How Far Are We From Star Trek "Replicator" Technology?

Source: Memory-Alpha

The Star Trek franchise has generated millions of fans the inception decades ago.  With those millions of fans, comes endless discussions about past, present, and future happenings of the franchise and the employees (producers, actors, writers, etc.).  In the post below, a short video (less than 8 minutes in length) is shown to give the readers and sense of the state of technology in the past decade toward making an actual "Replicator".  Enjoy!



As many of you may know, there is a large group of people who consider themselves "Trekkies" -- avid fans of the Star Trek enterprise.  My wife - Kayla is a "Trekkie" which for those who are unaware of the term is described by the 'Wikipedia' page for "Trekkie" below:

A Trekkie or Trekker is a fan of the Star Trek franchise, or of specific television series or films within that franchise.

The description seems rather ambiguous in some sense.
Are we there yet?  How close is technology to the development of a Star Trek Replicator?


A few years ago -- back in 2014 -- Prof. Neil Gershenfeld described in a short video the state of technology and the 'parallel steps' needed to achieve this goal as shown below:

Wow. The fans of Star Trek might disagree on the actual timeline for completing a true "Replicator" Professor Neil Gershenfeld.  Although, as highlighted in the video above, the necessary steps toward producing the technology to make a "Replicator" involve changing (slightly) the way manufacturing is done today.  I would be interested in hearing Professor Neil Gershenfield's current thoughts on the timeline today in 2018.  The video above was made in 2012. 


Has the timeline improved or slowed down based on our current technological progress?  


How about the momentum from the political side in changing the timeline?  


What steps have the current Administration taken to support producing technology to make a "Replicator" in the near future?



The Star Trek Replicator has been compared to a '3D Printer' in today's technology as shown in the picture below - taken from the "Wikipedia" page:

Source: Shisma

With a description from the "Wikipedia" page for Star Trek Replicator shown below:

Although previous sci-fi writers had speculated about the development of "replicating" or "duplicating" technology,[1] the term "replicator" was not itself used until Star Trek: The Next Generation. In simple terms, it was described as a 24th century advancement from the 23rd century "food synthesizer" seen in Star Trek: The Original Series. In Star Trek the original series food was created in various colored cubes. In the animated series (1974), various types of realistic looking food could be requested as in the episode entitled "The Practical Joker". The mechanics of these devices were never clearly explained on that show. The subsequent prequel series, Star Trek: Enterprise, set in the 22nd century, featured a "protein resequencer" that could only "replicate certain foods," so an actual chef served on board who used "a hydroponic greenhouse" where fruits and vegetables were grown. Additionally, that ship had a "bio-matter resequencer" which was used to recycle waste product into usable material.[2]

According to an academic thesis: "The so-called 'replicators' can reconstitute matter and produce everything that is needed out of pure energy, no matter whether food, medicaments, or spare parts are required."[3] A replicator can create any inanimate matter, as long as the desired molecular structure is on file, but it cannot create antimatter, dilithium, latinum, or a living organism of any kind; in the case of living organisms, non-canon works such as the Star Trek: the Next Generation Technical Manual state that, though the replicators use a form of transporter technology, it's at such a low resolution that creating living tissue is a physical impossibility.

In its theory it seems to work similarly to a universal assembler.[citation needed]

In order to realize a true "Replicator" -- the necessary steps outlined by Professor Neil Gershenfeld will have to be taken.  The timeline behind completing those steps are debatable and constantly changing.  New code will have to be written to guide manufacturing.  As a result, the benefits to society overall will be realized whether directly tied to the project of creating a "Replicator" or not.  Just as many adventures (research funded projects) result in improvement to society overall, the effort toward realizing this will differ no less.  Not to mention, our understanding (as a society) of the challenges and understanding will greatly improve in the process.  Nonetheless, the future is super exciting....stay tuned.



Related Blog Posts:


Example Of Tesla's Self Driving Car Feature - Video - Amazing!

Parameters: 3D Printed Human Hearts?


Parameters: Can Computers Think?


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Teachers, Parents -- Students need to learn how to write and mail a physical letter

Source: ExpoCarInfo

The other day, I was walking through campus on my way to work out at the gym.  As I passed a group (of three) male students talking with one another, I could not help but over hear the following conversation - which blew my mind:


Student 1: I did not realize that you could actually write a letter and send the letter through the mail system to another person...I had to learn how to write the address in the correct place on the envelope.  That is the address of the place that you want to send the letter to.  I had to learn how to figure out how many stamps to put on the envelope to send the letter.



Wow.  Really?


With the technological change of the internet coming into mainstream use along with 'smart devices', the ability to perform what was once considered 'normal tasks' are now outsourced to these devices.  Which is supposed to make our lives easier, but does it?  What happens when the power fails?  What happens when there are no useful 'electrons' emerging from the 'wall socket' to charge your phone/device?  What then? 


Generation Z is the new generation which spans youth to early college years.  We (older people like myself and my elders) forget that the new generation probably doesn't even know about the terrible disaster of 9/11 - the terrible attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  I find myself having to remind myself that my clients (students - undergraduates and Master's students) are likely to have missed the milestone events such as 9/11.  What a revelation it is to realize that a portion of the population does not know about the historical day that America was most vulnerable to attack?



With that being said, what other events/historical practices have gone unnoticed is an area of inquiry.  I guess that in order to understand if the student or youth know what you are talking about, we just have to ask questions like the following:


1) Do you know what a record player is? How about a record?

2) How about a tape upon which music is recorded?

3) How about a Compact Disc player?

4) Do you know how to write a check?

5) Do you know what a 'pager' is?

6) Do you know how to use a fax machine?

7) Do you know how to manually roll up a car window?

8) Do you know how to write a receipt to a customer?

9) Do you know how to perform long/short math in your head?  Without a calculator?

10) Do you know how to send money through a wire transfer?  How about purchasing a "cashier's check"? 

11) Do you balance a check book?

12) How many phone numbers do you have memorized?  Do you memorize phone numbers anymore?

13) Do you have a "land line" or "rotary phone" at home?  Have you ever used one?

14) Do you know how to use a 'pay phone'?

15) Do you know how to use an 'ATM'?

16) When was the last time that you went inside the bank to conduct business -- i.e. withdrawl/deposit/manage accounts?



Questions like those above will give the reader an idea of the type of person that he/she is dealing with.  Unfortunately, each of us probably assume that younger generations have this historical knowledge - either from experience (direct or indirect) or have been taught at some time in their previous years of life.



Conclusion....


The realization is that each of us need to be receptive that younger generations are not used to using old technology.  Further, there are some methods of conducting business which the youth of today will have absolutely no idea of how to operate or enjoy.  Writing a letter is a basic skill that each of us take for granted -- evidently.  In the future, these disparities will become greater and possibly present a problem.  Although, recently, a post office was planning to shut down in our neighborhood.  Maybe using these skills will be an experience/skill of the past.


Related Blog Posts:


If Technology Fails, Use Basic Math Skills - Count Manually!!

What Is Dimensional Analysis?

Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Parameters: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Needed In Health Research

Source: Race and Ethnicity 2016

Are all humans the same?  The "same" in what way?  Let me rephrase my question: Do all humans respond the same way toward a given medical treatment? Based on historical accounts, the answer is a big NO.  Over the last few decades, medical research has advanced to a large extent.  Although, just now, researchers are realizing that differences in race, ethnicity, and gender play a greater role in treating diseases encountered in medicine.  This is quite surprising to me to say the least.



Recently, on the National Institutes of Health blog, a blog post appeared titled "Communicating the Value of Race and Ethnicity in Research" authored by Dr. Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, M.D., Director, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities.  He writes of the importance of the inclusion of research on different races, ethnicities, along with women.

Until recently, researchers assumed that what they learned about White male participants could be safely applied to anybody, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or other variables. We now know that this isn’t true. When you’re communicating about research results, it’s vital not only to explain how a study was done, but who was being studied.

Unfortunately, racial and ethnic minorities experience more preventable diseases and poorer health outcomes—referred to as “health disparities (link is external)”—yet they are not included in research studies as often as White people are. This is true even though researchers who get NIH funding have been required since 1993 to report race, ethnicity, and gender of participants in their biomedical research. African Americans and Latinos make up 30% of the U.S. population but account for less than 10% of participants in genetic studies.  

We know now that when it comes to medical research, there is no standard or average human. No single group can truly represent us all. In fact, many differences have already been identified.

The FDA has approved drugs which were proven to be safe and effective for overwhelmingly White study participants. However, we found out later that these drugs do not necessarily work the same for minority populations. For example, clopidogrel, an anti-platelet drug, is no better than a placebo for 75% of Pacific Islanders who take it. The most common asthma-controlling medications were approved by the FDA based on how they performed in studies that included mostly White people. But later studies showed that they often don’t work as well for Puerto Ricans and African Americans, who have the highest rate and greatest severity of asthma. Carbamazepine, a drug used to treat seizures and nerve pain, is more likely to cause Stevens-Johnson syndrome in Asians than in other racial groups.

Despite the growing evidence that race and ethnicity play an important role in the risks for many diseases and responses to environmental exposures, my fellow researchers and I still devote much of our time to explaining why scientists should include more racial and ethnic minorities in their studies. Clinical research has the potential to help advance health for everyone. But for that to work, it must include people from all groups.

Clinical trials of diabetes medication should include Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans—populations with high rates of diabetes. Prostate cancer trials would be remiss if they fail to enroll African American men, who are twice as likely as White men to be affected by and die from the disease.

Many studies do show differences in health outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. When we interpret these studies, we should also consider the underlying factors causing those discrepancies. At NIH’s National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD), we sponsor many researchers who study the various factors that influence health.

The easiest reaction to a study finding a health difference between, say, African Americans and White Americans might be to think the difference is due to something biological related to race. Sometimes there is a genetic element; for example, people of African descent are more likely to have high blood pressure and lung cancer (link is external). But we know that the health disparities experienced by minority populations can have many other causes. People of different races and ethnicities often grow up in different cultural environments, with diverse diets and health practices. Economic opportunity is not evenly distributed among all races, and different populations have unique histories that can contribute to health differences today. We can’t work to reduce these disparities if we don’t understand the mechanisms underlying them. To do that, our scientific research must include those groups that have historically been excluded or underrepresented.

The inclusion of minorities affects more than minority health and health disparities. It is also a question of social justice—and of good science. To be truly thorough and meaningful, our clinical studies must include diverse populations.

When you write about a study, consider who is included. Did ethnic and racial minorities participate in the study? If not, why not? If the study population is overwhelmingly White, you should be skeptical. If the researchers found differences between people of different populations, did they consider all the reasons why such differences can occur, or just jump to a conclusion that it must be because the races are biologically different? By asking these questions, we can help improve clinical research and ultimately help end health disparities.

I find the fact that traditional research was limited to that conducted on White males - to be very strange.  Although, in an earlier post on health outcomes in different genders, I have told the brief story about a professor who taught me the chemistry of polymers.  The story drives home a time that hopefully has passed in testing by pharmaceutical companies.



My polymer chemistry professor had previously worked in industry before returning to teach at a university.  He told a story of a time when he participated in 'drug trials' which were conducted in house before clinical trials for extra pay.  He participated as usual one weekend and found himself hanging on to a toilet -- vomiting -- all weekend.



Confused, but relieved to return to work, he was debriefed by the company about his experience taking the experimental medication.   He stated that he was nauseous all weekend.  The fellow employee at the company empathized with him.  Later in the interview, he asked what the intended purpose was for the experimental medication.  The answer was that the medication was a new experimental form of 'birth control' treatment.  No wonder he was sick all weekend.



Conclusion...



Why was he given a medication intended for a 15 year old girl? Or a woman?  Clearly, this story highlights another problematic dimension of the above change in the medical research community's best practices.  The need to test medication on the proper 'gender group' is extremely imperative.  Why would an experimental contraceptive treatment ever be given to a man?  Further, what conclusion can be drawn with such results?



With the above comments from Director Perez-Stable, definite changes need to be implemented as society moves forward in time.  The gigantic recent effort "All of Us" is a great place to start by collecting 1 million participants (of difference races, ethnicity's, and gender).  All of the data collected in this effort will shed light on differences which were previously unnoticed or unknown.  The future of medical research is exciting as scientists expand the dimensions of scope to include race, ethnicity, and gender in their search for better treatments and preventative measures for society.



Related Blog Posts:


 Is Disease Or Treatment Different In Women?


Thoughts: What Does National Institute of Health Director Francis Collins get asked in front of Congress?


"All Of Us" - The Best Medical Knowledge Update Effort - Please Join!


What Is Going On Inside That Cell?


How Do Scientists Think?


Parameters: 3D Printed Human Hearts?


Parameters: Obesity Short Circuit Discovered Leads To Overeating


NIH Director Updates Congress On Research Progress


Dr. Francis Collins and Bill Gates Discuss Global Health And Genomics


Why Not List Adverse Effects On Drug Labels?


World Health Organization Suggests More Funding For Antibiotic Resistance Research


Unraveling The Resistance Of Antibiotics!


Why Should You Study Chemistry?

Why is the Trump Administration Suppressing Science -- AGAIN???

Source: CNN

If there is one major disappointment with regard to the present administration, the suppression of science is ranked at the top of the list.  Why?  What has science done to the President or the administration officials in the past?  Gone against the desires of the oil and gas industry?  Well, the truth is that the era of fossil fuels is over or coming to an end in the distant future -- like it or not.  Anyways, suppressing scientific results is not good for the survival of mankind and has been implemented more than once in this administration.  People need to speak up and say "stop".  Although, that is besides the point of suppression.  Here is the latest example shown below.

US Geological Survey?

Yes, the United States Geological Survey is the latest federal agency to get reprimanded.  Down at the bottom of the blog post, a list of other blog posts previously written serve as prior examples.  According to a news article in the journal "The Scientist" titled " Trump Admin Restricts Federal Scientists Talking with Reporters" the USGS has been restricted from speaking to the media as shown below.  Here is the entire article which I thought was worth showing:

Scientists with the United States Geological Survey will need approval from the Department of the Interior before they agree to interviews with reporters, according to a new directive from President Donald Trump’s administration, The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday (June 21).

“The clamp down on scientists at USGS comes in an environment of increasing control of scientific information by the federal government,” deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Michael Halpern, tells CNBC.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, USGS employees told The LA Times that the directive is a big shift from past media policy and will make it difficult for researchers to respond to reporters’ requests after earthquakes or other breaking news events. The Department of the Interior’s communications office can also refuse interview requests on scientific matters, according to the new directive.

“The characterization that there is any new policy or that it for some reason targets scientists is completely false,” Faith Vander Voort, a deputy press secretary for the Department of the Interior, tells The LA Times in an email. Instead, she says, the Department of the Interior’s communications office “simply asked” the USGS public affairs office to adhere to guidelines for media requests published in 2012. She did not say what forced the change in how USGS researchers interact with the media, The LA Times reports. 

The 2012 guidelines, according to The LA Times, ask that researchers notify the Department of the Interior’s communications office of media requests but don’t specify the need for approval to talk to reporters. Yet, an April 25 email from department’s press secretary, Heather Swift, says standard protocol is to get approval for interviews with major media outlets, to speak about controversial topics, or to talk with regional reporters on topics that might make national news.

“This is really quite troubling. . . . In the 44 years I was with the agency, I was never required to go through anyone for authorization to speak with a reporter,” William Ellsworth, former chief scientist of the USGS’s earthquake hazards team and now a professor of geophysics at Stanford University, tells The LA Times. “The USGS is a nonpolitical science agency. . . . These new roadblocks will not help them fulfill their mission.”

The change in protocol comes just days after media outlets reported that USGS scientists need approval from a political appointee to attend two major conferences to present their work.

In the CNBC article, Halpern notes that the Department of the Interior is not the only agency reining in scientists’ interactions with the media. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told its scientists they needed permission for interviews and even to share basic data. And, he says, at the US Environmental Protection Agency, public officials are not facilitating information flow, either.

Any attempt to suppress science which might shed a negative light on the government is an extremely disappointing action and should not be tolerated by the American people.  The cover photo (at the top of blog post) shows that there is an emerging momentum from the American people against such measures.  Which is great since as a nation, science should be incorporated more into policy making at the government level down to the local level.  This is terrible.

Conclusion...

The track record of this administration on environmental health and environmental justice is greatly lacking.  More now than ever does the public need to exert a vigilant eye toward the actions of the politicians in congress and the highest office of the land (i.e. the Presidency).  Unfortunately, each of cannot be trusting of the heads of states to have our backs in terms of safety.  Recent events which have started to have questionable consequences are emerging in the popular news.  Below are blog posts over the past year and a half which should cause each of us concern for the safety of our drinking water and other natural (and essential) resources. 



Don't be afraid to reach out to pick up your smartphone and call your elected politician and request that their future votes be in your best (and safe) interest with respect to the land on which you live.  Each of us should have access to safe resources provided by the government.  Especially, as each of us are 'tax-paying' citizens of the United States of America.  Taxes which pay the salaries of elected officials.  Just a thought to be aware of.




Related Blog Posts:



EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches

How Dangerous Are Cigarettes?

Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?

Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS

Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards

Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!

Parameters: Amazon Go Will Seek To Understand How You Feel About A Grocery Product?

Source: China Brands

Technology has served many different functions in our society.  Among the most important recently are the algorithms which correct themselves while directing people around the world.  Yes, I am talking about the residents of the world who use 'GoogleMaps'.  Over time, the algorithm seeks to improve the accuracy by self assessment.  What? Yes, the algorithm updates and assesses itself after every use.  Amazing.  Back in January in Seattle, Amazon opened up a store without cashier type check out stands.  Yes, without check out stands.  I have been sitting on this short post for quite a while for no good reason.  Although, with the greater use of digital tracking of our preferences, the subject is worth highlighting.

Do I Really Love That Food?

Back in January, an article in 'The New York Times' titled "Inside Amazon Go, a Store of the Future"

But the technology that is also inside, mostly tucked away out of sight, enables a shopping experience like no other. There are no cashiers or registers anywhere. Shoppers leave the store through those same gates, without pausing to pull out a credit card. Their Amazon account automatically gets charged for what they take out the door.

There are no shopping carts or baskets inside Amazon Go. Since the checkout process is automated, what would be the point of them anyway? Instead, customers put items directly into the shopping bag they’ll walk out with.

Every time customers grab an item off a shelf, Amazon says the product is automatically put into the shopping cart of their online account. If customers put the item back on the shelf, Amazon removes it from their virtual basket.  

The only sign of the technology that makes this possible floats above the store shelves — arrays of small cameras, hundreds of them throughout the store. Amazon won’t say much about how the system works, other than to say it involves sophisticated computer vision and machine learning software. Translation: Amazon’s technology can see and identify every item in the store, without attaching a special chip to every can of soup and bag of trail mix.  

Before the above excerpt can be explored more, the differences between a traditional grocery store and the new store offered by Amazon should be briefly highlighted.  Grocery stores with the option of 'cashier assisted' checkout are nothing new.  Stores ranging from Ralphs to Home Depot (or Lowes) have all incorporated the 'checker' less option.  What is new is the option without a 'check out stand' altogether.  To test your ability of paying attention to the potential impact of opening a store such as that which has been open for over a few months now, there are a few questions which a school teacher came up with in "teacher has come up with questions" from 'The New York Times' shown below:

1. What type of convenience store opened in Seattle on Jan. 22?

2. What details make the Amazon Go store different from a traditional grocery store?

3. What is noticeable about the photos in the article? What do they show about the new store?

4. How are items paid for in the Amazon Go store, and what is eliminated in the process?

5. What does Amazon say about the role of cashiers and potential loss of jobs with the new system? 

6. Why does the author say the experience feels like shoplifting, and what happened when he attempted to shoplift a four-pack of vanilla soda?

The above questions represent a good exercise in critical thinking for the article under scrutiny about the new grocery stores.   You may be wondering why I am bringing this up now when the stores have been open for the last few months.  The reason is that there is a larger change at hand with this new technology.  Amazon is looking to expand the information extracted about each customer by introducing new technology.  The grocery store is just one.



Inside the grocery store are a large amount of cameras which are tracking movements.  Not to scare you in any way, this is for the main purpose of tracking purchases.  Although, the amount of time that each customer stands in front of a given product is being recorded along with the customers who simply walk by and pay no attention toward a given item.  This technology is being extended into algorithms which are embedded into the 'Kindle' by Amazon.



I accidentally misplaced the reference (the name of the podcast/episode) which described the shift in Amazon's strategy to gather more information out of their readers Kindle usage.  Including tracking how long each reader stays on a page and if the reader returns to a section with a given phrase or story.  This information will inevitably help Amazon sell better books by adjusting the plot to tailor the customers exact needs.  Scary?  Possibly.

Conclusion...

The changes proposed or being sought by Amazon are interesting and potentially frightening.  As the Virtual Reality pioneer -- computer scientist -- Jaron Lanier implied in his book titled "Who Owns The Future?" -- nothing is for free in Silicon Valley.  Meaning, any discount or free technology is accompanied by a lengthy 'legal disclaimer' which is basically saying that the information collected on this device belongs to Amazon or any other technology company.



At the same time, Jaron Lanier states that in order to get around such an inevitable problem, a new system will have to arise -- something akin to 'micro-payments'.  If the user is unwilling to pay the 'micro-payment' then a short commercial might need to be watched by the user to access the 'free service'.  Ultimately, the technology offered by Amazon might not be terrible given that the time needed to search for an interesting book for a person will be reduced as A.I. algorithms become more intelligent.



In the end, the technology depends on a choice by the consumer (you and I).  Are we willing to give up our information for a "free service"?  Do we really understand what data is being collected by theses technology companies?  Do we really care what data is being collected?  These questions will have to be answered in the future as technology rapidly advances in data collection over time.



Related Blog Posts:


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts

How Many Cherries Are In 1.5 Million Shipping Boxes?

Source: Good Fruit Grower

Shipping fruit around the world is a major business.  Much larger than one can comprehend.  Why do countries ship fruit along with other 'edible commodities' around the world?  As a first approximation, demand meets supply.  Second, certain countries do not have the correct environment to grow such plants in their respective regions.  Consequently, there is a large amount of importing/exporting of goods moving around the world at a given instant.  How large is such an amount?  Take cherries for example.  Recently, I wrote a post about the trade tariffs -- which are causing significant disruptions various ports - such as the one described in the excerpt below:

Warnings about economic harm: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) cited complaints from Oregon potato growers and Pacific Northwest cherry growers "who have got nearly 1.5 million boxes of cherries ready to ship to China. They're worried those cherries are going to end up stuck on the dock or rotting in a warehouse due to China's retaliation,"

After writing that post, the thought of 1.5 million boxes of cherries sitting on the docks at the port waiting to be shipped would not leave my mind.  I was having difficulty wrapping my head around that number.  Especially, since the cherries would require refrigeration while waiting to be shipped.  In the paragraphs below, the method of dimensional analysis is used to shed light (or make sense) of this staggering amount of cherries 'in limbo'.

How Many Cherries Fit On A Pallet?

To begin the analysis, the first picture below is where I choose to start.  I wanted to visualize the cherries which will be shipped as packed on a pallet -- which is a common 'unit' of measurement in the shipping industry.  In order to find out how many cherries fit on a pallet, I started by typing into Google the following question: "Pallet of Cherries".  Next, I chose the option of 'Image' from the heading underneath the search engine entry.  After searching for a picture of cherry boxes stacked on a pallet, I settled with the picture below.



In the picture below a few pallets are shown which are stored in a refrigerated warehouse waiting to be shipped.

Source: Global Fruit

For this analysis, the number of shipping boxes per pallet is not important.  What is important is to determine the number of cherries which fit into a shipping box.  To determine the quantity of cherries in a shipping box, Google was consulted again by typing into the search engine space: "how many cherries in a shipping box?"  The box (answer) is shown below -- a shipping box used ship cherries:

Source: Super Fresh Growers

Each box can hold around 18 pounds of cherries as shown in the picture above.  With the answers above to the two queries into Google, the amount of cherries are known for a single shipping box -- which turns out to be 18 pounds of cherries.  In order to move forward, the amount of cherries in a single pound needs to be determined.

How Many Cherries In A Pound?

With the information obtained from Google, the analysis can be completed by using a few basic calculations.  First, a conversion factor needs to be determined.  The amount of cherries for a given weight.  How is that determined?  The easiest method is to ask Google the following question: "How Many Cherries Are In a Pound?"  To which the answer is shown below:

According to the results above, there are 2.5 to 3 cups of cherries in a pound.  Which is equivalent to 80 cherries (without stems).  With this information, a series of calculations are necessary to arrive at the end point -- How many cherries are contained in 1.5 million shipping boxes?



To start, take the number 1.5 million shipping boxes and convert that number to scientific notation as shown below:

Which makes the number easier to show in calculations rather than writing out a large numbers of '0' after a number to express a huge number.  Next, the two answers from above are expressed as shown below for calculation purposes:



1) The number of cherries per shipping box:

2) The number of cherries in a pound:

Taking the three values from above and combining them together, the amount of cherries in 1.5 million shipping boxes can be determined as follows:

The answer is shown below after rounding up with significant numbers:

Wow!  There are 2.2 billion cherries in 1.5 million boxes.

Conclusion...

In the analysis above, the amount of cherries which are contained in 1.5 million shipping boxes were determined.  This is an approximation based on the numbers ascertained in the queries (questions) entered into Google.  Any reader may come up with different values based on different initial inputs (i.e. numbers used in the calculations).  This in of itself makes calculations fun and interesting.   The major objective in the analysis above is two-fold.  First, to highlight the enormity of the number reported.  That is, 1.5 million shipping boxes is no small amount of cherries - which are being held at port waiting to be shipped.  If lost, that is a fair amount of revenue to cherry growers.  Not to mention, the amount of energy needed (used in refrigeration) to keep the cherries at a safe temperature to avoid spoiling.



Second, the analysis above shows the utility of math in highlighting various numbers which are popularly reported in the news and often overlooked by the public.  By understanding the magnitude of the numbers, we as the public are given the potential fall-out (consequences) of having such a large number of cherries sitting at port.  Cherries are just one product waiting to be shipped at port.  With this being understood, let your mind wander to imagine the amount of money waiting to be shipped as exports overseas.  Cherries is just one item.  The amount of money stored in 'traded goods' is potentially mind blowing.




Related blogs can be found here:


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


What is dimensional analysis?


How many trash carts can be filled with 80 billion pounds of trash?


How many people would be killed if 1,485 pounds of Fentanyl were distributed onto the streets in the U.S.?

What Is Dimensional Analysis?


Was The Recent Oil Spill in China The Largest In History?


LimeBike Dockless Bikeshare Riders Travel A Distance Of 13,000 Miles In Just Over 3 Weeks?

How Many Cigarettes Can You Roll With 18,000 Pounds Of Marijuana?


How Many Turkey's Are Served On Thanksgiving Day? How Many People Served?


How Much Trash Would Be Required To Fill The Great Wall Of China?


How Many Birds Per Minute Can Be Processed On A Single Line At A Poultry Processing Plant?


Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

If Technology Fails, Use Basic Math Skills - Count Manually!!

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK

Source: Slate

Europe has been on the forefront (proactive) of environmental/health measures with regard to regulation.  Reporting from 'Politico Energy' suggests that the proactive measures extend to advising/challenging President Trump of the United States of America on his harsh stance against participating in reducing climate change:

U.K. SCIENTISTS TO MAY: CHALLENGE TRUMP ON CLIMATE: Ahead of Trump's trip to the United Kingdom this week, 135 of its climate scientists wrote to Prime Minister Theresa May urging her to challenge the president on climate change. "As the United States is the world's second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, President Trump's policy of inaction on climate change is putting at risk the U.K.'s national security and its interests overseas," they wrote in the letter.

Any reasonable person would and should challenge President Trump on his ignorant position of withdrawing from the Paris Accord (or planning to).  His stance goes against evidence provided by science and political backing from a whole host of U.S. politicians - not to mention - a large portion of the population.  With this being said, hopefully, Prime Minister Theresa May does follow the advice of scientists below (in the letter) and challenge President Trump during his visit overseas.



Without further ado, here is the letter from 135 climate researchers shown below along with the authors of the letter (and their respective professional affiliations) listed at the end:

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing as 135 members of the UK’s climate change research community to urge you to challenge President Trump about his policy of inaction on climate change when he visits on 13 and 14 July 2018.

The UK has a strong track record on climate change. Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to warn of the risks of rising greenhouse gas levels at the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, and the UK became the first country in the world in 2008 to lay down in law, with strong support across the political spectrum, targets for reducing its emissions.

You have also demonstrated leadership on this issue domestically through your continued commitment to implementation of the Climate Change Act and your personal endorsement of the Clean Growth Strategy. Additionally you have shown international leadership through your personal involvement in discussions at, for instance, the One Planet Summit in Paris in December 2017, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London in April 2018, and most recently at the summit of G7 leaders in Charlevoix, Canada, in June 2018.

In contrast, President Trump has made clear that he does not intend to tackle climate change. He left the G7 summit before the discussion about climate change, and indicated that he would not sign that part of the communiqué. This was the latest signal by President Trump that the United States Government will not contribute to international efforts to manage the substantial risks caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

President Trump announced in June 2017 that he is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement and he has attempted to stop all financial support for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. With the help of the United States Congress, President Trump has also halted contributions to the Green Climate Fund which supports poor countries in their efforts to cut emissions and to make themselves more resilient to the impacts of climate change, including shifts in extreme weather events and sea level rise.

In addition, President Trump’s administration has attempted to weaken or remove many federal curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the latest projections by the United States Energy Information Administration suggest that its annual energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will rise in 2018 and 2019.

In refusing to take action on climate change, President Trump is ignoring the advice both of international experts and of experts in the United States, such as the Global Change Research Program and the National Academy of Sciences. Since his inauguration as President in January 2017, Mr. Trump has overseen a number of actions to undermine climate researchers in the United States whose findings are used by policy-makers around the world.

As the United States is the world’s second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, President Trump’s policy of inaction on climate change is putting at risk the UK’s national security and its interests overseas. The Government’s ‘National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review’, published in November 2015, identified climate change as a major driver of global risk which threatens stability overseas and the UK’s long-term security. The UK is already being directly affected by the impacts of climate change: from 2000 onwards, it has experienced its nine warmest years and six of its seven wettest years since records began in 1910.

We believe that the UK Government should challenge President Trump about this policy of inaction on climate change. President Macron of France has publicly criticised President Trump’s stance and we believe that the UK should take advantage of its special relationship with the United States to show similar leadership. We do not believe that the best interests of the UK, or the rest of the world, would be best served by attempting to appease President Trump on this issue.

The UK Government is well-placed to draw the attention of President Trump to the case for urgently recognising and managing the risks of climate change. It can demonstrate, for instance, that economic growth does not have to be sacrificed in order to tackle climate change. According to the latest figures, the United States increased its real GDP per capita by 44 per cent between 1990 and 2016, while its annual emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 2.4 per cent. Over the same period, the UK’s real GDP per capita climbed by 46 per cent, while its annual emissions fell by 41 per cent. Hence the UK has shown that it is possible to achieve economic growth while strongly reducing annual emissions of greenhouse gases.

Above all, the UK government should make the argument that policy-making about climate change should be based on the best available evidence. Policy-makers should draw on the findings of the global climate research community, and take account of the risks it poses across the world and to future generations. Climate change should not be treated as if it were just as an issue of partisan domestic politics.

We are signing as individuals, rather than as representatives of our employers, but we list our affiliations as evidence of our membership of the climate change research community.

Yours sincerely (in alphabetical order),

Dr. George Adamson (Lecturer in Geography and Convenor of Climate Research Hub, King’sCollege London)

Professor Richard Allan (Joint Head of the Department of Meteorology, University of Reading)

Professor Chris Armstrong (Professor of Political Theory, University of Southampton)

Professor John Barrett (Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Leeds)

Professor Paul Bates (University of Bristol)

Dr. Anna Belcher (Ecological Biogeochemist, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Mike Bentley (Department of Geography, Durham University)

Sam Bickersteth (Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford)

Dr. Stephen Blenkinsop (Senior Research Associate, Newcastle University)

Professor Martin Blunt (Shell Professor of Reservoir Engineering, Imperial College London)

Dr. Christian Brand (Co-Director, UK Energy Research Centre and Associate Professor in Transport and Climate Change, University of Oxford)

Dr. Chris Brierley (Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, University College London)

Dr. Stuart Capstick (Research Fellow, Cardiff University)

Professor Andy Challinor (Professor of Climate Impacts, University of Leeds)

Dr. Steven Chan (Research Associate, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Peter Clarke FRAS FHEA (Professor of Geophysical Geodesy, Newcastle University)

Professor Mat Collins FRMetS (Exeter Climate Systems, University of Exeter)

Professor Peter Convey (British Antarctic Survey)

Dr. Kevin Cowtan FHEA (Research Fellow, University of York)

Professor Peter Cox (Professor of Climate System Dynamics, University of Exeter)

Dr. Christina Demski (Lecturer, School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

Professor Simon Dietz (Co-Director, ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Alix Dietzel (Lecturer in Global Ethics, School of Sociology, Politics and International Relations, University of Bristol)

Dr. Paul Dodds (Senior Lecturer in Energy Systems, University College London)

Professor Andy Dougill (Executive Dean of Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds)

Dr. Gareth Edwards FRGS (School of International Development, University of East Anglia)

Professor Paul Ekins FEI OBE (Professor of Resources and Environmental Policy and Director of the Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Dr. Marie Ekström (Research Fellow in Climate Change Impacts, Cardiff University)

Professor Nick Eyre (Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Oxford)

Dr. Robert Falkner (Research Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Sam Fankhauser (Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Paul Fennell FIChemE (Professor of Clean Energy, Imperial College London)

Professor Piers Forster FRMetS (Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds)

Dr. Nathan Forsythe (Newcastle University Research Fellow, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Gavin Foster (Professor of Isotope Geochemistry, University of Southampton.

Professor Hayley Fowler (Professor of Climate Change Impacts and Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow, Newcastle University)

Professor Pierre Friedlingstein (Professor of Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems, University of Exeter)

Professor Alberto Naveira Garabato (Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Antonio Gasparrini (Associate Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Alyssa Gilbert (Director of Policy and Translation of the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Dr. Philip Goodwin (Lecturer in Oceanography and Climate, University of Southampton)

Professor Andrew Gouldson (Professor of Environmental Policy and Deputy Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds)

Professor Ben Groom (Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Robert Gross (Director, Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, Imperial College London)

Professor Michael Grubb (Professor of Energy and Climate Change, Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Professor Dabo Guan (Director of the Water Security Research Centre, University of East Anglia)

Dr. Selma Guerreiro (Researcher in Hydrology and Climate Change, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Prof. G. Hilmar Gudmundsson (Professor of Glaciology and Extreme Environments, Northumbria University)

Professor Joanna Haigh CBE FRS (Co-Director of the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor Sir Andy Haines FMedSci (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Dr. Thomas Hale (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford)

Professor Ian Hall FLSW (Head of School and Research Professor, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University)

Professor Jim Hall FREng (Director of the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Dr. Catherine Happer (Lecturer, Media and Communications, University of Glasgow)

Professor Barbara Harriss-White FAcSS (Emeritus Professor of Development Studies, Oxford University of Oxford)

Professor Ed Hawkins FRMetS (Professor of Climate Science, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Reading)

Professor Gabriele Hegerl FRS FRSE (Professor of Climate System Science, University of Edinburgh)

Dr. William Homoky FCMS (Independent Research Fellow of the Natural Environment Research Council and Junior Research Fellow, St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford)

Dr. Scott Hosking (Climate Scientist, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins CBE FRS (Chair, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor John Huthnance FRMetS MBE (Emeritus Fellow, National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool)

Dr. Keith Hyams (Associate Professor, University of Warwick)

Dr. Ruza Ivanovic (Lecturer in Climate Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Professor Tahseen Jafry (Director of The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University)

Dr. Helen Johnson (Associate Professor in Climate and Ocean Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford)

Dr. Dan Jones (Physical Oceanographer, British Antarctic Survey)

Professor Philip Jones HonFRMetS (University of East Anglia)

Dr. Sam Krevor (Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth Science & Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor Christine Lane (University of Cambridge)

Professor Caroline Lear (Head of The Centre for Resilience and Environmental Change, Cardiff University)

Dr. Alicia Ledo (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Aberdeen)

Dr. Elizabeth Lewis (Research Associate, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)

Professor Simon Lewis (Professor of Global Change Science, University College London and University of Leeds)

Dr. Xiaofeng Li (Research Scientist, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University)

Dr. Lorenzo Lotti (Energy Institute and Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)

Dr. Niall Mac Dowell FIChemE (Imperial College London)

Professor Georgina Mace DBE FRS (Professor of Biodiversity & Ecosystems, University College London)

Professor Anson Mackay (Professor of Environmental Change, University College London)

Professor Geoffrey Maitland FREng FIChemE FRSC FEI (Professor of Energy Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor Yadvinder Malhi FRS (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Professor David Marshall FRMetS FInstP (Head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford)

Dr. John Marsham (Associate Professor, University of Leeds)

Professor Mark Maslin FRGS FRSA (Department of Geography, University College London)

Dr. Juerg Matter (Associate Professor in Geoengineering, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Amanda Maycock (Associate Professor, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Professor Catriona McKinnon (Director of the Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading)

Dr. Jim McQuaid FRMetS CChem (School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)

Dr. Dann Mitchell (Lecturer in Climate Physics, University of Bristol)

Professor Hugh Montgomery FRCP MD FRSB FRI FFICM (Professor of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London and Co-Chair of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change)

Professor Stephen de Mora FRSA FRSB FRSC CChem (Chief Executive, Plymouth Marine Laboratory)

Professor Richard Morris (Professor in Medical Statistics, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol)

Professor Benito Müller (Convener of International Climate Policy Research, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)

Professor David Newbery FBA CBE (Director, Cambridge Energy Policy Research Group)

Professor Dan Osborn (Department of Earth Sciences, University College London)

Professor Tim Osborn FRMetS (Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia)

Professor Jouni Paavola (Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds)

Dr. James Painter (Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford)

Professor Richard Pancost (Director of the Cabot Institute, University of Bristol)

Professor Douglas Parker FRMetS (Met Office Professor of Meteorology, University of Leeds)

Professor Martin Parry OBE ( Imperial College London)

Professor Paul Pearson FGS (School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University)

Dr. Wouter Peeters (Lecturer in Global Ethics, Centre for the Study of Global Ethics, University of Birmingham)

Professor Arthur Petersen FIET FRSA (Professor of Science, Technology and Public Policy, University College London)

Professor Nick Pidgeon MBE (School of Psychology, Cardiff University)

Dr. Jeff Price (Senior Researcher, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia)

Prof Chris Rapley CBE (Professor of Climate Science, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London)

Dr. Tim Rayner (Research Fellow, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia)

Professor Dave Reay (Assistant Principal, University of Edinburgh)

Dr. Merten Reglitz (Lecturer in Global Ethics, University of Birmingham)

Professor Judith Rees DBE (Vice-Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Andrea Sella (Department of Chemistry, University College London)

Prof Daniela Schmidt FRSB FYAE (Professor in Palaeobiology, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol)

Dr. Tim Schwanen (Director of the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford)

Professor Nilay Shah (Director of the Centre for Process Systems Engineering, Imperial College London)

Professor John Shepherd CBE FRS (Emeritus Professor of Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)

Dr. Emily Shuckburgh FRMetS OBE (Darwin College, University of Cambridge)

Professor Henry Shue (Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Studies, University of Oxford)

Professor Martin Siegert FRSE (Co-Director, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)

Professor Pete Smith FRS FRSE (University of Aberdeen)

Dr. Thomas Smith FRGS (Assistant Professor in Environmental Geography, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Dr. Julia Steinberger (Associate Professor in Ecological Economics, University of Leeds)

Professor Philip Stier (Academic Convener of the Oxford Climate Research Network and Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Oxford)

Professor Lindsay Stringer (ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds

Dr. Carol Turley OBE (Senior Scientist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory)

Professor Paul Valdes (Director, NERC Great Western Four+ Doctoral Training Partnership, University of Bristol)

Professor Tina van de Flierdt (Professor of Past Climate and Oceans, Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment and Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London)

Bob Ward FGS FRGS (Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science)

Professor Rachel Warren (Professor of Global Change and Environmental Biology, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia)

Professor Jim Watson (Professor of Energy Policy, Institute of Sustainable Resources, University College London and Director of the UK Energy Research Centre)

Dr. Matthew Watson (Reader in Natural Hazards, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol)

Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh (School of Psychology and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Cardiff University)

Professor Ric Williams (Chair in Ocean Sciences and Associate Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research & Impact, University of Liverpool)

Dr. Judith Wolf (National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, School of Engineering, Liverpool University)

Professor Philip Woodworth MBE (Emeritus Fellow, National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool)

Professor Tim Woollings (Department of Physics, University of Oxford)

Related blog posts:



French President Macron Calls On U.S. Congress To Save The Planet


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS

Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future

Parameters: Trade Tariffs Will Affect International Science

Source: University of Pennsylvania 

I have written about trade before on this site.  First, about the potential benefits of 'global free trade' which can be found here.  Second, how the trade tariffs set to hit in recent weeks will affect a whole range of commodities (i.e. products, crops, etc.) which can be found here.  Recently, in the journal 'The Scientist' in an article titled "New US-China Tariffs Could Affect Science" written by Diana Kwon, the potential negative impacts to international science is laid out succinctly.  In the excerpt below, I include the entire article (not too long) to avoid butchering the piece with my own opinion.


Without further ado, here is the article shown below:

On June 15, the Office of the United States Trade Representative released a list of 818 Chinese imports that would be subject to an additional 25 percent tariff starting on July 6. These include products used in scientific research, such as microscopes and parts used in X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, and other imaging devices. While the effect that these tariffs will have on researchers is still unclear, some policy experts worry that President Donald Trump’s policies may impede scientific collaboration and talent flow between the two countries.  

Brian Xu, a toxicologist with The Acta Group, a scientific and regulatory consulting firm, says that because China exports relatively few high-quality scientific instruments, the tariffs on those products are unlikely to have a large effect on researchers in the U.S. However, he notes that Chinese companies produce many synthetic chemicals used by pharmaceutical and biotech companies in the U.S. “If there are tariffs [placed] on those, that’s certainly going to increase costs,” Xu says.  

According to the Trade Representative office (USTR), Trump’s administration is implementing the new tariffs to address the results of an agency investigation, which found China guilty of unfair trade practices. “China’s acts, policies and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are unreasonable and discriminatory, and burden U.S. commerce,” USTR says in a June 15 statement. 

China immediately retaliated to the US government’s announcement with a list of 545 US exports that it would slap additional taxes on starting next week, along with an additional 114 products—including chemicals and medical equipment—under consideration for additional tariffs.  

Some scientists in the U.S. have expressed concerns to Nature about the potential increase in research equipment costs as a result of the tariffs. But whether the tariffs will have noticeable effects for researchers remains to be seen. 

Scientific organization in the U.S. do not yet see cause for alarm. “At this point, it is unclear what impact this may have on the research ecosystem here in the US, and to date, we have not heard from any ACS [American Chemical Society] members or their respective organizations on this topic,” Glenn Ruskin, the director of ACS External Affairs and Communications, writes in an email to The Scientist. “It is a developing situation and one that we will be watching.”

Likewise, Tom Wang, the chief international officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), says that “it’s hard to say right now what the direct impact [of the tariffs] will be.” Wang adds that while it will be important to keep an eye on the products used the research community, at this point, the full extent of the tariffs that the U.S. will place on foreign products—and the retaliatory tariffs that may come as a result—is still unknown. 

On the other side of the tariffs, in China, worries are also reserved. Yibing Duan, a science and technology policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, tells The Scientist in an email that the potential for the tariffs to increase the cost of research in China is not a big concern, because products bought from the U.S. for scientific purposes “could be imported from the E.U., Japan, and other developed nations.” 

There is, however, fear that the economic dispute between the U.S. and China may intensify. USTR has also released a second set including 284 products that may be subject to additional tariffs. (The agency declined The Scientist’s request for comment.) “Contrary to what the Trump administration has said, trade wars are not easy to win,” says William Hauk, a professor of economics at the University of South Carolina. “They have a tendency to escalate with tit-or-tat measures, and this could start affecting a broader range of products.” 

Spill-over effects  

Duan tells The Scientist that although he does not currently see the new tariffs as a serious concern for research, a trade war between the U.S. and China could create a distrustful environment that may stifle intercountry relationships in the areas of science and technology. 

Wang adds that other moves by the Trump administration, such as the tougher restrictions on visas for Chinese students studying in the U.S., may also reduce scientific cooperation between the two countries. Together, these kinds of policies could have a “chilling effect on collaboration, access to technology, and access to knowledge and talent,” Wang says. 

Hauk notes that, if the US-China trade war escalates, there could be additional restrictions placed on student visas, as well as H1B visas, which allow US companies to hire foreign workers. 

“The argument made by some in this administration is that somehow the U.S. is not the beneficiary of the talent, the knowledge, or the technology from other places, but that the U.S. is giving this away to other countries,” Wang tells The Scientist. “But I think that’s not reflective of how the US scientific system works, in which we do benefit from working with [foreign] people, technologies, and companies.” 

There is more at risk than just products.  Additional risk can be classified as 'services' which I discussed briefly in the previous blog post on trade.  Furthermore, students from China travel abroad to the United States to receive a graduate education mostly to return to China for future work. Although, the United States pharmaceutical industry along with the technology sector do hire and hold onto a large portion of these visiting scholars.  I was in a research lab with international students during graduate school and wrote briefly about the benefit to U.S. science of having diversity in the research lab setting - which can be found here.



Last week, after Independence Day, returning to work, I encountered a colleague who returned back home to visit to China after the end of last semester.  She was frustrated with her travel back to the U.S. on the China side.  Her visa was scrutinized by customs which held up the process for a couple of weeks.  Which translates into a hold on her research here in the United States.  This is normal for visiting scholars in the United States.  But for professors here trying to earn tenure at an academic institution, the delay is critical toward professional advancement.



She remarked that there were much fewer applications to travel abroad - which is a result of harsher immigration laws by the Trump administration (read here). Still, the process was held up on China's side.  The exact reason still remains unknown to this day.



Conclusion...



Overall, trade with China is important.  As I mentioned, more than products are traded and at risk with current negotiations.  The international political scene seems to be interfering with the field of science along with many others.  The potential negative fall out or adverse impact is that the United States could fall behind in output at the research level and technology transfer level.  If China holds potential imports to the United States such as vital chemicals used in research, this in turn directly impacts researchers ability to further advance the U.S. science arena -- which is bad.





More blogs can be found here:


Parameters: Tariffs Affect Trade In Both Directions -- In And Out Of The USA


Parameters: One Parameter Change In The Trade Machine Leads To A 'Re-Adjustment' Of Another


Parameters: Steel And Aluminum Tariffs Are Not Isolated - They Are Tied To Trading Of Other Vital Goods


More blogs are located here