, which has been a struggle for the field.”

It’s also harder to quantitatively study thick electrodes, Zhang pointed out. The tools that previously worked to study thin electrodes can’t capture the structures of larger, denser materials.

Combining Microscopy and Modeling

In the new work, Meng, Zhang and collaborators from Thermo Fisher Scientific turned to Plasma focused ion beam-scanning electron microscopy (PFIB-SEM) to visualize the changes that occur inside a thick lithium-ion battery cathode. PFIB-SEM uses focused rays charged ions and electrons to assemble an ultra-high-resolution picture of a material’s three-dimensional structure.

The researchers used the imaging approach to collect data on a brand new cathode as well as one that had been charged and depleted 15 times. With the data from the electron microscopy experiments, the team built computational models illustrating the process of degradation in the batteries.

“This combination of nanoscale resolution experimental data and modeling is what allowed us to determine how the cathode degrades,” said PME postdoctoral research fellow Mehdi Chouchane, a co-first author of the paper. “Without the modeling, it would have been very hard to prove what was happening.”

The researchers discovered that variation between areas of the battery encouraged many of the structural changes. Electrolyte corrosion occurred more frequently with a thin layer at the surface of the cathode. This top layer therefore developed a thicker resistive layer, which led the bottom layer to expand and contract more than other parts of the cathode, leading to faster degradation.

The model also pointed toward the importance of CBD — a porous grid of fluoropolymer and carbon atoms that holds the active materials of an electrode together contribute and helps conduct electricity through the battery. Previous research has not characterized how the CBD degrades during battery use, but the new work suggested that the weakening of contacts between the CBD and active materials of the cathode directly to the decline in performance of lithium-ion batteries over time. 

“This change was even more obvious than the cracking of the active material, which is what many researchers have focused on in the past,” said Zhang.

Batteries of the Future

With their model of the cathode, Meng’s group studied how tweaks to the electrode design might impact its degradation. They showed that changing the CBD structure network could help prevent the worsening of contacts between the CBD and active materials, making batteries last longer — a hypothesis that engineers can now follow up with physical experiments.

The group is now using the same approach to study even thicker cathodes, as well as carrying out additional modeling on how to slow electrode degradation.

Said Dr. Zhao Liu, senior manager for battery market development at Thermo Fisher Scientific, who contributed to the research, “This study develops a methodology of how to design electrodes to enhance future battery performance.”

Media Tip: Scientists enhance recyclability of post-consumer plastic

Peer-Reviewed Publication

DOE/ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

What happened:

Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Institute for Cooperative Upcycling of Plastics (iCOUP) have developed a new method for recycling high-density polyethylene (HDPE).

Using a novel catalytic approach, scientists at DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory and Cornell University converted post-consumer HDPE plastic into a fully recyclable and potentially biodegradable material with the same mechanical and thermal properties of the starting single-use plastic.

Why it matters:

HDPE is ubiquitous in single-use applications because it is strong, flexible, long-lasting and inexpensive. But the ways we produce and dispose of HDPE pose serious threats to our own health and that of our planet.

Many HDPE products are produced from fossil fuels, and most post-consumer HDPE is either incinerated, dumped in landfills or lost in the environment. When it is recycled with current methods, the quality of the material degrades.

This new approach could reduce carbon emission and pollution associated with HDPE by using waste plastic as untapped feedstock and transforming it into a new material that can be recycled repeatedly without loss of quality.

The details:

Current HDPE recycling approaches yield materials with inferior properties. The team’s alternative approach uses a series of catalysts to cleave the polymer chains into shorter pieces that contain reactive groups at the ends. The smaller pieces can then be put back together to form new products of equal value. The end groups have the added benefit of making the new plastic easier to decompose, both in the lab and in nature.

paper on the results was published December 16 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

This work was supported as part of iCOUP, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the DOE Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences at Argonne and Ames Laboratory. This work made use of the NMR Facility at Cornell University, supported by the National Science Foundation.

Argonne National Laboratory seeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology. The nation’s first national laboratory, Argonne conducts leading-edge basic and applied scientific research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne researchers work closely with researchers from hundreds of companies, universities, and federal, state and municipal agencies to help them solve their specific problems, advance America’s scientific leadership and prepare the nation for a better future. With employees from more than 60 nations, Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visit https://​ener​gy​.gov/​s​c​ience.

Current Antarctic conservation efforts are insufficient to avoid biodiversity declines

Ten key management strategies could benefit up to 84% of plants and animals

Peer-Reviewed Publication

PLOS

Current Antarctic conservation efforts are insufficient to avoid biodiversity declines 

IMAGE: A LONE EMPEROR PENGUIN FLOATING ON AN ICEBERG FAR FROM ITS COLONY IN THE ANTARCTIC PENINSULA view more 

CREDIT: JASMINE LEE (CC-BY 4.0, HTTPS://CREATIVECOMMONS.ORG/LICENSES/BY/4.0/)

Existing conservation efforts are insufficient to protect Antarctic ecosystems, and population declines are likely for 65% of the continent’s plants and wildlife by the year 2100, according to a study by Jasmine Rachael Lee at the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues, publishing December 22nd in the open access journal PLOS Biology. Implementing ten key threat management strategies — at an annual cost of 23 million US dollars — would benefit up to 84% of terrestrial bird, mammal, and plant groups.

To better understand which species are most vulnerable and identify the most cost-effective actions, researchers combined expert assessments with scientific data to evaluate threats and conservation strategies for Antarctica. They asked 29 experts to define possible management strategies, estimate their cost and feasibility, and assess the potential benefit to different species between now and 2100.

Climate change was identified as the most serious threat to Antarctic biodiversity and influencing global policy to limit warming was the most beneficial conservation strategy. Under current management strategies and more than 2 degrees Celsius of warming, 65% of land plants and animals will decline by 2100. Emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) were identified as the most vulnerable, followed by other sea birds and soil nematode worms. However, regional management strategies could benefit up to 74% of plants and animals at an estimated cost of 1.92 billion US dollars over the next 83 years, equating to 0.004% of global GDP in 2019. The regional management strategies identified as offering the greatest return on investment were minimizing the impacts of human activities, improving the planning and management of new infrastructure projects, and improving transport management.

As Antarctica faces increasing pressure from climate change and human activities, a combination of regional and global conservation efforts is needed to preserve Antarctic biodiversity and ecosystem services for future generations, the authors say.

Lee adds, “What this work shows is that climate change is the greatest threat to Antarctic species and what we need is global mitigation efforts to save them. This will not only help to secure their future, but also our own.”

#####

In your coverage, please use this URL to provide access to the freely available paper in PLOS Biologyhttp://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001921

#####

In your coverage, please use this URL to provide access to the freely available paper in PLOS Biologyhttp://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001921

Citation: Lee JR, Terauds A, Carwardine J, Shaw JD, Fuller RA, Possingham HP, et al. (2022) Threat management priorities for conserving Antarctic biodiversity. PLoS Biol 20(12): e3001921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001921

Author Countries: Australia, United Kingdom, United States, South Africa, New Zealand, France, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium

Funding: see manuscript

Universities lag in capturing and using data to make institutional decisions

Reports and Proceedings

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (AAAS)

In a Policy Forum, Christine Borgman and Amy Brand argue that most universities lag behind industry, business, and government when it comes to leveraging data they generate for strategic decision-making and planning. Their view is informed by interviews with university leaders from 12 U.S. institutions. Interview questions addressed factors including participants' roles in considering how data is used in making key decisions, and the state of data infrastructure and management at their respective universities. Through their interviews, the authors note several common challenges universities face in capturing and exploiting institutional data. These include a lack of staff expertise in data management or governance and tension among stakeholders regarding data access, control, use and privacy. Investing in knowledge infrastructures, data management capacity, and transparent data sources could help address these challenges. “Even when their universities are ‘data rich,’ they also may be ‘data poor’ in that they are struggling to exploit data resources to their strategic advantage, or ‘data blind’ in being reluctant to initiate stakeholder discussions necessary to build consensus or governance,” write Borgman and Brand. “We encourage university leaders to embrace more objective and transparent data-informed models for decision-making.”

Inflation Reduction Act offers significant benefits for public health

New article by GW Law Professor Robert Glicksman in New England Journal of Medicine finds law uses novel tax incentives that will lead to improved public health


Peer-Reviewed Publication

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

WASHINGTON (Dec. 21, 2022)— In August President Joe Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant measure ever adopted by the U.S. Congress to combat climate change. While the Act’s measures to mitigate climate change have largely been the focus of attention, an analysis published today in the New England Journal of Medicine describes the significant benefits it offers to improve public health through the Act’s tax credits and other financial incentives.

“This law offers the United States a novel roadmap for mitigating climate change and improving public health,” Robert Glicksman, the J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of environmental law at George Washington University Law School, said. “At this juncture, the Inflation Reduction Act provides a more politically feasible foundation for efforts to abate climate change and reduce its public health effects than a cap-and-trade program or traditional regulatory approaches.”

The analysis, “Protecting the Public Health with the Inflation Reduction Act–Provisions Affecting Climate Change and its Health Effects,” was published Dec. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide and methane – are endangering public health and welfare,” Glicksman said. Yet these health risks are not evenly distributed, hitting socially vulnerable populations — people with low household income and members of historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups – the hardest.“ The same is true for the adverse health effects of other forms of pollution, including conventional air pollutants, such as particulate matter, and carcinogenic chemical contaminants. The Act also targets these forms of air pollution in an effort to reduce the adverse health effects for which they are responsible.

Previous congressional efforts to mitigate climate change would have relied on a combination of mandatory emission limits on greenhouse gases and the use of a cap-and-trade program. Those efforts never attracted sufficient political support to be viable, and would almost certainly not have done so now. Congress therefore chose to try something different in the Inflation Reduction Act. It relied instead on a combination of carrots, sticks, and direct federal investments to move the country’s industries away from greenhouse gas-generating activities towards those that are less polluting and dangerous.”

Glicksman said he believes using the Internal Revenue Code and federal infusions of money to shift the country to cleaner energy would likely be less vulnerable to legal challenge than more traditional forms of regulation. He pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision this year in West Virginia v. EPA, which restricted the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce GHG emissions from one of its largest source categories, electric generating plants.

“It’s possible that not every mechanism in the Act will yield all of the desired outcomes, but in a few years it should be possible to begin measuring the impacts of the new law to see if it’s doing what its sponsors hoped it would do,” Glicksman said. “The Inflation Reduction Act represents an encouraging effort by Congress to mitigate the broad array of negative consequences that result from climate change without triggering the reflexive opposition that tends to be directed at regulatory mechanisms. This bill isn’t just about slowing down the melting of ice to preserve Arctic ecosystems that are far away from most Americans’ daily concerns. The Inflation Reduction Act will also help reduce the extent to which the American people will suffer the increasingly serious adverse health effects that stem from climate change and its consequences, such as worsening ozone pollution and the spread of viral and other communicable diseases.”

-GW-

 

Conspiracy believers more likely to endorse mythical causes of cancer

Results suggest direct connection between digital misinformation and erroneous health decisions, say researchers

Peer-Reviewed Publication

BMJ

People who believe in conspiracies, reject the covid-19 vaccine, or prefer alternative medicine are more likely to endorse mythical causes of cancer than non-conspiracists but are less likely to endorse actual causes of cancer, finds a study in the Christmas issue of The BMJ. 

These findings highlight the difficulty that society faces in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes owing to the mass information on the news and social media platforms, say researchers.

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, yet up to half of diagnosed cancer is preventable through lifestyle changes and vaccination, such as human papillomavirus (HPV).

Misinformation about what causes cancer can lead to people refusing to adopt such preventive measures. But no data exist on vaccination scepticism or conspiracy beliefs in relation to beliefs about and attitudes to cancer prevention.

To examine this, researchers surveyed users of several popular online discussion platforms on their beliefs about cancer from January to March 2022.

They asked participants to provide information on their age, gender, country of birth, country of residence, education level, and whether their job was medical related. 

Questions on health habits and behaviours included a preference for conventional or alternative medicines, attitudes towards covid-19 vaccination, smoking status, alcohol consumption, weight and height, and personal history of cancer. 

Further questions assessed conspiracy beliefs (flat earth or reptilian theories) and beliefs about both actual and mythical (non-established) causes of cancer based on the validated Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM-Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses were recorded on a five point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Actual causes of cancer included smoking, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, HPV infection, and being overweight. 

Mythical causes included eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines and feeling stressed.

After excluding incomplete questionnaires, 1494 responders were included in the analysis. Of these, 209 were unvaccinated against covid-19, 112 preferred alternative rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported flat earth or reptilian beliefs.

Among all participants, awareness of causes of cancer was poor, although awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater (median CAM score 64%) than that of mythical causes (42%). 

The most endorsed actual causes of cancer were active and passive smoking, family history of cancer, and being overweight. The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives or sweeteners, feeling stressed, and eating genetically modified food.

Awareness of the actual and mythical causes of cancer among the unvaccinated, alternative medicine, and conspiracy groups was lower (average 55% and 19% for actual and mythical causes, respectively) than among their counterparts (average 64% actual and 42% mythical).  

Almost half (673; 45%) of the participants, whether conspiracists or not, agreed with the statement “It seems like everything causes cancer.” No significant differences in this outcome were seen among the unvaccinated (44%), conspiracist (42%), or alternative medicine groups (36%), compared with their counterparts (45%, 46%, and 46%, respectively).

These are observational findings and the researchers acknowledge that their results may have been affected by “troll” or fake responses, which could overestimate conclusions, but also may be prone to other biases that could underestimate conclusions. 

Nevertheless, they say this study is the first to show the possible patterns of beliefs about cancer among conspiracy believers and results on the overall endorsement of causes of cancer are mostly in line with previous studies.

The fact that almost half of the participants, regardless of other beliefs, agreed with the statement “It seems like everything causes cancer,” highlights the difficulty that society encounters in differentiating actual causes of cancer from mythical causes owing to mass (veridical or not) information, note the researchers.

“These results suggest a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer,” they conclude.