Most Recent Posts

Two Americans and a German will share the Nobel Prize in chemistry for developing a new type of microscopy that allows researchers, for the first time, to see individual molecules inside living cells.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded Americans Eric Betzig and William Moerner and German scientist Stefan Hell the prize for "the development of super-resolved fluorescence microscopy," which "has brought optical microscopy into the nanodimension."

Nobelprize.org says:

"For a long time optical microscopy was held back by a presumed limitation: that it would never obtain a better resolution than half the wavelength of light. Helped by fluorescent molecules the Nobel Laureates in Chemistry 2014 ingeniously circumvented this limitation. Their ground-breaking work has brought optical microscopy into the nanodimension.

"In what has become known as nanoscopy, scientists visualize the pathways of individual molecules inside living cells. They can see how molecules create synapses between nerve cells in the brain; they can track proteins involved in Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases as they aggregate; they follow individual proteins in fertilized eggs as these divide into embryos."

YouTube/YouTube

The academy says it is awarding the prize for two distinct principles. Simulated emission depletion (STED) microscopy, which uses a laser to stimulate fluorescent molecules to glow and another laser to filter out all but a small portion of the result, allowing incredibly fine resolution. That research was carried out by Hell.

Working separately, Betzig and Moerner are credited with developing single-molecule microscopy, a "method [that] relies upon the possibility to turn the fluorescence of individual molecules on and off. Scientists image the same area multiple times, letting just a few interspersed molecules glow each time," according to Nobelprize.org.

Betzig is a group leader at Janelia Farm Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Va., and Moerner is the Harry S. Mosher Professor in Chemistry and professor, by courtesy, of applied physics at Stanford University.

Hell is the director at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Gottingen, and division head at the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, Germany.

Nobel Prize in chemistry

Ben Hamilton walks down the salad dressing aisle at his neighborhood grocery store in west Denver. The human resources consultant usually seeks out organic options and scans nutrition information.

"I am a label reader. I think a lot of people read labels and really are curious to know what is in our food supply," he says. But Hamilton says he wants more information, specifically whether the food he buys includes ingredients derived from genetically modified crops, or GMOs.

Voters in Colorado and Oregon will decide this fall whether or not they want labels on foods containing genetically modified ingredients. The ballot measures this fall highlight a much larger national conversation about requiring labels on genetically modified foods.

Similar measures failed in recent years in California and Washington state, and Vermont is being sued for the labeling law it enacted earlier this year.

The Salt

Bracing For A Battle, Vermont Passes GMO Labeling Bill

Earlier this summer, Hamilton sat on a citizen review panel and heard from both sides of the labeling debate. The panel voted 11 to 9 in favor of labels.

The Salt

Washington State Says 'No' To GMO Labels

"I think this boils down to a consumer's right to know," says Hamilton. "So it's not to debate whether GMOs are safe or they're good for you or bad for you. But it is about a right to know what's in our food supply."

Hamilton's yes vote is right in line with some consumer groups, which say GMOs come with too many unanswered questions.

Oregon voters also will be voting on GMO labeling in this election. As in Colorado, there was a similar citizen review panel. Ernest Estes, a Portland lawyer who sat on that panel, has his doubts.

"I'm not convinced we need it at this point," Estes says. "And I'm not sure that it does much for Oregonians."

The Salt

Why The 'Non-GMO' Label Is Organic's Frenemy

13.7: Cosmos And Culture

GMOs And The Dilemma Of Bias

Estes wasn't alone in that sentiment. The citizen panel in Oregon also voted 11 to 9, but in the opposite direction as the Colorado panel. They turned down the labeling proposal.

"If there is little or no risk to the public, I'm not sure that the government should be in the role of requiring things like this," Estes says.

Researchers so far have found no adverse health effects from eating genetically modified foods, findings supported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization.

Many scientists worry labels could confuse consumers, especially given the proposals' exemptions. The meat or milk from a cow that had been fed GMO corn and hay wouldn't be labeled. Neither would chewing gum, alcohol or pet food.

Larry Cooper, leader of Colorado Right To Know, says the proposal had to be narrowly written.

"We had to be very careful what subjects we put in the ballot. Yes, we've eliminated some specific areas, but certainly they can be added later," says Cooper.

The Salt

When China Spurns GMO Corn Imports, American Farmers Lose Billions

Some Food Companies Are Quietly Dumping GMO Ingredients

But even with narrower language, if the proposals pass, lawsuits are likely inevitable.

"When you're compelling a business to say something, or a producer to say something, there has to be some governmental interest. There has to be a substantial government interest," says Justin Marceau, a law professor at the University of Denver.

"Why do we need this information? If it's idle curiosity, that we're all just really curious about what's in our food, that might not be good enough. If it is [that] GMOs are harmful? Well that's a different matter," he says.

Farmer Paul Schlagel grows genetically engineered — or GE — sugar beets outside Longmont, Colo. The sweet-tasting beets are turned into granulated sugar at a nearby plant. "Once it's processed," he says, "there's no GE material in the sugar" because there's no DNA or protein left in the final sugar product.

"The sugar is identical to conventionally grown sugar, sugar cane, even organic sugar," Schlagel says.

Despite that, if the Colorado's Proposition 105 passes, the sugar that's grown on Schlagel's farm will bear a label saying it was genetically modified.

"It's misleading. Prop 105 is — is a mistake, and I think, hopefully, the consumers can figure that out," says Schlagel.

Regardless of the outcomes in Colorado and Oregon in November, with more states taking up the issue, the national debate about GMO labeling is far from over.

GMO labeling

GMOs

Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET

Here's a roundup of the latest developments on Ebola. We'll update this post as news happens.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest confirmed that the U.S. will conduct additional screenings of passengers arriving from the Ebola-infected region of West Africa. JFK, Newark, Chicago O'Hare, Dulles and Atlanta's Hartsfield airports will implement measures that would affect about 150 passengers a day.

The World Health Organization today also updated its Ebola figures, reporting a total of 8,033 cases and 3,879 deaths from the disease in West Africa.

In Spain, Teresa Romero Ramos, the nurse who was admitted to a hospital in Madrid after caring for an infected priest who'd returned from West Africa, reportedly told health authorities three times that she had a fever before she was placed in quarantine.

There were also reports that she may have become infected by touching gloves to her face while she was removing a protective suit she wore while caring for an Ebola patient.

Her dog, Excalibur, was euthanized, reportedly inside the apartment she lived in with her husband. The dog's body was then transported to an incinerator, reporter Lauren Frayer tells NPR's Goats and Soda blog.

Earlier, The Guardian reported:

"In a note distributed on social media by several animal protection organisations, Javier Limn Romero said health officials had asked for his consent to put down the dog Exclibur.

" 'I said no. And they told me that they would ask for a court order to enter my house and put him down,' Romero said in the note.

"The appeal was sent from Limn Romero's isolation ward in the Carlos III Hospital where his wife, Teresa Romero Ramos, is also in quarantine."

i i

This is an undated image released Wednesday by animal rights organization PACMA of a dog named Excalibur who is owned by Javier Limon and his wife, a nurse who was infected with Ebola in Madrid. Authorities said they planned to euthanize the dog as a precaution. AP hide caption

itoggle caption AP

This is an undated image released Wednesday by animal rights organization PACMA of a dog named Excalibur who is owned by Javier Limon and his wife, a nurse who was infected with Ebola in Madrid. Authorities said they planned to euthanize the dog as a precaution.

AP

A social media campaign to save the dog had been running with the Twitter hashtag #excalibur.

The Guardian newspaper cited the Spanish paper El Pais as saying that the nurse first contacted health authorities on Sept. 30. The Guardian writes:

" ... she complained of a slight fever and fatigue. Romero Ramos called a specialised service dedicated to occupational risk at the Carlos III hospital where she worked and had treated an Ebola patient, said Antonio Alemany from the regional government of Madrid. But as the nurse's fever had not reached 38.6C, she was advised to visit her local clinic where she was reportedly prescribed paracetamol [aspirin].

"Days later, according to the El Pas newspaper, Romero Ramos called the hospital again to complain about her fever. No action was taken.

"On Monday, she called the Carlos III hospital again, this time saying she felt terrible. Rather than transport her to the hospital that had treated the two missionaries who had been repatriated with Ebola, Romero Ramos was instructed to call emergency services and head to the hospital closest to her home. She was transported to the Alcorcn hospital by paramedics who were not wearing protective gear, El Pas reported."

Reuters quotes Spanish health authorities as saying today that another person being monitored in Madrid for Ebola had tested negative for the disease:

i i

Hospital workers attend a prayer vigil outside Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital on Tuesday. LM Otero/AP hide caption

itoggle caption LM Otero/AP

Hospital workers attend a prayer vigil outside Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital on Tuesday.

LM Otero/AP

"The man, a Spaniard who had travelled from Nigeria, was one of several people hospitalised after authorities confirmed on Monday that a Spanish nurse had caught the disease in Madrid.

"A second nurse was also cleared of Ebola. A third nursing assistant was hospitalised late on Tuesday for monitoring, a source at La Paz hospital said — bringing the number of people examined in hospital for Ebola to five, two of whom tested negative."

The chief medical officer at La Paz University Hospital, Dr. German Ramirez, was quoted in El Mundo as saying that Romero contracted Ebola when she touched her face with gloves she had used in the room where she was treating Manuel Garcia Viejo, a priest who had worked in Liberia. Viejo later died from the disease.

In Dallas, as we reported in another post, Thomas Eric Duncan, the man who traveled from Liberia and was the first person diagnosed with the disease in the U.S., has died at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital.

Hospital officials say Duncan "succumbed to an insidious disease, Ebola," this morning.

In a statement, the hospital said: "He fought courageously in this battle. Our professionals, the doctors and nurses in the unit, as well as the entire Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas community, are also grieving his passing. We have offered the family our support and condolences at this difficult time."

Health officials are still watching a group of people who had contact with Duncan after he developed symptoms of the disease but before he was placed in isolation at the hospital.

Duncan first sought hospital care on Sept. 26 and was admitted on Sept. 28. Before his hospitalization, 10 of the 48 people being monitored had close contact with him and are being most closely watched. Since the first symptoms of the disease can begin in eight to 10 days after exposure, "this is a very critical week," said Dr. David Lakey, the Texas health commissioner. "We're at a very sensitive period when a contact could develop symptoms. We're monitoring with extreme vigilance."

In Omaha, Neb., a freelance cameraman, Ashoka Mukpo, who contracted Ebola in West Africa and is being treated at Nebraska Medical Center, will reportedly receive blood donated by Dr. Kent Brantly, who earlier survived the disease. Antibodies against Ebola in Brantly's blood could help Mukpo fight off the infection, officials say.

In Freetown, Sierra Leone, burial teams reportedly refused to collect bodies of Ebola victims in the capital and went on strike, apparently demanding more money, though officials there told The Associated Press that the situation has been "resolved."

The AP says: "In neighboring Liberia, health workers said they planned to strike if their demands for more money and safety equipment were not met by the end of the week."

And in Geneva, as NPR's Marilyn Geewax reports, the World Bank issued an estimate of the projected cost of the Ebola outbreak, saying it could reach $32.6 billion by the end of 2015 if the virus spreads significantly beyond worst-hit West Africa.

"The enormous economic cost of the current outbreak to the affected countries and the world could have been avoided by prudent ongoing investment in health systems-strengthening," World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said in a statement.

Sierra Leone

ebola

World Bank

Liberia

Spain

The Two-Way

Sen. Warren: We Need Regulators Who 'Work For The American People'

NPR's Steve Inskeep interviewed Sen. Elizabeth Warren about the audio tapes made by Carmen Segarra, a Federal Reserve Bank of New York investigator who was examining Goldman Sachs. A full transcript of the interview follows:

STEVE INSKEEP: You described what you learned from this report as disturbing. What's disturbing about it?

ELIZABETH WARREN: Well, ultimately this report tells us exactly what we already knew — that the relationship between regulators and the financial institutions they oversee is too cozy to provide the kind of tough oversight that's really needed.

Business

Former Fed Bank Examiner Says Secret Tapes Show Fed Leniency

How is it too cozy? Because of course we hear the regulators on these tapes saying: "There's a reason that we're trying to have good relationships with banks like Goldman Sachs — we want to know what's going on, we want to get information."

Oh, golly. So, look — listen, though, to those tapes. For me, there were two things that jumped out. The first was just a basic lack of truthful reporting: Supervisors are actually telling examiners not to report accurately the damning things they heard from bank executives during meetings. I mean, wow. If there's not even an accurate record of what's going on, then the regulators can't hope to do their jobs.

And the second thing: Look at how the Fed emphasized talk instead of action. You know, the regulators seemed to think that it was a victory just to raise an issue, even if they took absolutely no action to address the issue. And that's the kind of approach that allowed banks to take on massive risks before the financial crisis.

You know, think about that: The regulators seemed to think that fussing at banks behind closed doors was their toughest sanction. Does anyone believe that Goldman Sachs is gonna give up a deal that would yield millions of dollars because someone fussed at them behind closed doors?

The regulators described this particular deal — that was reported on in great detail on the tapes — as a transaction that was legal but shady. Uh, it did seem to be within the rules. Does that call for a proper — does that suggest a problem with regulators or the rules?

You know, for me it starts as a problem with the regulators — and let me describe it this way: You know, the cultural problem isn't just some secondary concern. It's the whole ballgame.

We can keep making the rules tougher and tougher, but it won't make an ounce of difference if the regulators won't enforce the rules that are there. If the regulators back down or back off whenever the banks tell them to, then it's the banks — and not the regulators — who are running the show —

Now you mention —

— and I think — yeah, go ahead.

Now you mentioned a cultural problem, Sen. Warren. Of course, way back in 2009, five years ago now, there was a report commissioned by the Fed that identified this cultural problem: a reluctance to speak up and a suggestion of a too-close relationship with the banks.

But what can you really do about that, given that you need to have regulators who, perhaps, have experience in the financial industry, and are going to get to know the financial industry and the people in it really well?

Well, you know, the first thing we can do is expose it. I mean, that's where this really starts — that's the first step. And that's why it is I want to see oversight hearings — I want to get a complete picture of what's happened here. ...

But we need to move on this and move quickly, because the big banks are just getting bigger, and they're taking on new kinds of risks. We need regulators who understand that they work for the American people, not for the big banks.

Carmen Segarra, the woman who made these tapes — and who was fired from the Fed — sued, and her lawsuit was thrown out. One way to describe the reason it was thrown is simply that the whistleblower statutes did not apply to her — she had not exposed a violation of regulations, she had exposed something short of that that was troubling to her.

Do you think the whistleblower statutes should be expanded in some way?

Yeah, I think that's one of the things that ought to be on the table. I mean, look — we need to look at whether or not we've got the right tools to protect the kind of people who will speak up. But, but what we've got to start with is we've got to expose what happened here, we've got to look at what the available tools are, but we've got to give the message loud and clear to the Fed: Um, this isn't gonna work — you work for the American people, you don't work for the big banks.

I should mention that these allegations have been around for a while — Carmen Segarra's story has been known for a while. What is new here is the tapes. Was there something, just from the tone — from listening to the tapes — that you learned that you did not know before?

You know, there is something about listening to those tapes, and hearing someone say "no, no!" you know, "back up!" almost — almost a whiny tone about the, the fact that she feels pretty strongly that Goldman is not in compliance with the requirements of the law. And I'm ...

That's the part, when you hear the tape, there's no more "he said, she said," one person describes it this way and another says no. It's that you really do, for a moment, get to be the fly on the wall that watches all of it, and there it is to be exposed to everyone: the cozy relationship, the fact that the Fed is more concerned about its relationship with a too-big-to-fail bank than it is with protecting the American public.

I suppose if a Goldman official was sitting here, they might point out Goldman was complying with the law — at least according to some of the regulators — and the problem was whether they were doing something that was around the edges of the law, so to speak.

Yeah, but this is partly the role of a regulator. A regulator doesn't say to a big financial institution: "Hey! Step right up here. Get your toes on the line, and so long as you can make a legal argument that you have not crossed the line, then, hey, we're — we're all cool here."

That's not the way regulation of large financial institutions is supposed to work — they're supposed to be using judgment. And remember, part of this judgment is about whether or not there has been compliance with the law. The fact that Goldman could mount a legal defense here is not really the point of these tapes. The point of these tapes is that the regulators are backing off long before anyone's in court making a legal argument about whether or not they came right up to the line or they crossed over the line.

Do you think regulators in a situation like that could say, "Listen, this may be legal, but I don't like it — don't do it"?

You know, I think what regulators can do, is they can remind these large financial institutions that there's a lot of room in there for the large financial institutions to get themselves into trouble and to get the entire economy into trouble.

I mean, look, that's what happened in 2008 — the regulators stood by as the big financial institutions kept loading up on more and more and more risk. The regulators had the tools to say to the big financial institutions, "Hey, guys, you gotta back off — you're putting the whole system at risk when you do this." And yet the regulators didn't do that. They were willfully blind to what went on.

And what we're seeing here is that same kind of cozy relationship, as the big financial institutions continue to run their operations, taking on more risk, doing what they want to do and brushing their regulators aside.

Sen. Warren, this is, uh, something that you're clearly passionate about, but it's a complicated issue — bank regulation. What would have to happen for it to be a major campaign issue this fall or in 2016?

You know, I think it already is a campaign issue. The way I see this, for everybody who's running right now in 2014, there's a fundamental question of whose side you stand on.

You know, the game out there is rigged, and people across this country really get it. And the Goldman Sachs tapes just show it one more time. Little banks have to follow the rules, regular families have to follow the rules, but big financial institutions? Somehow they can manage just to push their regulators aside and go forward.

There's a — there's a fundamental question about who this country works for. It can't just work for those who already have lots of money and lots of power. We've got to have a country that works for everybody else.

Should Hillary Clinton address this issue forcefully?

You know, I'd like to see everybody address this issue forcefully. I think it is a very important question, and I'm — I wanna see everybody in on it. Both parties — I think we all should be there.

Do you think that — do you think that your party is going to be able to make an issue of this in the general election coming up in a couple of years?

You know, I'm gonna keep talking about it, and I think there are a lot of people in the Democratic Party who will do the same.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, thanks very much.

Thank you.

New York Federal Reserve

Goldman Sachs

financial regulation

Elizabeth Warren