【推荐2】The atmospheric level of carbon dioxide (CO₂)—a gas that is great at trapping heat, contributing to climate change—is almost double what it was prior to the Industrial Revolution. This presents a challenge to researchers attempting to design artificial trees or other methods of capturing (捕获) carbon dioxide directly from the air. That challenge is one a Sandia National Laboratories-led team is trying to solve.

Led by Sandia chemical engineer Tuan Ho, the team has been working on a project using powerful computer models combined with laboratory experiments to study how a kind of clay can take in carbon dioxide and store it. “These fundamental findings have potential for direct-air capture; that is what we’re working toward,” said Ho. “Clay is really inexpensive and rich in nature, which should allow us to reduce the cost of direct-air carbon capture significantly, if this high-risk, high-reward project ultimately leads to a technology. What’s more, it can be used like sponges (海绵) to absorb carbon dioxide, and then the gas will be ‘squeezed’ out of and pumped deep underground.”

Carbon capture and storage is the process of capturing extra carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere and storing it deep underground with the aim of reducing the impacts of climate change such as more frequent severe storms, rising sea levels and increased droughts and wildfires. This carbon dioxide could be captured from fossil-fuel-burning power plants, or other industrial facilities or directly from the air, which is more technologically challenging. Carbon capture and storage is widely considered one of the least controversial technologies, to deal with climate change.

“We would like low-cost energy, without ruining the environment,” said Susan Rempe, a Sandia bioengineer on the project. “Direct-air carbon capture is important for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. We can live in a way that doesn’t produce as much carbon dioxide, but unfortunately, we can’t control what our neighbors do.”

【推荐1】Training monkeys to pick coconuts(椰子)is a 400-year-old practice in Thailand. Monkeys are superpickers, naturally at home in the tall coconut trees. Males can harvest over 1,000 coconuts a day, females around 600. Humans, on the other hand, are super-slow in the treetops, with a mere 80 coconuts a day to their name. However, it could be argued that monkeys are being exploited(剥削)to meet growing consumer demand for coconut products.

Throughout history, humans have used animal labor to increase productivity or make tasks more manageable. From horses pulling ploughs in the English countryside, donkeys carrying luggage on South American treks, drugsniffer dogs in the US to guide dogs literally everywhere—all of those animals were specifically raised and trained to do their “jobs”.

Perhaps what upsets people about monkeys picking coconuts is that monkeys are so much like us. We share 93% of our DNA with macaques(猕猴). We share many of their behavioral traits. So when we read about them being “abused” or “exploited”, we perhaps feel more strongly about the issue than we do about, say, parrots riding bicycles to entertain tourists in Spain.

According to Operation Blankets of Love(OBOL), a leading animal welfare organization in California, macaques are snatched from the wild as babies and chained up or stuck in cages, which makes them extremely stressed. They’re forced to pick coconuts for human gain and denied (拒绝给予)companionship, mental stimulation and basic freedom.

However, it’s important to note there is no concrete evidence of “baby-snatching” or mistreatment. It could even be argued that the process of training is mentally stimulating, which, being intelligent animals, the macaques would enjoy. Furthermore, coconut farmers insist the monkeys aren’t abused or exploited. They say the monkeys are treated like family pets: loved and cared for, fed and watered, bathed and decorated.

Ethical(伦理的)living can be a minefield in the modern age. But if we stick to the facts and live true to our individual values, we can’t go wrong.

【推荐2】In the wake of the banning of white coats for doctors, Dr. Max explorers whether the rule makes sense.

White coats, replaced by plastic aprons, were banned, along with things like ties, because it was claimed that they were an infection risk, often covered with organic matter. Many doctors have felt offended by this — not because they are being required to observe rules, but because the rules make no sense.

In fact, it’s actually a dangerous policy because it mists the real problems faced when tackling hospital-acquired infections. Along with hand washing, the only other variable that has been consistently shown to be relevant to hospital-acquired infections are bed occupancy rates. Put simply, the quicker the turnaround in hospitals and the more pressure there are on beds, the more infections there are.

Rather than look critically at the current model for the NHS (National Health Service), which is all about cutting beds, and realizing that this is directly contributing to hospital infections, it’s far easier to look to the innocent white coat and ban that instead.

By banning white coats and ties, doctors now don’t look “smart” and have lost their “presence” in hospitals. Most frustratingly for doctors, who are encouraged to practice evidence-based medicine, there’s no clear evidence that white coats actually carry any disease-causing bugs. A review commissioned by the Department of Health (DH) found that most of the bugs that were found on white coats were simply from the doctor’s skin and would be on any item of clothing they wore — and didn’t cause disease anyway.

The fact that the white coats don’t spread disease is borne out not just by studies, but in practice too. In Hong Kong, for example, where white coats are still standard uniform for all doctors, the rates of hospital acquired infection are still considerably lower than UK hospitals. In fact, in other European countries where white coats are worn, the infection rates are also lower than the UK.

The case against white coats was shallow and fueled by politics not evidence. Surely, it’s time doctors rose up and put on their white coats once more.