Bob Siederer
23 February 2026
Hello again Science Fans!
Let’s start with a little biological history. On this date in 1997, scientists in Scotland announced that they had successfully cloned a mammal for the first time. The animal was a sheep named Dolly, shown above with the embryologist who led the cloning research. Dolly was born on July 5, 1996, but public announcement wasn’t made until February 22, 1997. Dolly was cloned using a cell taken from a mammary gland of an adult sheep, and was named after country music singer Dolly Parton, proving the Scotts have a sense of humor. She went on to give birth to six normal lambs and was euthanized at the age of six due to lung disease unrelated to her cloning. Dolly’s preserved body is on exhibit at the National Museum of Scotland since 2003, the year of her death.
Looking forward a bit, you, or some student you know, might be interested in a short course being taught by the University of California Museum of Paleontology called “Life’s Six Great Ways of Being”. It is free and is being held at UC Berkeley on Saturday, March 7. See our listing here for details and to sign up.
Geology
Several earthquake swarms in San Ramon lately have residents on edge. So this might be a good time to learn about the Pioneer Fragment, a piece of an oceanic plate that disappeared under the North American Plate around 30 million years ago. This fragment is stuck to the floor of the Pacific Ocean and is now being dragged into the Mendocino Triple Junction, complicating earthquake understanding of the Cascadia subduction zone. This is where the San Andreas and Cascadia faults meet, an area with the potential to trigger substantial quakes offshore along the northern Pacific coast.
Just a few short weeks ago, Greenland was front and center in the news. The Administration threatened to take over Greenland. But why? It is the largest island on Earth, and has some of the richest stores of natural resources found anywhere, including lithium and rare earth elements, minerals, metals, oil, and gas. So basically the Administration wants these resources for the US, as a geology professor explains here. Apparently paying for these resources rather than taking them hasn’t entered into the thought process. The Administration has since backed down somewhat, saying we would not use military force to take Greenland, a theme you’ll see throughout this week’s summary of events.
Research and Health
We have COVID-19 vaccines due to mRNA technology. This technology has allowed fairly rapid updates to the vaccine as new varients are discovered. Moderna pioneered this technology, and it promises to revolutionize vaccines against other diseases, such as the flu.
Each year regulators decide which flu strains are most likely to be active in the upcoming flu season and manufacturers make flu vaccines for those strains. Some years the regulators guess correctly. This year’s flu seasons wasn’t one of those, so this year’s vaccine isn’t as effective as other recent ones. mRNA technology applied to the flu should produce a better, more easily adaptable vaccine, and Moderna and others have spent millions of dollars testing mRNA flu vaccines. Earlier this month, the Administration refused to look at Moderna’s application for review of the vaccine. After substantial public outcry, including from medical professionals, the Administration changed course, and agreed to review the application. Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the Secretary of Health and Human Serives, has been an outspoken critic of mRNA vaccines, and vaccines in general.
Then there’s the revoking of the finding that climate change is caused by humans, with subsequent fallout. Almost all environmental law is based on this statement, that human activity substantially contributes to our changing climate. And almost all pushback against this science comes from people with financial interest in the outcome, for it costs money to comply with these laws. Opponents claim that manufacturing products in a responsible way increases costs (it probably does) and that other countries that don’t follow these rules have a competitive advantage (they probably do). But what is the environment cost? Shortened lifespans? Illnesses and polution?
History is filled with complaints by corporations about regulations and their cost. One of the most significant changes to automobile technology in the last 50+ years is the catalytic converter, which uses platinum and other precious metals as catalysts to clean the exhaust from an internal combustion engine, reducing emissions significantly. When I was in my early 20s, the government held hearings where the automakers testified to the difficulty in meeting emission standards, the cost of research, the projected increase in the cost of an automobile should technologies be discovered, etc. One after another they came with the same story. It would cost too much, they couldn’t meet the deadlines, etc. Each of the manufacturers told a version of the same tale, until Chrysler’s representative testified. Next to him was someone from Englehard Industries. That individual held a catalytic converter in his lap. Instead of complaining, Chrysler simply said we’re going to use these. Problem solved, small incremental cost.
Englehard had created the first production catalytic converter in 1973, but the first ones were developed by Eugene Houdry, a French engineer, in the 1930s, and were used on gasoline-powered fork lifts indoors, among other things. One of Englehard’s engineers asked “would one of these converters work on a car?” and they set up a dynamometer to test the theory. Sure enough, the federal standards were met by the addition of a converter. Every major manufacturer ended up using this technology to meet emission standards.
My father was an executive with Englehard, so I heard the stories about this time directly from him. There was a Ford sedan parked outside corporate headquarters when it wasn’t on tour that had a mirror underneath so one could see the converter, and a logo painted on the doors, indicating this invention was present on the car. For more on the catalytic converter’s development and history, see Wikipedia.
I tell this story because of the recurring complaints of cost and difficulty related to environmental remediations. The longer a company can drag out the process, the longer they can continue to profit at the expense of our health. Now that the Administration has removed the climate finding, many of the environmental advances of the past 50 years can be challenged in court, rolled back, etc. because the underlying science has been declared moot, not by scientists, not replaced with some new theory, but simply because business wants it that way and the Administration went along.
As you might imagine, advocates for the existing legislation immediately sued the Administration over this declaration. I would expect injunctions to be issued preventing legal changes to existing laws while these challenges work their way through the courts, which will take a while.
I had quite a few more things to talk about today, but this is getting long, so here are some things to read, if you are so inclined:
- Methane spike during COVID-19 pandemic has a troubling explanation
- How America Got So Sick: The health of a nation reflects the health of a democracy
- Don’t trust the Experts? Why conflating authority with scientific consensus undermines evidence and enables pseudoscience: Jessica Knurick
- If the Volcanic Eruption Doesn’t Scare You, the Mudflow Should
- Health and Human Services Reverses Decision to Cut $2 Billion for Mental Health and Addiction Services (one day after sending out termination notices)
- A Lunar Eclipse is coming March 3 (click for an information sheet from Andrew Fraknoi)
Ukraine
This coming Tuesday marks the 4th year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Back in 2022, it was unimaginable that one country would invade another in Europe, yet it happened. Millions fled the country. Roughly 5.3 million remain abroad, unsure of their futures. Many EU countries with large Ukrainian refugee populations have told them that their protections will only last through March of 2027. These declarations were made when the US was pushing both sides to make peace, so they can always be changed, but right now, that’s the plan. Where will they go? There are 1.2 million Ukrainian refugees in Germany, and almost 1 million in Poland, the countries with the largest Ukrainian refugee populations. If they can’t qualify for some other sort of visa, what will happen to them?
My close friend and her daughter, now 6, continue safe in Germany, but are concerned for their future. The Uniting for Ukraine program, whereby US residents could sponsor Ukrainian refugees has been in limbo since last year. The process where we could apply to sponsor refugees has been halted since January, 2025. The refugee program itself hasn’t been halted, but if no one can apply to sponsor a refugee, and you can’t come here as a refugee without a sponsor, the program is effectivly shut down.
Former pets, left behind by fleeing Ukrainians, have changed to the surprise of researchers.
Слава Україні [Slave Ukrayini] Glory to Ukraine
Have a great week in Science!
Bob
Upcoming Events:
Click to see the next two weeks of events in your browser.